text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Typical applications of QCD perturbation theory involve processes with two mass scales, the momentum transfer $`Q`$ and the scale of strong interactions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ with $`Q^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2`$. Within this large family of hard processes a particular class is of great theoretical and phenomenological importance. These are the quasi-elastic processes, characterized by a third scale $`M^2`$, the invariant mass of the final states, with $`Q^2M^2`$. Here perturbation theory can be used to study the transition from short-distance dynamics ($`M^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2`$) to long-distance dynamics as the elastic limit is approached ($`M^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2`$). Deeply inelastic scattering (DIS) structure functions at large Bjorken-$`x`$, Drell-Yan production near the partonic threshold and thrust in $`e^+`$-$`e^{}`$ annihilation near the two-jet limit are all characteristic examples of quasi-elastic processes. In this paper we focus on the large-$`x`$ DIS structure functions for definiteness, but we expect our discussion to be generalizable to all quasi-elastic processes.

Near the elastic phase-space region $`x1`$ of DIS the coefficient functions receive corrections in $`1x`$. For $`F_2`$ the leading power in $`x`$ corrections are terms of the form $`\alpha _s^n[\mathrm{ln}^m(1x)/(1x)]_+`$, with $`m2n1`$. The formalism of resumming this class of corrections has been developed in Refs.  and recently reviewed in Ref. . A key step is the factorization of the perturbation theory diagrams at large $`x`$ in terms of a hard amplitude, a universal soft function, and a jet function. We call this factorization ”light-cone expansion”, distinct from the Wilson operator product expansion. The soft function and the jet functions contain singular pieces like $`\mathrm{ln}^k(1x)/(1x)_+`$ and $`1/(1x)_+`$ respectively, which are resummed. All these corrections correspond to $`𝒪(\alpha _s^n\mathrm{ln}^kN)`$ terms in moment space.

The question we consider here is whether a formalism beyond the light-cone expansion can be constructed to resum terms that do not correspond to power singularities in $`x`$ and are still leading power in $`Q`$. A class of such terms are the simple logarithmic corrections of order $`\alpha _s^n\mathrm{ln}^m(1x)`$, which in moment space generate $`𝒪(\alpha _s^n\mathrm{ln}^kN/N)`$ power suppressed contributions. The cleanest context where such corrections are encountered is in the longitudinal structure function $`F_L`$. $`F_L`$, as distinct from $`F_2`$, does not contain any singular distributions in $`x`$. Its leading power in $`x`$ corrections are all logarithmic and they start at order $`\alpha _s^2`$. A phenomenological motivation for studying the resummation of $`F_L`$ near the elastic limit comes from considering the ratio $`R`$ of the longitudinal and the transverse cross sections :

$$R=\frac{\sigma _L}{\sigma _T}=\frac{F_L}{(1+\frac{4M^2x^2}{Q^2})F_2F_L},$$
(1)
where $`F_i`$, $`i=2,L`$ denote the structure functions, $`M`$ is the target mass and $`x=q^2/(2pq)`$. The longitudinal structure function $`F_L`$ vanishes due to helicity conservation in the naive parton model and thus $`R`$ provides us with a clean test of perturbative QCD. There already exist some experimental data  on this quantity and more is expected in the near future. Leading $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ and next to leading $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ perturbative corrections to $`F_L`$ have been calculated - including the target mass corrections. Comparison with the data indicates that the theoretical predictions lie systematically below the experimental points, especially in the large $`x`$ region. This may be indicative of rather large higher twist corrections . In order to shed more light on this issue it is worth studying the effects of resummation at the leading twist level.

The resummability of quasi-elastic corrections that do not correspond to singular distributions was considered in Ref. . There it was argued that final state power suppressed corrections of order $`\alpha _s^n(1x)^p\mathrm{ln}^k(1x)`$, with $`p0`$, can be identified and resummed through an expansion of the final state interactions in terms of higher dimensional bilocal operators. The expectation values of these operators define classes of new jet functions that generalize the jet function of the light-cone expansion. In this new expansion operators of different dimensionality all contribute to the leading power in $`Q`$ (leading twist) after integration over the final state phase-space. However, higher dimensional operators produce terms suppressed by higher powers of $`1x`$ near the elastic limit $`x1`$. In Ref.  rules were given for identifying independent sets of these higher dimensional operators. Once they are constructed, their anomalous dimensions can be used to resum the power suppressed logarithmic corrections, just like in the case of the light cone expansion.

Within the context of the above formal construction, in this work we consider the longitudinal structure function in the elastic limit as a specific example of a quasi-elastic process. We shall show that by analyzing the perturbative diagrams in the appropriate infrared limits we, indeed, obtain the operator expansion suggested in Ref. . We accomplish this not by dimensional arguments but through a diagrammatic analysis by explicitly considering the subleading terms in the eikonal approximation for the final state. The result is a factorization formula for $`F_L`$ that is used to resum in moment space all the $`𝒪(\mathrm{ln}^kN/N)`$ corrections. We find it remarkable that such power suppressed corrections can be treated systematically using the standard methods for analyzing the infared region of perturbation theory. Simple logarithms of $`1x`$ come from the pinch singular surfaces of Feynman diagrams. This observation, we believe has not been considered in the literature so far.

The general ideas for resumming terms of order $`\mathrm{ln}^kN/N`$ in moment space can be extended to other structure functions and to other inclusive processes near the elastic limit. For example, it has been noticed  in the context of Higgs production that such corrections can be phenomenologically important. They may also be of relevance in renormalon phenomenology . Thus, the analysis of the resummation of the $`𝒪(\mathrm{ln}^kN/N)`$ corrections is easiest done for the case of the longitudinal structure function, but as discussed, the applications go well beyond that to phenomenologically more interesting situations which we hope to address in the future.

The structure of this paper is as follows. In section 2 we set notations and review known fixed order results. In section 3 we briefly summarize the light-cone expansion for $`F_2`$, which is used as a basis for what follows. Then we go on to show how the new jet function, characteristic of $`F_L`$, arises from the infrared singularities of Feynman diagrams, thus explicitly constructing the relevant jet operator of Ref. . Here we also study the renormalization group properties of the functions entering the $`F_L`$ factorization formula. In section 4 we present an explicit one-loop calculation of the anomalous dimension of the new jet function, which is subsequently used in the $`F_L`$ resummation formula. The resummed coefficient functions are found in agreement with the fixed order results. We summarize our conclusions in the final section. Certain useful formulae are listed in the Appendix.

## 2 Notations and known results

We consider the DIS structure functions $`F_2,F_L`$ of a massless quark of electric charge $`Q_f=1`$ and with collinear divergences dimensionally regularized in $`D=42ϵ`$ dimensions. Their perturbative expansion is

$$F_\mathrm{r}(x,Q^2,ϵ)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\right)^nF_\mathrm{r}^{(n)}(x,Q^2,ϵ),\mathrm{r}=2,L.$$
(1)
The DIS quark tensor for an electromagnetic probe is defined as

$$W_{\mu \nu }(p,q)=\frac{1}{4\pi }d^Dy\mathrm{e}^{iqy}p|j_\mu ^{}(0)j_\nu (y)|p=\frac{1}{4\pi }𝑑PS_n_R^{}_L,$$
(2)
where $`PS_n`$ is the Lorenz invariant phase space for $`n`$ particles in the final state and $`_{L,R}`$ are the left and right production amplitudes. Structure functions are obtained via the projections $`F_\mathrm{r}=P_\mathrm{r}^{\mu \nu }W_{\mu \nu }`$, for $`\mathrm{r}=2,L`$, given at $`D=4`$ by

$$P_L^{\mu \nu }=\frac{8x^2}{Q^2}p^\mu p^\nu ,P_2^{\mu \nu }=\eta ^{\mu \nu }+\frac{3}{2}P_L^{\mu \nu }.$$
(3)
The normalization in Eq. (2) is chosen so that $`F_2^{(0)}=\delta (1x)`$.

The light cone is defined by the two dimensionless vectors $`v^\mu `$ and $`\overline{v}^\mu `$ normalized as $`v\overline{v}=1`$ and we fix the $`v^\mu `$ (+) direction to be parallel to the incoming quark momentum $`p`$. Then the $`\overline{v}^\mu `$ ($``$) direction is set by the vector $`\overline{q}=xp+q`$. We denote by $`p_f`$ the total final state momentum, $`p_f=p+q`$. The light cone (Sudakov) decomposition of the external momenta is

$$p^\mu =\frac{Q}{\sqrt{2}}v^\mu ,p_f=(1x)\frac{Q}{\sqrt{2}}v^\mu +\frac{Q}{\sqrt{2}x}\overline{v}^\mu ,\overline{q}=\frac{Q}{\sqrt{2}x}\overline{v}^\mu ,$$
(4)
and for every momentum vector $`k^\mu `$

$$k^\mu =(\overline{v}k)v^\mu +(vk)\overline{v}^\mu +k_{}^\mu ,d^Dk=d(\overline{v}k)d(vk)d^{D2}k_{}.$$
(5)
The two massless particle phase space in this basis and for azimuthically symmetric integrands becomes

$$𝑑PS_2(k_1,k_2)=\frac{1}{8\pi }\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)}\left(\frac{4\pi x}{(1x)Q^2}\right)^ϵ_0^1𝑑\beta _2\beta _2^ϵ(1\beta _2)^ϵ,$$
(6)
with the Sudakov variable $`\beta _2`$ defined as $`\beta _2=(vk_2)/(v\overline{q})`$. The three massless particle phase space in terms of Sudakov variables is given in the appendix.

At high momentum transfer, $`Q^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2`$, and fixed $`x`$ all structure functions satisfy the Wilson operator product expansion. At leading twist this can be conveniently written as a factorization theorem in terms of the convolution symbol

$$(hf)(x)=_0^1𝑑x_1_0^1𝑑x_2\delta (xx_1x_2)h(x_1)f(x_2).$$
(7)
Specifically for $`F_L`$ we have

$$F_L(x,Q^2,ϵ)=\overline{C}_L(x,Q^2/\mu ^2,\alpha _s(\mu ^2))f(x,ϵ,\alpha _s(\mu ^2))+𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2/Q^2),$$
(8)
with $`\mu `$ the factorization scale and $`f`$ the quark distribution function of the quark target. The coefficient functions are determined given a factorization scheme, which will be the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme for this paper. The coefficient function $`\overline{C}_L`$ has been calculated to $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ and the results are

$$\overline{C}_L^{(1)}(x,Q^2/\mu ^2)=C_Fx,$$
(9)
$$\overline{C}_L^{(2)}(x,Q^2/\mu ^2)=\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(P_{qq}^{(1)}\overline{C}_L^{(1)}\right)(x)\frac{1}{4}\beta _1\overline{C}_L^{(1)}(x)\right]\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}+\overline{C}_L^{(2)}(x,1),$$
(10)
with the well known functions

$$P_{qq}^{(1)}=C_F\frac{1+x^2}{(1x)_+}+C_F\frac{3}{2}\delta (1x),\beta _1=\frac{11}{3}C_A\frac{2}{3}N_f,$$
(11)
and

$`\overline{C}_L^{(2)}(x,1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_F^2\mathrm{ln}^2(1x)+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}2\zeta (2)\right]C_F^2\mathrm{ln}(1x)`$ (12)
$`+\left[(\zeta (2)1)C_FC_A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\beta _1C_F\right]\mathrm{ln}(1x)+\mathrm{reg}.`$
In the above expression only terms that are singular in the $`x1`$ limit have been retained. It is these logarithms of $`1x`$ that are the focus of the present study.

## 3 The factorization formula for $`F_L`$

We shall show that $`F_L`$ satisfies a novel factorization formula in the $`x1`$ limit which can be used to sum the singular $`\mathrm{ln}^k(1x)`$ contributions in the coefficient function, (see Eq. (12)). This factorization formula involves a new jet function that contains these leading corrections to $`F_L`$ in the large $`x`$ limit, which in moment space are of $`𝒪(\mathrm{ln}^kN/N)`$, $`N`$ being the moment variable. Such contributions are also present in $`F_2`$, although they are subleading to the ones that are of $`𝒪(\mathrm{ln}^kN)`$ in moment space.

