text:
# Role of effective interaction in nuclear disintegration processes

## Abstract

Abstract: A simple superasymmetric fission model using microscopically calculated nuclear potentials has shown itself to be outstandingly successful in describing highly asymmetric spontaneous disintegration of nuclei into two composite nuclear fragments. The nuclear interaction potentials required to describe these nuclear decay processes have been calculated by double folding the density distribution functions of the two fragments with a realistic effective interaction. The microscopic nucleus-nucleus potential thus obtained, along with the Coulomb interaction potential and the minimum centrifugal barrier required for the spin-parity conservation, has been used successfully for the lifetime calculations of these nuclear disintegration processes.

Keywords: Cluster radioactivity; Folding model; M3Y; Superasymmetric fission; Half-lives; WKB.

PACS: 23.60.+e, 23.70.+j, 21.30.Fe, 25.55.Ci, 25.85.Ca

The highly asymmetric spontaneous disintegration of nuclei into two composite nuclear fragments has intrigued physicists for many years. Such nuclear disintegration processes known as cluster decays include, first of all but not exclusively, the $`\alpha `$-decay. First experimental observation of $`\alpha `$ radioactivity  was made several decades ago. A theoretical explanation for $`\alpha `$ radioactivity in terms of quantum mechanical barrier penetration  had been, at least, qualitatively successful. There has recently been a renewed interest in the cluster decays primarily motivated by an increase in the role of $`\alpha `$-decay in the spectroscopy of the unstable nuclei  and by the discovery of the exotic radioactivity  such as spontaneous emission of heavier clusters like $`{}_{}{}^{14}C,{}_{}{}^{20}O,{}_{}{}^{14}Ne`$, etc. Predictions for $`\alpha `$ and various exotic decays have been made by the analytical superasymmetric fission model (ASAFM)  with reasonable success. This was followed by the preformed cluster model (CM) calculations for the $`\alpha `$ decay  with similar success. But both the theoretical approaches described above use rather unusual forms of phenomenological potentials for the nucleus-nucleus interactions. The ASAFM uses a parabolic potential approximation for the nuclear interaction within the superasymmetric fission model (SAFM) description which yields analytical expressions for the decay lifetimes, while the CM uses a cos-hyperbolic form of nuclear interaction potential  designed to fit the experimental data.

In the CM the cluster is assumed to be formed before it penetrates the barrier and its preformation probability is also included in the calculations. Though the physics of the CM and the SAFM descriptions are apparently different, but in fact they are very similar. Interpreting the cluster preformation probability within a fission model as the penetrability of the pre-scission part of the barrier, it was shown that the cluster model is equivalent to the fission model . In the present work, the nuclear potentials needed for the SAFM have been obtained microscopically by folding in the nuclear density distributions of the two composite nuclear fragments with the realistic M3Y effective interaction. Any liquid drop like properties such as surface energy are basically macroscopic manifestation of microscopic phenomena. A double folding potential obtained using M3Y effective interaction is more appropriate because of its microscopic nature. A potential energy surface is inherently embedded in this description. The minimum centrifugal barrier that has been used for the lifetime calculations has been fixed by the requirement of the spin-parity conservation. This simple SAFM using microscopically calculated nuclear potentials has been found to provide excellent estimates for the half lives of $`\alpha `$ and various heavier cluster decays.

The microscopic nuclear potentials $`V_N(R)`$ have been obtained by double folding in the densities of the emitted cluster and the residual daughter nucleus with the finite range realistic M3Y effective interacion as

$$V_N(R)=\rho _1(\stackrel{}{r_1})\rho _2(\stackrel{}{r_2})v[|\stackrel{}{r_2}\stackrel{}{r_1}+\stackrel{}{R}|]d^3r_1d^3r_2$$
(1)
where $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ are the density distribution functions for the two composite nuclear fragments. The density distribution function in case of $`\alpha `$ particle has the Gaussian form

$$\rho (r)=0.4229exp(0.7024r^2)$$
(2)
whose volume integral is equal to $`A_\alpha (=4)`$, the mass number of $`\alpha `$-particle. The density distribution function in case of heavier fragment has been chosen to be of the spherically symmetric form given by

$$\rho (r)=\rho _0/[1+exp((rc)/a)]$$
(3)
where

$$c=r_\rho (1\pi ^2a^2/3r_\rho ^2),r_\rho =1.13A_d^{1/3}anda=0.54fm$$
(4)
and the value of $`\rho _0`$ has been fixed by equating the volume integral of the density distribution function to the mass number of the fragment. The finite range M3Y effective interaction $`v(s)`$ appearing in the eqn.(1) is given by

$$v(s)=7999\mathrm{exp}(4s)/(4s)2134\mathrm{exp}(2.5s)/(2.5s)$$
(5)
This interaction is based upon a realistic G-matrix. Since the G-matrix was constructed in an oscillator representation, it is effectively an average over a range of nuclear densities and therefore the M3Y has no explicit density dependence. For the same reason there is also an average over energy and the M3Y has no explicit energy dependence either. The only energy dependent effects that arises from its use is a rather weak one contained in an approximate treatment of single-nucleon knock-on exchange. The success of the extensive analysis indicates that these two averages are adequate for the real part of the optical potential for heavy ions at energies per nucleon of $`<20MeV`$. However, it is important to consider the density and energy dependence explicitly for the analysis of $`\alpha `$-particle scattering at higher energies ($`>100MeV`$) where the effects of a nuclear rainbow are seen and hence the scattering becomes sensitive to the potential at small radii. Such cases were studied introducing suitable and semirealistic explicit density dependence  into the M3Y interaction which was then called the DDM3Y and was very successful for interpreting consistently the high energy elastic $`\alpha `$ scattering data. Since the released energies involved in the cluster decay processes are very small compared to the energies involved in high energy heavy ion scattering, these effects are expected to be small for processes like cluster radioactivity. The total interaction energy $`E(R)`$ between the emitted nucleus and the residual daughter nucleus is equal to the sum of the nuclear interaction energy, the Coulomb interaction energy and the centrifugal barrier. Thus

$$E(R)=V_N(R)+V_C(R)+\mathrm{}^2l(l+1)/(2\mu R^2)$$
(6)
where $`\mu =mA_eA_d/A`$ is the reduced mass, $`A_e,A_d,A`$ are the mass numbers of the emitted cluster, residual daughter nucleus and the parent nucleus respectively and m is the nucleon mass measured in the units of $`MeV/c^2`$. The minimum angular momentum $`l_{min}`$ carried away by the emitted particle is decided by the requirement of the spin-parity conservation which in turn decides the minimum centrifugal barrier that has been used for the lifetime calculations of these nuclear disintegation processes. Assuming spherical charge distribution for the residual daughter nucleus and considering the emitted cluster to be a point charge, the Coulomb potential $`V_C(R)`$ has been taken as

$`V_C(R)=`$ $`Z_eZ_de^2/RforRR_c`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`(Z_eZ_de^2/2R_c).[3(R/R_c)^2]forRR_c`$ (8)
where $`Z_e`$ and $`Z_d`$ are the atomic numbers of the emitted-cluster and the daughter nucleus respectively. The touching radial separation $`R_c`$ between the emitted-cluster and the daughter nucleus is given by $`R_c=c_e+c_d`$ where $`c_e`$ and $`c_d`$ have been obtained using eqn.(4). The energetics allow spontaneous emission of clusters only if the released energy

$$Q=M(M_e+M_d)$$
(9)
is a positive quantity, where $`M`$, $`M_e`$ and $`M_d`$ are the atomic masses of the parent nucleus, the emitted cluster and the residual daughter nucleus, respectively, expressed in the units of energy. It is important to mention here that the correctness of predictions for possible decay modes, therefore, rests on the accuracy of ground state masses of nuclei.

In the present model (SAFM), the half life of the parent nucleus against the split into an emitted cluster and a residual daughter nucleus has been calculated using the WKB barrier penetration probability. The zero point vibration energy which is a quantum mechanical phenomena arising out of the finite size of the nucleus represents non zero ground state energy of the quantum oscillator. For a quantum oscillator (consisting of the daughter nucleus and the cluster nucleus to be emitted) the zero point vibration energy is directly related to the assault frequency. The assault frequency $`\nu `$ has, therefore, been obtained from the zero point vibration energy using the relationship $`E_v=(1/2)\mathrm{}\omega `$ where $`\omega =2\pi \nu `$. The half life $`T`$ of the parent $`(A,Z)`$ nucleus against its split into an emitted $`(A_e,Z_e)`$ cluster and a daughter $`(A_d,Z_d)`$ nucleus is given by

$$T=[(h\mathrm{ln}2)/(2E_v)][1+\mathrm{exp}(K)]$$
(10)
where the action integral $`K`$ within the WKB approximation is given by

$$K=(2/\mathrm{})_{R_a}^{R_b}[2\mu (E(R)E_vQ)]^{1/2}𝑑R$$
(11)
where $`R_a`$ and $`R_b`$ are the two turning points of the WKB action integral determined from the equations

$$E(R_a)=Q+E_v=E(R_b)$$
(12)
The zero point vibration energies used in the present calculations are the same as that described in reference  immediately after eqn.(4) for the $`\alpha `$ cluster and by eqns.(5) for the heavier clusters. The shell effects for every cluster radioactivity are implicitly contained in the zero point vibration energy due to its proportionality with the Q value, which is maximum when the daughter nucleus has a magic number of neutrons and protons. Values of the proportionality constants of $`E_v`$ with $`Q`$ is the largest for even-even parent and the smallest for the odd-odd one. Other conditions remaining same one may observe that with greater value of $`E_v`$, lifetime is shortened indicating higher emission rate. The two turning points of the action integral given by eqn.(10) have been obtained by solving eqns.(11) using the microscopic double folding potential given by eqn.(1) along with the Coulomb potential and the minimum centrifugal barrier determined from the spin parity conservation. Then the WKB action integral between these two turning points has been evaluated numerically using eqn.(1), eqn.(6), eqn.(7) and eqn.(8). Finally, the half lives of the cluster decays have been calculated using eqn.(9).

