text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Years have passed since the advent of QCD. After numerous attempts to understand QCD by using several models, more studies now move towards trying to parameterize the QCD properties in a model independent way with the help of different systematics that are usually highlighted by the specific kinematic situation under study. One could hope that this approach may bring some light in the understanding of QCD or a least to provide some consistency check between different models. Therefore, it becomes important to be able to relate as many observables as possible in a model independent framework. Effective field theories (EFT’s) may play an important role in this approach.

Within the above philosophy, the study of hydrogen ($`ep`$) and muonic hydrogen ($`\mu p`$), in particular of the high precision measurement of different splittings, can provide accurate determinations of some hadronic parameters related with the proton elastic and inelastic electromagnetic form factor, like the proton radius and magnetic moment, polarization effects, etc….

In the $`ep`$ and $`\mu p`$ we are basically testing the proton with different probes ($`e`$, $`\mu `$, $`\gamma `$). They correspond to the simplest possible probes since they are point-like particles and the interaction is perturbative (the analogy with deep inelastic scattering is evident and it has already been used since long ago  in order to obtain some of these hadronic parameters from dispersion relations). They also provide the first natural step towards more complicated systems like exotic or heavy (muonic) atoms.

The $`ep`$ and $`\mu p`$ systems are, in a first approximation, states weakly bound by the Coulomb interaction and their typical binding energy and relative momentum are, $`Em_{e(\mu )}\alpha ^2`$ and $`|𝐩|m_{e(\mu )}\alpha `$, respectively. We will switch off the weak interactions in this work. Therefore, the $`ep`$ and $`\mu p`$ systems become stable and $`C`$, $`P`$ and $`T`$ are exact symmetries of these systems. In any case, several different scales are involved in their dynamics:

For the $`ep`$ system they are: $`\mathrm{}`$, $`m_e\alpha ^2`$ , $`m_e\alpha `$, $`m_e`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=m_nm_p`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=m_\mathrm{\Delta }m_p`$, $`m_\pi `$, $`m_p`$, $`m_\rho `$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$, $`\mathrm{}`$ that we will group and name in the following way:

* $`m_e\alpha ^2`$: ultrasoft (US) scale.
* $`m_e\alpha `$: soft scale.
* $`\mu _{ep}=\frac{m_em_p}{m_e+m_p}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=m_nm_p`$, $`m_e`$: hard scale.
* $`m_\mu `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=m_\mathrm{\Delta }m_p`$, $`m_\pi `$: pion scale.
* $`m_p`$, $`m_\rho `$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$: chiral scale.

For the $`\mu p`$ system they are: $`\mathrm{}`$, $`m_\mu \alpha ^2`$ , $`m_\mu \alpha `$, $`m_\mu `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=m_nm_p`$, $`m_e`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=m_\mathrm{\Delta }m_p`$, $`m_\pi `$, $`m_p`$, $`m_\rho `$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$, $`\mathrm{}`$ that we will group and name in the following way:

* $`m_\mu \alpha ^2`$: US scale.
* $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=m_nm_p`$, $`m_e`$, $`m_\mu \alpha `$: soft scale.
* $`\mu _{\mu p}=\frac{m_\mu m_p}{m_\mu +m_p}`$, $`m_\mu `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=m_\mathrm{\Delta }m_p`$, $`m_\pi `$: hard/pion scale.
* $`m_p`$, $`m_\rho `$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$: chiral scale.

By doing ratios with the different scales, several small expansion parameters can be built. Basically, this will mean that the observables, the spectrum in our case, can be written, up to large logarithms, as an expansion, in the case of the $`ep`$, in $`\alpha `$, $`\frac{m_e}{m_\pi }`$ and $`\frac{m_\pi }{m_p}`$, and in the case of the $`\mu `$$`p`$, in $`\alpha `$ and $`\frac{m_\mu }{m_p}`$. It will also prove convenient sometimes to use the reduced mass $`\mu _{\mu (e)p}`$, since it will allow to keep (some of) the exact mass dependence at each order in $`\alpha `$. In order to be more precise, the $`ep`$ energy will be expanded in the following way (up to logarithms):

$$E(ep)=\frac{\mu _{ep}\alpha ^2}{2n^2}(1+c_2\alpha ^2+c_3\alpha ^3+\mathrm{}),$$
(1)
where

$$c_n=\underset{i,j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_n^{(i,j)}\left(\frac{m_e}{m_\pi }\right)^i\left(\frac{m_\pi }{m_p}\right)^j+\mathrm{},$$
(2)
and $`c_n^{(i,j)}`$ are functions of dimensionless quantities of $`O(1)`$ like $`\mu _{ep}/m_e`$, $`m_\mu /m_\pi `$, etc.

For the $`\mu p`$ things work analogously:

$$E(\mu p)=\frac{\mu _{\mu p}\alpha ^2}{2n^2}(1+c_1\alpha +c_2\alpha ^2+c_3\alpha ^3+\mathrm{}),$$
(3)
where $`c_1`$ does not depend on hadronic quantities, only on $`m_\mu \alpha /m_e`$, and $`(n2)`$

$$c_n=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_n^{(j)}\left(\frac{m_\pi }{m_p}\right)^j+\mathrm{},$$
(4)
where $`c_n^{(j)}`$ are functions of dimensionless quantities of $`O(1)`$ like $`\mu _{\mu p}/m_\mu `$, $`m_\mu /m_\pi `$, $`m_\mu \alpha /m_e`$, etc.

Let us stress that the coefficients $`c_n`$ can be expanded in the ratio $`\frac{m_\pi }{m_p}`$, i.e. in the chiral/heavy-baryon expansion ($`m_p`$ should also be understood as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$).

In order to disentangle all the different scales mentioned above it is convenient to use EFT’s. In order to obtain the relevant one for these systems we first need to decide what are the degrees of freedom we want to describe. In our case we want to describe the $`ep`$ and $`\mu p`$ systems at ultrasoft or smaller energies. Therefore, degrees of freedom with higher energies can (and will) be integrated out in order to obtain the EFT to describe these systems. One EFT that fulfills this requirement is potential NRQED (pNRQED)  (for some applications see  and see also ). pNRQED appears after integrating out the soft scale from NRQED  and it shares some similarities with the approach followed in Ref. . We will obtain pNRQED by passing through different intermediate effective field theories after integrating out different degrees of freedom. The path that we will take is the following (in some cases, instead of this chain of EFT’s one can use dispersion relations, or direct experimental data, in order to obtain the matching coefficients):

$$\mathrm{HBET}(\mathrm{QED})\mathrm{NRQED}\mathrm{pNRQED}.$$

This way of working opens the possibility to compute the observables of atomic physics with the parameters obtained from heavy baryon effective theory (HBET), which is much close to QCD since it incorporates its symmetries automatically, in particular the chiral symmetry. Besides, it is the matching with HBET that will allow to relate the matching coefficients used for $`ep`$ with the ones used in $`\mu p`$. HBET  describes systems with one heavy baryon: the proton, the neutron or also the delta  at the pion mass scale. The chiral scale explicitly appears in the Lagrangian as an expansion in $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$, $`1/m_p`$ and any other smaller scale remains dynamical in this effective theory. In short, HBET is a EFT defined with an UV cut-off $`\nu `$ such that $`\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$ but larger than any other dynamical scale in the problem.

In the $`\mu p`$, NRQED appears after integrating out the hard scale, whereas in the $`ep`$, NRQED appears after integrating out the pion and hard scales. In this last case one could pass through an intermediate theory (QED) defined by integrating out the pion scale and profit from the fact that pion and hard scales are widely separated. Nevertheless, we will do the matching here in one step for simplicity.

pNRQED is obtained after integrating out the soft scale. We refer to  for further details.

The above methodology allows to compute (or parameterize in a model independent way) the coefficients $`c`$’s in a systematic expansion in the different small parameters on which these systems depend.

It is the aim of this paper to use this procedure for the computation of the leading-logarithm hadronic contributions to the hyperfine splitting for both the $`ep`$ and $`\mu p`$. This means to compute the spin-dependent piece of $`c_3`$ with $`O((m_e/m_p)^2\times logarithms)`$ and $`O((m_\mu /m_p)^2\times logarithms)`$ accuracy for the $`ep`$ and $`\mu p`$ respectively.

## 2 Effective Field Theories

In this section, we will consider the different EFTs that will be necessary for our calculation.

### 2.1 HBEFT

Our starting point is the SU(2) version of HBEFT coupled to leptons, where the delta is kept as an explicit degree of freedom. The degrees of freedom of this theory are the proton, neutron and delta, for which the non-relativistic approximation can be taken, and pions, leptons (muons and electrons) and photons, which will be taken relativistic.

Our first aim will be to present the effective Lagrangian of this theory. It corresponds to a hard cut-off $`\mu <<m_p`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$ and much larger than any other scale in the problem. The Lagrangian can be split in several sectors. Most of them have already been extensively studied in the literature but some will be new. Moreover, the fact that some particles will only enter through loops, since only some specific final states are wanted, will simplify the problem. The Lagrangian can be structured as follows

$$_{HBET}=_\gamma +_l+_\pi +_{l\pi }+_{(N,\mathrm{\Delta })}+_{(N,\mathrm{\Delta })l}+_{(N,\mathrm{\Delta })\pi }+_{(N,\mathrm{\Delta })l\pi },$$
(5)
representing the different sectors of the theory. In particular, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ stands for the spin 3/2 baryon multiplet (we also use $`\mathrm{\Delta }=m_\mathrm{\Delta }m_p`$, the specific meaning in each case should be clear from the context).

The Lagrangian can be written as an expansion in $`e`$ and $`1/m_p`$. Our aim is to obtain the hyperfine splitting with $`O(m_{l_i}^3\alpha ^5/m_p^2\times (\mathrm{ln}m_q,\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{ln}m_{l_i}))`$ accuracy, where $`m_q`$ stands for the mass of the light, $`u`$ and $`d`$ (or $`s`$), quarks and $`m_{l_i}`$ for the mass of the lepton (the leading order contribution to the hyperfine splitting reads $`E_F=(8/3)c_F^{(p)}m_{l_i}^2\alpha ^4/m_p`$, where $`c_F^{(p)}`$ is defined in Eq. (10)). Therefore, we need, in principle, the Lagrangian with $`O(1/m_p^2)`$ accuracy. Let us consider the different pieces of the Lagrangian more in detail.

The photonic Lagrangian reads (the first corrections to this term scale like $`\alpha ^2/m_p^4`$)

$$_\gamma =\frac{1}{4}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }.$$
(6)
The leptonic sector reads ($`iD_\mu =i_\mu eA_\mu `$)

$$_l=\underset{i}{}\overline{l}_i(i\text{/}Dm_{l_i})l_i,$$
(7)
where $`i=e,\mu `$. We do not include the term

$$\frac{eg_{l_i}}{m_p}\overline{l}_i\sigma _{\mu \nu }l_iF^{\mu \nu },$$
(8)
since the coefficient $`g_{l_i}`$ is suppressed by powers of $`\alpha `$ and the mass of the lepton. Therefore, it would give contributions beyond the accuracy we aim. In any case, any eventual contribution would be absorbed in a low energy constant.