### 3.1 The new jet function

Before presenting the factorization formula for $`F_L`$ in the $`x1`$ limit it is worth reviewing the light-cone expansion for $`F_2`$, since the latter will serve as a prototype for the former. The leading power in $`x`$ factorization of $`F_2`$ can be cast in the following form

$`F_2(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`|H_2(Q^2)|^2{\displaystyle _x^1}𝑑x^{}{\displaystyle _0^{x^{}x}}𝑑wJ\left((x^{}xw)Q^2\right)V(w)\varphi (x^{})`$ (1)
$``$ $`|H_2(Q^2)|^2JV\varphi .`$
$`H_2(Q^2)`$ is the hard scattering function on either side of the final state cut. $`|H_2(Q^2)|^2`$ is by construction UV dominated, i.e. all its internal lines are far from their mass shell. $`V`$ is the universal soft radiation function defined as

$`V(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑y^{}\mathrm{e}^{iwy^{}p\overline{v}}0|\mathrm{\Phi }_v^{}(0,\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{v}}(0,y^{}\overline{v})\mathrm{\Phi }_v(y^{}\overline{v},\mathrm{})|0}`$ (2)
$``$ $`\mathrm{FT}_{wp}^{(1)}0|\mathrm{\Phi }_v^{}(0,\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{v}}(0,y^{}\overline{v})\mathrm{\Phi }_v(y^{}\overline{v},\mathrm{})|0.`$
$`\mathrm{FT}_{wp}^{(1)}`$ stands for the Fourier transformation along the light-cone direction $`v`$. The Wilson line operator starting in the far light-cone past and defined along the direction $`v^\mu `$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_v(x+tv,\mathrm{})=P\mathrm{exp}\left(ig_s_{\mathrm{}}^t𝑑sv^\mu A_\mu (x+sv)\right).$$
(3)
Its perturbative expansion generates the Feynman rules for the eikonal approximation. $`\varphi `$ is the light-cone parton distribution function. Its operator definition, for the scattering of quarks, is

$$\varphi (x^{})=\mathrm{FT}_{x^{}p}^{(1)}p|\psi (0)\overline{)\overline{v}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{v}}(0,y^{})\overline{\psi }(y)|pV^1,$$
(4)
This distribution function is not identical to $`f`$ used in Eq. (8), but they both share the feature that the only singularities they contain come from collinear propagation along the initial ($`v`$) light cone direction. The role of $`V^1`$ in Eq. (4) is to remove soft contributions, which would otherwise be double-counted in both $`\varphi `$ and $`V`$.

Finally, $`J`$ is the current jet function that describes the stream of almost collinear particles with invariant mass $`(x^{}xw)Q^2`$ moving along the $`\overline{v}`$ light-cone direction. $`J`$ is defined as a gauge invariant and soft subtracted fermion propagator

$$J\left((1z)Q^2\right)=\mathrm{FT}_{q+zp}^{(4)}0|\mathrm{\Phi }_v^{}(0,\mathrm{})\psi (0)\overline{\psi }(y)\mathrm{\Phi }_v(y,\mathrm{})|0V^1,$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{FT}_{q+zp}^{(4)}`$ denotes the four-dimensional Fourier transformation with respect to the total jet momentum $`q+zp`$.

We note that the factorization theorem of Eq. (1) is written in terms of UV renormalized effective non-local operators. When one analyzes the contributions to the characteristic functions $`|H_2|^2`$, $`V`$, $`J`$ and $`\varphi `$ coming from classes of graphs of the full theory, it is often the case that the assignment to soft and jet functions of these contributions is gauge dependent with gauge independence occuring only for their convolution, i.e. the final result. Here, however, the characteristic functions are defined in terms of gauge invariant operators, thus we can classify singularities and enhancements as soft or collinear in an unambiguous way. The cost for this is the need to perform infrared subtractions, as denoted for instance by the denominator $`V`$ in Eq. (5) for the jet function.

In Ref.  it was argued that $`F_L`$ satisfies the following factorization formula:

$$F_L(x,Q^2,ϵ)=|H_L(Q^2)|^2J^{}V\varphi .$$
(6)
The factors $`V`$ and $`\varphi `$ are the same as in the $`F_2`$ case, see Eqs. (2), (4). The new jet function $`J^{}`$, is defined as the expectation value of a bi-local operator that probes the transverse momentum of the outgoing struck quark. Explicitly,

$$J^{}((1z)Q^2)=\left(\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{8x^2}{Q^2}\right)\mathrm{FT}_{q+zp}^{(4)}0|\mathrm{\Phi }_v^{}(0,\mathrm{})/D_{}\psi (0)/D_{}\overline{\psi }(y)\mathrm{\Phi }_v(y,\mathrm{})|0V^1.$$
(7)
The conventional normalization factors of Eqs. (2), (3) have been included in this definition. The operator defining $`J^{}`$ is the only gauge invariant bi-local operator that is non-vanishing by the massless quark equations of motion or the $`F_L`$ projection of Eq. (3), and although it is of higher dimension than the corresponding one that defines $`J`$, Eq. (5), it contributes to leading twist. All the terms that it generates are of order $`(1x)^0`$, i.e. only logarithms. It is therefore the appropriate operator for resumming the leading logarithmic quasi-elastic corrections in $`F_L`$. In Ref.  the new jet operator was identified by requiring it satisfied all the above properties. In the next subsection we show that it actually comes out naturally from the infrared properties of the Feynman diagrams that contribute to $`F_L`$ at leading twist.

The jet function $`J^{}`$ is depicted in fig. 1(a), and the factorization expression for $`F_L`$ is depicted in fig. 1(b). We emphasize that the factor $`V\varphi `$ is common to every DIS observable, and that the only difference between $`F_2`$ and $`F_L`$ at their respective leading power in $`x`$ level is that they are different Lorentz projections of the same tensor $`W_{\mu \nu }(p,q)`$, hence they differ in the jet functions entering their respective factorization formulae.

### 3.2 Operators beyond the eikonal approximation

In order to prove the factorization formula in Eq. (6) in this subsection we follow the constructive approach. We analyze the perturbation theory diagrams and show how the operator in Eq. (7) emerges once one goes beyond the eikonal approximation for $`F_L`$. Infrared singularities and ensuing corrections arise from characterisitc regions in momentum space called pinch surfaces. These are the same for all observables, therefore the classification of internal lines in an $`F_L`$ diagram are the same as in any other observable, i.e. we have collinear, soft and ultraviolet lines. The factorization of the soft lines from the incoming $`v`$-jet is as in $`F_2`$. We, therefore, concentrate on the factorization of $`\overline{v}`$-collinear lines from the initial state $`v`$-jet since this is where the difference between $`F_L`$ and $`F_2`$ lies.

Consider the configuration shown in fig. 2, in which the depicted gluon belongs to the $`\overline{v}`$-jet. Clearly the fermion line carrying momentum $`(pl)`$ is far off-shell and belongs to the hard scattering subdiagram in the notation of reduced diagrams. If, however, we were to factorize the collinear gluon as usual by eikonalizing the fermion propagator then this, in general leading, IR contribution would be projected out in $`F_L`$ because of the contraction with $`p^\mu `$ at the current vertex. Note that also in the case where the gluon is soft, the leading eikonal contribution is similarly projected out. Therefore, we must go beyond the eikonal approximation.

The graph in fig. 2 is proportional to

$$g_s\frac{1}{2pl+l^2}\mathit{}(\mathit{}\mathit{})\gamma ^\lambda g_s\frac{1}{2pl}\mathit{}\mathit{}\gamma ^\lambda =g_s\left(\gamma ^\lambda \frac{v^\lambda }{vl}\mathit{}\right)+g_s\frac{1}{2vl}\mathit{}\gamma ^\lambda \mathit{}.$$
(8)
We define the transverse projector $`\omega _\beta ^\alpha =\delta _\beta ^\alpha `$ and decompose every $`\gamma `$ matrix in light cone components as

$$\gamma ^\lambda =\overline{v}^\lambda \mathit{}+v^\lambda \overline{)\overline{v}}+(\omega \gamma )^\lambda .$$
(9)
We also define the effective vertex

$$O^\lambda (l)=g_s\left((\omega \gamma )^\lambda (l\omega \gamma )\frac{v^\lambda }{vl}\right).$$
(10)
It enjoys the following properties

$$O^\lambda (l)l_\lambda =0,O^\lambda (l)v_\lambda =0,O^\lambda (l)\overline{v}_\lambda =g_s(l\omega \gamma )\frac{1}{vl},O^\lambda (l)O_\lambda (l^{})=2g_s^2,$$
(11)
and

$$O^\lambda (l)\mathrm{}O_\lambda (l^{})=g_s^2(\omega \gamma )^\lambda \mathrm{}(\omega \gamma )_\lambda .$$
(12)
Then the factor in Eq. (8) becomes

$$O^\lambda (l)\frac{1}{2}O^\lambda (l)\overline{)\overline{v}}\mathit{}+g_s\overline{v}^\lambda \mathit{}+g_s\frac{1}{2vl}(l\omega \gamma )(\omega \gamma )^\lambda \mathit{}.$$
(13)
If only one gluon from the $`\overline{v}`$-jet is connected to the hard scattering, as in fig. 2, then only the first term in (13) survives the massless Dirac equation. Recall that the leading spin structure of the $`v`$-jet is $`\mathit{}`$. We observe that the vertex $`O^\lambda (l)`$ is indeed generated by the $`𝒪(g_s)`$ expansion of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_v(0,\mathrm{})/D_{}\psi (0)`$, which is the part of the operator in Eq. (7) that sits to the left of the final state cut.

To show that the operator in Eq. (7) gives the leading fragmentation contributions for $`F_L`$ to all orders we proceed inductively by considering the coupling of two $`\overline{v}`$-jet gluons to the hard scattering, fig. 3. Because the hard scattering subgraph is UV dominated, its Dirac structure is again $`\gamma ^\mu `$ hence for $`F_L`$ the same $`/p`$ factor enters at the current vertex. Then the graph of fig. 2 is proportional to

$`(T_1T_2)\{O^{\lambda _1}(l_1+l_2)[g_s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2pl}}(\mathit{}\mathit{}_2)\gamma ^{\lambda _2}]`$ (14)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\overline{v}p}}\overline{)\overline{v}}O^{\lambda _1}(l_1+l_2)O^{\lambda _2}(l_2)+g_s{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{v}^{\lambda _1}}{\overline{v}p}}O^{\lambda _2}(l_2)`$
$`+g_s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(v(l_1+l_2))(\overline{v}p)}}\left[(l_1+l_2)\omega \gamma \right](\omega \gamma )^{\lambda _1}O^{\lambda _2}(l_2)\}+(12),`$
where terms that will vanish by the massless Dirac equation have been dropped. There is a hierarchy among the terms of the above expression once this factor is imbedded into a cross section diagram. The leading contribution comes from the first term and with its factor in square brackets eikonalized, i.e. from

$`(T_1T_2)O^{\lambda _1}(l_1+l_2)(g_s{\displaystyle \frac{v^{\lambda _2}}{vl_2}})+(12)=`$ (15)
$`g_s^2(T_1T_2)((\omega \gamma )^{\lambda _1}{\displaystyle \frac{v^{\lambda _2}}{vl}}[(l_1+l_2)\omega \gamma ]{\displaystyle \frac{v^{\lambda _1}}{v(l_1+l_2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{v^{\lambda _2}}{vl_2}})+(12).`$
All the other terms in Eq. (14) are suppressed by at least one power of $`(1x)`$ in the cross section, relative to the contribution that has been retained. We observe that Eq. (15) is indeed the vertex in momentum space generated by the $`𝒪(g_s^2)`$ expansion of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_v(0,\mathrm{})/D_{}\psi (0)`$. More specifically, the first term corresponds to the piece that is $`𝒪(g_s)`$ in the Wilson line and $`𝒪(g_s)`$ in the covariant derivative and the second term corresponds to the piece that is $`𝒪(g_s^2)`$ in the Wilson line and $`𝒪(g_s^0)`$ in the covariant derivative.

The above argument can be generalized straightforwardly for an arbitrary number of $`\overline{v}`$-jet gluons attached to the hard scattering to the left of the final state cut. The leading contribution at $`x1`$ is generated by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_v(0,\mathrm{})/D_{}\psi (0)`$. This is how we show constructively, i.e. from analyzing the diagrams, that the new jet function $`J^{}`$, as defined by the operator of Eq. (7), will contain the leading, $`𝒪((1x)^0)`$, terms in the longitudinal cross section. Note that the operator in Eq. (7) contributes at leading twist level. It is also the only operator that generates $`𝒪((1x)^0)`$ contributions from the fragmentation of the final state jet. It can be shown that any other operator with higher number of covariant derivatives than in $`J^{}`$ will genarate contributions of $`𝒪((1x)^k)`$, $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$

Once the jet function $`J^{}`$ is defined in terms of the expectation value of an operator it can be calculated in perturbation theory. However, the momentum integrals that are obtain in this calculation will also contain contributions in which the gluons coupling to the $`\overline{v}`$-jet are soft. It is a well known (and non-trivial) statement that such contributions can be expressed in terms of expectation values of Wilson lines. Such contributions are removed by the denominator in Eq. (7) so that $`J^{}`$ is by definition free from soft contributions. The latter ones will be contained only in the function $`V`$, Eq. (2). In fixed order perturbation theory this amounts to performing IR subtractions from the expressions generated by the numerator in order to obtain a $`J^{}`$ jet function that contains only enhancements from final state fragmentation.

