format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Quantum Field Theory (QFT) in curved space-time is a subject of great interest which has been studied from many viewpoints (see for instance ). The main goal of QFT is the reconstruction of a set of correlation functions in which is embedded the physical information provided by the theory. Such a reconstruction is an important problem for QFT on curved space-time, where the structure of the theory is more subtle. A simple but non-trivial curved space-time with Euclidean signature is the Poincaré disk. It is maximally symmetric, which allows some techniques on two-dimensional flat space to be generalized to this space, and has a negative Gaussian curvature. The effect of a negative curvature is interesting to study: as was argued in , a negative curvature can be used as an infrared regulator for Euclidean QFT.

In two-dimensional flat space, a class of non-trivial correlation functions can be studied by their relation to the problem of isomonodromic deformations . Correlators of certain scaling fields in a free massive Dirac theory are tau functions  for the isomonodromic deformation problem associated to some Painlevé equations: they can be expressed in terms of Painlevé transcendents. The scaling fields in question, $`𝒪_\alpha =𝒪_\alpha ^{},1<\alpha <1`$, are spinless, $`U(1)`$-neutral and have scaling dimension $`\alpha ^2`$. They are not mutually local with respect to the Dirac field. Their mutual locality index with the Dirac field is $`\alpha `$, that is, the Dirac field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ takes a factor, $`\mathrm{\Psi }e^{2\pi i\alpha }\mathrm{\Psi }`$, when continued counterclockwise around the field $`𝒪_\alpha `$. Their physical interest stems in particular from the fact that correlators of some of these scaling fields are simply related to the scaling limit of correlators of local variables in the Ising model .

In , the authors generalized the method of isomonodromic deformation to the study of determinants of the Dirac operator on the Poincaré disk. Their results suggest that the two-point function of scaling fields $`𝒪_\alpha `$ in a Dirac theory on the Poincaré disk can be expressed in terms of Painlevé VI transcendents. The general form of the Painlevé VI differential equation is:

$`w^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{w}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{w1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ws}}\right)(w^{})^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ws}}\right)w^{}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{w(w1)(ws)}{s^2(1s)^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(14\mu ^2)s(s1)}{2(ws)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }1)^2s}{2w^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (s1)}{(w1)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{2}}\right)`$ (1.1)
where $`w=w(s)`$ and the primes mean derivatives with respect to $`s`$. There are four parameters: $`\mu ,\gamma ,\lambda ,\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$. For the description of the two-point function $`𝒪_\alpha (x)𝒪_\alpha ^{}(y)`$ in the free Dirac theory on the Poincaré disk, with fermion mass $`m`$ and Gaussian curvature $`\frac{1}{R^2}`$, the parameters are fixed to $`\mu =mR`$, $`\lambda =\alpha \alpha ^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=\alpha +\alpha ^{}`$ and $`\gamma =0`$. The two-point function is then identified with the associated tau function $`\tau (s)`$, with $`s`$ simply related to the geodesic distance $`\mathrm{d}(x,y)`$ between the points $`x`$ and $`y`$:

$$𝒪_\alpha (x)𝒪_\alpha ^{}(y)=\tau (s),s=\mathrm{tanh}^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}(x,y)}{2R}\right).$$

Up to normalization, the tau function is given by :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{ds}}\mathrm{ln}\tau (s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s(1s)}{4w(1w)(ws)}}\left(w^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1w}{1s}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{ws}}`$ (1.2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^2}{4(1s)w}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2w}{4s(1s)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{4s}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\mu ^2\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^2\lambda ^2}{4(1s)}}.`$
This description for the correlator needs to be completed and to be compared with direct calculation in the Dirac theory on the Poincaré disk. In order to complete it, one must supply appropriate integration constants specifying the Painlevé transcendent that describes the correlator. First, the exponent $`2\alpha \alpha ^{}`$ in the short distance power law of the two-point function,

$$𝒪_\alpha (x)𝒪_\alpha ^{}(y)𝒪_{\alpha +\alpha ^{}}\mathrm{d}(x,y)^{2\alpha \alpha ^{}}\text{ as }xy,$$
(1.3)
specifies the exponent in the asymptotic behavior of $`w(s)`$ near the critical point $`s=0`$:

$$wBs^{\alpha +\alpha ^{}}\text{ as }s0,$$
(1.4)
where $`B`$ is some constant and where we must have $`0<\alpha +\alpha ^{}<1`$. Second, the cluster property of the two-point function,

$$𝒪_\alpha (x)𝒪_\alpha ^{}(y)=𝒪_\alpha 𝒪_\alpha ^{}F\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}(x,y)}{2R}\right),\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}F\left(t\right)=1,$$
(1.5)
specifies, for $`\mu >\frac{1}{2}`$, the exponent in the asymptotic behavior of $`w(s)`$ near the critical point $`s=1`$:

$$1wA(1s)^{1+2\mu }\text{ as }s1,$$
(1.6)
where again, $`A`$ is some constant.

One can expect that the exponents in (1.4) and (1.6) form a set of integration constants fixing the Painlevé transcendent. However, one doesn’t know a priori that there exists a solution to the Painlevé equation with both behaviors (1.4) and (1.6). In addition, even if such a solution exists, this set is not the most convenient. One cannot use it for instance to provide initial conditions for numerically solving the differential equation (1.1). It is more appropriate to fix the full expansion of the Painlevé transcendent near the singular point $`s=1`$, that is, to specify the constant $`A`$ in (1.6). Fixing this constant is part of the solution to the connection problem for the particular Painlevé VI equation that we are considering, that is, the problem of relating the behaviors of the Painlevé transcendent near its various critical points. The expansion of the Painlevé transcendent near $`s=1`$ is directly related to the long distance expansion of the two-point function:

$$F\left(t\right)=1A\frac{(\mu +\alpha )(\mu +\alpha ^{})}{(2\mu +1)^2}4^{2\mu +1}e^{(4\mu +2)t}+O\left(e^{(4\mu +4)t}\right).$$
(1.7)
To our knowledge, the theory of Painlevé VI equations (1.1) in the case $`\gamma =0`$ provides no expression for $`A`$ in terms of the exponents in (1.4) and (1.6). We calculated $`A`$ by evaluating directly in a free massive Dirac theory on the Poincaré disk the long distance expansion of the two-point function:

$$A=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi \alpha )\mathrm{sin}(\pi \alpha ^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu +\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mu \alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu +\alpha ^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mu \alpha ^{})}{\pi ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2\mu )^2}$$
(1.8)
The asymptotics (1.4) can also serve as initial condition once $`B`$ is known, although it is numerically not as efficient. From results by Jimbo concerning Painlevé VI equations , one can calculate the constant $`B`$ (see section 7) – this is another part of the solution to the connection problem.

Another important quantity concerning the two-point function that is not provided by the theory of Painlevé VI equations is an expression relating the normalization of the leading long distance asymptotics of the two-point function to that of its leading short distance asymptotics. Comparing (1.3) and (1.5), one sees that the relation between normalizations can be obtained by calculating the one-point function $`𝒪_\alpha `$. Notice that the condition (1.3) fixes the normalization of the scaling fields $`𝒪_\alpha `$. This normalization being fixed, the one-point function $`𝒪_\alpha `$ is unambiguous. By a simple generalization of calculations done on flat space in , we found

$$𝒪_\alpha =(2R)^{\alpha ^2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{1\frac{\alpha ^2}{(\mu +n)^2}}{1\frac{\alpha ^2}{n^2}}\right)^n.$$

The long distance asymptotics of the two-point function is obtained by a “form factor” expansion, that is, an expansion obtained by inserting between the two operators in an appropriate vacuum expectation value a resolution of the identity on an appropriate Hilbert space. Actual calculations of form factors on this Hilbert space are done in the formalism of angular quantization. More precisely, matrix elements of operators corresponding to the scaling fields $`𝒪_\alpha `$ between the vacuum and an excited state are evaluated through appropriate traces on the Hilbert space of angular quantization, following ideas from . The one-point function $`𝒪_\alpha `$ is similarly evaluated through appropriate traces on the Hilbert space of angular quantization.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In section 2 we briefly recall standard results concerning the free Dirac fermion on the Poincaré disk. In section 3 we express the long distance expansion of the two-point function as a form factor expansion using canonical quantization. In section 4 we evaluate, up to normalization, the form factors of the scaling fields $`𝒪_\alpha `$ by calculating appropriate traces on the Hilbert space of angular quantization, and in section 5 we compute the one-point function $`𝒪_\alpha `$, which specifies the normalization of the form factors. In section 6 we discuss the long distance expansion of the two-point function, and finally in section 7 we briefly elaborate on the description of  for the two-point function in terms of a Painlevé VI transcendent and clarify our results in this context.