The pionic Lagrangian $`_\pi `$ is usually organized in the chiral counting. From the analysis of the next section we will see that the free pion propagators provide with the necessary precision. Therefore, we only need the free-particle pionic Lagrangian:

$$_\pi =(_\mu \pi ^+)(^\mu \pi ^{})m_\pi ^2\pi ^+\pi ^{}+\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \pi ^0)(^\mu \pi ^0)\frac{1}{2}m_\pi ^2\pi ^0\pi ^0.$$
(9)
The one-baryon Lagrangian $`_{(N,\mathrm{\Delta })\pi }`$ is needed at $`O(1/m_p^2)`$. Nevertheless a closer inspection simplifies the problem. A chiral loop produces a factor $`1/(4\pi F_0)^21/m_p^2`$. Therefore, the pion-baryon interactions are only needed at $`O(m_\pi )`$, the leading order, which is known .111Actually terms that go into the physical mass of the proton and into the physical value of the anomalous magnetic moment of the proton $`\mu _p=c_F^{(p)}1`$ should also be included (at least in the pure QED computations) and it will be assumed in what follows. For our computation these effects would be formally subleading. In any case, their role is just to bring the bare values of $`m_0`$ and $`\mu _0`$ to their physical values. Therefore, once the values of $`m_p`$ and $`\mu _p`$ are measured by different experiments, they can be distinguished from the effects we are considering in this paper. For the explicit expressions we refer to these references.

Therefore, we only need the one-baryon Lagrangian $`_{(N,\mathrm{\Delta })}`$ at $`O(1/m_p^2)`$ coupled to electromagnetism. This would be a NRQED-like Lagrangian for the proton, neutron (of spin 1/2) and the delta (of spin 3/2). The neutron is actually not needed at this stage. The relevant term for the proton reads

$$\delta _{(N,\mathrm{\Delta })}=N_p^{}\left\{iD_0+\frac{𝐃_p^2}{2m_p}+\frac{𝐃_p^4}{8m_p^3}eZ_p\frac{c_F^{(p)}}{2m_p}𝝈𝐁ieZ_p\frac{c_S^{(p)}}{8m_p^2}𝝈\left(𝐃_p\times 𝐄𝐄\times 𝐃_p\right)\right\}N_p,$$
(10)
where $`iD_p^0=i_0+Z_peA^0`$, $`i𝐃_p=i\mathbf{}Z_pe𝐀`$. For the proton $`Z_p=1`$. We have not included a term like

$$\frac{c_D^{(p)}}{m_p^2}N_p^{}\left[\mathbf{}𝐄\right]N_p.$$
(11)
We could have done so but it may also be eliminated by some field redefinitions. In any case it would give contribution to the spin-independent terms so we will not consider it further in this work.

As for the delta (of spin 3/2), it mixes with the nucleons at $`O(1/m_p)`$ ($`O(1/m_p^2)`$ are not needed in our case). The only relevant interaction in our case is the $`p`$-$`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$-$`\gamma `$ term, which is encoded in the second term of

$$\delta _{(N,\mathrm{\Delta })}=T^{}(i_0\mathrm{\Delta })T+\frac{eb_{1,F}}{2m_p}(T^{}𝝈_{(1/2)}^{(3/2)}𝐁𝝉_{(1/2)}^{3(3/2)}N+h.c.),$$
(12)
where $`T`$ stands for the delta 3/2 isospin multiplet, $`N`$ for the nucleon 1/2 isospin multiplet and the transition spin/isospin matrix elements fulfill (see )

$$𝝈_{(3/2)}^{i(1/2)}𝝈_{(1/2)}^{j(3/2)}=\frac{1}{3}(2\delta ^{ij}iϵ^{ijk}𝝈^k),𝝉_{(3/2)}^{a(1/2)}𝝉_{(1/2)}^{b(3/2)}=\frac{1}{3}(2\delta ^{ab}iϵ^{abc}𝝉^c).$$
(13)
The baryon-lepton Lagrangian provides new terms that are not usually considered in HBET. The relevant term in our case is the interaction between the leptons and the nucleons (actually only the proton):

$$\delta _{(N,\mathrm{\Delta })l}=\frac{1}{m_p^2}\underset{i}{}c_{3,R}^{pl_i}\overline{N}_p\gamma ^0N_p\overline{l}_i\gamma _0l_i+\frac{1}{m_p^2}\underset{i}{}c_{4,R}^{pl_i}\overline{N}_p\gamma ^j\gamma _5N_p\overline{l}_i\gamma _j\gamma _5l_i.$$
(14)
The above matching coefficients fulfill $`c_{3,R}^{pl_i}=c_{3,R}^p`$ and $`c_{4,R}^{pl_i}=c_{4,R}^p`$ up to terms suppressed by $`m_{l_i}/m_p`$, which will be sufficient for our purposes.

Let us note that with the conventions above, $`N_p`$ is the field of the proton (understood as a particle) with positive charge if $`l_i`$ represents the leptons (understood as particles) with negative charge.

This finishes all the needed terms for this paper, since the other sectors of the Lagrangian would give subleading contributions.

### 2.2 NRQED($`\mu `$)

In the muon-proton sector, by integrating out the $`m_\pi `$ scale, an effective field theory for muons, protons and photons appears. In principle, we should also consider neutrons but they play no role at the precision we aim. The effective theory corresponds to a hard cut-off $`\nu <<m_\pi `$ and therefore pions and deltas have been integrated out. The Lagrangian is equal to the previous case but without pions and deltas and with the following modifications: $`_l_e+_\mu ^{(NR)}`$ and $`_{(N,\mathrm{\Delta })l}_{Ne}+_{N\mu }^{(NR)}`$, where it is made explicit that the the muon has become no relativistic. Any further difference goes into the matching coefficients, in particular, into the matching coefficients of the baryon-lepton operators. In summary, the Lagrangian reads

$$_{NRQED(\mu )}=_\gamma +_e+_\mu ^{(NR)}+_N+_{Ne}+_{N\mu }^{(NR)},$$
(15)
where

$$_\mu ^{(NR)}=l_\mu ^{}\left\{iD_\mu ^0+\frac{𝐃_\mu ^2}{2m_\mu }+\frac{𝐃_\mu ^4}{8m_\mu ^3}+eZ_\mu \frac{c_F^{(\mu )}}{2m_\mu }𝝈𝐁+ieZ_\mu \frac{c_S^{(\mu )}}{8m_\mu ^2}𝝈\left(𝐃_\mu \times 𝐄𝐄\times 𝐃_\mu \right)\right\}l_\mu $$
(16)
and

$$_{N\mu }^{NR}=\frac{c_{3,NR}^{pl_\mu }}{m_p^2}N_p^{}N_pl_\mu ^{}l_\mu \frac{c_{4,NR}^{pl_\mu }}{m_p^2}N_p^{}𝝈N_pl_\mu ^{}𝝈l_\mu ,$$
(17)
with the following definitions: $`iD_\mu ^0=i_0Z_\mu eA^0`$, $`i𝐃_\mu =i\mathbf{}+Z_\mu e𝐀`$ and $`Z_\mu =1`$. $`_e`$ stands for the relativistic leptonic Lagrangian (7) and $`_{Ne}`$ for Eq. (14), both for the electron case only.

A term of the type

$$\frac{eg_{l_e}}{m_\mu }\overline{l}_e\sigma _{\mu \nu }l_eF^{\mu \nu }$$
(18)
is not taken into account because of the same reason as in Sec. 2.1.

### 2.3 QED($`e`$)

After integrating out scales of $`O(m_\pi )`$ in the electron-proton sector, an effective field theory for electrons coupled to protons (and photons) appears. Again, we should also consider neutrons but they play no role at the precision we aim. This effective theory has a cut-off $`\nu <<m_\pi `$ and pions, deltas and muons have been integrated out. The Lagrangian reads

$$_{QED(e)}=_\gamma +_e+_N+_{Ne}.$$
(19)
This Lagrangian is similar to the previous subsection but without the muon.

### 2.4 NRQED($`e`$)

After integrating out scales of $`O(m_e)`$ in the electron-proton sector, we still have an effective field theory for electrons coupled to protons and photons. Nevertheless, now, the electrons are non-relativistic. The Lagrangian is quite similar to the one in subsec. 2.2 but without a light fermion and with the replacement $`\mu e`$. The Lagrangian reads

$$_{NRQED(e)}=_\gamma +_e^{(NR)}+_N+_{Ne}^{(NR)}.$$
(20)
### 2.5 pNRQED

After integrating out scales of $`O(m_{l_i}\alpha )`$ one ends up in a Schrödinger-like formulation of the bound-state problem. We refer to  for details. The pNRQED Lagrangian for the $`ep`$ (the non-equal mass case) can be found in Appendix B of the second Ref. in  up to $`O(m\alpha ^5)`$. The pNRQED Lagrangian for the $`\mu p`$ is similar except for the fact that light fermion (electron) effects have to be taken into account. The explicit Lagrangian and a more detailed analysis of this case will be presented elsewhere. For the purposes of this paper, we only have to consider the spin-dependent delta potential:

$$\delta V=2\frac{c_{4,NR}}{m_p^2}𝐒^2\delta ^{(3)}(𝐫).$$
(21)
which will contribute to the hyperfine splitting.

## 3 Form Factors: definitions

It will turn out convenient to introduce some notation before performing the matching between HBET and NRQED. We first define the form factors, which we will understand as pure hadronic quantities, i.e. without electromagnetic corrections.

Our notation is based on the one of Ref. . We define $`J^\mu =_iQ_i\overline{q}_i\gamma ^\mu q_i`$ where $`i=u,d`$ (or $`s`$). The form factors are then defined by the following equation:

$$p^{},s|J^\mu |p,s=\overline{u}(p^{})\left[F_1(q^2)\gamma ^\mu +iF_2(q^2)\frac{\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu }{2m}\right]u(p),$$
(22)
where $`q=p^{}p`$ and $`F_1`$, $`F_2`$ are the Dirac and Pauli form factors, respectively. The states are normalized in the following (standard relativistic) way:

$$p^{},\lambda ^{}|p,\lambda =(2\pi )^32p^0\delta ^3(𝐩^{}𝐩)\delta _{\lambda ^{}\lambda },$$
(23)
and

$$u(p,s)\overline{u}(p,s)=\frac{\text{/}P+m_p}{2m_p}\frac{1+\gamma _5\text{/}s}{2},$$
(24)
where $`s`$ is an arbitrary spin four vector obeying $`s^2=1`$ and $`Ps=0`$.

The form factors could be (analytically) expanded as follows

$$F_i(q^2)=F_i+\frac{q^2}{m^2}F_i^{}+\mathrm{}$$
(25)
for very low momentum. Nevertheless, we will be interested instead in their non-analytic behavior in $`q`$ since it is the one that will produce the logarithms.