There is also one more subtlety that arises when dealing with the function $`J^{}`$, which is again characteristic of $`F_L`$. The UV renormalization of the effective operator that defines $`J^{}`$ captures enhancements that are due to the near collinear fragmentation of the outgoing jet. These contributions in the full theory (i.e. before factorization) are generated by genuine collinear infrared singularities. Although these singularities cancel upon adding real and virtual contributions in a full calculation, their finite terms remain and these are captured by the factorization theorem. So, collinear enhancements in the full theory are associated with ultraviolet singlularities in the effective jet operator and its ensuing anomalous dimension. In addition to these singularities, though, there are genuine ultraviolet singularities in the full theory that lead to the renormalization of its parameters, i.e. the coupling constant. Such ultraviolet singularies can also be present in the effective operator and these are not related to collinear enhancements but to the renormalization of the coupling constant in the jet function. If one is not careful to subtract these genuine ultraviolet singularities from the renormalization of the operator then one is in danger of double counting them when the renormalization group analysis is performed. In other words, the UV singularities of $`J^{}`$ generate both the collinear enhancements and the renormalization of the effective coupling of the jet. This effect is not seen in low orders in $`F_2`$ because the jet function $`J`$ starts at $`𝒪(\alpha _s^0)`$, whereas in $`F_2`$ it starts at $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$. We shall return to this issue when we construct explicitly the anomalous dimension of $`J^{}`$.

### 3.3 The RG equation for the new jet function and exponentiation

The renormalization group equation for the jet and soft functions as well as the exponentiation of the logarithmic enhancements near the elastic limit are both consequences of the factorization formula. Therefore, we rewrite it here by making explicit the arguments that the participating functions depend on. Call $`\overline{p}`$ the total momentum of the $`\overline{v}`$-jet and $`(1z)`$ the longitudinal momentum fraction in the $`v`$ direction that the jet carries into the final state. From the kinematics, $`xz1`$, and $`\overline{p}^2=(1z)Q^2/x`$ is the small invariant mass of the jet. The jet has been defined with respect to the $`\overline{v}`$ direction hence the large scale on which it depends is $`(\overline{p}v)^2`$. Then the $`F_L`$ factorization formula reads

$`F_L(x,Q^2,ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`\left|H_L({\displaystyle \frac{(p\overline{v})^2}{\mu ^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{p}v)^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2))\right|^2{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{z}}J^{}({\displaystyle \frac{(1z)Q^2}{x\mu ^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{p}v)^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2))`$ (16)
$`\times \left(V\varphi \right)({\displaystyle \frac{zQ^2}{x\mu ^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{((p_f\overline{p})v)^2}{\mu ^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{(p\overline{v})^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ).`$
Recall that $`p_f`$ is the total momentum of the final state and that all functions are renormalized at scale $`\mu ^2`$. The only singularities present are the collinear ones with respect to the initial $`v`$ direction. In moment space the above convolution becomes a simple product:

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_L(N,Q^2,ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`\left|H_L({\displaystyle \frac{(p\overline{v})^2}{\mu ^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{p}v)^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2))\right|^2`$ (17)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\stackrel{~}{J}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{N\mu ^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{p}v)^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2))\stackrel{~}{V}({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{N^2\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2))\stackrel{~}{\varphi }({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{N^2\mu ^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{(p\overline{v})^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ),`$
where the Mellin transformation has been defined as usual

$`\stackrel{~}{F_L}(N,Q^2,ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xx^{N1}F_L(x,Q^2,ϵ),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{J}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{N\mu ^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{p}v)^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑zz^{N1}J^{}({\displaystyle \frac{(1z)Q^2}{x\mu ^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{p}v)^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2)),`$ (18)
and similarly for $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$. Note that we have not included the overall $`1/N`$ factor into the definition of $`\stackrel{~}{J}^{}`$. This function will contain only the logarithmic in $`N`$ terms. Also note that the UV dominated hard scattering function $`|H_L|^2`$ contains no dependence on $`N`$. Its presence is necessary, however, to render the right-hand side of Eq. (17) independent of $`\mu ^2`$.

Following the approach of Collins, Soper and Sterman, (for review and references see ref. ) we can write down the two equations that the jet function satisfies. The first is the covariance equation

$$\frac{}{\mathrm{ln}(\overline{p}v)^2}\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(\frac{Q^2}{N\mu ^2},\frac{(\overline{p}v)^2}{\mu ^2},\alpha _s(\mu ^2))=K(\frac{Q^2}{N\mu ^2},\alpha _s(\mu ^2))+G(\frac{(\overline{p}v)^2}{\mu ^2},\alpha _s(\mu ^2)).$$
(19)
Since $`F_L`$ is invariant upon variation of the light cone directions with respect to which the jet has been defined, the jet variations $`K`$ and $`G`$ are cancelled by the corresponding variations of the soft function $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ and the hard function $`|H_L|^2`$ respectively. The dependence of $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ on the light cone directions has been left implicit in Eq. (17). The quark distribution function $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ is by definition independent of the final state direction $`\overline{v}`$ so it does not play a rôle in Eq. (19). The function $`K`$ is defined at scale $`\mu ^2`$ and depends only on the common arguments of $`\stackrel{~}{J}^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$. The sum $`K+G`$ is renormalization group invariant. The renormalization group equation for $`K`$ reads

$$\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2}K(\frac{Q^2}{N\mu ^2},\alpha _s(\mu ^2))=\frac{1}{2}\gamma _K(\alpha _s(\mu ^2)),$$
(20)
with the well known cusp anomalous dimension in $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme

$$\gamma _K(\alpha _s)=\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }C_F+\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\right)^2\left[C_FC_A\left(\frac{67}{36}\frac{\pi ^2}{12}\right)\frac{5}{18}C_FN_f\right]+𝒪(\alpha _s^3).$$
(21)
The second equation that the jet function satisfies is its own renormalization group equation

$$\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2}\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(\frac{Q^2}{N\mu ^2},\frac{(\overline{p}v)^2}{\mu ^2},\alpha _s(\mu ^2))=\frac{1}{2}\gamma _J^{}(\alpha _s(\mu ^2)).$$
(22)
We employ $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme which is a massless scheme, so the anomalous dimensions $`\gamma _K`$ and $`\gamma _J^{}`$ can depend only on the renormalized coupling.

The solution of the covariance equation (19) is

$$\mathrm{ln}\frac{\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(\frac{Q^2}{N\mu ^2},\frac{(\overline{p}v)^2}{\mu ^2},\alpha _s(\mu ^2))}{\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(\frac{Q^2}{N\mu ^2},\frac{Q^2}{N\mu ^2},\alpha _s(\mu ^2))}=\frac{1}{2}_{Q^2/N}^{(\overline{p}v)^2}\frac{d\overline{\mu }^2}{\overline{\mu ^2}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{(\overline{p}v)^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}A(\alpha _s(\overline{\mu }^2))+B(\alpha _s(\overline{\mu }^2))\right],$$
(23)
where we have used Eq. (20) and have defined

$`A(\alpha _s)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _K(\alpha _s)+2\beta (\alpha _s){\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha _s}}K(1,\alpha _s),`$ (24)
$`B(\alpha _s)/2`$ $`=`$ $`K(1,\alpha _s)+G(1,\alpha _s).`$ (25)
with

$$\beta (\alpha _s(\mu ^2))=\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2}\alpha _s(\mu ^2)=\alpha _s\left[\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }\right)\beta _1+\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }\right)^2\beta _2+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(26)
The solution of both the covariance and the RG equation for the jet $`J^{}`$ is

$`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(\frac{Q^2}{N\mu ^2},\frac{(\overline{p}v)^2}{\mu ^2},\alpha _s(\mu ^2))}{\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(1,1,\alpha _s((\overline{p}v)^2))}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{Q^2/N}^{(\overline{p}v)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{\mu }^2}{\overline{\mu ^2}}}\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{p}v)^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}A(\alpha _s(\overline{\mu }^2))+B(\alpha _s(\overline{\mu }^2))\right]`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle _{Q^2/N}^{(\overline{p}v)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{\mu }^2}{\overline{\mu ^2}}}\beta (\alpha _s(\overline{\mu }^2)){\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha _s}}\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(1,1,\alpha _s(\overline{\mu }^2))`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{Q^2/N}^{\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{\mu }^2}{\overline{\mu ^2}}}\gamma _J^{}(\alpha _s(\overline{\mu }^2)),`$
and the boundary condition for the jet function is (setting $`(\overline{p}v)^2=Q^2`$)

$$\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(1,1,\alpha _s(Q^2))=C_F\frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{\pi }+𝒪(\alpha _s^2(Q^2)).$$
(28)
The renormalization group invariance of $`F_L`$ imposes the condition

$$\gamma _H+\gamma _J^{}+\gamma _V+\gamma _\varphi =0,$$
(29)
where the anomalous dimensions of all the functions involved are defined just as in Eq. (22). The above relation allows us to write $`\stackrel{~}{F}_L`$, Eq. (17), in a variety of exponentiated forms depending on which anomalous dimensions we wish to include in the exponent and what boundary conditions we choose for the factors $`H_L`$, $`\stackrel{~}{J}^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$. The form that is suitable for our purposes is the one that involves the jet anomalous dimension $`\gamma _J^{}`$. Explicitly,

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_L(N,Q^2,ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}|H_L(1,1,\alpha _s(Q^2))|^2\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(1,1,\alpha _s(Q^2))(\stackrel{~}{V}\stackrel{~}{\varphi })(1/N,\alpha _s(Q^2),ϵ)`$ (30)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{Q^2/N}^{Q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mu ^2}{\mu ^2}}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}}A(\alpha _s(\mu ^2))+B(\alpha _s(\mu ^2))\right)\right]`$
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{Q^2/N}^{Q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mu ^2}{\mu ^2}}\left(\gamma _J^{}(\alpha _s(\mu ^2))+2\beta (\alpha _s(\mu ^2)){\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha _s}}\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(1,1,\alpha _s(\mu ^2))\right)\right]`$
$`+`$ $`𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\mathrm{ln}^0N\right).`$
We shall be referring to this equation as the Sudakov exponentiated form of $`\stackrel{~}{F}_L`$. By inspecting the above expression it is easy to see where the logarithmic in $`N`$ corrections come from and how they are organized. As usual, the leading $`\mathrm{ln}N`$ terms arise from the soft regions and are contained in the function $`A`$. The logarithmic corrections due to the fragmentation of the final state jet are contained in $`\gamma _J^{}`$ and the ones due to the renormalization of the coupling constant in the jet function are in beta function term. The beta function term arises from the evolution of the boundary condition from the low scale $`\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(1,1,\alpha _s(Q^2/N))`$ to the high scale $`\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(1,1,\alpha _s(Q^2))`$. It is worth empasizing again here that in $`F_L`$ even the lowest order contribution cannot be normalized unambiguously because it starts at $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$. Since the renormalizability of the theory determines the structure of the beta function term in the exponent, we can absorb it into the anomalous dimension $`\gamma _J^{}`$ as

$$\gamma _J^{}^{}(\alpha _s)=\gamma _J^{}(\alpha _s)+2\beta (\alpha _s)\frac{}{\alpha _s}\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(1,1,\alpha _s),$$
(31)
while keeping the boundary condition at the high scale, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(1,1,\alpha _s(Q^2))`$. The practical advantage of this simple redefinition is that when we compute the anomalous dimension of the operator in Eq. (7) we do not have to subtract out the UV poles that renormalize the coupling as was suggested at the end of the previous section. In this fashion we compute $`\gamma _J^{}^{}`$ and not $`\gamma _J^{}`$. Once the distinction between the two is made as in Eq. (31), there is no danger of overcounting. This is the approach that we follow in the next section.

Not all logarithmic in $`N`$ dependence is contained in the exponential of Eq. (30), but it resides also in the $`\stackrel{~}{V}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ factor. This can be captured too, if the corresponding anomalous dimensions are introduced in the exponent. We shall leave this factor as is, because it is common to $`\stackrel{~}{F_L}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F_2}`$ and contains no further information that is characteristic of the longitudinal structure function only. Our final objective is to connect the exponentiated form of $`\stackrel{~}{F}_L`$, Eq. (30), with the operator product expansion factorization as given by Eq. (8). In the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme the coefficient function in moment space and at scale $`\mu ^2=Q^2`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_L(N,Q^2/\mu ^2=1)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{F}_L(N,Q^2,ϵ)}{\stackrel{~}{f}(N,Q^2,ϵ)}.$$
(32)
The regularized quark distribution function $`\stackrel{~}{f}(N,Q^2,ϵ)`$ can also be written as an exponential by simply integrating its DGLAP evolution equation in $`Q^2`$, given one boundary condition. This is done in the presence of the regulator, i.e. in $`D=42ϵ`$ dimensions. It is useful to choose for boundary condition the normalization

$$\stackrel{~}{f}(N,Q^2=0,ϵ)=1,$$
(33)
which yields the solution

$$\stackrel{~}{f}(N,Q^2,ϵ)=\mathrm{exp}\left[_0^{Q^2}\frac{d\mu ^2}{\mu ^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{qq}(N,ϵ,\alpha _s(\mu ^2))\right].$$
(34)
Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{qq}`$ is the Mellin transformation of the (singular) quark splitting function $`P_{qq}(x,ϵ,\alpha _s(\mu ^2))`$. It is important to keep in mind that the expression in Eq. (34) is defined only in the presence of the regulator $`ϵ`$. The integration over the coupling constant down to $`\mu ^2=0`$ is also defined by using a dimensionally continued $`\alpha _s`$ .