For present calculations entire sets of experimental data for the $`\alpha `$ decay half lives of references ,  and , respectively, have been chosen for comparison with the present theoretical calculations for which the experimental ground state masses for the parent and daughter nuclei are available. Older experimental values have been substituted by the recent ones  and the spins-parities of the parent and daughter nuclei along with the minimum angular momenta $`l_{min}`$ carried away by the $`\alpha `$-particles calculated considering spin-parity conservation have been listed. The uncertain assignments of spins-parities have been shown within parentheses and unknown values have been left blank. Experimental values for $`\alpha `$ decay half lives have been presented in Table 1 along with corresponding results of the present SAFM calculations with microscopic potentials calculated using the M3Y effective interaction. Results of the present calculations using the density dependent M3Y effective interaction (DDM3Y) supplemented by a zero-range pseudo potential have been shown inside parentheses. In DDM3Y the effective nucleon-nucleon interaction $`v(s)`$ is assumed to be density and energy dependent and therefore becomes functions of density and energy and is given by

$$v(s,\rho _1,\rho _2,E)=t^{M3Y}(s,E)g(\rho _1,\rho _2,E)$$
(13)
where $`t^{M3Y}`$ is the same M3Y interaction given by eqn.(5) but supplemented by a zero range pseudo-potential

$$t^{M3Y}=7999\mathrm{exp}(4s)/(4s)2134\mathrm{exp}(2.5s)/(2.5s)+J_{00}(E)\delta (s)$$
(14)
where the zero-range pseudo-potential representing the single-nucleon exchange term is given by

$$J_{00}(E)=276(10.005E/A_\alpha )(MeV.fm^3)$$
(15)
and the density dependent part has been taken to be

$$g(\rho _1,\rho _2,E)=C(1\beta (E)\rho _1^{2/3})(1\beta (E)\rho _2^{2/3})$$
(16)
which takes care of the higher order exchange effects and the Pauli blocking effects. The energy E appearing in the above equations is the energy measured in the centre of mass of the emitted cluster - daughter nucleus system and for the cluster decay process it is equal to the released energy Q. Since the released energies involved in the cluster decay processes are very small compared to the energies involved in high energy heavy ion scattering, the $`\beta (E)`$ has been considered as a constant and independent of energy and has been found to be equal to 1.6 obtained from optimum fit to the data. The zero-range pseudo-potential $`J_{00}(E)`$ is also practically independent of energy for the cluster decay processes and has be taken as $`276MeV.fm^3`$. Results of calculations of ASAFM(1986), ASAFM(1991), the Viola-Seaborg parametrization with Sobiczewski et.al.constants (VSS)  and the liquid drop model (LDM)  have also been presented. The ASAFM(1986), ASAFM(1991) and the VSS have been recalculated with the exact Q values listed in the Table 1. The chi-squares per degrees of freedom ($`\chi ^2/F`$) have been calculated assuming uniform percentage of experimental error which guarantees equal weights for all the data.

The decay modes and the experimental values for their half lives from references  and  for heavier clusters have been presented in Table 2. The released energy Q have been calculated using the experimental ground state masses from  . Whenever the experimental ground state masses are not available, the theoretically calculated ground state masses from the latest mass table  have been used. The corresponding results of present calculations using microscopic potentials within the superasymmetric fission model description have also been presented along with the results of the ASAFM(1986), ASAFM(1991) and the liquid drop model (LDM) . The results of ASAFM(1986) and the ASAFM(1991) have been recalculated with the Q values listed in the Table 2. The $`\chi ^2/F`$ for Table 2 have been calculated assuming an uniform two percent experimental error for the entire data set, but for those data that represent only the lower limits for the decay half lives, an uniform ten percent error in the measurements have been assumed.

The $`\chi ^2/F`$ can be brought down from 7.84 to a minimum of 4.42 for $`\alpha `$ and from 7.05 to 2.21 for heavier clusters by adjusting the depths of the microscopic nuclear potentials using normalization constants of 0.979 and 0.870 respectively. However, for the present calculations depths of the nuclear potentials obtained by double folding the M3Y effective interaction have not been adjusted.

The half lives for cluster-radioactivity have been analyzed with microscopic nuclear potentials which are based on profound theoretical basis. It is worthwhile to mention that these reasonably exhaustive calculations using realistic microscopic nuclear interaction potentials have been performed without adjusting the depth of the nuclear potentials using any renormalization or adjusting any other parameters. Considering the fact that the $`\alpha `$ particles can be detected rather easily under favourable conditions such as high efficiency, low background and good energy resolution as compared to the heavier clusters where experimental uncertainties are more, the results of the present calculations of SAFM using micoscopic potentials are in excellent agreement over a wide range of experimental data spanning about thirtyfive orders of magnitude. Such calculations can be used to provide reasonable estimates for the lifetimes of nuclear disintegration processes into two composite nuclear fragments for the entire domain of exotic nuclei.


format: text

text:
# Use of Taus in ATLAS

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The total production rate for taus at a hadron collider is not a useful quantity. Taus must have significant transverse momentum ($`p_T`$) in order to be observable. Leptonic decays of taus will yield isolated electrons or muons that can be detected but these can also be directly produced so discriminating their origin can be difficult. Hadronic decays of taus result in jets that must be distinguished from jets arising from QCD processes using the particle multiplicity and invariant mass.

## 2 PROPERTIES OF TAUS AT LHC

The dominant standard model production that results in an observable sample is $`W\tau \nu `$ which produces $`1.5\times 10^8`$ events per $`10fb^1`$. Given this large sample it is reasonable to ask if any useful measurements of tau properties can be made. Measurement of the lifetime is difficult as it requires a determination of the decay length using the vertex tracking system and knowledge of the tau momentum. In the case of $`Z\tau \tau `$ the momentum can be reconstructed using a constrained fit involving the $`Z`$ mass (see Section 3) . The process is statistics limited to a precision of approximately 1.8 fs for $`30fb^1`$ of data ( vol I p. 305). Use of the $`W`$ decay which has a much larger rate is more difficult as there are two neutrinos . Two methods were attempted involving using the observed tau decay products and the tau mass constraint to determine the momentum of the neutrino in the tau decay and an estimator method . In this case the statistical error could be less due to the larger event sample provided that the QCD background can be rejected. However, the systematic uncertainties from alignment and other sources are difficult to estimate.

Rate decays of the tau can provide a probe of new physics. Lepton number is known to be violated in the neutrino sector and the rare decays $`\tau \mu \gamma `$, $`\tau 3\mu `$ or $`\tau \mu e^+e^{}`$ can be expected to occur. In many models  ,  the first of these is expected to be the largest and a simulation will be discussed here . The signal is an isolated $`\mu `$ and photon whose invariant mass reconstructs to the tau. There are two sources of background $`\tau \mu \nu \nu \gamma `$ and $`W\gamma \tau \gamma \mu \nu \nu `$; the latter dominates. After cuts to reduce the background, the signal acceptance is approximately $`0.5\%`$ and the mass resolution is 20 MeV resulting in a background of approximately 17 events per $`10fb^1`$. The resulting limit is not competitive with what is possible at Belle and BaBar unless the full luminosity of the LHC can be exploited. A study in this environment where the pile-up of minimum bias events degrades resolution and increases background has not been undertaken.

## 3 RECONSTRUCTION OF $`Z\tau \tau `$

The $`H\tau \tau `$ process is important as a tool for searching for Higgs bosons at LHC. As a prelude to this and to illustrate the technique, I will first discuss $`Z\tau \tau `$. Missing neutrinos imply that tau energy cannot be measured directly. However the direction of tau can be obtained from observed decay products as the energy of the produced taus is large compared to the mass. If $`Z`$ has signifificant transverse momentum so that tau’s are not back to back in phi and the only missing $`P_T`$ in the event arises from tau decay, then the tau momenta and invariant mass of the $`\tau \tau `$ system can be reconstructed by assuming that the neutrinos follow the direction of the observed decay products. These events have no other features so that the selection must be based on the pair of taus. There is a very large di-jet background from QCD events which must be overcome and the events require a trigger. Events are selected by requiring an isolated electron or muon with $`P_T>25`$ GeV and $`\eta <2.5`$ and hadronic jet with $`E_T>30GeV`$, $`\eta <2.5`$, and a number of associated reconstructed tracks $`N_{track}=1\text{ or }3`$, The jet is also required to be narrow, having its energy deposits in the electromagnetic calorimeter confined with a cone of radius $`R_{em}=0.07`$ in $`\eta \varphi `$ space. Figure 1 shows the reconstructed $`Z`$ mass with the peak at the correct value. The figure shows the mass resolution of $`10\%`$ which is dominated by the missing $`E_T`$ resolution of the detector. The small residual QCD background is also shown. The subset of events with $`N_{track}=3`$ can be used to determine the tau decay vertex for the lifetime measurement discussed above.