We also introduce the Sachs form factors:

$$G_E(q^2)=F_1(q^2)+\frac{q^2}{4m^2}F_2(q^2),G_M(q^2)=F_1(q^2)+F_2(q^2).$$
(26)
We will also need the forward virtual-photon Compton tensor

$$T^{\mu \nu }=id^4xe^{iqx}p,s|TJ^\mu (x)J^\nu (0)|p,s,$$
(27)
which has the following structure ($`\rho =qp/m`$):

$`T^{\mu \nu }=`$ $`\left(g^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{q^\mu q^\nu }{q^2}}\right)S_1(\rho ,q^2)`$ (28)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_p^2}}\left(p^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{m_p\rho }{q^2}}q^\mu \right)\left(p^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{m_p\rho }{q^2}}q^\nu \right)S_2(\rho ,q^2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{m_p}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }q_\rho s_\sigma A_1(\rho ,q^2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{m_p^3}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }q_\rho \left((m_p\rho )s_\sigma (qs)p_\sigma \right)A_2(\rho ,q^2),`$
depending on four scalar functions. It is usual to consider the Born approximation of these functions. They read

$`S_1^{\mathrm{Born}}(\rho ,q^2)`$ $`=2F_1^2(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{2(q^2)^2G_\mathrm{M}^2(q^2)}{(2m_p\rho )^2(q^2)^2}},`$ (29)
$`S_2^{\mathrm{Born}}(\rho ,q^2)`$ $`=2{\displaystyle \frac{4m_p^2q^2F_1^2(q^2)(q^2)^2F_2^2(q^2)}{(2m_p\rho )^2(q^2)^2}},`$ (30)
$`A_1^{\mathrm{Born}}(\rho ,q^2)`$ $`=F_2^2(q^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{4m_p^2q^2F_1(q^2)G_\mathrm{M}(q^2)}{(2m_p\rho )^2(q^2)^2}},`$ (31)
$`A_2^{\mathrm{Born}}(\rho ,q^2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4m_p^3\rho F_2(q^2)G_\mathrm{M}(q^2)}{(2m_p\rho )^2(q^2)^2}}.`$ (32)
In the following section, we will use the results of Ji and Osborne . Their notation relates to ours in the following way (for the spin-dependent terms): $`S_1^{JO}=A_1/m_p^2`$ and $`S_2^{JO}=A_2/m_p^3`$. Note however that $`A_1^{\mathrm{Born}}`$ above is different from the $`\overline{S}_1`$ definition in Ref.  by the $`F_2^2`$ term.

## 4 Matching

The matching between HBET and NRQED can be performed in a generic expansion in $`1/m_p`$, $`1/m_\mu `$ and $`\alpha `$. We have two sort of loops: chiral and electromagnetic. The former are always associated to $`1/(4\pi F_0)^2`$ factors, whereas the latter are always suppressed by $`\alpha `$ factors. Any scale left to get the dimensions right scales with $`m_\pi `$. In our case we are only concerned in obtaining the matching coefficients of the lepton-baryon operators of NRQCD with $`O(\alpha ^2\times (\mathrm{ln}m_q,\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{ln}m_{l_i}))`$ accuracy. Therefore, the piece of the Lagrangian we are interested in reads

$$\delta =\frac{c_{3,NR}^{pl_i}}{m_p^2}N_p^{}N_pl_i^{}l_i\frac{c_{4,NR}^{pl_i}}{m_p^2}N_p^{}𝝈N_pl_i^{}𝝈l_i,$$
(33)
where we have not specified the lepton (either the electron or the muon). In what follows, we will assume that we are doing the matching to NRQED($`\mu `$). Therefore, we have to keep the whole dependence on $`m_{l_i}/m_\pi `$. The NRQED($`e`$) case can then be derived by expanding $`m_e`$ versus $`m_\pi `$. In principle, a more systematic procedure would mean to go through QED($`e`$). Nevertheless, for this paper, as we do it will turn out to be the easier.

In principle, the contributions scaling with $`1/m_\mu `$ are the more important ones. Nevertheless, they go beyond the aim of this paper. This is specially so as far as we are only interested in logarithms and the spin-dependent term $`c_{4,NR}^{pl_i}`$. Its general expression at $`O(\alpha ^2)`$ reads (an infrared cutoff larger than $`m_l\alpha `$ is understood and the expression for the integrand should be generalized for an eventual full computation in $`D`$ dimensions)

$$c_{4,NR}^{pl_i}=\frac{ig^4}{3}\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{1}{k^2}\frac{1}{k^44m_{l_i}^2k_0^2}\left\{A_1(k_0,k^2)(k_0^2+2k^2)+3k^2\frac{k_0}{m_p}A_2(k_0,k^2)\right\},$$
(34)
consistent with the expressions obtained long ago like in Ref. . This expression has been obtained in the Feynman gauge. It correctly incorporates the whole dependence on the lepton mass. Therefore, the same expressions are valid for the hydrogen and muonic hydrogen.

In principle one should also consider contributions with one, two or three electromagnetic current insertions in the hadronic matrix elements instead of only two as in Eqs. (27) and (34). Nevertheless, only the above contribute to the order of interest.

Within the EFT framework the contribution from energies of $`O(m_\rho )`$ or higher in Eq. (34) are encoded in $`c_{4,R}^{pl_i}c_{4,R}^p`$ (analogously for $`c_3`$). The contribution from energies of $`O(m_\pi )`$ are usually split in three terms (actually this division is usually made irrespectively of the energy which is being integrated out): point-like, Zemach and polarizabilities corrections. They will be discussed further later. From the point of view of chiral counting the three terms are of the same order. Therefore, at the order of interest we can divide $`c_{4,NR}`$ in the following way

$$c_{4,NR}^{pl_i}=c_{4,R}^p+\delta c_{4,pointlike}^{pl_i}+\delta c_{4,Zemach}^{pl_i}+\delta c_{4,pol.}^{pl_i}.$$
(35)
Indeed, a similar splitting is usually done for $`c_{3,NR}^{pl_i}`$:

$$c_{3,NR}^{pl_i}=c_{3,R}^p+\delta c_{3,pointlike}^{pl_i}+\delta c_{3,Zemach}^{pl_i}+\delta c_{3,pol.}^{pl_i}$$
(36)
Let us stress at this point that we are only interested in the logarithms. Therefore, we do not need to take care of the finite pieces. This will significantly simplify the calculation.

We obtain the following result for the point-like contribution

$$\delta c_{4,pointlike}^{pl_i}=\frac{3+2c_Fc_F^2}{4}\alpha ^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_{l_i}^2}{\nu ^2}.$$
(37)
Usually, in the literature, the computation of this type of contributions is made considering the proton point-like and relativistic, i.e. using standard QED-computations even at scales of $`O(m_p)`$. The fact that the proton has some anomalous magnetic moment that is due to hadronic effects or, in other words, the fact that proton has structure makes such theory no-renormalizable. This makes the result of the computation divergent. Within this philosophy, the result to the hyperfine splitting due to point-like contributions in Ref.  was proportional to222Yet relativistic-type computations can be very useful sometimes, like in identifying some $`\mathrm{ln}(m_{l_i}/m_p)\mathrm{ln}(m_{l_i}/\nu )`$ logarithms and $`m_{l_i}/m_p`$ corrections in an efficient way, see .

$$\frac{3+2c_Fc_F^2}{4}\alpha ^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_{l_i}^2}{m_p^2}+\frac{3}{4}(c_F1)^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_p^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2},$$
(38)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cutoff of this computation. This computation would make sense if the scales on which the structure of the nucleon appears were much larger than the mass of the nucleon (then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ could run up to this scale). Unfortunately, this is not the case and the structure of the nucleon appears at scales of $`O(m_p)`$ or even before. Therefore, to compute loops at the scale of $`O(m_p)`$ assuming the proton point-like produces problems (divergences) as we have seen. The procedure we use in this paper to deal with this issue is to work with effective field theories where the nucleon is considered to be non-relativistic. In other words, only at scales much smaller than the mass of the nucleon it is a good approximation to consider the nucleon point-like. Other usual method is to use some parameterization of the form factors fitted to the experimental data (see for instance ). This regulates the ultraviolet divergences providing predictions for the hadronic correction to the hyperfine splitting. This is a very reasonable attitude in the cases where we are mainly interested in getting a number for the hadronic correction to the hyperfine splitting. Nevertheless, this is not the procedure we will follow in this paper, since our aim here is to gain as much understanding as possible on the structure of the proton from QCD and chiral symmetry. We want to understand how much of the coefficient can be understood from logarithms and energies of $`O(m_\pi )`$, for which a chiral Lagrangian can be used. This is something that could not be done with the standard form factors used to fit the experimental data, since they do not incorporate the correct momentum dependence at low energies due to chiral symmetry.

The Zemach correction is due to what is called the elastic contribution, Eq. (27) of Ref.  for $`A_1`$ and analogously for $`A_2`$ (nevertheless $`A_2`$ does not appear to give contribution). It reads

$$\delta c_{4,Zemach}^{pl_i}=(4\pi \alpha )^2m_p\frac{2}{3}\frac{d^{D1}k}{(2\pi )^{D1}}\frac{1}{𝐤^4}G_E^{(0)}G_M^{(2)}.$$
(39)
Equation (39) can be obtained directly from Eq. (34) or working directly with the non-relativistic expressions and introducing the form factors. Either way, it is comforting to find the Zemach expression .

The upper index in $`G_E`$ and $`G_M`$ has to do with the chiral counting. $`G_E^{(0)}=1`$. It is illustrative to split the contribution to $`G_M^{(2)}`$ from $`u`$ and $`d`$, and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$: $`G_M^{(2)}=G_{M,u,d}^{(2)}+G_{M,\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(2)}`$ and analogously for the Zemach contribution

$$\delta c_{4,Zemach}^{pl_i}=\delta c_{4,Zemachu,d}^{pl_i}+\delta c_{4,Zemach\mathrm{\Delta }}^{pl_i}.$$
(40)
Another strong simplification comes from the fact that we are just searching for logarithms. Therefore, we are only interested in the behavior of the form factors for $`m_pkm_\pi `$ and not analytical in $`𝐤^2`$. In particular, for the logarithms, we are only interested in the linear behavior in $`|𝐤|`$. From Ref.  (see also ), we obtain

$$G_{M,u,d}^{(2)}\frac{m_p}{(4\pi F_0)^2}\frac{\pi ^2}{12}|𝐤|[3g_A^2],$$
(41)
$$G_{M,\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(2)}\frac{m_p}{(4\pi F_0)^2}\frac{\pi ^2}{12}|𝐤|\left[\frac{4g_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}{3}\right],$$
(42)
$$\delta c_{4,Zemachu,d}^{pl_i}\frac{m_p^2}{(4\pi F_0)^2}\alpha ^2\frac{2}{3}\pi ^2g_A^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_\pi ^2}{\nu ^2},$$
(43)
$$\delta c_{4,Zemach\mathrm{\Delta }}^{pl_i}\frac{m_p^2}{(4\pi F_0)^2}\alpha ^2\frac{8}{27}\pi ^2g_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\nu ^2}.$$
(44)
It is remarkable that the above results are $`\pi `$-enhanced.

Just for completeness, we also give the expression for $`\delta c_{3,Zemach}^{pl_i}`$:

$$\delta c_{3,Zemach}^{pl_i}=4(4\pi \alpha )^2m_p^2m_{l_i}\frac{d^{D1}k}{(2\pi )^{D1}}\frac{1}{𝐤^6}G_E^{(0)}G_E^{(2)}.$$
(45)
This term appears to be finite to the order of interest (it produces no logarithms) and it agrees with the result obtained by Pachucki  at leading order.

The Zemach corrections (both the spin-dependent and the spin-independent) correctly incorporate the whole dependence on the lepton mass. Therefore, the same expressions are valid for the hydrogen and the muonic Hydrogen.

Let us now consider the polarizability contributions. In the $`SU(2)`$ case (and including the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) they should come from Eqs. (30,32,33,34,35,36) of Ref. . In principle, in our case, one should consider more diagrams besides those plotted in Ref. , like the ones due to the Wess-Zumino anomaly action333We thank T. Hemmert for stressing this possibility to us.. Nevertheless, as already stated in the introduction of the pionic Lagrangian, it turns out that they do not contribute in our case. Finally, we split the polarizability contribution as follows (for the SU(2) case):

$$\delta c_{4,pol.}^{pl_i}=\delta c_{4,pol.\mathrm{\Delta }}^{pl_i}+\delta c_{4,pol.\pi N}^{pl_i}+\delta c_{4,pol.\pi \mathrm{\Delta }}^{pl_i}.$$
(46)
It is again a great simplification the fact that we are only searching for logarithms.