When we attempt to compute the coefficient function $`\overline{C}_L`$ from the ratio in Eq. (32) we encounter the following two problems. First, we cannot use the exponentiated form of Eq. (30) because Sudakov factorization organizes the exponent of $`\stackrel{~}{F}_L`$ in terms of logarithmic in $`N`$ dependence whereas the DGLAP evolution organizes the exponent of $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ in terms of logarithms of $`Q^2`$. In other words the ratio $`\stackrel{~}{F}_L/\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is not a simple ratio of two exponentials because parts of the prefactors in the Sudakov exponentiation of $`\stackrel{~}{F}_L`$ are contained in the DGLAP exponent of $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$. The consistent way to compute the coefficient function is to write also $`\stackrel{~}{F}_L`$ as a single exponential by solving its own DGLAP equation in $`D=42ϵ`$ dimensions. This is indeed what is done for $`\stackrel{~}{F}_2`$. The boundary condition used in the $`\stackrel{~}{F}_2`$ DGLAP equation is the normalization

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_2(N,Q^2=0,ϵ)=1,$$
(35)
and the solution is again a single exponential, like in Eq. (34). Then the coefficient function $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2`$ follows simply from Eq. (32) with $`L2`$. It is here that we encounter the second problem for the longitudinal strucutre function. $`\stackrel{~}{F}_L`$ cannot be normalized as $`F_2`$ above, because it starts at $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1If we were to use the analytically continued $`\alpha _s`$ that would give $`\stackrel{~}{F}_L(N,Q^2=0,ϵ)=0`$..

Although we cannot treat formally $`\stackrel{~}{F}_L`$ like $`\stackrel{~}{F}_2`$, we observe that a large part in their respective Sudakov exponentiated forms is the same. Indeed, if we repeat the previous renormalization group analysis for $`\stackrel{~}{F}_2`$, we get an answer for $`\stackrel{~}{F}_2`$ which can be obtained from Eq. (30) by simply substituting $`F_L,H_LF_2,H_2`$ and $`JJ^{}`$. $`\stackrel{~}{F}_2`$ can be normalized as in Eq. (35) because $`J=1+𝒪(\alpha _s)`$. Therefore, if we know the coefficient function $`\overline{C}_2`$ to some order in $`\alpha _s`$ we can predict the coefficient function $`\overline{C}_L`$ to one order higher by using the Sudakov factorization. All we need to do is to isolate the parts that are different between $`F_2`$ and $`F_L`$ in their exponentiated forms. The problem of normalization of $`\stackrel{~}{F}_L`$ at $`Q^2=0`$ is solved by defining a function $`\stackrel{~}{}_L`$ as

$$\stackrel{~}{}_L(N,Q^2,ϵ)=N\frac{\stackrel{~}{F}_L(N,Q^2,ϵ)}{J^{}(1,1,\alpha _s(Q^2))}.$$
(36)
Since the jet has been moded out, we can normalize the ratio as $`\stackrel{~}{}_L(N,Q^2=0,ϵ)=1`$. Then we compare the Sudakov exponentiation of $`\stackrel{~}{F}_L`$ with the corresponding one for $`\stackrel{~}{F_2}`$ and we identify the parts in the exponent that are different. These parts are the corrections that must be included in $`\overline{C}_2`$ to obtain $`\overline{C}_L`$. Once we do this we restore $`\stackrel{~}{F}_L`$ via Eq. (36). The net result of this manipulation is that the coefficient function for $`\stackrel{~}{C}_L`$ is predicted to be

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_L=\frac{\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(1,1,\alpha _s(Q^2))}{N}\frac{\stackrel{~}{}_L}{\stackrel{~}{F}_2}\stackrel{~}{C}_2,$$
(37)
and the ratio of the two structure functions can be readily obtained from their Sudakov exponentiated forms. The net effect of the ratio $`\stackrel{~}{}_L/\stackrel{~}{F}_2`$ is to remove from $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2`$ the contributions coming from the jet $`J`$ of $`F_2`$ and replace them with the contributions from the $`J^{}`$ jet of $`F_L`$. To $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ the above relation yields

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_L^{(2)}(N,Q^2/\mu ^2=1)=\frac{1}{N}C_F\left(\gamma _K^{(1)}\mathrm{ln}^2N+\frac{1}{2}\gamma _J^{}^{(1)}\mathrm{ln}N\right)+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{ln}^0N\right).$$
(38)
## 4 Explicit calculations to $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$

In this section we prove via explicit calculations the $`F_L`$ factorization formula Eq. (6) to $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$, or equivalently that Eq. (38) holds. This is done by comparing our results with the coefficient functions $`\overline{C}_L^{(n)}(x,1)`$, $`n=1,2`$ in Eqs. (9, 12). The new object to be computed is the jet function $`J^{}`$ defined in Eq. (7), since both the soft function $`V`$ and the quark distribution $`\varphi `$ are the same as in $`F_2`$ and can be taken from the literature. We show that the singular $`\mathrm{ln}(1x)`$ fragmentation terms in $`\overline{C}_L^{(2)}(x,1)`$ do arise from the UV renormalization of the operator defining $`J^{}`$ and we construct its anomalous dimension $`\gamma _J^{}^{}`$ to $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$.

The analysis of subsection 3.2 resulted in a set of Feynman rules for computing the logarithmic enhancements of the new jet function $`J^{}`$. Specifically, the coupling of gluons from the $`\overline{v}`$-jet to the external lines is given by the effective non-local vertex $`O^\lambda (l)`$ defined in Eq. (10). In that expression, though, the transverse and light cone polarizations have been separated, whereas we find it more convenient for our calculations to compute traces with covariant objects. To this end we define the covariant vertex $`O^\lambda (l)_{\mathrm{cov}}`$ as

$$O^\lambda (l)=O^\lambda (l)_{\mathrm{cov}}\left(\overline{v}^\lambda \frac{\overline{v}l}{vl}v^\lambda \right)\mathit{},O^\lambda (l)_{\mathrm{cov}}=\left(\gamma ^\lambda \frac{v^\lambda }{vl}\mathit{}\right).$$
(1)
Then

$$\mathrm{tr}\left[\mathit{}O^\lambda (l)\mathrm{}\right]=\mathrm{tr}\left[\mathit{}O^\lambda (l)_{\mathrm{cov}}\mathrm{}\right]$$
(2)
so we can use the covariant vertex for computing traces. Note that in terms of the operator definitions, $`O_{\mathrm{cov}}`$ is generated by the operator in the numerator of Eq. (7) after performing a gauge transformation in the light cone direction. All functions entering the factorization formula have been defined in a gauge independent way and from now on we employ the Feynman gauge. Finally, in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme it is convenient for presenting intermediate results to define the ratio of scales

$$S=\frac{e^{\gamma _E}4\pi x\mu ^2}{Q^2}.$$
(3)
### 4.1 The $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ contribution to $`J^{}`$

To first order in the coupling $`F_L`$ has no logarithmic singularities, the answer being simply

$$F_L^{(1)}(x,Q^2,ϵ)=c_L^{(1)}=C_Fx.$$
(4)
The $`F_L`$ factorization formula to this order reads

$$F_L^{(1)}(x,Q^2,ϵ)=J^{(1)}(x,Q^2)F_2^{(0)}=J^{(1)}(x,Q^2).$$
(5)
We check that $`J^{(1)}`$ obtained from Eq. (7) comes with the correct normalization to reproduce the above lowest order result. There is only one diagram to compute, that of fig. 4. From Eqs. (2) and (6) we have

$`J^{(1)}(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2x^2}{\alpha _sQ^2}}\right)(4\pi \alpha _s)\mu ^{2ϵ}C_F{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑PS_2\mathrm{tr}\left[O^\lambda (k_2)\mathit{}_1O^\rho (k_2)\mathit{}\right]\left(\eta _{\lambda \rho }\right)}`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`C_Fx\left({\displaystyle \frac{1ϵ}{12ϵ}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(12ϵ)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi x\mu ^2}{(1x)Q^2}}\right)^ϵ`$
$`=`$ $`C_FxS^ϵ[12ϵ(\mathrm{ln}(1x)1)]=F_L^{(1)}(x,Q^2,ϵ)`$
We note that the whole contribution to $`F_L^{(1)}`$ comes from $`J^{(1)}`$ and no IR subtractions are needed to this order. For convenience we have included in $`J^{(1)}`$ all overall normalizing factors associated with $`F_L`$. This short calculation shows that $`J^{}`$ as defined by Eq. (7) is correctly normalized.

### 4.2 The $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ contribution to the jet function $`J^{}`$

The non-trivial infrared behavior of $`F_L`$ starts at $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$. We compute the jet function to this order, $`J^{(2)}`$, and show that after summation over final state cuts and IR subtractions as required by the denominator of Eq. (7) the only surviving singularities for the operator diagrams are simple UV poles. In section 3.3 we argued that the $`J^{}`$ operator can be multiplicatively renormalized in moment space as

$$\stackrel{~}{J}_u^{}(N,Q^2,\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ)=Z_J^{}(\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ)\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(N,Q^2,\alpha _s(\mu ^2)).$$
(7)
In a massless scheme such as $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$, the anomalous dimension $`\gamma _J^{}^{}`$ can be constructed from the renormalization constant $`Z_J^{}`$ as

$$\gamma _J^{}^{}(\alpha _s(\mu ^2))=2\alpha _s\frac{}{\alpha _s}\mathrm{Res}Z_J^{}(\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ).$$
(8)
Equivalently, to the order we compute, and because of the relations

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xx^{N1}\mathrm{ln}(1x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}N}{N}}+𝒪(\mathrm{ln}^0N/N),`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xx^{N1}\mathrm{ln}^2(1x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}(\mathrm{ln}N+\gamma _E)^2+𝒪(\mathrm{ln}^0N/N),`$ (10)
we can directly generate the $`𝒪(\mathrm{ln}(1x))`$ terms for $`J^{}`$ in $`x`$-space. Their coefficient is the sign-inverted residue of the UV singular part of $`J^{(2)}`$.

There are seven diagrams that determine $`J^{(2)}`$ and they are depicted in fig. 5. Since certain subtleties occur in the calculation arising from the presence of both linear (eikonal) and quadratic denominators in the loop integrations we proceed by analyzing each diagram in turn. In the full calculation to this order there are fourteen diagrams for $`F_L`$. Whenever a diagram in our effective approach is free from IR divergences we provide direct comparison with the corresponding one of the full calculation taken from ref. . At the practical level, the effective approach is vastly more economical in capturing the logarithmic enhancements.

Diagram $`(a)`$:

$$(a)=2i(4\pi \alpha _s)^2C_F^2\frac{1}{2}\mu ^{4ϵ}𝑑PS_2\frac{d^Dl}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{N_{(a)}}{(l\overline{p})^2l^2},$$
(11)
where a factor of 2 has been included from left$``$right equal contributions. The numerator factor is

$`N_{(a)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_s^2}}\mathrm{tr}\left[O^\rho (k_2)\mathit{}_1\gamma _\rho {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{)\overline{p}}}}\gamma _\lambda (\overline{)\overline{p}}\mathit{})O^\lambda (l)\mathit{}\right],`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{p\overline{p}}{pl}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_s}}\mathrm{tr}\left[O^\rho \mathit{}_1\gamma _\rho {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{)\overline{p}}}}\mathit{}\mathit{}\right]`$
and the loop integrals yields through the use of Eq. (2) in the appendix

$`\mu ^{2ϵ}{\displaystyle \frac{d^Dl}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{N_{(a)}}{(l\overline{p})^2l^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_s}}\mathrm{tr}\left[O_{\mathrm{cov}}^\rho \mathit{}_1\gamma _\rho \mathit{}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}=24(pk_1){\displaystyle \frac{i}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}+𝒪(ϵ^0).`$ (13)
Then the diagram becomes

$$(a)=\alpha _s^2C_F^2\frac{1}{ϵ}\frac{Q^2}{2\pi x}_0^1𝑑\frac{pk_1}{p\overline{q}}\frac{pk_1}{p\overline{q}}+𝒪(ϵ^0)=\frac{\alpha _s^2Q^2}{4\pi x}C_F^2\frac{1}{ϵ}+𝒪(ϵ^0).$$
(14)
By including the overall factor from Eq. (2) we obtain the contribution to the unrenormalized $`J_u^{(2)}`$

$$\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\right)^2J_{u(a)}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{8x^2}{Q^2}(a)=\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\right)^2\frac{1}{2}C_F^2x\frac{1}{ϵ}+𝒪(ϵ^0)$$
(15)
This leads to the anomalous dimension

$$\gamma _{J^{}(a)}(\alpha _s)=\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }C_F,$$
(16)
as well as to the contribution for the renormalized jet function

$$J_{(a)}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}C_F^2\mathrm{ln}(1x)+\mathrm{reg}.$$
(17)
Diagram $`(b)`$:

$$(b)=2(4\pi \alpha _s)^2\left(\frac{iC_FC_A}{2}\right)\frac{1}{2}\mu ^{4ϵ}𝑑PS_2\frac{d^Dl}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{N_{(b)}}{(\overline{p}l)^2(lk_2)^2l^2},$$
(18)
and the numerator factor is