## 4 NEUTRAL HIGGS SEARCH

The decay $`H\tau \tau `$ can be reconstructed using the technique described in the previous section and the mass of the Higgs measured. The production rates and branching ratios of the standard model higgs are too small for the signal to be seen above the QCD background using the dominant production process $`ggH`$. However the lower rate process $`qqqqHqq\tau \tau `$ while it may not enable a discovery to be made, will give information on the Higgs couplings. The two jets arising from the quarks in the production process are at large rapidity and can be used to reject background. Final states $`\tau \tau \mathrm{}^\pm h^{}\mathrm{}p_T`$ and $`\tau \tau e^\pm \mu ^{}`$ are used and the $`\tau \tau `$ invariant mass reconstructed as above with a resolution $`\sigma 0.1M`$. The table shows the expected signal and background . It is important to emphasize that this result is based on a parametrized simulation that assumes that the tau tagging and jet tagging is not degraded in the presence of pile-up. Nevertheless it indicates a viable signal for mass range $`110\text{ GeV}<M_H<150\text{ GeV}`$ if the Higgs mass were already known from another process. Note that signal to background ratio is such that structure would clearly be seen at the Higgs mass.

In extensions to the standard model more higgs bosons are expected. The minimal supersymmetric model (MSSM) has three neutral ($`h,A,H`$) and one charged ($`H^\pm `$) particles. Their properties are determined by two parameters which can be taken to be the mass of $`A`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, which controls the coupling to tau’s. $`A`$ and $`H`$ can be observed over certain regions of parameter space. The technique adopted is the same as that used for $`Z\tau \tau `$. Figure 2 shows three possible signals and the background which arises from QCD jets. This signal covers a large fraction of MSSM parameter space and is one of the most important probes of the MSSM Higgs sector.

## 5 CHARGED HIGGS

A charged Higgs boson is expected to decay $`H^+\tau \nu `$ or $`H^+q\overline{q}`$. The latter decay involves the reconstruction of jets and the QCD background in the di-jet mass distribution is a serious difficulty to observation of this mode. The former decay is more promising. Production of a heavy $`H^\pm `$ via $`q\overline{q}H^+H^{}`$ is too small, the production via $`gbH^{}t`$ has $`\sigma (H^+t)1`$ pb for a mass of $`H^\pm `$ of 400 GeV. The decay $`H^+\tau \nu `$ will result in either an isolated lepton or jet. The former is not useful so the latter is exploited. The final state $`Ht\tau \nu Wb`$ is identified by requiring three jets one of which is tagged as containing a b-hadron from the vertex system and requiring that these three jets are consistent with $`tbWbq\overline{q}`$ ($`m(jj)=M_W\pm 25`$ and $`m(jjb)=M_t\pm 25`$). Another jet with only one associated charged track and $`p_T>100`$ GeV is required along with missing $`E_T`$ ($`>100`$ GeV). The signal is in transverse mass of “$`\tau `$” and missing $`E_T`$ which is shown in Figure 3. The peak is displaced below the Higgs mass as the missing $`E_T`$ has contributions from both neutrinos in the decay $`H^+\tau \nu \pi \nu \nu `$ and these tend to cancel.

## 6 TAUS IN SUPERSYMMETRY EVENTS

If supersymmetry (SUSY) is relevant to the problems of electroweak symmetry breaking, SUSY particles will be sufficiently light that the LHC will be a SUSY factory. Third generation sparticles are particularly interesting as they carry information about how supersymmetry is broken. In the case of the first two generations the mixing between the supersymmetric partners of the left and right handed charged leptons is expected to be small. However the two $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ mass eigenstates are mixtures of $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R`$ and we need to measure masses and mixings. The direct production of $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ via electroweak processes such as $`q\overline{q}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ is small. In many cases many more $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$’s are produced from decays of strongly produced squarks and gluinos via processes such as $`\stackrel{~}{q}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2qq\stackrel{~}{\tau }^+\tau ^{}q\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ are weak gauginos and the latter is stable and exits the detector contributing to missing $`E_T`$. It is possible that taus may be the only leptons produced in gaugino decay.

Leptonic tau decays are of limited use as the origin of the lepton is unknown; one must search for hadronic tau decays that give rise to characteristic jets. SUSY events are expected to be very complex and one can rely on jet and $`\text{ / }E_T`$ cuts to get rid of standard model background and obtain clean SUSY sample. This sample can then be studied in detail. The background to hadronic tau decays then arises from QCD jets in the SUSY event and a rejection factor of order 10 (the number of jets in a such an event) rather than order 100 which is needed in the analysis described in section 2.

A particular model is used in the example illustrated here. ( vol II p. and ). Events are selected as follows: $`4`$ jets, one of which has $`p_t>100`$ GeV and the rest have $`p_t>50`$ GeV, there are no isolated electrons or muons with $`p_t>10`$ GeV and $`\text{ / }E_T>100`$ GeV. The jets are examined and “tau” candidates extracted by selecting jets with low track multiplicity and invariant mass  using an algorithm based on a study using $`Z`$ decays to generate taus in the appropriate kinematic regime. The invariant mass of observed “tau” pairs is then shown in Figure 4. A clear peak can be seen above the background which is dominated by events where one of the tau jet candidates is a misidentified QCD jet. If all the tau energy had been detected, the distribution would have had a sharp cut-off at

$$M_{\tau \tau }^{\mathrm{max}}=M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}\sqrt{1\frac{M_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}^2}{M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}^2}}\sqrt{1\frac{M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2}{M_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}^2}}$$

which evaluates to 61 GeV in this example. The peak is below this due to the energy carried of by neutrinos in the tau decays.

The situation is rather more complicated than this analysis shows. The energy distribution of the visible tau decay products depends on the tau polarization and the dependence is largest in the $`\tau \pi \nu `$ final state and smallest in the states with large hadron multiplicity. A separation of these states could therefore yield information on the polarization of the taus. This in turn gives information on the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ composition. Simulation work on this difficult topic is underway.


text:
# World-line techniques for resumming gluon radiative corrections at the cross-section level

## I Introduction

The path, rather than the functional, integral casting of a relativistic quantum system has a long history, going back to Fock , Feynman , and Schwinger . In the course of time it has received substantial contributions from several authors (see, e.g., Refs.  to name just a few). However, it was not realized until recent developments in string theory in the context of effective actions (see , and  for a recent review) that first-quantization methodologies in High Energy Theory can compete with second-quantization ones. Of particular interest to us here is the Polyakov world-line path integral , which employs world-line paths weighted by a spin factor with the aim to describe the propagation of particle-like entities in Euclidean space-time. In fact, Polyakov’s intention was to use this construction as a simple prototype for discussing string quantization. Hence, for his purposes it was sufficient to consider the simple case of a free, spin-1/2 particle-like entity. Motivated by this, two of the present authors  explored the possibility of transcribing the matter, spin-1/2, field sector of a gauge theory into a Polyakov world-line path-integral form. In these works, it was established, for both Abelian and non-Abelian gauge systems, that this is, indeed, possible with the spin-factor making explicitly its entrance in the resulting expression, while the dynamics enters through a Wilson line (loop) factor defined on each given path.

Due to the Gaussian character (with respect to the Dirac fields) of the fermionic sector of physically relevant gauge-field theories, the aforementioned transcription into a Polyakov world-line path-integral refers to the full system. This means that one’s way of thinking should be readjusted to the idea that the second-quantization formalism, associated with the field theoretical mode of description, can be replaced by a new, but equivalent, structure that is based on space-time path integrals. The quantities of central importance defined on these paths are then the spin-factor and the Wilson line (loop), the latter becoming an indigenous element of the theory, as it enters at the level of its definition.

In a number of papers see, for instance, Refs.  \- we have employed the path-integral casting of either QED or QCD, to study infra-red (IR) factorization and ensuing behavior of Green’s functions and amplitudes in a resummed perturbative context at the two-, three- and four-point function level. Roughly speaking, the aforementioned isolation of the long-distance physics in these theories emerges through the ability to identify a special set of space-time paths having a very simple geometrical profile which is shared, in a restricted (but directly relevant to the physics of the process) neighborhood, by each and every contour entering the path integral. In a Euclidean space-time context, the single (multiplicative) renormalization constant, carried by this special family of paths, automatically factorizes out  their contribution to amplitudes/cross-sections, given that it also accompanies the rest of the paths. The more complex geometrical structure of the latter, simply implicates additional ultraviolet (UV) singularities which can be absorbed into conventional wave function and coupling constant renormalizations. This clean, geometrically based, argument, which singularly underlines the world-line description, will be further elucidated through the main exposition in the sections to follow. Minkowski space subtleties, associated with the light cone, which are encountered in the particular processes under study, will require separate attention.