From Eqs. (32,35) of Ref.  we obtain (we also checked this result by doing the computation directly in the non-relativistic limit)

$$\delta c_{4,pol.\mathrm{\Delta }}^{pl_i}=\frac{b_{1,F}^2}{18}\alpha ^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\nu ^2},$$
(47)
where $`b_1^F=G_1`$ according to the definition in Ref. . The consequences this result has in a large $`N_c`$ analysis are remarkable enough. In the large $`N_c`$, $`b_1^F=3/(2\sqrt{2})\mu _V`$ according to the Ji and Osborne definitions, where $`\mu _V`$ stands for the isovector magnetic moment. On the other hand, by using the results of Ref.  $`\mu _p/\mu _n=1`$, one obtains (for practical purposes) $`\mu _p=\mu _V/2`$ in the large $`N_c`$ . It follows that in this limit the role of the delta is to cancel all the $`\mu _p`$ contribution in Eq. (37) ($`(3+2c_Fc_F^2)/4=1\mu _p^2/4`$), which effectively becomes the result of a point-like particle.

From Eqs. (30) and (34) of Ref.  we obtain

$$\delta c_{4,pol.\pi N}^{pl_i}=\frac{m_p^2}{(4\pi F_0)^2}g_A^2\frac{\alpha ^2}{\pi }\frac{8}{3}C\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_\pi ^2}{\nu ^2},$$
(48)
where $`C`$ is defined in the Appendix.

From Eqs. (33) and (36) of Ref.  we obtain

$$\delta c_{4,pol.\pi \mathrm{\Delta }}^{pl_i}=\frac{m_p^2}{(4\pi F_0)^2}g_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^2\frac{\alpha ^2}{\pi }\frac{64}{27}C\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\nu ^2}.$$
(49)
It is worth noting that Eqs. (48) and (49) cancel each other in the large $`N_c`$ limit, since $`g_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}=3/(2\sqrt{2})g_A`$ in this case with the definitions of Ref. . Moreover, they are suppressed by $`1/\pi `$ factors and the smallness of the numerical coefficient compared with the Zemach term.

Let us note that Eqs. (47), (48) and (49) may bring some light on why the polarization term is much smaller than the Zemach term in a model-independent way since we have an almost analytical result.

Our results can be summarized in Eqs. (37), (43), (44), (47), (48) and (49). The above computation has been performed in SU(2), it would be interesting to repeat the analysis for SU(3). Indeed, we can compute the Zemach correction due to the strange quark (if we do not consider the spin 3/2 baryons) by using the results of Ref.  for $`G_{M,s}`$:

$$G_{M,s}^{(2)}\frac{m_p}{(4\pi F_0)^2}\frac{\pi ^2}{12}|𝐤|[5D^26DF+9F^2].$$
(50)
We then obtain

$`\delta c_{4,Zemachs}^{pl_i}`$ $`=`$ $`(4\pi \alpha )^2m_p{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^{D1}k}{(2\pi )^{D1}}\frac{1}{𝐤^4}G_E^{(0)}G_{M,s}^{(2)}}`$ (51)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_p^2}{(4\pi F_0)^2}}\alpha ^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\pi ^2(5D^26DF+9F^2)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_K^2}{\nu ^2}}.`$
In order to obtain a complete result, one should add the strange-related contribution to the Zemach correction due to the baryon spin 3/2 multiplet and to obtain the whole strange contribution to the polarizability. This would require to have $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ for SU(3) and including the baryon spin 3/2 multiplet, which are unfortunately unknown. In any case, one may wonder whether, for the polarizability corrections, the large $`N_c`$ cancellation would also hold in this case as well as the $`1/\pi `$ and numerical factor suppression, so that it would be a very tiny contribution as in the SU(2) case.

### 4.1 Matching to pNRQED: Energy correction

With the above results one can obtain the leading hadronic contribution to the hyperfine splitting. It reads

$$E_{\mathrm{HF}}=4\frac{c_{4,NR}^{pl_i}}{m_p^2}\frac{1}{\pi }(\mu _{l_ip}\alpha )^3.$$
(52)
By fixing the scale $`\nu =m_\rho `$ we obtain the following number for the total sum in the SU(2) case:

$$E_{\mathrm{HF},\mathrm{logarithms}}(m_\rho )=0.031\mathrm{MHz}.$$
(53)
The absolute value of this number would increase for a larger value of $`\nu `$ and decrease for a smaller value. The main contribution to Eq. (53) comes from the Zemach and point-like corrections:

$`E_{\mathrm{HF},\mathrm{Zemach}\mathrm{u},\mathrm{d}}(m_\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`0.022\mathrm{MHz},`$ (54)
$`E_{\mathrm{HF},\mathrm{Zemach}\mathrm{\Delta }}(m_\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`0.004\mathrm{MHz},`$ (55)
$`E_{\mathrm{HF},\mathrm{point}\mathrm{like}}(m_\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`0.003\mathrm{MHz}.`$ (56)
Equation (53) accounts for approximately 2/3 of the difference between theory (pure QED)  and experiment :

$$E_{\mathrm{HF}}(QED)E_{\mathrm{HF}}(exp)=0.046\mathrm{MHz}.$$
(57)
What is left gives the expected size of the counterterm. Experimentally what we have is $`c_{4,NR}=48\alpha ^2`$ and $`c_{4,R}(m_\rho )16\alpha ^2`$. This last figure gives the expected size of the counterterm of the Lagrangian. A more detailed analysis would require to work in an specific scheme (for instance MS) to fix the finite pieces. We expect to come back to this issue in the future. A point to stress is that this number is universal, i.e. the same for the electron and for the muon up to corrections suppressed by the ratio of the lepton mass versus the proton mass:

$$c_{4,R}^{pe}(m_\rho )c_{4,R}^{p\mu }(m_\rho ).$$
(58)
This observation could be used in an eventual measurement of the hyperfine splitting of the muonic hydrogen.

The introduction of the partial SU(3) computation would worsen the above prediction by

$$E_{\mathrm{HF},\mathrm{Zemach}\mathrm{kaon}}(m_\rho )=0.003\mathrm{MHz}$$
(59)
bringing the total sum down to $`0.027\mathrm{MHz}`$ and $`c_{4,R}(m_\rho )`$ to $`20\alpha ^2`$.

## 5 Conclusions

We have performed a first exploratory study on the application of effective field theories emanated from chiral Lagrangians on atomic physics444The pionium, which has received quite attention recently , has also been studied within a similar non-relativistic effective field theory philosophy . Specially close to ours is the approach followed in . The pionic hydrogen has also been studied using effective field theories very recently .. We have computed the $`c_{4,NR}^{pl_i}`$ matching coefficient of the NRQED Lagrangian for the $`e`$-$`p`$ and $`\mu `$-$`p`$ sector with $`O(\alpha ^2\times (\mathrm{ln}m_q,\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{ln}m_{l_i}))`$ accuracy. The Hyperfine splitting of the hydrogen and muonic hydrogen has been computed with $`O(m_{l_i}^3\alpha ^5/m_p^2\times (\mathrm{ln}m_q,\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{ln}m_{l_i}))`$ accuracy. We note that our results include the complete expression for the leading chiral logarithms.

The difference between the experimental value of the hydrogen hyperfine splitting and the pure QED computation reads

$$E_{\mathrm{HF}}(QED)E_{\mathrm{HF}}(exp)=0.046\mathrm{MHz},$$
(60)
whereas our theoretical prediction reads

$$E_{\mathrm{HF},\mathrm{logarithms}}(m_\rho )=0.031\mathrm{MHz}.$$
(61)
We are then able to obtain an estimate of $`c_{4,R}^p(m_\rho )16\alpha ^2`$ which is valid for both $`e`$-$`p`$ and $`\mu `$-$`p`$ systems.

One could improve these results by performing the whole computation in the MS scheme or alike (in this case some of the expressions in this paper should be rewritten in D-dimensions). It would follow that not only the logarithms but the finite pieces (in a specific scheme) of the matching coefficient would be obtained too. This would fix with a greater precision the value of $`c_{4,R}^p(m_\rho )`$ and, thus, the respective size of the effects due to the physics at scales of $`O(m_\rho )`$ and at scales of $`O(m_\pi )`$. This is important since the experimental number is precise enough to give an accurate number for $`c_{4,R}^p(m_\rho )`$, which could be used to test models at $`O(m_\rho )`$ scales. To perform the full computation in SU(3) would be also highly desirable. A partial SU(3) result brings Eq. (61) down to $`0.027\mathrm{MHz}`$.

Our results may help to better understand the fact that the Zemach correction is much larger than the polarizability contribution, since we have (almost) analytical expressions for these contributions. The polarizability term (except Eq. (47)) vanishes in the large $`N_c`$ and it is $`1/\pi `$ and numerical-factor suppressed with respect the Zemach terms. On the other hand, Eq. (47), in the large $`N_c`$ limit, cancels all the $`\mu _p`$ contribution in Eq. (37), which effectively becomes the result of a point-like particle.

Several lines of research are worth pursuing. One is trying to compute $`c_{3,NR}`$ within HBET, since its numerical value could be obtained from measurements of the Lamb shift, and it is related with (and in a way defines) the proton radius. Another could be to consider more complicated atoms within this effective field theory formalism (see, for instance  for the Helium).

Acknowledgments
We thank T. Hemmert and J. Soto for useful discussions and X.-D. Ji for a correspondence. We also thank J. Soto for the reading of the manuscript. This work is supported by MCyT and Feder (Spain), FPA2001-3598, and by CIRIT (Catalonia), 2001SGR-00065.

## Appendix Appendix A Constants

$`F_0`$ $`=`$ $`92.5\mathrm{MeV},`$ (62)
$`g_A`$ $`=`$ $`1.25,`$
$`m_\pi `$ $`=`$ $`140\mathrm{MeV},`$
$`m_p`$ $`=`$ $`m_n=938\mathrm{MeV},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`294\mathrm{MeV},`$
$`g_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ $`=`$ $`1.05,`$
$`b_1^F`$ $`=`$ $`3.86,`$
$`F`$ $`=`$ $`1/2,`$
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`3/4,`$
$`m_\rho `$ $`=`$ $`770\mathrm{MeV}.`$
$`b_1^F`$ and $`g_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ have been obtained from the decays of the delta in the non-relativistic limit (consistent with the accuracy of our calculation).

The values of $`F`$ and $`D`$ are consistent with the large $`N_c`$ limit. Finally

$`C`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _0^1}\sqrt{1y^2}(2x(2+y^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}(2(1x)x(2+y^2)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{xx^2+x^2y^2}}}`$ (63)
$`3(12x)y^2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{x}{1x\left(1y^2\right)}}})\mathrm{Sinh}^1(\sqrt{\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{1x}}\right)}y))dydx`$
$`=`$ $`0.165037.`$


format: text

text:
# A note on cancellation of reflexive modules

## 1. Introduction

By the Quillen-Suslin theorem \[Qui76, Sus76\], we know that projective modules over a polynomial ring over a field are free. One way of saying this is, that if two projective modules of the same rank are stably isomorphic, then they are isomorphic. That, projective modules of given rank over polynomial rings are stably isomorphic was well known at the time Quillen and Suslin proved their theorems and this result is usually attributed to Grothendieck. This result can also be deduced from Hilbert Syzygy Theorem. This note tries to answer whether a similar cancellation occurs for reflexive modules. The question was specifically raised by M. P. Murthy. I thank him for raising this question and for the innumerable discussions which ensued. In this note we show that, in general, reflexive modules are not cancellative, without further assumptions. These assumptions under which cancellation does take place are explained in the theorem in the next section, Theorem 1.