$`N_{(b)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_s^2}}\mathrm{tr}\left[O^\rho (k_2)\mathit{}_1\gamma ^\sigma (\overline{)\overline{p}}\mathit{})O^\lambda (l)\mathit{}\right]V_{\rho \sigma \lambda }(k_2,k_2l,l),`$ (19)
$``$ $`16(pk_1)l^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{pk_1}{pl}}\right).`$
In the second step only terms that lead to UV singularities have been retained. There is a subtlety involved in the derivation of the above expression. A term proportional to $`l_\sigma l_\rho `$ is to be replaced as $`l_\sigma l_\rho (1/2)l^2\eta _{\sigma \rho }`$. Note the factor 1/2 instead of the usual 1/4. The latter case is valid for the UV part of a loop integral if the integrand contains only quadratic denominators. In our case, however, it also contains a linear (eikonal) denominator and one must be careful not to overcount the polarizations that contribute to the UV divergent part (2 and not 4). Then, through the use of Eq. (1) in the appendix we obtain

$`(b)`$ $`=`$ $`2(4\pi \alpha _s)^2\alpha _s^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{iC_FC_A}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^{2ϵ}{\displaystyle 𝑑PS_2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}16}(pk_1)\frac{i}{(4\pi )^2}\left(1+\mathrm{ln}\frac{pk_2}{p\overline{q}}\right)\frac{1}{ϵ}}+𝒪(ϵ^0)`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2Q^2}{4\pi x}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{C_FC_A}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}+𝒪(ϵ^0).`$
Similarly to diagram $`(a)`$, the corresponding contribution to the anomalous dimension is

$$\gamma _{J^{}(b)}^{}(\alpha _s)=\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\frac{C_A}{2},$$
(21)
and to the renormalized jet function

$$J_{(b)}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{4}C_FC_A\mathrm{ln}(1x)+\mathrm{reg}.$$
(22)
Eq. (22) reproduces the result for graph (10) in .

Diagram $`(c)`$:

$`(c)`$ $`=`$ $`2i(4\pi \alpha _s)^2\left(C_F^2{\displaystyle \frac{C_FC_A}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^{4ϵ}{\displaystyle 𝑑PS_2\frac{d^Dl}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{N_{(c)}}{(l\overline{p})^2(lk_1)^2l^2}},`$ (23)
and the numerator factor can be approximated in the UV as

$`N_{(c)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_s^2}}\mathrm{tr}\left[O^\rho (k_2)\mathit{}_1\gamma ^\lambda (\mathit{}_1\mathit{})\gamma _\rho (\overline{)\overline{p}}\mathit{})O^\lambda (l)\mathit{}\right]`$ (24)
$``$ $`8(pk_1)\left(12{\displaystyle \frac{pk_1}{pl}}\right)l^2.`$
The same remark about counting the polarizations that contribute to the UV singularities as in diagram $`(b)`$ applies here. Then, through the use of Eq. (1) of the appendix we obtain

$`(c)`$ $`=`$ $`8\alpha _s^2\left(C_F^2{\displaystyle \frac{C_FC_A}{2}}\right)\mu ^{2ϵ}{\displaystyle 𝑑PS_2(pk_1)\frac{1}{ϵ}\left(1+2\frac{pk_1}{pk_2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{pk_1}{p\overline{q}}\right)}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2Q^2}{\pi x}}\left(C_F^2{\displaystyle \frac{C_FC_A}{2}}\right)\left(\zeta (2){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}+𝒪(ϵ^0),`$
which contributes to the anomalous dimension as

$$\gamma _{J^{}(c)}^{}(\alpha _s)=\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }4\left(C_F\frac{1}{2}C_A\right)\left(\zeta (2)\frac{3}{2}\right),$$
(26)
and to the renormalized jet function as

$$J_{(c)}^{(2)}=2\left(C_F^2\frac{C_FC_A}{2}\right)\left(\zeta (2)\frac{3}{2}\right)\mathrm{ln}(1x)+\mathrm{reg}.$$
(27)
Eq. (27) reproduces the result for graph (13) in .

So far, the three graphs we have computed are in one-to-one correspondence with the corresponding graphs of the full theory. They are finite in the full theory and become UV divergent in the effective theory. Now we proceed to calculate the rest of the graphs. These are not in one-to-one correspondence with graphs of the full theory, which is the default case in factorization. No more comparison for intermediate results will be possible, only for the final answer.

Diagrams $`(d)`$ and $`(e)`$: For these two diagrams no subtleties are involved. Standard manipulations yield

$`\gamma _{J^{}(d)}^{}(\alpha _s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{2}},`$ (28)
$`J_{(d)}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}C_F^2\mathrm{ln}(1x)+\mathrm{reg}.`$ (29)
and

$`\gamma _{J^{}(e)}^{}(\alpha _s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}C_A+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}N_f\right),`$ (30)
$`J_{(e)}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{5}{12}}C_FC_A+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}C_FN_f\right)\mathrm{ln}(1x)+\mathrm{reg}.`$ (31)
The last two diagrams $`(f)`$ and $`(g)`$ are the most interesting to this order because they have both UV and IR singularities. Recall that the jet function $`J^{}`$ is by definition free from IR singularities and its UV renormalization generates the fragmentation $`\mathrm{ln}(1x)`$ terms in the coefficient function. We must therefore show that the left over IR singularities in the graphs $`(f)`$ and $`(g)`$, after summing over their two and three particle cuts, are precisely removed by the soft function $`V`$. The remaining UV poles will contribute to the $`J^{}`$ anomalous dimension.

Diagram $`(f)`$:
The two particle cut of this diagram $`(f_2)`$ is

$`(f_2)`$ $`=`$ $`2(4\pi \alpha _s)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{iC_FC_A}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^{4ϵ}{\displaystyle 𝑑PS_2\frac{d^Dl}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{N_{(f)}}{(lk_2)^2l^2(pl)}}`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2Q^2}{4\pi x}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{C_FC_A}{2}}\right)S^ϵ(1x)^ϵ`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(ϵ)}}2S^ϵ\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}ϵ\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ(ϵ)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(ϵ)^2}}\right)+𝒪(ϵ^0)\right].`$
We have separated UV from IR singularities by retaining the sign in front of the regulator.

The three particle cut $`(f_3)`$ can similarly be obtained through the use of the three massless particle phase space given in Eq. (8) of the appendix in terms of convenient coordinates for our case. The result is

$`(f_3)`$ $`=`$ $`2(i)(4\pi \alpha _s)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{iC_FC_A}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^{4ϵ}{\displaystyle 𝑑PS_3(24)(1ϵ)(pk_1)\frac{p(k_3+2k_2)}{(pk_3)(k_2+k_3)^2}}`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2Q^2}{4\pi x}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{C_FC_A}{2}}\right)S^{2ϵ}(1x)^{2ϵ}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}ϵ\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{(ϵ)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(ϵ)^2}}+𝒪(ϵ^0)\right].`$
Adding the two and three particle cuts we obtain for the full cut diagram

$`(f)=(f_2)+(f_3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2Q^2}{4\pi x}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{C_FC_A}{2}}\right)S^ϵ(1x)^ϵ`$ (34)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}2S^ϵ\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}ϵ\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ(ϵ)}}+2\mathrm{ln}(1x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(ϵ)}}+𝒪(ϵ^0)\right].`$
We note the cancellation of the double IR poles which arise from soft gluon emission. Simple IR and UV poles and their combination do survive.

Diagram $`(g)`$:
Similar manipulations as in diagram $`(f)`$ yield the following results for the two and three particle cuts.

$`(g_2)`$ $`=`$ $`2(i)(4\pi \alpha _s)^2\left(C_F^2{\displaystyle \frac{C_FC_A}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^{4ϵ}{\displaystyle 𝑑PS_2\frac{d^Dl}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{N_{(g)}}{(lk_2)^2l^2(pl)}}`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2Q^2}{2\pi x}}\left(C_F^2{\displaystyle \frac{C_FC_A}{2}}\right)S^ϵ(1x)^ϵ`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(ϵ)}}S^ϵ\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}ϵ\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ(ϵ)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(ϵ)^2}}\right)+𝒪(ϵ^0)\right].`$
$`(g_3)`$ $`=`$ $`2(4\pi \alpha _s)^2\left(C_F^2{\displaystyle \frac{C_FC_A}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^{4ϵ}{\displaystyle 𝑑PS_3\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}16}(1ϵ)\frac{(pk_1)(p(k_1+k_3))}{(pk_3)(k_1+k_3)^2}}`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2Q^2}{2\pi x}}\left(C_F^2{\displaystyle \frac{C_FC_A}{2}}\right)S^{2ϵ}(1x)^{2ϵ}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}ϵ\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(ϵ)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(ϵ)^2}}+𝒪(ϵ^0)\right].`$
Adding the two and three particle cuts we obtain for the full cut diagram

$`(g)=(g_2)+(g_3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2Q^2}{2\pi x}}\left(C_F^2{\displaystyle \frac{C_FC_A}{2}}\right)S^ϵ(1x)^ϵ`$ (37)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}S^ϵ\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}ϵ\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ(ϵ)}}+\mathrm{ln}(1x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(ϵ)}}+𝒪(ϵ^0)\right].`$
As in diagram $`(f)`$, we note the cancellation of the IR double poles. UV and IR simple poles do remain.

Finally, we add the contributions from diagrams $`(f)`$ and $`(g)`$ and multiply the result by $`(2\pi x^2/\alpha _s^2Q^2)`$, see Eqs. (1, 2), to obtain their contribution to the unrenormalized $`J^{(2)}`$. It is convenient to separate the color structures, since they behave quite differently. The result is

$`J_{(f+g)u}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`C_F^2xS^ϵ(1x)^ϵ\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}S^ϵ\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}ϵ\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ(ϵ)}}+\mathrm{ln}(1x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(ϵ)}}+𝒪(ϵ^0)\right]`$ (38)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{C_FC_A}{2}}\right)xS^ϵ(1x)^ϵ\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ϵ}}+𝒪(ϵ^0)\right].`$
We observe the absence of any IR poles in the $`C_FC_A`$ color structure.

Total contribution to $`J^{(2)}`$:
To $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ the jet function $`J^{(2)}`$ is obtained from the sum of the diagrams $`(a)`$-$`(g)`$ after subtracting the purely soft contributions to the same order. The IR subtraction term for $`F_L`$ starts at $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ and it is $`J^{(1)}V^{(1)}`$. Explicitly,

$$J^{(2)}(x)=J_u^{(2)}(x)(J^{(1)}V^{(1)})(x)$$
(39)
where the subscript $`u`$ denotes that the jet function is unrenormalized and IR unsubtracted. The soft function $`V(1x)`$ is universal and familiar. To $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ it is defined in fig. 6. In the Feynman gauge it is

$$V^{(1)}(1x)=C_FS^ϵ\left[\frac{1}{(ϵ)ϵ}\delta (1x)+\frac{1}{(ϵ)}\left(\frac{1}{1x}\right)_++\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1x)}{1x}\right)_++𝒪(ϵ)\right].$$
(40)
The argument of $`V`$ is the longitudinal momentum fraction that enters the $`\overline{v}`$-jet. The first term in the square brackets is of UV origin and comes from the virtual contribution. Note the absence of IR double poles. We compute the convolution $`J^{(1)}V^{(1)}`$ using the integral lemmata (9-13) in the appendix. The result is

$`(J^{(1)}V^{(1)})(x)`$ $`=`$ $`J^{(1)}(x)V^{(1)}(1x)`$ (41)
$`=`$ $`C_F^2S^{2ϵ}\left[xϵx(\mathrm{ln}(1x)1)\right]`$
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(ϵ)ϵ}}\delta (1x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(ϵ)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1x}}\right)_++\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(1x)}{1x}}\right)_++𝒪(ϵ)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`C_F^2S^{2ϵ}x\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(ϵ)ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}(\mathrm{ln}(1x)1)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(ϵ)}}\mathrm{ln}(1x)+𝒪(ϵ^0)\right].`$
As only diagrams $`(f)`$ and $`(g)`$ have non-trivial IR singularity structure, we consider only the $`(f)+(g)`$ part of $`J^{(2)}`$ and perform the IR subtraction there. Specifically,

$`J_{(f+g)u}^{(2)}J^{(1)}V^{(1)}=x\left[C_F^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_FC_A}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ϵ}}+𝒪(ϵ^0)\right].`$ (42)
All IR singularities have been removed from $`J^{(2)}`$ as dictated by its definition in Eq. (7). The left over terms are simple UV poles. Now we are finally able to compute the contribution of the diagrams $`(f)`$ and $`(g)`$ to the jet anomalous dimension and to the UV renormalized jet function in $`x`$ space

$$\gamma _{J^{}(f+g)}^{}(\alpha _s)=\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\left(3C_F+\frac{1}{2}C_A\right),$$
(43)
and

$$J_{(f+g)}^{(2)}=\left(\frac{3}{2}C_F^2+\frac{1}{4}C_FC_A\right)\mathrm{ln}(1x)+\mathrm{reg}.$$
(44)
It is true that we could have arrived at the above equation by just computing the UV simple poles of only the two particle cut graphs and converting them into $`\mathrm{ln}(1x)`$ contributions. We, nevertheless, took the pain of calculating also the three particle cuts and the subtraction terms to show that indeed only simple UV poles survive in the final expression, thus showing that an anomalous dimension can be defined to sum the singular terms.