Perhaps the most important accomplishment of this paper is that it extends world-line techniques to cross-section calculations for the first time. To be sure, the situation presently considered refers to the hypothetical situation where the scattering process involves quarks and associated gluon radiation without reference to hadrons. It does, nevertheless, fall within the spirit that marks our approach to IR issues in QCD : Once off-mass shell IR protection is employed - by an amount that exceeds $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ \- one actually tests how far one can go by remaining strictly within the confines of QCD before attempting to make contact with real hadrons. Granted the opposite route, from hadrons to quarks and gluons, via the use of quantities like structure/fragmentation functions, the employment of tools such as the operator product expansion, etc., constitutes a more realistic procedure for investigating the same physical problems. On the other hand, an effort which bases its considerations on a fundamental theoretical framework in order to arrive at “cross-sections” does present merits and interests of its own, an example of which will be presented below. In this context, the philosophy underlying our approach to the IR domain of QCD is closer in spirit to the one articulated by Ciafaloni in , the only difference being that we shall keep a more pragmatic (and less ambitious) course by focusing our attention on cross-section expressions.

Letting these comments suffice for an introductory exposition, we now proceed to display the organization of the paper, which is as follows. In the next section, we exhibit the world-line expression for the full fermionic Green’s function and subsequently employ it to construct corresponding expressions for DY-type QCD amplitudes/cross-sections. Section III furnishes, with the aid of an Appendix, our basic calculations associated with one virtual gluon exchanges for the specified special set of trajectories. The resulting expression explicitly reveals the threshold enhancement factor, whereas the task of virtual gluon resummation is performed, via the aid of the renormalization group, in Section IV. Section V deals with the resummation of contributions from real gluon emission. Finally, in the last section, we further discuss our results and present our conclusions.

## II Basic worldline expressions for amplitudes and cross-sections

Consider the full two-point (fermionic) Green’s function in the presence of an external gluonic field. The Polyakov path-integral expression, in Euclidean space-time,

$`iG_{ij}(x,y|A)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑T\mathrm{e}^{Tm^2}{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{x\left(0\right)=x}{x(T)=y}}}𝒟x(t)\left[m{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma \dot{x}(T)\right]P\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑t\sigma _{\mu \nu }\omega _{\mu \nu }\right)`$ (2)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^T}dt\dot{x}^2(t)]P\mathrm{exp}[ig{\displaystyle _0^T}dt\dot{x}A(x(t))]_{ij},`$
displays the basic world-line features pertaining to this quantity. Here, and below, $`P`$ denotes the usual path ordering of the integrals. The first thing to point out is that a given path of the matter field quantum, starting at $`x`$ and ending at $`y`$ between respective “proper-time” values $`0`$ and $`T`$, also enters a Wilson line factor. The latter, being the sole carrier of the dynamics, separates itself from the rest of the factors in the path integral which are associated with geometrical properties of paths traversed by spin-1/2 particle entities. The most notable such quantity is the so-called spin factor , $`P\mathrm{exp}\left[(i/4)_0^T𝑑t\sigma \omega \right]`$, where $`\omega _{\mu \nu }=(T/2)(\ddot{x}_\mu \dot{x}_\nu \dot{x}_\mu \ddot{x}_\nu )`$, accounting, in a geometrical way, for the spin-1/2 nature of the propagating particle. Accordingly, our perturbative expansions should be perceived of in terms of (Euclidean) space-time paths involving a “proper time” parameter and not in terms of Feynman diagrams. As it turns out , in the perturbative context, the structure of matter particle contours, entering the path integral, is determined by the points, where a momentum change takes place, i.e., points where a gauge-field line (real or virtual) attaches itself on the (fermionic) matter-field path. The almost everywhere non-differentiability of these contours, is residing precisely at these points. A major effort, in this paper, will be devoted to the extension of the world-line formalism to expressions for cross-sections corresponding to the particular processes of $`q\overline{q}`$ annihilation.

From the world-line point of view, the process we intend to study involves fermionic matter particle (quark) paths that commence at $`x`$ and end at $`y`$, being forced to pass through an intermediate point $`z`$, where a momentum transfer $`Q`$ takes place. This means that the Green’s (vertex-type) function we shall be dealing with has the following form ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ denotes some Clifford-Dirac algebra element)

$`V_{\mu ,ij}(y,z,x|A)`$ $`=`$ $`G_{ik}(y,z|A)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu G_{kj}(z,x|A)`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑T\mathrm{e}^{Tm^2}{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑s{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{x\left(0\right)=x}{x(T)=y}}}𝒟x(t)\delta \left(x(s)z\right)𝒢_\mu (\dot{x},s)\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑t\dot{x}^2(t)\right]`$ (5)
$`\times P\mathrm{exp}[ig{\displaystyle _0^T}dt\dot{x}(t)A(x(t))]_{ij},`$
where

$`𝒢_\mu (\dot{x},s)`$ $``$ $`\left[m{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma \dot{x}(T)\right]P\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}{\displaystyle _s^T}𝑑t\sigma \omega \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \left[m{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma \dot{x}(s)\right]`$ (7)
$`\times P\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^s}𝑑t\sigma \omega \right).`$
It is especially important to realize that in our approach off-shellness is naturally parameterized in terms of the finite size of the matter particle contours and realistically accounts for the fact that quarks reside inside a hadron ($`m`$ can be viewed as an effective quark mass).

Going over to momentum space, we write

$`\stackrel{~}{V}_{\mu ,ij}(p,p^{}|z|A)=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑T\mathrm{e}^{Tm^2}{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑s{\displaystyle 𝒟x(t)\delta \left(x(s)z\right)𝒢_\mu (\dot{x},s)}`$ (10)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑t\dot{x}^2(t)+ipx(0)+ip^{}x(T)\right]`$
$`\times P\mathrm{exp}[ig{\displaystyle _0^T}dt\dot{x}(t)A(x(t))]_{ij}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{C^z}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\mu [C^z]P\mathrm{exp}[ig{\displaystyle _{C^z}}dxA(x)]_{ij},`$ (11)
where $`C^z`$ denotes a generic path forced to pass through point $`z`$, at which the momentum $`Q`$ is imparted.

For a process of the type $`q+\overline{q}`$ lepton pair + X the “amplitude” expression reads

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu ,ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{v}(p^{},s^{})(i\gamma p^{}+m)\stackrel{~}{V}_{\mu ,ij}(i\gamma p+m)u(p,s)`$ (12)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{C^z}{}}\stackrel{~}{I}_{\mu ,p^{}p}[C^z]P\mathrm{exp}[ig{\displaystyle _{C^z}}dxA(x)]_{ij}`$ (13)
with the second, comprehensive, expression to be understood having recourse to Eq. (11).

For the cross-section, we need to employ the following quantity, which we implicitly display in Minkowski space-time after straightforward adjustments,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{C}^z^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\text{}C^z}{}}\stackrel{~}{I}_{\mu ,p^{}p}^{}[\overline{C}^z^{}]\stackrel{~}{I}_{\nu ,p^{}p}[C^z]`$ (15)
$`\times Tr\left\{\overline{P}\mathrm{exp}\left[ig{\displaystyle _{\overline{C}^z^{}}}\overline{dx}^\rho A_\rho (\overline{x})\right]P\mathrm{exp}\left[ig{\displaystyle _{C^z}}𝑑x^\sigma A_\sigma (x)\right]\right\},`$
where $`\overline{P}`$ denotes anti-path ordering. Even though not explicitly displayed, the cross-section acquires a path-integral form, which has the following characteristics:

1. Paths $`C^z`$ and $`\overline{C}^z^{}`$ are forced to pass through points $`z`$ and $`z^{}`$, respectively, where the momentum transfer occurs (see Fig. 1). The distance $`b|zz^{}|`$ serves as a measure of how far apart the two conjugate contours can venture away from each other and will be referred to as the impact parameter.
2. The traversal of $`\overline{C}^z^{}`$ is made in the opposite sense relative to $`C^z`$. If now, we let the two paths join at one end by using translational invariance, while we allow the other two ends of the contour to close at infinity, then we obtain the formation of a Wilson loop.
3. Under these circumstances, the Wilson loop formation guarantees the gauge invariance of the expression for the cross section.

On the other hand, by keeping the contour lengths finite, but very large, thereby placing the quarks off-mass-shell, gauge invariance will still continue to hold to the order of approximation we employ in our computations, given that the off-mass-shellness serves at the same time as an IR cutoff.

Up to this point our considerations have been centered around the geometrical profile of the paths entering the world-line casting of QCD, the main conclusion being that, for the process considered, the relevant contours entering the path integral are marked by a characteristic point, where a momentum transfer is imparted and that they are open for the amplitude and closed (or almost so) for the cross-section. Armed with this information, we now turn our attention to the Wilson factor which contains all the dynamics of the given process. The obvious task in front of us is to assess its implications once the gauge fields are quantized, i.e., once the Wilson factor is inserted into a functional integral weighted by the exponential of the Yang-Mills action. We display the quantity of interest as follows

$`𝒲`$ $`=`$ $`Tr\left\{\overline{P}\mathrm{exp}\left[ig{\displaystyle _{\overline{C}^z^{}}}\overline{dx}^\mu A_\mu (\overline{x})\right]\right\}_\mathrm{A}\left\{P\mathrm{exp}\left[ig{\displaystyle _{C^z}}𝑑x^\nu A_\nu (x)\right]\right\}_\mathrm{A}`$ (16)
$``$ $`Tr(U^{}(\overline{C}^z^{})U(C^z)).`$ (17)
In the above expression, $`\{\mathrm{}\}_\mathrm{A}`$ signifies the expectation value with respect to the gauge field functional integral which, in this work, will be considered in the context of perturbation theory. Note in the same context that a virtual gluon attaching itself with both ends to the fermionic worldline, entering the amplitude, corresponds to a correlator between a pair of gauge fields originating from the expansion of the Wilson factor. On the other hand, for an emitted “real” gluon from the fermionic line, the correlator is between an “external” and a Wilson-line gauge field.***One will, of course, also encounter correlators that involve gauge fields from the non-linear terms of the Yang-Mills action. These, however, do not enter the leading logarithmic considerations relevant for our considerations. The overall situation is depicted in Fig. 2. At the cross-section level, now, “real” gluons are integrated with respect to “propagators” linking together the two conjugate contours, while their polarization vectors are summed over (cut propagators). This is precisely what $`\mathrm{}`$ signifies in the last equation, as it brackets both Wilson line factors.