## 2. A case where cancellation is true

As usual, we say that a module $`M`$ over a ring $`A`$ is cancellative, if for some finitely generated free module $`F`$ over $`A`$ and a module $`N`$, if $`FMFN`$, then $`MN`$. The main theorem we will prove is the following:

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`R`$ be an affine domain over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero, $`M`$ a reflexive module over $`R`$ of finite homological dimension such that $`M`$ is locally free outside a finite set of closed points of $`R`$. Further assume that $`\mathrm{rank}MdimR`$. Then $`M`$ is cancellative.

We start with some lemmas. We will not state the most general versions, but just what we need.

###### Lemma 1.

Let $`A`$ be an affine algebra over an infinite field $`k`$ of dimension $`n`$ and $`Q`$ a projective module (of constant rank) over $`A`$. Let $`aA`$ and let $`IA`$ be an ideal of height $`n`$ . Then there exists an element $`f=\lambda +a+x`$, with $`xI`$ and $`0\lambda k`$ such that $`Q_f`$ is free over $`A_f`$.

Proof: Since $`I`$ is of height $`n`$, $`Q`$ is free when we semi-localise at the finitely many maximal ideals containing $`I`$. Thus we may find an $`sA`$, comaximal with $`I`$ such that $`Q_s`$ is $`A_s`$-free. Since the base field is infinite, for a general $`0\lambda k`$, $`a+\lambda `$ is comaximal with $`I`$. Since $`s`$ is a unit modulo $`I`$, we can find a $`tA`$ such that $`sta+\lambda (modI)`$. Notice that $`Q_{st}`$ is clearly free over $`A_{st}`$. So, letting $`f=st`$, we have, $`f=\lambda +a+x`$ with $`xI`$.

###### Corollary 1.

Notation being the same as in the lemma, there exists an $`xI`$ such that either $`a+x`$ is a unit in $`A`$ or $`Q/(a+x)Q`$ is a free module over $`A/(a+x)A`$.

Proof: From the lemma, we have $`f\lambda =a+x`$ with $`0\lambda k`$ and $`Q_f`$ is $`A_f`$ free. But, then $`Q/(f\lambda )Q`$ is clearly free over $`A/(f\lambda )A`$, unless $`f\lambda `$ is a unit.

In the following two lemmas, $`A`$ will be an integral domain, $`M`$ a finitely generated torsion-free $`A`$-module, $`0aA,mM`$ such that $`M/aM`$ is a projective $`A`$-module of rank equal to the rank of $`M=n`$ over $`A/aA`$ and the image of $`m`$ in $`M/aM`$ is a unimodular element of $`M/aM`$. The conditions imply (by an easy local checking), that the map $`A\stackrel{(a,m)}{}AM`$ is a split inclusion.

###### Lemma 2.

Let $`m^{}M`$ and $`d`$. Then,

$$AM/(a^d,m)AAM/(a^d,m+am^{})A.$$

The proof is essentially the same as in \[Kum97, lemma 2\] and is just a slight modification of a result of Suslin \[Sus77b\].

Proof: Consider $`B=A[t]`$, polynomial ring in one variable over $`A`$ and let us consider the module, $`N=BM[t]/(a^d,m+atm^{})`$. We will show that $`N`$ is an extended module and then putting $`t=0,1`$, we would be done.

The hypotheses on $`a,m`$ imply that $`BNBM`$. So, if $`n=1`$, we are done by taking determinants. So, we will further assume that $`n2`$.

To check that $`N`$ is extended, by Quillen’s theorem \[Qui76\], we need to show this only locally. At maximal ideals not containing $`a`$, clearly $`NM[t]`$. At maximal ideals containg $`a`$, by hypothesis $`M`$ is free with $`m`$ as part of a basis. So choose a basis, $`m=m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_n`$. Write $`m^{}=c_im_i`$. Then with respect to this basis, the vector $`(a^d,m+atm^{})`$ is, $`(a^d,1+ac_1t,ac_2t,\mathrm{},ac_nt).`$ Since $`a^d,1+ac_1t`$ generate the unit ideal, we can change $`ac_2t`$ (which exists, since $`n2`$) by elementary transformation to 1 and thus $`N`$ is free at such a maximal ideal.

Next we prove a crucial lemma, which is essentially a slight generalisation of a theorem of Suslin \[Sus77a\].

###### Lemma 3.

Notation being as above, assume further that $`M/aM`$ is a free module and the image of $`m`$ in $`M/aM`$ is part of a free basis of $`M/aM`$. Then,

$$AM/(a^n,m)M.$$

Proof: Since $`M/aM`$ is free over $`A/aA`$ with image of $`m`$ as a part of a free basis, we may choose $`m=m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_nM`$ such that their images in $`M/aM`$ form a free basis. Consider $`B=A[t]`$ and maps, $`\varphi (t):B^nB^n`$ and $`\psi :B^nM`$ given as follows. The map $`\psi `$ is just sending a basis $`\{e_i\}`$ of $`B^n`$ to the $`m_i`$’s. The map $`\varphi (t)`$ is given by the $`n\times n`$ matrix, which has $`a`$ for its diagonal entries and $`t`$ on the subdiagonal, with zero elsewhere. That is, $`\varphi (t)(e_1)=ae_1`$ and $`\varphi (t)(e_i)=te_{i1}+ae_i`$ for $`i>1`$. Consider $`N=B^nM[t]/K`$ where $`K`$ is the image of $`B^n`$ under the map $`(\varphi (t),\psi )`$.

First, I claim that $`N`$ is extended. Again, by Quillen’s theorem loc. cit, suffices to do this locally on $`A`$. At a maximal ideal not containg $`a`$, $`\varphi (t)`$ is an isomorphism and thus $`NM[t]`$. For a maximal ideal containing $`a`$, by choice, $`\psi `$ is an isomorphism and thus $`NB^n`$, in particular extended. Thus $`N`$ is extended. Also, notice that $`a`$ is a non-zero divisor on $`N`$, since it is free at maximal ideals containing $`a`$ and $`A`$ is an integral domain. Thus, we have $`N_{t=0}=N_0N_1=N_{t=1}`$.

Next let us look at $`N_0`$. Then, we have $`MN_0`$ and $`N_0/M(A/aA)^n`$. Since $`N_0`$ is a projective module of rank $`n`$ at primes containing $`a`$, we see that $`M=aN_0`$ and since $`a`$ is a non-zero divisor on $`N_0`$, $`MN_0`$.

Finally, let us look at $`N_1`$. If we let $`e_1^{}=e_1ae_2+a^2e_3\mathrm{}`$, then $`\varphi (1)(e_1^{})=(1)^{n1}a^ne_n`$. Consider the projection $`\pi :A^nA^{n1}`$, to the first $`n1`$ factors. Then $`\pi \varphi (1)`$ is onto and the kernel is generated by $`e_1^{}`$. Thus we can identify $`N_1`$ as the cokernel of the map

$$Ae_1^{}\stackrel{(\varphi (1),\psi )}{}Ae_nM,$$

and $`(\varphi (1),\psi )(e_1^{})=((1)^{n1}a^ne_n,m_1am_2+a^2m_3\mathrm{})`$. Now, by the previous lemma, we see that $`N_1AM/(a^n,m)`$ and since $`N_1N_0M`$, we are done.

Proof of the Theorem: With the notation as in the theorem, we have an inclusion $`R\stackrel{(a,m)}{}RM`$, which is split and the cokernel is $`N`$. We wish to show that $`MN`$. We will use the following transvections, which do not change the situation. For any $`\varphi :MR`$, we may replace $`(a,m)`$ by $`(a+\varphi (m),m)`$. Similarly, for any $`m^{}M`$, we may replace $`(a,m)`$ by $`(a,m+am^{})`$.

That, $`(a,m)`$ gives a split inclusion implies there exists a homomorphism $`\varphi :MR`$ and $`bR`$ such that $`ab+\varphi (m)=1`$. Let $`𝔪_1,\mathrm{},𝔪_r`$ be the maximal ideals outside which $`M`$ is locally free. Let

$$X=\{𝔭\mathrm{Spec}Ra𝔭\text{and}𝔭𝔪_i\}.$$

On this open set $`X`$, $`M`$ is locally free and $`aM`$ generates $`M`$. So for a general choice of $`m^{}M`$, $`m+am^{}`$ vanishes at only a subset $`ZX`$ of codimension $``$ rank $`M`$ by Bertini’s theorem. By assumption on the rank of $`M`$, this codimension is at least the dimension of $`R`$. Thus the map $`m+am^{}:M^{}R`$ has image height at least $`dimR`$ restricted to $`X`$. Also, since $`m`$ is unimodular modulo $`aM`$, $`m+am^{}`$ is unimodular at primes containig $`a`$ and thus we see that the image of $`m+am^{}:M^{}R`$ has height at least $`dimR`$ and comaximal with $`a`$. We rename $`m+am^{}`$ as $`m`$ since this is an allowed transvection for our result and thus we may assume that $`m(M^{})=IR`$ has height at least $`dimR`$ and $`I`$ is comaximal with $`a`$. Let $`J=I_i𝔪_i`$. We will arrange $`a`$ so that $`a𝔪_i`$ for all $`i`$. Notice that for any $`\psi M^{}`$, $`a+\psi (m)`$ is comaximal with $`I`$. Let $`\varphi M^{}`$ be such that $`a`$ is comaximal with $`\varphi (m)`$ as before. Though now we have a new $`m`$, the same $`\varphi `$ actually works for this $`m`$ too, though it is not important.

We may assume that $`a𝔪_i`$ for $`1ipr`$ and $`a𝔪_i`$ for $`p<ir`$, possibly after rearranging the $`𝔪_i`$’s. Choose $`x_{i>p}𝔪_i_{i=1}^p𝔪_i`$. Then we may replace $`(a,m)`$ by $`(a+x\varphi (m),m)`$. Then we see that $`a+x\varphi (m)`$ is not in any one of the above maximal ideals. Thus we may assume that $`a`$ is comaximal with $`J`$.

Since characteristic of the field is zero and it is algebraically closed, by Chinese remainder theorem, we can find a $`bR`$ such that $`ab^d(modJ)`$, where $`d`$ is the rank of $`M`$. Since $`a=b^d+y`$ with $`yJ`$ and since $`JI`$, there exists a $`\psi M^{}`$ such that $`\psi (m)=y`$. So, we may replace $`a`$ with $`b^d`$. Notice that since $`yJ`$ and $`a`$ is comaximal with $`J`$, the same holds for $`b`$.

Let $`K_0`$ be the Grothendieck group of projective modules, which is the same as the Grothendieck group of modules of finite projective dimension. Thus $`[M]K_0(R)`$ by hypothesis and so we can write $`[M]=[P][F]`$ for some projective module $`P`$ over $`R`$ and $`F`$, a free module over $`R`$. Then we have an $`xJ`$ so that $`P/(b+x)P`$ is free by corollary 1. Let $`c=b+x`$. Then, $`c^d=b^d+xz`$ for some $`zR`$ and since $`xJ`$, there exists a $`\psi M^{}`$ with $`\psi (m)=xz`$. So we can replace $`(b^d,m)`$ with $`(c^d,m)`$. Since $`M`$ is projective at all maximal ideals containing $`c`$, we see that $`M/cM`$ is projective and since $`c`$ is a non-zero divisor in $`M`$, we see that $`[M/cM]=[P/cP][F/cF]`$ in $`K_0(R/cR)`$. By choice of $`c`$, $`P/cP`$ is free over $`R/cR`$ and thus, the projective module $`M/cM`$ is stably free over $`R/cR`$. It has rank $`dimR>dimR/cR`$. So, $`M/cM`$ is free over $`R/cR`$ by Bass’ cancellation theorem \[Bas68\]. Also, the image of $`m`$ in $`M/cM`$ is unimodular and so by Suslin’s theorem \[Sus77b\], we see that the image of $`m`$ is part of a free basis of $`M/cM`$. Now, lemma 3 finishes the proof.