### 4.3 The final $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ result for $`F_L`$

First, the total contribution to $`J^{(2)}`$ is obtained by summing the partial results in Eqs. (17, 22, 27, 29, 31, 44). It is

$$J^{(2)}=\left[\frac{9}{4}C_F^2\frac{23}{12}C_FC_A2\zeta (2)\left(C_F^2\frac{C_FC_A}{2}\right)+\frac{1}{6}C_FN_f\right]\mathrm{ln}(1x)+\mathrm{reg}.$$
(45)
The leading soft double logarithm is generated by the UV renormalized $`J^{(1)}V^{(1)}`$, Eq. (41). It is

$$(J^{(1)}V^{(1)})(x)=\frac{1}{2}C_F^2\mathrm{ln}^2(1x)+\mathrm{reg}.$$
(46)
We have organized the summation of the singular $`\mathrm{ln}(1x)`$ terms in such a way that all fragmentation $`𝒪(\mathrm{ln}(1x))`$ terms come from $`J^{(2)}`$ and the soft $`𝒪(\mathrm{ln}^2(1x))`$ term comes from $`J^{(1)}V^{(1)}`$. At this stage we can determine the coefficient $`\overline{C}_L^{(2)}(x,1)`$ as given by the $`F_L`$ factorization formula. It is

$$\overline{C}_L^{(2)}(x,1)=(J^{(1)}V^{(1)})(x)+J^{(2)}(x),$$
(47)
which, through Eqs. (45, 46), exactly reproduces the singular part of the result from the full calculation in Eq. (12). We have thus shown explicitly how the factorization formalism captures the logarithmic enhancements to $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$. Finally, the jet anomalous dimension $`\gamma _J^{}^{}`$ is

$$\gamma _J^{}^{}(\alpha _s)=\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\left[\frac{9}{2}C_F2C_A4\zeta (2)\left(C_F\frac{C_A}{2}\right)\frac{1}{2}\beta _1\right]+𝒪(\alpha _s^2).$$
(48)
and the anomalous dimension $`\gamma _J^{}`$ that does not include the running of the coupling is obtained from Eq. (31). It is

$$\gamma _J^{}(\alpha _s)=\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\left[\frac{9}{2}C_F2C_A4\zeta (2)\left(C_F\frac{C_A}{2}\right)\right]+𝒪(\alpha _s^2).$$
(49)
## 5 Summary and conclusions

We have studied in detail the longitudinal structure function in deeply inelastic scattering near the elastic limit $`x1`$ and have shown that it can be Sudakov factorized in terms of two jet and one soft functions. The soft function and the target jet function are the same as in $`F_2`$, whereas the current jet function is characteristic of $`F_L`$ and measures the transverse momentum of the struck parton. We have shown that the quasi-elastic logarithmic corrections from the fragmentation of the current jet can be resummed in moment space in terms of the anomalous dimension $`\gamma _J^{}`$, which we calculated to $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$.

We emphasize that our analysis is at the leading twist level but goes beyond the light-cone expansion. It resums terms that are of order $`\mathrm{ln}^kN/N,k>0`$. This approach can be extended to the case of $`F_2`$, where such terms are present, but subleading relative to the order $`\mathrm{ln}^kN,k0`$ terms. It is quite remarkable that terms that are power suppressed in $`N`$ are amenable to a similar systematic analysis as the leading ones, just through the introduction of a single new function, the jet $`J^{}`$. This leads us to the conjecture that, indeed, all power in $`N`$ suppressed terms can be resummed in quasi-elastic processes, via the introduction of further jet functions defined by operators with higher powers of the transverse derivative. In Ref.  a systematic procedure has been presented for contructing these higher dimensional jet functions, and the present analysis is really a concrete example of that procedure.

Returning to $`F_L`$, we note also that the logarithmic enhancements from the final state fragmentation are delayed by one order of $`\alpha _s`$ relative to the ones in $`F_2`$. As these enhancements are summed to all orders, part of their effect (the beta function term in Eq. (30)) is to change the overall normalization by shifting the scale of $`\alpha _s`$ in the preexponent factor from $`Q^2`$ to $`Q^2/N`$. Thus, in the region $`x1`$ higher order corrections are parametrically as important as lower order ones. This has implications for obtaining the power corrections to $`F_L`$, using for instance renormalon methods, since the power corrections come predominantly from this near elastic region. This enhancement, which is characteristic of $`F_L`$, can be thought of as an indication from perturbation theory of the large power corrections that this observable is known to receive . These and applications of the formalism to other inclusive processes are currently under investigation.

Acknowledgement: We are very grateful to George Sterman for dicussions and suggestions. This work is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy.

## Appendix

$``$ Three useful integrals with both quadratic and linear denominators, valid at $`p^2=0`$:

$$\frac{d^Dl}{(4\pi )^D}\frac{1}{(l\overline{p})^2(lk)^2pl}=\frac{i}{(4\pi )^2}\frac{1}{ϵ}\frac{1}{p(\overline{p}k)}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{pk}{p\overline{p}}\right)+𝒪(ϵ^0).$$
(1)
$$\frac{d^Dl}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{l^\mu }{(l\overline{p})^2l^2pl}=\frac{i}{(4\pi )^2}\frac{1}{ϵ}\frac{\overline{p}^\mu }{p\overline{p}}+𝒪(ϵ^0).$$
(2)
$$\frac{d^Dl}{(4\pi )^D}\frac{l^\mu l^\nu }{(l\overline{p})^2(lk)^2l^2pl}=\frac{i}{(4\pi )^2}\frac{1}{2ϵ}\frac{\eta _{\mu \nu }}{p(\overline{p}k)}\mathrm{ln}\frac{pk}{p\overline{p}}+𝒪(ϵ^0).$$
(3)
$``$ The three massless particle phase space:
The three particle phase space cannot be written conveniently in terms of the light cone momenta of the outgoing particles alone. In this case we prefer the parametrization in terms of Lorenz invariants defined in the rest frame of two of the three particles, say $`k_2`$ and $`k_3`$. Specifically,

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑PS_3(k_1,k_2,k_3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^D}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D3)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(1x)Q^2}{x}}\right)^{D3}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\theta \mathrm{sin}^{D3}\theta {\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi \mathrm{sin}^{D4}\varphi `$ (4)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^1}dy_1y_1^{D/22}(1y_1)^{D3}{\displaystyle _0^1}dzz_1^{D/22}(1z_1)^{D/22},`$
where $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are the polar and azimuthal angles of $`\stackrel{}{k_1}`$ with respect to the $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ direction. In the $`k_2`$, $`k_3`$ CM frame, $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ defines the direction of the light cone, which is different from the one defined in Eq. (4). The definitions of $`y_1`$ and $`z`$ are

$$y_1=\frac{pk_1}{p\overline{q}},z_1=\frac{(1x)y_1(qk_1)/(p\overline{q})}{(1x)(1y_1)}.$$
(5)
It follows that

$$\frac{pk_2}{p\overline{q}}=(1y_1)\left(\frac{1\mathrm{cos}\theta }{2}\right),\frac{pk_3}{p\overline{q}}=(1y_1)\left(\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\theta }{2}\right),\frac{k_2k_3}{p\overline{q}}=(1x)(1y_1)z_1.$$
(6)
For azimuthically symmetric integrands the $`d\varphi `$ integration can be readily performed and in terms of the variable

$$\omega =\frac{1\mathrm{cos}\theta }{2}$$
(7)
the phase space becomes

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑PS_3(k_1,k_2,k_3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(4\pi )^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(1x)Q^2}{x}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi x}{(1x)Q^2}}\right)^{2ϵ}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1ϵ)}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\omega \omega ^ϵ(1\omega )^ϵ`$ (8)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^1}dy_1y_1^ϵ(1y_1)^{12ϵ}{\displaystyle _0^1}dz_1z_1^ϵ(1z_1)^ϵ.`$
Since all three particles are massless, the phase space is symmetric in their variables. So the phase space integrals in the $`k_1`$, $`k_3`$ CM system are obtained from the above expressions by permutation of the particle indices.

$``$ Finally, certain useful convolution lemmata:

$$h(x)\delta (1x)=h(x).$$
(9)
$$x\left(\frac{1}{1x}\right)_+=x\left(\mathrm{ln}(1x)\mathrm{ln}x+\frac{1}{x}1\right).$$
(10)
$$x\mathrm{ln}(1x)\left(\frac{1}{1x}\right)_+=x\mathrm{ln}^2(1x)+(1x)\mathrm{ln}(1x)(1x)x\zeta (2).$$
(11)
$$x\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1x)}{1x}\right)_+=\frac{1}{2}x\mathrm{ln}^2(1x)+\frac{(1x)}{x}\mathrm{ln}(1x)+x\mathrm{ln}x.$$
(12)
$$x(1+x^2)\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1x)}{1x}\right)_+=x\mathrm{ln}^2(1x)+\mathrm{reg}.$$
(13)


format: text

text:
# Early Optical Afterglows from Wind-Type Gamma-Ray Bursts

## 1 Introduction

The gamma-ray burst (GRB) afterglow observations are usually explained by a model in which a relativistic fireball shell (ejecta) is expanding into a uniform interstellar medium (ISM). However, there is observational evidence suggesting a link between GRBs and massive stars or star formation (e.g. Mészáros 2001 for a review). An important consequence of a massive star origin for the afterglow is that the fireball shell should be expanding into a pre-burst stellar wind of the progenitor star with a density distribution of $`\rho R^2`$ (e.g. Chevalier & Li 1999; Mészáros, Rees & Wijers 1998; Dai & Lu 1998). This wind model is discussed to be consistent with some GRB afterglow data (Chevalier & Li 1999, 2000).

It is expected that many early optical afterglows will be discovered soon in the observational campaigns led by HETE-2 and Swift. Long time span (from right after the GRB trigger to a year) observational data will allow us to distinguish differences between the ISM and wind models clearly.

In this paper, we will discuss the optical reverse shock emission for the wind model in detail. The previous study (Chevalier & Li 2000) gave the discussions for the thick shell case, and we will consider both the thin and thick shell cases. We show that the angular time delay effect plays an important role in discussing the light curve decaying phase of the reverse shock emission.

## 2 The Model

We consider a relativistic shell (fireball ejecta) with an isotropic energy $`E`$, an initial Lorentz factor $`\eta `$ and an initial width $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ expanding into a surrounding medium with density distribution of $`\rho =AR^2`$ (wind model). In this paper, Lorentz factors $`\gamma `$, radii $`R`$ and widths $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are measured in the laboratory frame where the progenitor is at rest. Thermodynamic quantities: mass densities $`\rho `$ and internal energy $`e`$ are measured in the fluid comoving frame. The interaction between the shell and the wind is described by two shocks: a forward shock propagating into the wind and a reverse shock propagating into the shell. The shocks accelerate electrons in the shell and wind material, and the electrons emit photons via synchrotron-cyclotron process. For the synchrotron process, the spectrum of each shock emission is described by a broken power law with a peak $`F_{\nu ,max}N_eB\gamma `$ and break frequencies: a typical frequency $`\nu _mB\gamma \gamma _m^2`$ and a cooling frequency $`\nu _c1/B^3\gamma t^2`$ (Sari, Piran & Narayan 1998) where $`N_e`$ is the number of electrons accelerated by the shock, $`B`$ is the magnetic field strength behind the shock, $`\gamma `$ and $`\gamma _m`$ are the bulk Lorentz factor of the shocked material and the random Lorentz factor of the typical electrons in the shocked material, respectively. Assuming that constant fractions ($`ϵ_e`$ and $`ϵ_B`$) of the internal energy $`e`$ produced by the shock go into the electrons and the magnetic field, we get $`\nu _m\gamma \rho ^2e^{5/2},\nu _c\gamma ^1e^{3/2}t^2`$ and $`F_{\nu ,max}N_e\gamma e^{1/2}`$.