This marks a crucial difference to conventional approaches (for example, ), wherein the Drell-Yan process is discussed in a context where IR factorization is based on the eikonal approximation for soft amplitudes. Wilson loop expectation values, entering this scheme, are evaluated along contours corresponding to classical trajectories - along with a segment which lies on the light cone, introduced in order to secure gauge invariance. In our case, by contrast, Wilson contours are built in at a foundational level, being themselves an integral part of the description of the full QCD. Accordingly, factorization properties for us are integrally connected with the renormalization properties of Wilson loops studied in the more general context of Refs. . In the light of the above remarks, let us proceed to display the first-order (in perturbation theory) expression for $`𝒲`$, which receives contributions from virtual gluons, viz., those attached at both ends of either the world-line contour $`C^z`$ or $`\overline{C}^z^{}`$, as well as from “real” gluons linking these contours to each other (cf. Fig. 2). This expression reads

$`𝒲^{(2)}=\mathrm{Tr}I`$ $``$ $`g^2C_\mathrm{F}{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑t_2\theta \left(t_2t_1\right)\dot{x}^\mu \left(t_2\right)\dot{x}^\nu \left(t_1\right)D_{\mu \nu }\left(x(t_2)x(t_1)\right)`$ (18)
$``$ $`g^2C_\mathrm{F}{\displaystyle _0^T^{}}𝑑t_1^{}{\displaystyle _0^T^{}}𝑑t_2^{}\theta \left(t_1^{}t_2^{}\right)\dot{\overline{x}}^\mu \left(t_2^{}\right)\dot{\overline{x}}^\nu \left(t_1^{}\right)\overline{D}_{\mu \nu }\left(\overline{x}(t_2^{})\overline{x}(t_1^{})\right)`$ (19)
$``$ $`g^2C_\mathrm{F}{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑t{\displaystyle _0^T^{}}𝑑t^{}\dot{x}(t)\dot{\overline{x}}\left(t^{}\right)D_{\mathrm{cut}}\left(x(t)\overline{x}(t)\right)+𝒪\left(g^4\right).`$ (20)
It becomes obvious from their structure that the first two non-trivial terms correspond to virtual gluon contributions – one per conjugate branch –, while the third one is associated with “real” gluon emission. Finally, concerning the gluon propagators entering the above equation, we shall be employing their Feynman-gauge form without loss of generality due to gauge invariance. In particular we have, in $`D`$-dimensions,

$$D_{\mu \nu }(x)=ig_{\mu \nu }\mu ^{4D}\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{ikx}}{k^2+i0_+}=g_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}\left(\pi \mu ^2\right)^{(4D)/2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D/21)}{(x^2i0_+)^{(D/2)1}},$$
(21)
whereas

$$D_{\mathrm{cut}}(x)=\mu ^{4D}\frac{d^Dq}{(2\pi )^D}2\pi \delta (q^2)\theta (q^0)\mathrm{e}^{iqx}=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}\left(\pi \mu ^2\right)^{(4D)/2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D/21)}{\left[(x_0^2i0_+)^2𝐱^2\right]^{(D/2)1}}.$$
(22)
From here on and for the sake of notational simplicity, we shall simply write $`D(x)`$ instead of $`D_{\mathrm{cut}}(x)`$.

As already established by other methods, the perturbative expansion (20) is plagued by large threshold logarithms leading to the need for factorization and resummation. This is precisely the task we are about to undertake within our framework.

## III First-order virtual gluon corrections in the vicinities of points $`𝒛`$ and $`𝒛^{\mathbf{}}`$

The space-time mode of description of the Polyakov world-line formalism puts us into the position to promote the following argument: The point $`z`$ (or $`z^{}`$), where the momentum transfer $`Q`$ is imparted, marks the presence of a neighborhood around it, no matter how infinitesimal in size this might be, whose geometrical structure is shared by all fermionic paths entering the path-integral. Specifically, there will be a derailment (cusp formation), whose opening angle will be fixed unambiguously, since it is determined by the momentum transfer. It follows that the contributions to the amplitude and cross-section from the immediate vicinities of each of the two cusps is a common feature of all contours and eventually factorizes. In this section we shall determine the first-order perturbative term corresponding exactly to this factor.

Consider now the neighborhood of point $`z`$ on the contour $`C^z`$. Expanding around this point, we write

$$x^\mu (t)=x^\mu (s)+(ts)\dot{x}^\mu (s\pm 0)+\mathrm{}$$
(23)
with $`v^\mu =\dot{x}^\mu (s0)`$ and $`v^\mu =\dot{x}^\mu (s+0)`$ being entrance and exit four-velocities, respectively, with respect to $`z`$.

Adjusting our notation by re-parameterizing the contour so that the zero value is assigned to point $`z`$, the relevant quantity to compute, to first perturbative order, becomes

$`U_{C,S}^{(2)}=1`$ $``$ $`g^2C_\mathrm{F}[{\displaystyle _\sigma ^0}dt_1{\displaystyle _\sigma ^0}dt_2\theta (t_2t_1)v^\mu v^\nu D_{\mu \nu }(vt_2vt_1)+{\displaystyle _0^\sigma }dt_1{\displaystyle _0^\sigma }dt_2\theta (t_2t_1)`$ (24)
$`+`$ $`v^\mu v^\nu D_{\mu \nu }(v^{}t_2v^{}t_1)+{\displaystyle _0^\sigma }dt_1{\displaystyle _0^\sigma }dt_2\theta (t_2t_1)v^\mu v^\nu D_{\mu \nu }(v^{}t_2vt_1)].`$ (25)
It is clear that the above expression corresponds to the first term in Eq. (20), which monitors a virtual gluon exchange occurring on contour $`C`$.

From the above considerations it follows that the main contribution to each double integral comes from the common limit $`t_1,t_20`$. Suppose now, the other limit is to be determined by demanding that its contribution to the integrals is of vanishing importance. Then, such a requirement automatically isolates those contours, whose only significant geometrical characteristic is that the four-velocities to approach and depart from point $`z`$ are fixed, denoted by $`v^\mu `$ and $`v^\mu `$ respectively. The same, of course, happens for point $`z^{}`$, but in the reverse order. This justifies the subscript $`S`$ in $`U_{C,S}`$, which stands for “smooth”. Let us also observe that the omitted terms in Eq. (25) will contain negative powers of $`\sigma `$, whose dimension in the denominator is (mass)2. Neglecting their presence means that $`\sigma `$ should be very large in magnitude and hence it should be related to an IR cutoff, i.e., $`\sigma \lambda ^2,\lambda >\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$.

In Euclidean space-time, now, every path will share the geometrical structure we are focusing on in some neighborhood of the point $`z`$ or ($`z^{}`$), no matter how close to these points one has to come. At the same time, the UV singularities, exhibited by this restricted set of paths, will entail expressions that solely depend on the two four-velocities and the opening angle. Paths of more complex geometrical structure, on the other hand, will certainly exhibit these UV singularities plus additional ones.Actually, the standard UV singularities of perturbative field theories associated with $`\beta `$-functions, coupling-constant and wave-function renormalization, pertain to almost everywhere non-differentiable paths. It follows that – in Euclidean space-time at least – the restricted set of trajectories, by exclusively carrying the corresponding (multiplicative) renormalization constant, factorizes from the rest of the expression for the amplitude and/or cross-section. In a Minkowski space-time context, which will be considered next, we should anticipate the existence of additional contributions to Eq. (25), due to the light-cone structure that cannot be assigned to each and every contour and, therefore, cannot be factorized. Let us, then, go over to Minkowski space-time, where we have two distinct possibilities for defining an infinitesimally small neighborhood around $`z`$. The first one, to be labelled $`(a)`$, reads

$$(xx^{})^2=𝒪(ϵ^2),\mathrm{with}v_\mu v_\mu ^{},\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}\mu ,$$
(26)
where $`ϵ(Q^1)`$ is a small length scale. The second alternative, to be labelled (b), can be typically represented by

$`(xx^{})^2`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪(ϵ^2)\mathrm{with}|vv^{}|^2=𝒪(\lambda ^2)\mathrm{but}(v_+v_+^{})𝒪(Q)\mathrm{and}(v_{}v_{}^{})𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{Q}}\right)`$ (28)
$`(v_+v_+^{})(v_{}v_{}^{})=𝒪(\lambda ^2)`$
that is equivalently effected via the condition $`v_+v_+^{},v_{}v_{}^{}`$. All in all, there are four different configurations: $`+`$ and prime$``$no-prime entering this case.

We denote case $`(a)`$ as “uniformly soft”, given that the considered gluon exchanges take place in a neighborhood whose smallness pertains to all directions. Case $`(b)`$, on the other hand, will be referred to as “jet” since gluon emission occurs under circumstances, where entrance and exit four-velocities differ from each other significantly along one or the other of the light-cone directions. Particular implications stemming from this, purely Minkowskian, case as far as the factorization issue is concerned, will be considered later on.