## 3. Reflexive modules over polynomial rings

Since reflexive modules over polynomial rings in one or two variables are free (the two variable case was originally proved by C. S. Seshadri, \[Ses58\]), we will assume that we are over a polynomial ring in at least three variables. Also, an example in $`n`$ variables which is not cancellative give an example over polynomial rings in $`kn`$ variables, by extending the ring and tensoring the module.

### 3.1. Four variable case

Let $`R=k[x,y,z,t]`$ be a polynomial ring in 4 variables. Let $`v_1=(x,y,zt1)`$ and $`v_2=(x,yz,zt1)`$ be two vectors giving rise to presentations of two modules $`M_1,M_2`$. Then $`M_i`$’s are reflexive rank two modules over $`R`$. I claim that they are non-isomorphic but $`M_1R`$ is isomorphic to $`M_2R`$.

Notice that $`v_1R=v_2R=I`$, a complete intersection height three ideal in $`R`$. We have exact sequences,

$$0M_i^{}R^3I0.$$

We have a commutative diagram,

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& & M_1^{}& & R^3& & I& & 0\\ & & f& & \psi & & \mathrm{Id}& & \\ 0& & M_2^{}& & R^3& & I& & 0\end{array}$$

where $`\psi `$ is the diagonal matrix, $`[1,z,1]`$. Thus we get an exact sequence,

$$0M_2^{}M_1^{}R/zR0.$$

Now by Schanuel’s lemma type argument, we get an exact sequence,

$$0RRM_2^{}M_1^{}0.$$

Dualising this and noting that $`\mathrm{Ext}^1(M_i^{},R)=R/I`$, we see that,

$$0M_1M_2RR0$$

is exact and since $`R`$ is free, it is split exact. Thus, $`M_1RM_2R`$.

Now assume that $`M_1M_2`$. Then we get a commutative diagram,

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& & R& & R^3& & M_1& & 0\\ & & a& & \varphi & & & & \\ 0& & R& & R^3& & M_2& & 0\end{array}$$

With respect to the given bases, we can identify $`\varphi `$ as a $`3\times 3`$ matrix. So, we see that $`det\varphi =ca`$ where $`ck`$ is a non-zero constant. Dualising, we see that $`a`$ is a unit modulo $`I`$. Now we have the dual picture as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& & M_1^{}& & R^3& & I& & 0\\ & & & & \varphi ^{}& & a& & \\ 0& & M_2^{}& & R^3& & I& & 0\end{array}$$

Let us go modulo $`I`$. Then $`I/I^2`$ is a free module of rank 3 over $`R/I`$ and we have,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(R/I)^3& & I/I^2\\ \varphi ^{}& & a\\ (R/I)^3& & I/I^2\end{array}$$

We notice that all the maps are now isomorphisms. So, let us compute $`\varphi ^{}`$ modulo $`I`$ with respect to the given bases. One immediately sees that $`\varphi ^{}`$ is the diagonal matrix, $`[a,az,a]`$. Thus the determinat of $`\varphi ^{}`$ is $`a^3z`$ modulo $`I`$. But this is equal to $`ca`$ since $`det\varphi =det\varphi ^{}`$. So, we get $`a^3zcamodI`$ or $`zca^2modI`$. But since $`R/I=k[z,z^1]`$, such an equation cannot hold. Thus we see that $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are not isomorphic.

One of the natural questions that can be raised is whether cancellation does hold if the ranks of the modules are sufficiently large. But, a modification of the above example shows that it is not the case.

For this, take

$$v_1=(x^n,x^{n1}y,\mathrm{},y^n,zt1)\text{and}v_2=(zx^n,x^{n1}y,\mathrm{},y^n,zt1)$$

and consider the corresponding reflexive modules $`M_1,M_2`$. These have rank $`n+1`$ and as before, it is easy to show that they are isomorphic, if we add a free module of rank one to both sides, since the ideal $`Rv_1=Rv_2=I`$ is of codimension 3 and $`R/I`$ is Cohen-Macaulay. If they were isomorphic, exactly as before, restricting to $`R/J`$, where $`J=(x,y,zt1)=\mathrm{rad}I`$ we get an equation, $`ca=a^{n+2}z`$ in $`R/J=k[z,z^1]`$, where $`c`$ is a non-zero constant in $`k`$ and $`aR`$, is a unit in $`R/J`$. This leads to a contradiction.

The above examples show that we cannot drop the hypothesis of locally free outside a finite set of points in our theorem.

### 3.2. Three variable case

In three variable polynomial rings, any reflexive module is free outside a finite set of points. So, if the base fileld is algebraically closed and the rank is at least three, our theorem will imply that they are cancellative. Here we construct examples when the base field is not algebraically closed or if it is of positive characteristic, of examples which are not cancellative.

#### 3.2.1. Positive characteristic case

In this section, we assume that our ring $`R=k[x,y,z]`$ is a polynomial ring in three variables and the charactersitic of $`k=p>0`$. Then, we will construct examples of reflexive modules of rank $`p`$ which are stably isomorphic, but not isomorphic. The method is essentially the same as above.

Consider, $`v_1=(x^{p(p1)},x^{p(p2)}y,\mathrm{},y^{p1},z)`$ and $`v_2`$ the same as $`v_1`$, except we replace $`y^{p1}`$ with $`(1+x)y^{p1}`$. Then notice that $`Rv_1=Rv_2=I`$ a height three ideal, $`R/I`$ is Cohen-Macaulay, and if we denote by $`J=(x^p,y,z)`$, then $`I/JI`$ is a free module over $`R/J`$, of rank $`p+1`$. Now the argument is the same as above and if the corresponding modules are isomorphic, we get that the element $`1+x`$ has a $`p^{\mathrm{th}}`$ root in $`R/J=k[x]/x^p`$, which is impossible.

#### 3.2.2. Characteristic zero case

Now let us assume that $`R=k[x,y,z]`$ where $`k`$ is a field of characteristic zero and let $`n2`$ be an integer. Further assume that there exists a finite extension $`L`$ of $`k`$ such that $`(L^{})^nk^{}L^{}`$ and pick an element $`cL^{}(L^{})^nk^{}`$. Using $`c`$, as before we will construct rank $`n`$ reflexive modules over $`R`$ which are stably isomorphic, but not isomorphic. Let $`p(x)`$ be the irreducible polynomial such that $`L=k[x]/p(x)`$ and let $`q(x)`$ be so chosen so that its image in $`L`$ via the above map is $`c`$. Then, we consider the two vectors,

$$v_1=(p^{n1},p^{n2}y,\mathrm{},y^{n1},z),v_2=(p^{n1},p^{n2}y,\mathrm{},y^{n1},qz).$$

One checks as before that the first syzygyies of these two vectors are rank $`n`$ reflexive modules, which are stably isomorphic, but not isomorphic.

To obtain such examples of fields, we can take for example, $`k=`$ and $`L=(\theta )`$ where $`\theta =\sqrt[n]{2}`$. If $`(L^{})^nk^{}=L^{}`$, then we get $`\theta =a^nb`$ where $`aL^{}`$ and $`bk^{}`$. Taking norms we see that either $`2`$ or $`2`$ is an $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ power in $`k`$, which is impossible unless $`n=1`$.

So, we see that the hypothesis of algebraically closed field, charactersitic zero and locally free outside a finite set of closed points are all essential for our theorem. Since we have examples \[Kum85\] of stably free non-free modules of rank $`=dimR2`$, the condition on the rank is more or less necessary, except possibly when it is one less than the dimension of the ring. The condition on finite homological dimension on the other hand, does not seem essential, but we have neither a proof nor a counter example.


text:
# Inclusive Diffraction at HERA

## 1 INTRODUCTION

One of the biggest challenges in our understanding of QCD is the nature of colour singlet exchange or diffractive interactions. The electron-proton collider HERA is an ideal place to study hard diffractive processes in deep-inelastic $`ep`$ scattering (DIS). In such interactions, the point-like virtual photon probes the structure of colour singlet exchange, similarly to inclusive DIS probing proton structure.

At HERA, around $`10\%`$ of low $`x`$ events are diffractive . Experimentally, such events are identified by either tagging the elastically scattered proton in Roman pot spectrometers $`60100\mathrm{m}`$ downstream from the interaction point or by asking for a large rapidity gap without particle production between the central hadronic system and the proton beam direction.

A diagram of diffractive DIS is shown in Fig. 1. A virtual photon coupling to the beam electron interacts diffractively with the proton through the exchange of a colour singlet and produces a hadronic system $`X`$ with mass $`M_X`$ in the final state. If the 4-momenta of the incoming (outgoing) electron and proton are labeled $`l`$ ($`l^{}`$) and $`p`$ ($`p^{}`$) respectively, the following kinematic variables can be defined: $`Q^2=q^2=(ll^{})^2`$, the photon virtuality; $`\beta =Q^2/q.(pp^{})`$, the longitudinal momentum fraction of the struck quark relative to the diffractive exchange; $`x_{IP}=q.(pp^{})/q.p`$, the fractional proton momentum taken by the diffractive exchange and $`t=(pp^{})^2`$, the 4-momentum squared transferred at the proton vertex. Bjorken-x is given by $`x=x_{IP}\beta `$. For the measurements presented here typical values of $`x_{IP}`$ are $`<0.05`$. $`y=Q^2/sx`$ denotes the inelasticity, where $`s`$ is the $`ep`$ CMS energy.

A diffractive reduced cross section $`\sigma _r^{D(4)}`$ can be defined via

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4\sigma ^{epeXp}}{dx_{IP}dtd\beta dQ^2}}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha ^2}{\beta Q^4}}\left(1y+{\displaystyle \frac{y^2}{2}}\right)\sigma _r^{D(4)}(x_{IP},t,\beta ,Q^2),`$ (1)
which is related to the diffractive structure functions $`F_2^D`$ and the longitudinal $`F_L^D`$ by

$$\sigma _r^D=F_2^D\frac{y^2}{2(1y+\frac{y^2}{2})}F_L^D.$$
(2)
Except at the highest $`y`$, $`\sigma _r^D=F_2^D`$ to a very good approximation. If the outgoing proton is not detected, the measurements are integrated over $`t`$: $`\sigma _r^{D(3)}=dt\sigma _r^{D(4)}`$.

## 2 FACTORIZATION PROPERTIES OF DIFFRACTIVE DIS

The proof  that QCD hard scattering factorization is valid for diffractive DIS justifies the expression of $`\sigma _r^{D(4)}`$, at fixed $`x_{IP}`$ and $`t`$, as a convolution of diffractive proton parton distributions (dpdf’s) $`f_i^D`$ and partonic cross sections $`\widehat{\sigma }^{\gamma ^{}i}`$:

$`\sigma _r^{D(4)}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\widehat{\sigma }^{\gamma ^{}i}(x.Q^2)f_i^D(x,Q^2,x_{IP},t).`$ (3)
The $`f_i^D`$ should obey the DGLAP evolution equations and the $`\widehat{\sigma }^{\gamma ^{}i}`$ are the same as for standard DIS. In consequence, the framework of NLO QCD can be applied to diffractive DIS in a similar way as to inclusive DIS.