## 3 Forward Shock

Observations of optical afterglows usually start around several hours after the burst trigger. At such a late time, the shocked wind material forms a relativistic blast wave and carries almost all the energy of the system. Chevalier & Li (1999) gave the characteristics of the forward shock (blast wave) emission as follows,

$`\nu _{m,f}(t)`$ $``$ $`1.6\times 10^{12}\zeta ^{1/2}ϵ_{e,1}^2ϵ_{B,2}^{1/2}E_{52}^{1/2}t_d^{3/2}\text{Hz},`$ (1)
$`\nu _{c,f}(t)`$ $``$ $`6.3\times 10^{13}\zeta ^{3/2}ϵ_{B,2}^{3/2}E_{52}^{1/2}A_{}^2t_d^{1/2}\text{Hz},`$ (2)
$`F_{\nu ,max,f}(t)`$ $``$ $`4.5d^2\zeta ^{3/2}ϵ_{B,2}^{1/2}E_{52}^{1/2}A_{}t_d^{1/2}\text{mJy},`$ (3)
where $`\zeta =(1+z)/2`$, $`d=d_L(z)/(2\times 10^{28}`$cm), $`z`$ and $`d_L(z)`$ are the redshift and luminosity distance of the burst, respectively, $`d_L(1)2\times 10^{28}`$cm for the standard cosmological parameters ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ and $`h=0.7`$), $`ϵ_{e,1}=ϵ_e/0.1`$, $`ϵ_{B,2}=ϵ_B/0.01`$, $`E_{52}=E/10^{52}`$ ergs, $`A_{}=A/5\times 10^{11}`$ g cm-1, $`t_d`$ is the observer’s time in units of days. The optical flux from the forward shock decays proportional to $`t^{1/4}`$ initially, and decays faster as $`t^{(3p2)/4}`$ after a transition of $`\nu _{m,f}`$ through the optical band $`\nu _R5\times 10^{14}`$Hz (Chevalier & Li 2000) where $`p`$ is the index of the power law distribution of the accelerated electrons. Using $`\nu _R=\nu _R/5\times 10^{14}`$Hz, the break time $`t_{m,f}`$ (the passage of $`\nu _{m,f}`$) and the optical flux (in the fast-cooling regime) at that time are

$`t_{m,f}`$ $``$ $`30\zeta ^{1/3}ϵ_{e,1}^{4/3}ϵ_{B,2}^{1/3}E_{52}^{1/3}\nu _R^{2/3}\text{min},`$ (4)
$`F_{\nu _R,f}(t_{m,f})`$ $``$ $`4d^2\zeta ^{2/3}ϵ_{e,1}^{1/3}ϵ_{B,2}^{1/3}E_{52}^{2/3}\nu _R^{1/3}\text{mJy}.`$ (5)
## 4 Reverse Shock

At earlier time when the reverse shock crosses the shell, the forward-shocked wind and the reverse shocked shell carry comparable amount of energy. A significant emission is expected from the reverse shock also (Mészáros & Rees 1997; Sari & Piran 1999a). During the reverse shock crossing, there are four regions separated by the two shocks: the wind (denoted by the subscript 1), the shocked wind (2), the shocked shell material (3) and the unshocked shell material (4). Using the jump conditions for the shocks and the equality of pressure and velocity along the contact discontinuity, we can estimate the Lorentz factor $`\gamma _i`$, the internal energy $`e_i`$ and the mass density $`\rho _i`$ in the shocked regions as functions of three variables $`\gamma _4(=\eta )`$, $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _4`$ (Sari and Piran 1995).

There are two limits to get a simple analytic solution to the hydrodynamic quantities at a shell radius $`R`$ (Sari and Piran 1995). If the Lorentz factor is low $`\eta ^2f`$ where $`f=\rho _4/\rho _1`$, the reverse shock is Newtonian which means that the Lorentz factor of the shocked shell material is almost unity in the frame of the unshocked shell material. It is too weak to slow down the shell effectively so that $`\gamma _3\eta `$. On the other hand, if the Lorentz factor is high $`\eta ^2f`$, the reverse shock is relativistic, and considerably decelerates the shell material, hence $`\gamma _3\eta ^{1/2}f^{1/4}`$.

### 4.1 Critical Radii

Since the density ratio $`f`$ is generally a function of $`R`$, there is a possibility that the reverse shock evolves from Newtonian to relativistic during the propagation. The evolution of the reverse shock depends on the ratio of two radii: $`R_\gamma E/4\pi Ac^2\eta ^2`$ where the forward shock sweeps a mass of $`E/c^2\eta ^2`$ and $`R_s\mathrm{\Delta }_0\eta ^2`$ where the shell begins to spread if the initial Lorentz factor varies by order $`\eta `$ (Sari & Piran 1995; Kobayashi, Piran & Sari 1999). Another important radius is $`R_\times `$ where the reverse shock crosses the shell. The lab-frame time it takes for the reverse shock to cross a width $`dx`$ of the shell material is given by $`dt_{lab}dR/c\eta f^{1/2}dx/c`$ (Sari & Piran 1995). We can regard $`R/c`$ as time $`t_{lab}`$ in the laboratory frame because of the highly relativistic expansion of the shell. Since the whole shell width is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{max}[\mathrm{\Delta }_0,R/\eta ^2]`$, we obtain $`R_\times \mathrm{max}[(R_sR_\gamma )^{1/2},R_\gamma ]`$.

Considering $`\eta ^2/f=\mathrm{max}[R_s/R_\gamma ,R/R_\gamma ]`$, we can classify the evolution of reverse shocks into two cases by using a critical Lorentz factor $`\eta _c(E/4\pi Ac^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0)^{1/4}`$ (see Sari & Piran 1995 and Kobayashi & Zhang 2003 for the ISM model). If $`R_s/R_\gamma =(\eta /\eta _c)^4>1`$ (Thick Shell Case), the reverse shock is relativistic from the beginning (at the end of the GRB phase), which is different from the ISM model in which the reverse shock only becomes relativistic later. The reverse shock crosses the shell at $`R_\times (R_sR_\gamma )^{1/2}`$ before the shell begins to spread at $`R_s`$, and it significantly decelerates the shell material $`\gamma _3\eta _c`$. If $`R_s/R_\gamma <1`$ (Thin Shell Case), the reverse shock is initially Newtonian and becomes only mildly relativistic when it traverses the shell at $`R_\times R_\gamma `$. We can regard $`\gamma _3`$ as constant ($`\eta `$) during the shock crossing.

### 4.2 Synchrotron Emission

Since the wind density at the initial interaction is much larger than the medium density for the ISM model, the cooling frequency $`\nu _{c,r}`$ of the reverse shock emission is much lower than the typical (injection) frequency $`\nu _{m,r}`$ in the wind model. The random Lorentz factor $`\gamma _c`$ of the electrons that radiate at the cooling frequency $`\nu _{c,r}`$ could be sub-relativistic or Newtonian, $`\gamma _c(t_\times )1\zeta ^{7/4}ϵ_{B,2}^1A_{}^{5/4}E_{52}^{1/4}t_{\times ,}^{3/4}`$ for our typical parameters. This makes the radiation mechanism cyclotron radiation at low frequencies $`\nu _{c,r}`$ and at early times $`<t_\times `$. However, the detailed modelling on the cyclotron emission is not important, because the flux is suppressed and determined by the self absorption. (We will discuss the self-absorption at the end of this subsection.) On the other hand, the random Lorentz factor $`\gamma _{\nu _R}`$ of the electrons corresponding to the optical frequency $`\nu _R`$ is relativistic. Since the electron distribution $`N(\gamma _e)`$ around $`\gamma _{\nu _R}`$ (and above it) is determined by the distribution of injected electrons at the shock, which are relativistic, and by the synchrotron radiation cooling, we apply the conventional synchrotron model to estimates the light curve of optical flashes.

The observer time $`t(1+z)R/c\gamma ^2`$ is proportional to $`R`$, because the Lorentz factor of the shocked shell during the shock crossing $`\gamma _\times \mathrm{min}[\eta ,\eta _c]`$ is constant. By using the shock jump conditions, one finds that the scalings before the crossing time $`t_\times =(1+z)R_\times /c\gamma _\times ^2`$ are given by $`e_3t^2`$, $`\rho _3t^2`$ and $`N_et`$ in the thick shell case, and $`e_3t^2`$, $`\rho _3t^3`$ and $`N_et^{1/2}`$ in the thin shell case. The scalings of the spectral characteristics at $`t<t_\times `$ are $`\nu _{m,r}t^1,\nu _{c,r}t`$ and $`F_{\nu ,max,r}t^0`$ for thick shell and $`\nu _{m,r}\nu _{c,r}t`$ and $`F_{\nu ,max,r}t^{1/2}`$ for thin shell. The scalings of $`\nu _{c,r}`$ and $`F_{\nu ,max,r}`$ themselves are not correct, but the optical flux estimated by these scalings are right. We evaluated the scalings to calculate the optical light curve.

The initial shell width $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is given by the intrinsic duration of the GRB, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(1+z)^1cT`$ (Kobayashi, Piran & Sari 1997), the shock crossing time $`t_\times `$ can be written in the following form,

$$t_\times \left(\frac{\gamma _\times }{\eta _c}\right)^4T,$$
(6)
where $`\eta _c60\zeta ^{1/4}E_{52}^{1/4}A_{}^{1/4}T_1^{1/4}`$ and $`T_1=T/10`$sec. We can determine the critical Lorentz factor $`\eta _c`$ from the observations of the GRB and afterglow. If we detect the shock crossing time $`t_\times `$ (the reverse shock peak time), the Lorentz factor during the shock crossing time $`\gamma _\times `$ can be estimated from eq. (6).

The spectral characteristics of the reverse shock emission at $`t_\times `$ are related to those of the forward shock emission by the following simple formulae 111 In this paper, we assume that $`ϵ_B`$, $`ϵ_e`$ and $`p`$ are the same for two shocked regions. Some recent works (Zhang, Kobayashi & Mészáros 2003; Kumar & Panaitescu 2003; Coburn & Boggs 2003) show that $`ϵ_{B,r}`$ might be larger than $`ϵ_{B,f}`$ where the subscripts ’r’ and ’f’ indicate reverse and forward shocks, respectively. In such a case, the formulae are replaced by eqs (3)-(5) in Zhang et al. (2003). Though the power $`F_{\nu ,max,r}`$ increases by a factor of $`(ϵ_{B,r}/ϵ_{B,f})^{1/2}`$ compared to a case of $`ϵ_{B,r}=ϵ_{B,f}`$, the cooling frequency $`\nu _c`$ decreases by a factor of $`(ϵ_{B,r}/ϵ_{B,f})^{3/2}`$. This results in a dimmer optical reverse emission at the peak time by factor of $`(ϵ_{B,r}/ϵ_{B,f})^{1/4}`$. Note that in the ISM model, the reverse shock emission is in slow cooling regime and that $`ϵ_{B,r}>ϵ_{B,f}`$ gives a brighter reverse shock emission (see Zhang et al. 2003).  (Kobayashi &Zhang 2003),

$$\nu _{m,r}(t_\times )\frac{\eta ^2}{\gamma _\times ^4}\nu _{m,f}(t_\times ),\nu _{c,r}(t_\times )\nu _{c,f}(t_\times ),F_{\nu ,max,r}(t_\times )\frac{\gamma _\times ^2}{\eta }F_{\nu ,max,f}(t_\times ).$$
(7)
Using eqs. (1), (2) and (3), we get

$`\nu _{m,r}(t_\times )`$ $``$ $`5.0\times 10^{14}\zeta ^{1/2}ϵ_{e,1}^2ϵ_{B,2}^{1/2}E_{52}^{1/2}A_{}\eta _2^2t_{\times ,}^{1/2}\text{Hz}`$ (8)
$`\nu _{c,r}(t_\times )`$ $``$ $`1.5\times 10^{12}\zeta ^{3/2}ϵ_{B,2}^{3/2}E_{52}^{1/2}A_{}^2t_{\times ,}^{1/2}\text{Hz}`$ (9)
$`F_{\nu ,max,r}(t_\times )`$ $``$ $`3.0d^2\zeta ^2ϵ_{B,2}^{1/2}E_{52}A_{}^{1/2}\eta _2^1t_{\times ,}^1\text{Jy}`$ (10)
where $`\eta _2=\eta /100`$ and $`t_{\times ,}=t_\times /50`$sec. The reverse shock emission is in the fast cooling regime $`\nu _{c,r}<\nu _{m,r}`$ during the shock crossing. So for $`t<t_\times `$, the optical flux from the reverse shock increases as $`t^{1/2}`$ for thick shell case ($`\nu _R<\nu _{m,r}(t_\times )`$) (Chevalier & Li 2000), and $`t^{(p1)/2}`$ for thin shell case ($`\nu _R>\nu _{m,r}(t_\times )`$). Since the Lorentz factor of the forward-shocked material is also constant during shock crossing, the optical emission from the forward shock evolves as $`t^{1/2}`$ at $`t<t_\times `$. But this component is usually masked by the reverse shock emission.

At the shock crossing time $`t_\times `$, the optical flux reaches the peak $`F_{\nu _R,r}`$ $`F_{\nu ,max,r}`$ $`(\nu _R/\nu _{c,r})^{1/2}`$.

$$F_{\nu _R,r}(t_\times )160d^2\zeta ^{5/4}ϵ_{B,2}^{1/4}E_{52}^{5/4}A_{}^{1/2}\nu _R^{1/2}\eta _2^1t_{\times ,}^{3/4}\text{mJy}$$
(11)
Generally, using the time dependences of the spectral characteristics as well as eq. (7), we can relate this peak flux with the optical flux of the forward shock at the break time,

$$F_{\nu _R,r}(t_\times )\left(\frac{\gamma _\times ^2}{\eta }\right)^{2a}\left(\frac{t_\times }{t_{m,f}}\right)^{(23a)/4}F_{\nu _R,f}(t_{m,f}).$$
(12)
where $`a=p`$ if $`\nu _{m,r}(t_\times )`$ is below the optical band, and $`a=1`$ if it is above. Detection of the peak $`(t_\times ,F_{\nu _R,r}(t_\times ))`$ and the break $`(t_{m,f},F_{\nu _R,f}(t_{m,f}))`$ will give a constraint on the initial Lorentz factor $`\eta `$. A similar recipe has been proposed by Zhang et al. (2003) for the ISM case.