Let us commence our calculations by taking up the first $`𝒪(g^2)`$ term entering the right hand side of Eq. (25). Since this only involves the branch of the contour $`C^z`$ entering point $`z`$, we obtain the same expression regardless of whether or not a uniformly soft or a jet configuration is being considered. It reads

$`I_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\sigma ^0}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _\sigma ^0}𝑑t_2\theta \left(t_2t_1\right)v^\mu v^\nu D_{\mu \nu }\left(vt_2vt_1\right)`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}\left(\pi \mu ^2L_1^2\right)^{(4D)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}1\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{D3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2D/2}},`$ (30)
whereNote that $`v`$ has dimensions of mass as our “time” parameter $`\sigma `$ has dimensions of (mass)-2. $`L_1=\sigma |v|`$. The second term has the same structure as the first one (it involves the exiting branch of $`C^z`$) and therefore produces a similar result:

$$I_2=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\left(\pi \mu ^2L_2^2\right)^{(4D)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}1\right)\frac{1}{D3}\frac{1}{2D/2}$$
(31)
with $`L_2=\sigma |v^{}|`$.

A couple of remarks are in order at this point. First, even though the length scales $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ are both large, being proportional to $`\sigma `$, they will be of the same order of magnitude for case (a), whereas for case (b), one scale will be negligible in comparison with the other. Accordingly, the total expression to the amplitude for the uniformly soft contribution will be twice as large as that of the jet-like one. This being said, we shall denote the dominant length scale by $`L(L_1`$ and/or $`L_2)`$, when it enters our final expressions, and set it equal to $`1/\lambda `$, recognizing that it is of the same order as the IR cutoff. Second, in order to avoid the double counting resulting from the fact that each branch has been “cut-off” at distance $`L`$ away from $`z`$, where gluon emission occurring at the endpoints will be offset by a similar one, but opposite in sign, from that portion of the contour that continues to stretch out to infinity, the final expressions for the end-point singularities should be multiplied by a factor of 1/2. Equivalently, one might think of this compensation as actually identifying the missing energy of the gluon emission at the extremities of the path with the off-mass-shellness. In fact, this is what we have been implying all along when claiming that finite contours signify off-mass-shellness.

Turning our attention to the contribution resulting from a virtual gluon exchange from the entrance to the exit branch, with respect to $`z`$, we consider the quantity

$`I_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\sigma ^0}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^\sigma }𝑑t_2v^\mu v^\nu D_{\mu \nu }\left(v^{}t_2vt_1\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}\left(\pi \mu ^2\right)^{(4D)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}1\right)`$ (33)
$`\times vv^{}{\displaystyle _0^\sigma }𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^\sigma }𝑑t_2\left(t_1^2v^2+t_2^2v^2+2t_1t_2vv^{}i0_+\right)^{1(D/2)}.`$
For case $`(a)`$ it assumes the form (recall that $`vv^{}`$ is negative)

$`I_3^{(a)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}\left(\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}}\right)^{(4D)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}1\right){\displaystyle \frac{vv^{}}{|v||v^{}|}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t_1`$ (35)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^1}dt_2(t_1^2+t_2^2+2t_1t_2{\displaystyle \frac{vv^{}}{|v||v^{}|}}i0_+)^{1(D/2)}.`$
As shown in the Appendix, one then determines ($`\gamma _\mathrm{E}`$ is Euler’s constant)

$$I_3^{(a)}=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\gamma \mathrm{coth}\gamma \frac{1}{2\frac{D}{2}}+\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\gamma \mathrm{coth}\gamma \mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}\pi \mathrm{e}^{2+\gamma _\text{E}}\right),$$
(36)
where $`\mathrm{cosh}\gamma =w=\frac{vv^{}}{|v||v^{}|}1`$.

In all of the above expressions, as well as in those that will follow, we have ignored: (i) all imaginary terms that will drop out when contributions (for virtual gluons) from the conjugate contour are taken into account and (ii) finite, $`\mu `$-independent terms that will cancel out when real gluon contributions to the cross-section are included.

Collecting all terms, we deduce, for the “uniformly smooth” part,

$$I_1^{(a)}+I_2^{(a)}+I_3^{(a)}=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}(\gamma \mathrm{coth}\gamma 1)\frac{1}{2\frac{D}{2}}+\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}(\gamma \mathrm{coth}\gamma 1)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}\pi \mathrm{e}^{2+\gamma _\text{E}}\right).$$
(37)
Concerning the “jet” part of the computation, we only need to consider $`I_3^{(b)}`$ because §§§Recall the remark following Eq. (31). the expression for $`I_1^{(b)}+I_2^{(b)}`$ is simply one half of that of $`I_1^{(a)}+I_2^{(a)}`$. A typical term entering $`I_3^{(b)}`$ $`(v_{}v_+^{})`$ is

$$I_3^{(b)}=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}\left(\pi \mu ^2\right)^{(4D)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}1\right)vv^{}_0^\sigma 𝑑t_1_0^\sigma 𝑑t_2\left(t_1^2v^2+2t_1t_2vv^{}i0_+\right)^{1(D/2)},$$
(38)
whose computation suffices to furnish each of the other three terms as well.

It is shown in the latter part of the Appendix that one obtains

$$I_3^{(b)}=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\frac{1}{\left(2\frac{D}{2}\right)^2}+\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\frac{1}{2\frac{D}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}\pi \mathrm{e}^{\gamma _\mathrm{E}}\right)+\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}^2\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}\pi \mathrm{e}^{\gamma _\text{E}}\right)+\text{const}.$$
(39)
It is duly observed that the singularity structure of the above expression is $`\gamma `$-independent. In fact, the “jet” configuration is a Minkowski-space feature and is connected to “gluon” emission in the + or the - light-cone coordinates direction. This result is in accord with Wilson loop studies in Minkowski space, wherein the relevant contour lies partly on the light cone . Subtracting the pole terms in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme, we arrive at the finite part of the overall result. For the uniformly soft contribution, in particular, we get

$$(I_1^{(a)}+I_2^{(a)}+I_3^{(a)})_{\text{fin}}=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\left(\gamma \mathrm{coth}\gamma 1\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{\text{}\overline{\lambda }^2}\right),$$
(40)
while the jet contribution reads

$$(I_1^{(b)}+I_2^{(b)}+4I_3^{(b)})_{\text{fin}}=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}^2\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{\text{}\overline{\lambda }^2}\right)\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu ^2}{\overline{\lambda }^2},$$
(41)
where we have set $`\overline{\lambda }^24\lambda ^2\mathrm{e}^{2\gamma _\mathrm{E}}`$. The above relation takes into account all four different configurations contributing to $`I_3^{(b)}`$.

Gathering all terms, we arrive at the following overall result for the second-order contribution stemming from contour $`C^z`$

$$U_{C,S}^{(2)}=1\frac{\alpha _\text{s}}{2\pi }C_\mathrm{F}\left[\left(\gamma \mathrm{coth}\gamma 1\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{\text{}\overline{\lambda }^2}\right)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{\text{}\overline{\lambda }^2}\right)+\mathrm{ln}^2\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{\text{}\overline{\lambda }^2}\right)\right].$$
(42)
A similar result is obtained also for contour $`\overline{C}^z^{}`$.

Noting that $`\gamma \mathrm{coth}\gamma =\mathrm{ln}\left(Q^2/m^2\right)`$ (for $`Q^2m^2`$), with $`Q^2=(p+p^{})^2`$, we recognize that the well-known perturbative enhancements occurring as $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$ are associated with the eikonal-type trajectories upon which our present calculations have been based. One, now, realizes that these trajectories define threshold conditions, with respect to the given momentum exchange $`Q`$, for the process under consideration, since they leave no room for space-time contour fluctuations. In the following section, we shall treat the resummation of these enhanced contributions to leading logarithmic order. We shall, furthermore, identify a correction factor associated with those terms in Eq. (42) not involving the enhancement factor $`\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/m^2)`$.

## IV Resummation of enhanced contributions from virtual gluons

The family of world-line paths to which the considerations in the previous section refer was used in order to deal with all (virtual) single-gluon exchanges, consistent with the simple geometrical configuration of two constant four-velocities making a fixed angle $`\gamma `$ between them (in Euclidean formulation). Among these gluons there will be “hard” ones (upper limit $`Q`$) and “soft” ones (lower limit set by $`\overline{\lambda })`$. What is debited to the former and what to the latter group of gluons is, of course, relative. It is precisely the role of the renormalization scale $`\mu `$, entering through the need to face UV divergences arising even for the restricted family of paths, to provide the dividing line. The corresponding renormalization-group equation reflects the fact that the scale $`\mu `$ is arbitrary and that physical results do not depend on it. A straightforward application of this fact will enable us to resum the enhanced, virtual gluon contribution to the amplitude in leading logarithmic order, as well as to obtain a bona-fide correction term.