An extra assumption which is often made is that the $`(x_{IP},t)`$ dependence of $`\sigma _r^D`$ can be factored out (Regge factorization) into a Pomeron flux factor $`f_{IP}(x_{IP},t)`$:

$$f_i^D(x_{IP},t,\beta ,Q^2)=f_{IP}(x_{IP},t)f_i^{IP}(\beta ,Q^2),$$
(4)
which is often parameterised using Regge phenomenology as

$$f_{IP}(x_{IP},t)=x_{IP}^{12\alpha _{IP}(t)}e^{bt},$$
(5)
where $`\alpha _{IP}(t)=\alpha _{IP}(0)+\alpha _{IP}^{}t`$ is the pomeron trajectory with intercept $`\alpha _{IP}(0)`$. The $`f_i^{IP}(\beta ,Q^2)`$ are Pomeron pdf’s. Although there is no firm basis in QCD for Eq. 4, it is approximately consistent with present data.

## 3 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

### 3.1 The New Datasets

The H1 collaboration has performed several new measurements of diffractive DIS, presented in the form of the reduced cross section $`\sigma _r^{D(3)}`$, which are summarised in Fig. 2. Two high precision measurements in the kinematic range $`1.5<Q^2<120\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ (labeled ‘H1 99’  and ‘H1 97’ ) are based on the rapidity gap method. With respect to previous H1 data , a factor of typically 5 more data were analysed and the kinematic range was extended significantly to lower $`Q^2`$ and $`\beta `$. Another new measurement using a forward proton spectrometer covers $`2.5<Q^2<20\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ (‘H1 99-00 FPS’, ). Good agreement between the different data sets and measurement techniques is observed.

The ZEUS collaboration has presented new data  on $`F_2^{D(3)}`$ for $`2.2<Q^2<80\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, shown in Fig. 3. Diffractive events are selected by reconstructing a low value of $`M_X`$ in the detector. The data correspond to a factor 2 increase in integrated luminosity with respect to previous results . ZEUS has also measured (Fig. 4, ) the diffractive cross section in the transition region $`0.03<Q^2<0.6\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ between DIS and quasi-real photon-proton interactions ($`Q^20`$). Also shown in Fig. 4 is a fit based on a dipole model  in which the photon fluctuates into $`q\overline{q}`$ and $`q\overline{q}g`$ states.

### 3.2 $`t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ep}`$ Dependences

Both collaborations have measured the $`t`$ dependence of the cross section using their forward proton spectrometers. In the measured range $`0.45\stackrel{<}{_{}}t<|t|_{min}`$, an exponential dependence $`\frac{d\sigma }{dt}e^{bt}`$ is observed and the slope parameter $`b`$ is determined for different values of $`x_{IP}`$ (Fig. 5). Models based on Regge phenomenology predict an increasing steepness of the $`t`$ dependence with energy (shrinkage): $`b=b_0+2\alpha ^{}\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{x_{IP}}`$. As can be seen in Fig. 5, the data at low $`x_{IP}`$ are so far inconclusive.

ZEUS has studied  the cross section dependence on the azimuthal angle $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ep}`$ between the electron and proton scattering planes, which is sensitive to the longitudinal cross section $`\sigma _L^D`$ via the interference between transverse and longitudinal photon induced contributions, which introduces an asymmetry in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ep}`$. The measured asymmetries are small and, within the present statistical uncertainties, compatible with zero.

### 3.3 $`x_{IP}`$ Dependence

By making fits to the $`x_{IP}`$ dependence of the diffractive DIS data using Eqs. 4,5, values for the effective pomeron intercept $`\alpha _{IP}(0)`$ are determined. Results for measurements at different $`Q^2`$ are shown in Fig. 6 and compared with the soft pomeron value of 1.08 as well as with a parameterisation based on inclusive DIS data, obtained from fits of the form $`F_2(x,Q^2)cx^{\lambda (Q^2)}`$ where $`\lambda =\alpha _{IP}(0)1`$. The diffractive data suggest an increase of $`\alpha _{IP}(0)`$ with $`Q^2`$ and are significantly higher than the soft pomeron value for $`Q^2\stackrel{>}{_{}}10\mathrm{GeV}`$. However, the naive expectation that the diffractive cross section grows twice as fast with energy as the inclusive one, corresponding to $`\alpha _{IP}^{dif.}(0)=\alpha _{IP}^{incl.}(0)`$, is hard to reconcile with the present data at high $`Q^2`$.

### 3.4 Ratio of Diffractive to Inclusive Cross Section

H1 has studied  the logarithmic $`Q^2`$ dependence of the ratio of the diffractive to the inclusive DIS reduced cross sections, presented as the quantity $`f_{IP}(x_{IP})^1\mathrm{d}/\mathrm{dln}Q^2(\sigma _r^D/\sigma _r)`$ in Fig. 7 for different $`\beta `$ and $`x_{IP}`$ values. Taking out the factorising $`x_{IP}`$ dependence, the same behaviour is observed at different $`x_{IP}`$: At low $`\beta `$, the logarithmic $`Q^2`$ dependences of $`\sigma _r^D`$ and $`\sigma _r`$ are very similar, indicating that the ratio of the diffractive to the total proton gluon density is approximately constant in this region. By contrast, at the highest $`\beta \stackrel{>}{_{}}0.5`$, the logarithmic $`Q^2`$ derivative becomes negative, suggestive of the presence of $`Q^2`$-suppressed higher twist contributions to $`\sigma _r^D`$ for $`\beta 1`$. However, this behaviour can also be explained by DGLAP evolution due to the the kinematic limit $`x=x_{IP}`$ ($`\beta =1`$) for gluon radiation in the case of $`\sigma _r^D`$.

## 4 $`\beta `$ AND $`Q^2`$ DEPENDENCES OF $`\sigma _r^D`$ AND NLO QCD FIT TO H1 DATA

H1 has presented  a new NLO DGLAP QCD fit to the diffractive reduced cross section data, from which diffractive parton densities are determined. The shape of the dpdf’s is assumed to be independent of $`x_{IP}`$ (Regge factorization), in agreement with the data, as can be seen in Figs. 8 and 9. The precisely measured $`\beta `$ and $`Q^2`$ dependences of the data are compared with the fit result, dividing out the $`x_{IP}`$ dependence, parameterised as stated in Eq. 5.

The diffractive exchange is parameterised by a light flavour singlet and a gluon distribution at a starting scale $`Q_0^2=3\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ and evolved to higher $`Q^2`$ using the standard NLO DGLAP equations. For the first time in diffraction, the experimental and model uncertainties are propagated to obtain error bands for the dpdf’s.

The result of the fit is presented in Fig. 10. The diffractive pdf’s remain large up to large fractional momenta $`z`$ (or $`\beta `$) and are dominated by the gluon distribution. In total $`75\%`$ of the exchange momentum is carried by gluons at $`Q^2=10\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. To test factorization, the dpdf’s can be used for updated comparisons with diffractive final state data from HERA and the TEVATRON .

## 5 CONCLUSIONS

Several new high precision data sets of inclusive diffractive DIS have recently become available. In the case of the rapidity gap method, the data are now systematically limited at low $`Q^2`$. These data are very useful to constrain the free parameters of QCD motivated models (e.g. dipole models) for diffractive DIS and to distinguish between different approaches. In particular, they have been used for the determination of a new generation of diffractive parton distributions – including their uncertainties – in the framework of NLO QCD, enabling tests of QCD factorization as applied to diffraction by comparisons with final state cross sections.

### Acknowledgements

I thank my colleagues from H1 and ZEUS for their work reflected in this contribution.


text:
# Quantum and thermal fluctuations in the SU(N) Heisenberg spin-glass model near the quantum critical point

\[

## Abstract

We solve for the SU(N) Heisenberg spin-glass in the limit of large N focusing on small $`S`$ and $`T`$. We study the effect of quantum and thermal fluctuations in the frequency dependent response function and observed interesting transfers of spectral weight. We compute the $`T`$dependence of the order parameter and the specific heat and find an unusual $`T^2`$ behavior for the latter at low temperatures in the spin-glass phase. We find a remarkable qualitative agreement with various experiments on the quantum frustrated magnet SrCr9pGa12-9pO19.

\]

Disordered quantum magnets are fascinating systems. The understanding of the interplay between disorder, quantum and thermal fluctuations remains among the most challenging problems of condensed matter physics . These three aspects are always present to some extent in experiments on real systems, therefore a clear understanding of their interplay is very desirable. In systems where disorder is relevant we usually encounter the phenomenology of slow dynamics that is associated with glassy states. When quantum fluctuations become important the phases with glassy orders can be driven to more conventional phases through interesting quantum phase transitions. One example that is capturing the interest of experimentalist and theorist alike is LiHoxY1-xF4 which is a dipolar coupled random magnet  and has been recently the focus of beautiful experiments  where quantum fluctuations are introduced and controlled by means of a transverse magnetic field. An other example, and perhaps the archetype of frustrated quantum magnets, is the bi-layer Kagomé lattice SrCr9pGa12-9pO19 (SCGO) that only becomes a spin-glass at the low temperature of about 5K. This compound has been thoroughly investigated over the years  and, in sharp contrast to ordinary classical spin-glass system, exhibits some unusual remarkable features that are associated with strong quantum fluctuations: The magnetic fluctuation spectrum, $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$, is found to vanish lineraly in $`\omega `$ at low frequencies  and the specific heat is proportional to $`T^2`$ . On the theoretical side, these observations have remained largely unaccounted for.

The progress in the understanding models of disordered quantum magnets in finite dimensions is rather slow. In fact, a great deal of our knowledge still relies on solutions of systems with long-ranged interactions. These mean-field models are appealing because they are mathematically more tractable while retaining much of the physics associated with slow dynamics. It is worth pointing out that in many actual systems, such as LiHoxY1-xF4 that is an insulator, the magnetic interactions do have power-law decay, thus each individual spin interacts with others well beyond their nearest neighbours.

Among the simplest mean field models for quantum spin-glasses, the quantum version of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model received a great deal of attention. It is a Heisenberg model with gaussianly distributed random interactions between all pair of spins in the lattice. The model was first considered by Bray and Moore  and they predicted a spin-glass phase at low temperature, substantially reduced from the usual (Ising) version of the SK model. Further progress was prevented because replica symmetry broken solutions were expected at low $`T`$. Later, Sachdev and Ye introduced a generalization of the model to SU(N) spins which could be studied in the large N limit . They found a very interesting spin liquid phase down to $`T=0`$. In more recent work on this model, a generalized phase diagram as a function of $`T`$ and $`S`$ was obtained using a bosonic representation . The spin quantum number $`S`$ can be thought of a parameter that controls the strength of the quantum fluctuations. For S$`\mathrm{}`$ one goes to the “classical” limit while for small $`S`$ the quantum fluctuations are strongest. A low temperature spin-glass phase was found for all non zero $`S`$ and T$`{}_{g}{}^{}S^2`$ at large S. Remarkably, the spin-liquid phase was also found at very low spin S . Therefore, quantum fluctuations can drive the model through an interesting quantum critical point between a spin-liquid state at S$``$0 and a quantum spin-glass for finite S.

Recent numerical studies based on quantum Monte Carlo  and exact diagonalization  techniques for the SU(2) model have validated some aspects of previous investigations.