Synchrotron self-absorption would reduce our estimate (11) of the optical flash if it is optically thick. A simple way to account for this effect is to estimate the maximal flux emitted by the shocked shell material as a blackbody (Sari & Piran 1999b; Chevalier & Li 2000). The blackbody flux at the optical band $`\nu _R`$ and at the peak time $`t_\times `$ is given by $`F_{\nu _R,BB}16\zeta ^{5/4}d^2\nu _R^{5/2}`$ $`ϵ_{B,2}^{1/4}A_{}^1E_{52}^{3/4}`$ $`t_{\times ,}^{7/4}`$ Jy. The self-absorption frequency at the peak time is $`\nu _{sa}1.0\times 10^{14}A_{}^{1/6}E_{52}^{1/6}\eta _2^{1/3}t_{\times ,}^{5/6}`$ Hz. Considering that the peak time $`t_\times `$ is larger than the burst duration $`T`$, the synchrotron self absorption will not affect the peak flux of an optical flash significantly for long bursts with $`T>8\nu _R^{6/5}A_{}^{1/5}E_{52}^{1/5}\eta _2^{2/5}`$ sec. However, the self-absorption is important at early times ($`<t_\times `$) in the wind model. The optical light curve should initially behave as $`t^{5/2}`$ right after the GRB trigger because of the absorption and it turns into $`t^{1/2}`$ later (see Fig 1). The break time is $`t5\nu _R^{3/2}A_{}^{1/4}E_{52}^{1/4}\eta _2^{1/2}t_{\times ,}^{1/4}`$ sec.

### 4.3 Angular Time Delay Effect

The cooling frequency $`\nu _{c,r}(t_\times )`$ is well below the optical band for our typical parameters, the optical emission from the reverse shock should “vanish” after the peak. However, the angular time delay effect prevents abrupt disappearance. The optical light curve at $`t>t_\times `$ is determined by off-axis emissions. In the local frame, the spectral power is described by a broken power law with a low and high frequency indices $`1/2`$ and $`p/2`$ and the break frequency $`\nu _{m,r}(t_\times )/\gamma _\times `$. As we see higher latitude emissions, the blue shift effect due to the relativistic expansion becomes smaller. The blue shifted break frequency passes through the optical band $`\nu _R`$ at time $`t_\times \nu _{m,r}(t_\times )/\nu _R`$. The optical flux initially evolves as $`t^{5/2}`$ and decays as $`t^{(p+4)/2}`$ after the passage (Kumar & Panaitescu 2000b).

Since the forward shock emission decays slower $`t^{1/4}`$, it begins to dominate the optical band at $`t_{trans}(t_\times ^{4\alpha }/t_{m,f})^{1/(4\alpha 1)}[F_{\nu _R,r}(t_\times )/F_{\nu _R,f}(t_{m,f})]^{4/(4\alpha 1)}`$ where we assumed that the optical reverse shock emission decays proportional to $`t^\alpha `$. For our typical parameters, $`\nu _{m,r}(t_\times )`$ comes to the optical band. Assuming $`\alpha =13/4`$ (p=2.5) (see fig 1(a) in which $`\alpha 3`$ is applied), we get $`t_{trans}/t_\times 2.5\zeta ^{1/6}E_{52}^{1/6}A_{}^{1/6}\eta _2^{1/3}t_{\times ,}^{1/6}`$. The optical emission from the reverse shock drops below that from the forward shock within a time scale several times of the peak time $`t_\times `$.

### 4.4 Duration

If the fireball ejecta is collimated in a jet with an opening angle $`\theta _j`$, the duration of the reverse shock emission is $`t_{ang}(1+z)\theta _j^2R_\times /c`$. The angle $`\theta _j`$ might be determined from a jet break time $`t_j(\theta _j\gamma _\times )^4t_\times `$ of the forward shock emission (Rhoads 1999; Sari,Piran & Halpern 1999), even though a jet break in the wind model may not be as clear as that in the ISM model (Kumar & Panaitescu 2000a; Gou et al. 2001).

$$t_{ang}\left(t_\times t_j\right)^{1/2}35\left(\frac{t_\times }{\text{50 sec}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{t_j}{\text{1 day}}\right)^{1/2}\text{min}$$
(13)
At a low frequency $`\nu <\nu _{c,r}(t_\times )`$, the observer receives photons from the fluid element on the line of the sight until a break frequency $`\nu _{cut}`$, which is equal to $`\nu _{c,r}(t_\times )`$ at $`t_\times `$, crosses the observational band. We now consider this time scale. After the reverse shock crosses the shell, the profile of the forward-shocked wind begins to approach the Blandford-McKee (BM) solution (Blandford & McKee 1976; Kobayashi, Piran & Sari 1999). Since the shocked shell is located not too far behind the forward shock, it roughly fits the BM solution. A given fluid element in a blast wave evolves as $`\gamma t^{3/8}`$, $`\rho t^{9/8}`$ and $`et^{3/2}`$. Assuming that the electron energy and the magnetic field energy remains constant fractions of the internal energy density of the shocked shell, the emission frequency of each electron with $`\gamma _e`$ drops quickly with time according to $`\nu _eB\gamma \gamma _e^2t^{15/8}`$ ($`\gamma _e1`$) or $`\nu _eB\gamma t^{9/8}`$ ($`\gamma _e1`$). Using the scaling for the cyclotron emission, $`\nu _{cut}`$ passes through the observational frequency $`\nu `$ at

$$t_{cut}70\zeta ^{4/3}ϵ_{B,2}^{4/3}E_{52}^{4/9}A_{}^{16/9}\nu _{10}^{8/9}t_{\times ,}^{13/9}\text{min},$$
(14)
where $`\nu _{10}=\nu /10`$GHz. Though at the radio band and early times, self absorption significantly reduce the flux, $`t_{dur}=\mathrm{max}[t_{ang},t_{cut}]`$ can give a rough estimate of the duration of the radio reverse shock emission.

## 5 Case Studies

GRB 990123: The optical flash (Akerlof et al. 1999) and radio flare (Kulkarni 1999) associated with this burst are explained well by a reverse shock emission in the ISM model (Sari & Piran 1999b; Kobayashi & Sari 2000). The basic parameters of this burst include (e.g. Kobayashi & Sari 2000 and reference therein) $`E_{52}140`$, $`z1.6`$, $`T_16.3`$ and $`t_\times 50`$ sec. The wind model predicts a flatter rising of $`t^{1/2}`$, $`t^{(p1)/2}`$ or $`t^{5/2}`$ compared to $`t^{3.4}`$ evaluated from the first two ROTSE data, and a steeper decline of $`t^{5/2}`$ or $`t^{(p+4)/2}`$ compared to the observations after the peak $`t^2`$ (Chevalier & Li 2000). The optical reverse shock emission is expected to be overtaken by that from the forward shock at $`t_{trans}5A_{}^{1/6}\eta _2^{1/3}`$ min, but the observed flash decays as a single power law of $`t^2`$ until it falls off below the detection threshold at $`11`$ min. Using the jet break time $`t_j2`$ day (Kulkarni et al 1999), we obtain $`t_{ang}50`$ min and $`t_{cut}7.4ϵ_{B,2}^{4/3}A_{}^{16/9}`$ hr. The reverse shock emission should disappear well before the radio flare at $`1`$ day. We conclude that the wind model is inconsistent with the observations.

GRB 021004: In the ISM model, it was shown that the major bump observed in the afterglow light curve around $`0.1`$ day after the burst could be explained by the passage of the typical frequency of the forward shock emission through the optical band, and that the early time optical emission is a combination of reverse and forward shock emissions (Kobayashi & Zhang 2003). In the wind model, the optical light curve of the forward shock emission initially behaves as $`t^{1/4}`$ and decays steeper as $`t^{(3p2)/4}`$ after the typical frequency crosses the optical band. The bump might be explained by the passage of $`\nu _{m,f}`$ 222After the completion of our paper, we noticed that Li and Chevalier (2003) gave a detailed studied on this possibility in a recent paper.. The basic parameters of this burst are (e.g. Kobayashi & Zhang 2002 and reference therein) $`E_{52}5.6`$, $`z2.3`$ and $`T_110`$. The critical Lorentz factor is $`\eta _c60A_{}^{1/4}`$. Assuming $`t_{m,f}0.1`$day and $`F_{\nu _R,f}(t_{m,f})1`$mJy, we obtain $`ϵ_e0.11`$ and $`ϵ_B0.085`$ from eqs (4) and (5). Since these are the typical values obtained in other afterglow observations (Panaitescu & Kumar 2002), the wind model might also fit the observational data.

## 6 Conclusions

We have studied the optical emissions from reverse shocks for the thin and thick shell cases. The differences between this model and the ISM model are highlighted in Figure 1. In the ISM model, the prompt optical emission increases proportional to $`t^5`$ for the the thin shell case or $`t^{1/2}`$ for the thick shell case (Kobayashi 2000). In the wind model, it behaves as $`t^{1/2}`$ for the both cases. The synchrotron self-absorption is important at early times in this model. The luminosity increases as $`t^{5/2}`$ with a steep spectral index $`F_\nu \nu ^{5/2}`$ at the beginning. If a rapid brightening with an index larger than $`5/2`$ is caught, it could be an indication of the ISM-type GRB. The decay index of the emission is determined by the angular time delay effect in the wind model so that $`t^3`$, while it depends on the hydrodynamic evolution of the fireball ejecta in the ISM model hence $`t^2`$.

When we detect the peak time of the reverse shock emission, we can estimate the Lorentz factor at that time from eq.(6). In the ISM model, the peak time was given by a similar relation $`t_\times (\gamma _\times /\eta _c^{})^{8/3}T`$ (Sari & Piran 1999a) where $`\eta _c^{}`$ is a critical Lorentz factor and given by eq. (7) in Kobayashi & Zhang (2003). Additionally, if we detect the break, caused by the passage of $`\nu _{m,f}`$, in the late time ($`1`$ hr after the burst) optical light curve, from eq. (12) we can give another constraint on the initial Lorentz factor $`\eta `$ (see also Zhang et al. 2003 for the ISM case).

This work is supported by NASA NAG5-9192 and the Pennsylvania State University Center for Gravitational Wave Physics, which is funded by NSF under cooperative agreement PHY 01-14375. References
Akerlof,C.W. et al. 1999, Nature, 398, 400.
Blandford,R.D. & McKee,C.F. 1976, Phys of Fluids, 19, 1130.
Chevalier,R.A. & Li,Z.Y. 1999 ApJ, 520, L29.
Chevalier,R.A. & Li,Z.Y. 2000 ApJ, 536, 195.
Coburn,W. & Boggs,S.E. 2003, Nature, 423, 415.
Dai,Z.G. & Lu,T. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 87.
Gou,L.J.,Dai,Z.G.,Huang,Y.F. & Lu,T. 2001 A&A, 368, 464.
Li,Z.Y. & Chevalier,R.A. 2003 ApJ, 589, L69.
Kobayashi,S 2000, ApJ, 545, 807.
Kobayashi,S, Piran,T. & Sari,R. 1997, ApJ, 490, 92.
Kobayashi,S, Piran,T. & Sari,R. 1999, ApJ, 513, 669.
Kobayashi,S & Sari,R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 819.
Kobayashi,S & Zhang,B. 2003, ApJ, 582, L75.
Kulkarni, S.R. et al. 1999, Nature, 398, 389.
Kumar,P. & Panaitescu,A. 2000a, ApJ, 541, L9.
Kumar,P. & Panaitescu,A. 2000b, ApJ, 541, L51.
Kumar,P. & Panaitescu,A. 2003, astro-ph/0305446.
Mészáros,P. 2001, Science, 291, 79.
Mészáros,P. & Rees,M.J. 1997, ApJ, 476, 231.
Mészáros,P., Rees,M.J. & Wijers,R.A.M.J. 1998, ApJ, 499, 301.
Panaitescu,A. & Kumar,P. 2002, ApJ, 571, 779.
Rhoads,J.E. 1999 ApJ, 525, 737.
Sari,R. & Piran,T. 1995 ApJ, 455, L143.
Sari,R. & Piran,T. 1999a ApJ, 520, 641.
Sari,R. & Piran,T. 1999b ApJ, 517, L109.
Sari,R., Piran,T. & Halpern,J.P. 1999 ApJ, 519, L17.
Sari,R., Piran,T. & Narayan,R. 1998 ApJ, 497, L17.
Zhang,B., Kobayashi,S. & Mészáros,P. 2003, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0302525).