To bring the above discussion into a concrete form, let us first consider a separation, good to order $`1/Q^2`$, of the cusp contribution, which can be factorized from the amplitude $`U_C`$, entering Eq. (17), on the basis of what has been determined so far. Hence, we write

$$U_C=U_{C,\mathrm{cusp}}(\frac{Q^2}{m^2},\frac{\mu ^2}{\text{}\overline{\lambda }^2})\widehat{U}_C(\frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2},\frac{\mu ^2}{\text{}\overline{\lambda }^2})+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{Q^2}\right)$$
(43)
with

$$U_{C,\text{cusp}}^{(2)}=1\frac{\alpha _\text{s}}{2\pi }C_\mathrm{F}\left(\gamma \mathrm{coth}\gamma 1\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{\text{}\overline{\lambda }^2}\right),$$
(44)
where we have normalized $`U_{C,\text{cusp}}`$ to unity for $`\gamma 0`$. The designation “cusp”, above, refers to that factor of the soft sector, which recognizes the angle $`\gamma `$. The factor $`\widehat{U}_C`$, on the other hand, includes both: (i) soft contributions - related to the dependence on the quantity $`\mu ^2/\overline{\lambda }^2`$ \- and (ii) hard ones - depending on the quantity $`Q^2/\mu ^2`$.

It is convenient to take the logarithmic derivative of Eq. (43) with respect to $`Q^2`$:

$$\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}\mathrm{ln}U_C=\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}\mathrm{ln}U_{C,\text{cusp}}+\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}\mathrm{ln}\widehat{U}_C+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{Q^2}\right).$$
(45)
The $`\mu `$-independence of physical results leads to the renormalization group equation whose ultimate justification has to do with the multiplicative renormalization of the soft (cusp-angle dependent) factor. Indeed, the latter is detached from collinear emission and totally complies with the Euclidean space-time properties of Wilson loops for which the results of Refs.  fully apply. Specifically, we write

$$\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}\mu }\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}\mathrm{ln}\widehat{U}_C=\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}\mu }\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}\mathrm{ln}U_{C,\text{cusp}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{cusp}}(\alpha _\text{s})$$
(46)
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}`$ to be read off from Eqs. (37)-(39) and (25):

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{cusp}}(\alpha _\text{s})=\frac{\alpha _\text{s}}{\pi }C_\mathrm{F}+𝒪(\alpha _\text{s}^2).$$
(47)
From the second leg of Eq. (46), one obtains

$$\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}\mathrm{ln}U_{C,\text{cusp}}=_{\overline{\lambda }^2}^{\mu ^2}\frac{dt}{2t}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{cusp}}\left[\alpha _\text{s}(t)\right]$$
(48)
which, in turn, gives

$$\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}\mathrm{ln}\widehat{U}_C=_{\mu ^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dt}{2t}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{cusp}}\left[\alpha _\text{s}(t)\right]+\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\alpha _\text{s}(Q^2)\right],$$
(49)
where we have defined

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\alpha _\text{s}(Q^2)\right]\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}\mathrm{ln}\widehat{U}_C(\frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2},\frac{\mu ^2}{\text{}\overline{\lambda }^2})_{\mu ^2=Q^2}.$$
(50)
Combining the last three equations, we have

$$\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}\mathrm{ln}U_C=_{\overline{\lambda }^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dt}{2t}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{cusp}}\left[\alpha _\text{s}(t)\right]+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\alpha _\text{s}(Q^2)\right],$$
(51)
where, in terms of $`\mathrm{ln}U_C`$, we write

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\alpha _\text{s}(Q^2)\right]\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}\mathrm{ln}U_C|_{\overline{\lambda }^2=Q^2}.$$
(52)
Setting $`\mu ^2=Q^2`$ in Eq. (43), we are led to the identification

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\alpha _\text{s}(Q^2)\right]=\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}\mathrm{ln}U_{C,\text{cusp}}(\frac{Q^2}{m^2},\frac{Q^2}{\overline{\lambda }^2})|_{\overline{\lambda }^2=Q^2}+\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}\mathrm{ln}\widehat{U}_C(1,\frac{Q^2}{\overline{\lambda }^2})|_{\overline{\lambda }^2=Q^2}.$$
(53)
To second order we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}\left[\alpha _\text{s}(Q^2)\right]=\frac{3}{2}\frac{C_\mathrm{F}}{\pi }\alpha _\text{s}(Q^2)+𝒪(\alpha _\text{s}^2).$$
(54)
Gathering our findings, we obtain our final, resummed result corresponding to the contour $`C`$. It reads

$$U_C=\mathrm{exp}\left\{_{\overline{\lambda }^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dt}{2t}\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{t}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{cusp}}(\alpha _\text{s}(t))\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha _\text{s}(t))\right]\right\}U_{C,0}(\alpha _\text{s}(Q^2)).$$
(55)
One notes that the second (“correction”) term in the square brackets is associated with collinear emission (cf. Eq. (53)). Finally, the factor $`U_{C,0}(\alpha _s(Q^2))`$ represents input from initial conditions at the QCD level. Clearly, the conjugate-contour term $`U^{}(\overline{C}^z^{})`$ can be treated in a completely analogous fashion.

## V Resummation of enhanced contributions from real gluon emission

We shall now turn our attention to real gluons and attempt to factorize cross-section contributions from neighborhoods around points $`z`$ and $`z^{}`$. Note that this time we have to deal with gluons which connect two “opposite” neighborhoods while crossing the unitarity line (this situation is depicted in Fig. 3). The relevant scale promptly entering our considerations is the impact parameter $`b=zz^{}`$, which must be eventually integrated over in order to get the physically measurable cross-section. Naturally, the short-distance cutoff in this integration will be provided by the (length) scale $`1/|Q|`$.

For the eikonal-type family of paths, and in first-order perturbation theory, the relevant quantity on which our quantitative considerations are to be based, i.e., the counterpart of Eq. (25), is given by

$`U_{C\overline{C},\mathrm{S}}^{(2)}=1`$ $`+`$ $`g^2C_\mathrm{F}[{\displaystyle _\sigma ^0}dt_1{\displaystyle _\sigma ^0}dt_2v\overline{v}D(t_1vt_2\overline{v}+b)`$ (56)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\sigma }𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^\sigma }𝑑t_2v^{}\overline{v}^{}D\left(t_1v^{}t_2\overline{v}^{}+b\right)`$ (57)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _\sigma ^0}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^\sigma }𝑑t_2v\overline{v}^{}D\left(t_1vt_2\overline{v}^{}+b\right)`$ (58)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\sigma }dt_1{\displaystyle _\sigma ^0}dt_2v^{}\overline{v}D(t_1v^{}t_2\overline{v}+b)],`$ (59)
where the bar denotes four-velocities for the conjugate contour and the subscript cut is henceforth omitted.

To identify the leading behavior of $`U_{C\overline{C},S}^{(2)}`$, with respect to $`b`$, we shall consider first the situation corresponding to $`b=0`$. The subsequent emergence of UV divergences, once handled through dimensional regularization, will introduce a mass scale $`\mu ^{}`$ that will be bounded from below by an IR cutoff $`\lambda `$ and from above by the (mass) scale $`1/b`$. The resulting renormalization group equation will facilitate the resummation of the leading terms, just as in the virtual-gluon case.

Let us start with our quantitative considerations by looking at the term

$$J_1(b)v\overline{v}_\sigma ^0𝑑t_1_\sigma ^0𝑑t_2D\left(t_1vt_2\overline{v}+b\right)$$
(60)
with $`v^2=\overline{v}^2=v\overline{v}`$ (see Fig. 3).

Setting $`b=0`$ and using the expression for the cut propagator as given by Eq. (22), we obtain

$$J_1(0)=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}\left(\pi \mu ^2L_1^2\right)^{\left(2D/2\right)}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}1\right)\frac{1}{D3}\frac{1}{4D}\left[1(2^{4D}1)\right]$$
(61)
which actually coincides with what one would obtain if the regular propagator was substituted. The significance of this occurrence is that it leads to the same anomalous dimensions for the running of the real-gluon contribution to the cross-section as for the virtual part. This fact can be immediately verified via a direct comparison with Eq. (30).

Isolating the finite part of the above expression, we write

$$J_1^{(a),\text{fin}}=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}\right).$$
(62)
It is trivial to see that the same result holds also for $`J_2^{(a),\mathrm{fin}}`$.

We next turn our attention to the term

$$J_3(b)v\overline{v}^{}_\sigma ^0𝑑t_1_0^\sigma 𝑑t_2D\left(t_1vt_2\overline{v}^{}+b\right).$$
(63)
Its computation will concurrently allow us to determine $`J_4(b)`$, which corresponds to the exchange prime$``$ no-prime in the expression above.

Dimensionally regularizing the cut propagator, we then obtain

$`J_3(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}(\pi \mu ^2)^{(4D)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}1\right)v\overline{v}^{}{\displaystyle _0^\sigma }𝑑t_1`$ (65)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^\sigma }dt_2(t_1^2v^2+t_2^2\overline{v}^2+2v\overline{v}^{}t_1t_2i0_+)^{1D/2}.`$
Once again we record, by referring to Eq. (33), coincidence of the singularities and, by extension, of associated anomalous dimensions between virtual and real gluon expressions that contribute to the cross section.