The goal of the present work is to focus on the different roles played by quantum and thermal fluctuations in the SU(N) SK model within the quantum critical regime. We obtain the detailed behavior of the dynamical spin susceptibility for small $`S`$ and $`T`$, both in the paramagnetic (PM) and spin-glass (SG) phases. We find interesting transfers of spectral weights in the magnetic response. We also find that the spin-glass order parameter has a simple temperature behavior at small $`S`$ and obtain the correct specific heat at low temperatures. In addition, we discuss the remarkable qualitative agreement that we find between our model solutions and the experimental results in the SCGO compound that we mentioned above.

The model Hamiltonian is

$$H=\frac{1}{\sqrt{𝒩N}}\underset{i<j}{}J_{ij}\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{S}_j,$$
(1)
where the magnetic exchange couplings $`J_{ij}`$ are independent, quenched random variables distributed according to a Gaussian distribution where $`J`$ is the variance and the unit of energy. As already pointed out by Bray and Moore , one uses the replica trick to average over the disorder  and the lattice infinite-range model maps exactly onto a self-consistent single site model with the action (in imaginary time $`\tau `$, with $`\beta `$ the inverse temperature) :

$$S_{eff}=S_B\frac{J^2}{2N}_0^\beta 𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}Q^{ab}(\tau \tau ^{})\stackrel{}{S}^a(\tau )\stackrel{}{S}^b(\tau ^{})$$
(2)
and the self-consistency condition

$$Q^{ab}(\tau \tau ^{})=\frac{1}{N^2}<\stackrel{}{S}^a(\tau )\stackrel{}{S}^b(\tau ^{})>_{S_{eff}}$$
(3)
where $`a,b=1,\mathrm{},n`$ denote the replica indices (the limit $`n0`$ has to be taken later) and $`S_B`$ is the Berry phase of the spin . Due to the time-dependence, the solution of these mean-field equations remains a very difficult problem for $`N=2`$, even in the paramagnetic phase .

We shall use the bosonic representation  for the spin operators where $`S`$ is represented with Schwinger bosons $`b`$ by $`S_{\alpha \beta }=b_\alpha ^{}b_\beta S\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$, with the constraint $`_\alpha b_\alpha ^{}b_\alpha =SN`$ ($`0S`$). In the language of Young tableaux, these representations are described by one line of length $`SN`$. They are a natural generalization of an $`SU(2)`$ spin of size $`S`$.

In the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit, the mean field self-consistent model (2-3) reduces to an integral equation for the Green’s function of the boson $`G_b^{ab}(\tau )\overline{<Tb^a(\tau )b^b(0)>}`$ where the bar denotes the average over disorder and the brackets the thermal average  :

$$(G_b^1)^{ab}(i\nu _n)=i\nu _n\delta _{ab}+\lambda ^a\delta _{ab}\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^{ab}(i\nu _n)$$
(4)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^{ab}(\tau )=J^2\left(G_b^{ab}(\tau )\right)^2G_b^{ab}(\tau )$$
(5)
$$G_b^{aa}(\tau =0^{})=S$$
(6)
The local  spin susceptibility $`\chi _{loc}(\tau )=<S(\tau )S(0)>`$ is given in the large N limit by $`\chi _{loc}(\tau )=G_b^{aa}(\tau )G_b^{aa}(\tau )`$

In the spin glass phase it is enough to perform a one step symmetry broken solution . Equations (4-6) were solved self-consistently on the Matsubara axis. To obtain the imaginary part of the $`\omega `$-dependent dynamical response $`\chi _{loc}^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$, the solutions were analytically continued to the real axis using a method based on Padé approximants . The general form of the spin susceptibility can written as $`\chi _{loc}^{\prime \prime }(\omega )=\mathrm{q}_{\mathrm{EA}}\delta (\omega )+\chi _{reg}^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ where $`\mathrm{q}_{\mathrm{EA}}`$ is the spin glass order parameter.

In Fig. 1 we show results for $`\chi _{reg}^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ at low T=0.04 and several values of $`S`$ across the PM-SG boundary. At this $`T`$, the critical $`S`$ is found at $`S`$0.28. We observe a qualitative change in the regular part of the response as $`S`$ is increased. At low $`S`$, in the PM phase, the susceptibility shows the finite temperature spin liquid behavior, obeying $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )tanh(\omega /2T)`$ for $`\omega `$ small. On the other hand, as $`S`$ increases and the system goes into the SG phase and $`\chi _{reg}^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ opens a pseudogap. The thermal excitations become gradually less important and a linear in $`\omega `$ behavior shows up clearly. In fact, we find that the low frequency behavior is proportional to $`\omega /S`$ (inset). This is consistent with the large $`S`$ solution obtained in .

We now turn to the role of thermal fluctuations for fixed $`S=1/2`$ that enables comparisons to numerical results obtained in the SU(2) model . The freezing temperature is found at $`T_g`$0.133 in good agreement with all previous estimates . We start at low $`T=0.05`$ well in the spin-glass phase. In Fig. 2 we show the susceptibility with clean pseudogap $`\omega `$ behavior at low $`\omega `$ (the $`\delta (\omega )`$ is not shown for clarity). As $`T`$ is increased, one observes that excitations gradually fill the pseudogap with a narrow low frequency feature that peaks at $`\omega 𝒪(T)`$. These excitations come from the gradual melting of the frozen spins, i.e., from the $`\delta `$-function part. Another interesting effect that one observes is that spectral weight from high frequencies of order $`J`$ is transferred down to the pseudogap. The interpretation of this is that when spins are frozen in the spin glass state, they still have a fast motion of precession around the axis of their local frozen field. That motion originates a contribution to the susceptibility at $`\omega 𝒪(J)`$ with a strength proportional to the frozen fraction, i.e., to the order parameter qEA. As $`T`$ increases, the spins (and thus their local field) melt, so the contribution from the motion of precession gradually decreases and merges with the excitations of order $`T`$ that now fill the pseudogap. We may point out that this behavior is qualitatively similar to the results obtained from exact diagonalization of small SU(2) clusters .

As $`T`$ is further increased one enters the PM phase and the melted peak fully merges with the higher frequency part of $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ and there is no more a clear separation of energy scales. In this quantum disordered regime the low frequency behaviour of $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ is $`tanh(\omega /2T)`$ as in the spin-liquid state .

Thus we have seen that the regular part of the response begins at low $`T`$ in the SG phase with a clean and linear in $`\omega `$ pseudo-gap, then above $`T_g`$ the gap becomes thermally filled down to very low frequencies, and finally when $`T`$ is well above $`T_g`$ the pseudo-gap clears up again displaying once more a linear in $`\omega `$ behavior. We find remarkable that this unusual evolution is qualitatively identical to that reported from neutron experiments in SCGO (cf. Fig.3 of Ref.). Moreover, the neutrons have also revealed that the spatial correlations are extremely short ($`2.5\AA `$) which may render additional justification to the relevance of the present mean-field theory results.

In order to better appreciate the evolution of the transfers of spectral weight at low frequencies and for small $`T`$, it is useful to consider the spectral density, defined by $`\rho (\omega )=\chi _{loc}^{\prime \prime }(\omega )/(e^{\beta \omega }1)`$ that obeys the sum-rule $`\rho _{reg}(\omega )𝑑\omega +q_{EA}=S(S+1)`$. The spectral density at different temperatures is shown in Fig. 3 where the intensity of the delta function part is denoted by the height of the arrow (see inset) and can be thought as the fraction of frozen spins. In the main panel we show the regular part of the spectral density that has a broad background contribution that remains almost temperature independent. Most of the $`T`$dependence occurs at the low frequencies where a rather narrow peak is present. At the higher temperature, in the PM phase there is no delta function contribution, however the large peak at small $`\omega `$ indicates that a portion of the degrees of freedom actually got slowed down (left panel of inset). As $`T`$ is lowered, the system enters the SG phase and the peak becomes narrower and losses weight. A $`\delta `$-function contribution thus emerges as some of the slow spins become frozen (central panel of inset). When $`T`$ is further lowered towards $`T=0`$ we observe how the resonance losses all its weight that gets transferred to the $`\delta `$ part (right panel of inset). The strong quantum fluctuations are responsible for the large remanent background spectral density that corresponds to a large fraction of spins remaining disordered.

The results for the spin-glass order parameter q$`{}_{EA}{}^{}(T)`$ are shown in the inset of Fig. 4. The behavior at moderate and large values of $`S`$ was previously investigated in Ref.. We focus here in the small $`S`$ and $`T`$ regime and find that the order parameters obeys the simple form

$$q_{EA}(T)=q_{EA}(T=0)\alpha T^2$$
(7)
with $`\alpha `$ a constant, which is similar to the solution of the SK model. We also find that the value of $`q_{EA}`$ at $`T=0`$ and its jump at $`T_g`$(S) are strongly reduced by quantum fluctuations when $`S0`$. In fact, the later vanishes faster than $`S^3`$ in contrast to the quadratic dependence at large $`S`$ . It is interesting to note the good agreement between $`q_{EA}(T=0)0.20`$ for $`S=1/2`$ with the corresponding estimate q$`{}_{EA}{}^{}(T=0)0.18`$ obtained in an exact diagonalization study of the SU(2) model . Possibly more significant is to mention that a frozen moment of only 20$`\%`$ of the total possible elastic value was observed in neutron scattering on SCG0 .

Finally we turn to the specific heat $`C_v`$. In earlier work , it was argued that the specific heat is linear in $`T`$ at low temperatures within the SG phase. We calculated the specific heat in the whole range of $`S`$ values, with particular care in the small $`S`$ regime. In contrast to previous results, we find that the behavior within the SG phase at low $`T`$ has the form $`C_v(T)T^2`$ as is shown in Fig. 4. This result can be justified by the following argument: The energy of the system is given by,

$$E(T)=\frac{J^2}{2}_0^\beta 𝑑\tau Q^{ab}(\tau )Q^{ab}(\tau ).$$
(8)
Writting this expression in the SG phase in terms of the one-step replica symmetry broken solution  and inserting the functional form of the order parameter (7), one finds that the lowest order terms in the $`T`$expansion of $`E(T)`$ are proportional to $`T^1`$, $`T^1`$ and $`T^3`$. It is not hard to check that the coefficient of the divergent $`T^1`$ term exactly cancels. On the other hand, the linear term should also vanish as otherwise the groundstate would have extensive remanent entropy. Therefore, one may expect that the first non vanishing contribution to the energy at low $`T`$ is proportional to $`T^3`$, which implies a quadratic behavior for $`C_v(T)`$ as is in fact borne out of our calculations. While ordinary spin-glasses usually show a linear in $`T`$ specific heat, we find remarkable that the unusual $`T^2`$ behavior that we obtain was indeed observed among the early investigations of the spin-glass state of the SCGO compound  that pointed to the important role that quantum fluctuations might play in that compound.

To conclude, we have solved for the behavior of the Heisenberg SU(N) spin-glass in the limit of large N and investigated in detail the parameter region of small $`S`$ and $`T`$ close to the quantum critical point of the model. We observed the qualitatively different role played by quantum and thermal fluctuations through their effect on the transfers of spectral weight in the dynamical response functions. We obtained the functional form of the order parameter and present an argument to support the finding of an unusual quadratic behavior of the specific heat at low temperature within the spin glass phase. We find a very interesting qualitative agreement with various experimental findings in the SCGO compound one of the most thoroughly investigated quantum spin-glass system. Extensions of our work to incorporate a more realistic geometric structure might be interesting routes for future research.

We acknowledge support of Fundación Antorchas, CONICET (PID $`N^o4547/96`$), ANPCYT (PMT-PICT1855) and ECOS-SeCyT. MJR acknowledges also the hospitality at the KITP of the UCSB where part of this work was completed.