For the “uniformly soft” configuration the corresponding result is

$`J_3^{(a)}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}(\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}})^{(4D)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}1){\displaystyle \frac{v\overline{v}^{}}{|v||\overline{v}^{}|}}`$ (67)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^1}dt_1{\displaystyle _0^1}dt_2(t_1^2+t_2^2+2t_1t_2{\displaystyle \frac{v\overline{v}^{}}{|v||\overline{v}^{}|}}i0_+)^{1D/2}.`$
Taking into consideration that $`\frac{v\overline{v}^{}}{|v||\overline{v}^{}|}=\frac{v^{}\overline{v}}{|v^{}||\overline{v}|}=\mathrm{cosh}\gamma >0`$ we obtain

$`J_3^{(a)}(0)=J_4^{(a)}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}(\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}})^{(4D)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}1\right)\mathrm{cosh}\gamma `$ (69)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^1}dt_1{\displaystyle _0^1}dt_2(t_1^2+t_2^2+2t_1t_2\mathrm{cosh}\gamma i0_+)^{1D/2},`$
whose finite part reads

$$J_3^{(a),\text{fin}}(0)=J_4^{(a),\text{fin}}(0)=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\gamma \mathrm{coth}\gamma \mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}\right).$$
(70)
Turning now our attention to the “jet” configuration, we can actually go directly to $`J_3^{(b)}(0)`$, since $`J_1^{(b)}(0)+J_2^{(b)}(0)`$ furnishes half of the contribution of its uniformly soft counterpart, the reason being the same as the one given in the virtual gluon case. We thus have

$`J_3^{(b)}(0)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}\left(\pi \mu ^2\right)^{(4D)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}1\right){\displaystyle \frac{v\overline{v}^{}}{|v|}}`$ (72)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^1}dt_1{\displaystyle _0^1}dt_2(t_1^2+2t_1t_2{\displaystyle \frac{v\overline{v}^{}}{|v|}}i0_+)^{1D/2}`$
with an analogous expression holding also for $`J_4^{(b)}(0)`$.

For the finite parts of the “jet” contribution, one obtains

$$J_1^{(b),\text{fin}}(0)+J_2^{(b),\text{fin}}(0)+4\left[J_3^{(b),\text{fin}}(0)+J_4^{(b),\text{fin}}(0)\right]=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}^2\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}\right)\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}\right).$$
(73)
Collecting our findings from the real-gluon analysis to the second-order level, we write for the finite contribution to the cross-section

$$U_{C\overline{C},S}^{(2)}=1+\frac{\alpha _\text{s}}{\pi }C_\mathrm{F}\left[\left(\gamma \mathrm{coth}\gamma 1\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}\right)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}\right)+\mathrm{ln}^2\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}\right)\right],$$
(74)
At the same time, the singularity structure of the full expression for the cross-section entails a multiplicative renormalization factor, which is common to all “Wilson loop” configurations entering its description, but which is the only one that pertains to the family of eikonal-type paths under consideration. The reasoning is, of course, identical to the one given for the virtual gluon case. Therefore, the corresponding contribution to the cross-section factorizes and the same resummation procedure can be employed as for the virtual-gluon case. As already observed, the anomalous dimension is in both cases the same. There are, however, the following notable differences. First, the upper limit for the momentum of real-gluon emission is $`1/b^2`$ instead of $`Q^2`$. Second, there is a difference of sign, which becomes evident by comparing Eq. (42) with Eq. (74). Finally, no hard real-gluon emission enters our considerations - by definition. In this light, it is practically self-evident that the resummed expression for real-gluon emission becomes

$$U_{C\overline{C}}=\mathrm{exp}\left\{_{\overline{\lambda }^2}^{c/b^2}\frac{dt}{t}\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{t}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{cusp}}\left(\alpha _\text{s}(t)\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha _\text{s}(t)\right)\right]\right\}U_{C\overline{C},0},$$
(75)
where $`c=4\mathrm{e}^{2\gamma _\mathrm{E}}`$ corresponds to the canonical choice .

We can now bring together real and virtual gluon results by referring to our generic expression for the cross-section as given by Eq. (17). First, we write

$$𝒲=Tr\left(U^{}(\overline{C}^z^{})U(C^z)\right)=U_{C,\mathrm{cusp}}U_{\overline{C},\mathrm{cusp}}U_{C\overline{C},\mathrm{cusp}}\widehat{W}+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{Q^2}\right)$$
(76)
where the factor $`\widehat{W}`$ contains both hard and residual soft contributions.

Then, at the cross-section level, our threshold resummation of the virtual gluons reads

$$U_\mathrm{C}U_{\overline{\mathrm{C}}}=\mathrm{exp}\left\{_{\overline{\lambda }^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dt}{t}\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{t}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{cusp}}(\alpha _\text{s}(t))\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha _\text{s}(t))\right]\right\}U_{\mathrm{C},0}U_{\overline{\mathrm{C}},0}.$$
(77)
Thus, combining the above expressions, the final result reads

$$𝒲=\mathrm{exp}\left\{_{c/b^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dt}{t}\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{t}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\alpha _\text{s}(t))\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha _\text{s}(t))\right]\right\}𝒲_0,$$
(78)
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ given by Eqs. (47) and (53), respectively, an expression obtained before in , employing Wilson lines as a quantity attached to quark current operators.

## VI Concluding remarks

In this paper we have applied first-quantization techniques to study threshold resummation of soft gluon radiation for DY-type of processes in QCD. We have addressed our efforts in an energy regime whose lower cutoff is high enough to justify an analysis in which reference to “gluons”, as dynamical degrees of freedom, continues to make sense.We have implicitly assumed the pre-confinement property, originally articulated in the first work of reference  (see also the second one), according to which the non-perturbative dynamics responsible for confinement screens color up to the infrared scale $`\lambda `$ which sets the lower limit for the perturbative regime.

First-quantization approaches to the study of relativistic quantum systems, involving either strings or world-line agents as their basic tools, have been employed by a number of authors during the last decade (the interested reader is recommended to the recent reviews ) as a viable alternative to the traditional second-quantization procedure, associated with their field theoretical casting. The main feature of this type of approach at the perturbative level, is that it allows a space-time description of the field theoretical system leading to expressions that accommodate a host of Feynman diagrams at once. On the other hand, it can play a crucial role in the study of non-perturbative effects .

The chief issues of the present methodology can be summarized as follows:

* The formalism is based on the Polyakov world-line path integral, whose particular merit is that it is structured in terms of the spin factor, a quantity which is path-determined and which accounts geometrically for the spin of the propagating particle-entity. Within this framework, the quark-gluon dynamics are embodied in the expectation value of open/closed Wilson lines. Thus, quantities of interest for us, such as amplitudes or cross sections can be solely described in terms of appropriately weighted integrals over Wilson contours.
* We have based our considerations on the large scale $`Q^2`$ in order to apply the mathematically well-founded fact that the local characteristics (like endpoints, cusps, etc.) of the contours involved in the path integral can be dissected out (cf. Eq. (76)). In this way we calculated the resummed expression for soft-gluon emission that gives rise to the Sudakov factor.
* We reiterate that our primary goal has not been to reproduce known results, but to show how to obtain them on the cross-section level using the world-line Polyakov path integral. It is obvious that this type of approach can be used to describe DIS-type processes as well (see  from which the present investigation partly derives). Furthermore, since we are not obliged to use special type of paths and we can always stay within the Euclidean formulation – at least as long as we care about the leading behavior of quantities like the cross section, the present investigation may pave the way to extend this type of approach to the large transverse distance regime, where we shall meet power corrections signaling nonperturbative contributions . Thus, we hope that this formalism can be extended to the calculation of the non-perturbative effects of the expectation value of Wilson loops by having recourse to the extensive existing literature  on the subject.

## A

Our task is to establish Eqs. (36) in the text. Performing the integration entering the right hand side of Eq. (35), one obtains

$`I_3^{(a)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}\left(\pi \mu ^2\right)^{(4D)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}1\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4D}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D3}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}w`$ (A3)
$`\times \{wF(1,{\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}1;{\displaystyle \frac{D1}{2}};1w^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[2(1w)\right]^{2D/2}F(1,{\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}1;{\displaystyle \frac{D1}{2}};{\displaystyle \frac{1+w}{2}})\}.`$
Setting $`D=4`$, we obtain

$$F(1,1;3/2;1w^2)=\frac{\gamma }{\mathrm{sinh}\gamma \mathrm{cosh}\gamma }$$
(A4)
and

$$F(1,1;3/2;\frac{1+w}{2})=\frac{\gamma }{\mathrm{sinh}\gamma }i\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{sinh}\gamma }.$$
(A5)
As the imaginary part in the above expression will cancel against its counterpart in the conjugate expression, it can be dropped as far as the cross-section is concerned.

Denoting the expression inside the curly brackets on the rhs of Eq. (A3) by $`f_D(w)`$ and setting

$$f_D(w)=f_4(w)+(4D)\frac{f_D(w)f_4(w)}{4D},$$
(A6)
we realize that the second term on the rhs will lead to finite terms that depend solely on $`w`$ and which will cancel against similar contributions of the same sort coming from the other terms entering Eq. (25). Putting everything together, one finally arrives at Eq. (36).

To establish the result given by Eq. (39), we first note that Eq. (38) gives

$`I_3^{(b)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}\left(\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}}\right)^{(4D)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}1\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4D)^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2vv^{}}{|v|^2}}\right)^{(4D)/2}`$ (A9)
$`\times [F({\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}1,2{\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}};3{\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}};{\displaystyle \frac{2vv^{}}{|v|^2}})+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2vv^{}}{|v|^2}})^{2D/2}`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2vv^{}}{|v|^2}}\right)^{2D/2}].`$
Then, in the limit $`D4`$ one easily retrieves Eq. (39).