## 2 Free Dirac fermion on the Poincaré disk

With appropriate complex coordinates $`z=\mathrm{x}+i\mathrm{y},\overline{z}=\mathrm{x}i\mathrm{y}`$, the Poincaré disk can be brought to the region $`|z|<1`$ in the complex $`z`$–plane. For a Gaussian curvature $`\frac{1}{R^2}`$ the metric is then specified by

$$ds^2=\frac{dzd\overline{z}(2R)^2}{(1|z|^2)^2}.$$

The metric is $`SU(1,1)`$ invariant. The transformation of coordinates corresponding to the group element $`g=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ \overline{b}& \overline{a}\end{array}\right),|a|^2|b|^2=1`$ is

$$z\frac{az+\overline{b}}{bz+\overline{a}},\overline{z}\frac{\overline{a}\overline{z}+b}{\overline{b}\overline{z}+a}.$$

The geodesic distance $`\mathrm{d}(x_1,x_2)`$ between points $`x_1=(z_1,\overline{z}_1)`$ and $`x_2=(z_2,\overline{z}_2)`$ on the Poincaré disk is given by

$$\mathrm{d}(x_1,x_2)=2R\mathrm{arctanh}\left(\frac{|z_1z_2|}{|1z_1\overline{z}_2|}\right).$$
(2.1)
The free massive Dirac action with fermion mass $`m`$ in this system of coordinates is

$$𝒜=𝑑\mathrm{x}𝑑\mathrm{y}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\left(\gamma ^\mathrm{x}_\mathrm{x}+\gamma ^\mathrm{y}_\mathrm{y}+\frac{2\mu }{1|z|^2}\right)\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(2.2)
where as in the introduction $`\mu =mR`$, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_R\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_L\end{array}\right)`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\gamma ^\mathrm{y}`$. We choose the Dirac matrices as

$$\gamma ^\mathrm{x}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right),\gamma ^\mathrm{y}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$

The two-point function that we are interested in can be represented by the appropriately regularized Euclidean functional integral

$$𝒪_\alpha (x)𝒪_\alpha ^{}(y)=_{_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}}[𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }𝒟\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}]e^𝒜.$$
(2.3)
The integration is over the space $`_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}`$ of field configurations vanishing on the boundary of the disk and such that $`\mathrm{\Psi },\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ acquire phases when continued counterclockwise around the points $`x`$ and $`y`$:

$$_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}:\{\begin{array}{c}\text{around }x:\mathrm{\Psi }e^{2\pi i\alpha }\mathrm{\Psi },\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}e^{2\pi i\alpha }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\hfill \\ \text{around }y:\mathrm{\Psi }e^{2\pi i\alpha ^{}}\mathrm{\Psi },\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}e^{2\pi i\alpha ^{}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(2.4)
## 3 Hilbert space

An expansion of the functional integral (2.3) for large geodesic distance between the points $`x`$ and $`y`$ is most conveniently obtained by using the operator formalism. We will construct a Hilbert space $``$ on which this functional integral is represented by a vacuum expectation value $`vac|𝒯[𝒪_\alpha (x)𝒪_\alpha ^{}(y)]|vac`$, where $`|vac`$ is a $`SU(1,1)`$ invariant vacuum implementing vanishing boundary conditions and where the fields $`𝒪_\alpha (x)`$ and $`𝒪_\alpha ^{}(y)`$ act on $``$ as operators implementing the quasi-periodicity conditions (2.4). The symbol $`𝒯`$ here denotes an appropriate “time”-ordering, described below. The large distance expansion will be obtained by inserting between the fields $`𝒪_\alpha (x)`$ and $`𝒪_\alpha ^{}(y)`$ a resolution of the identity in terms of a basis of states that diagonalize a non-compact subgroup of the $`SU(1,1)`$ isometry group of the Poincaré disk.

We define the Hilbert space $``$ by quantizing the theory on curves that are orbits of the non-compact subgroup $`𝐊`$:

$$𝐊:g_q=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}(q)& \mathrm{sinh}(q)\\ \mathrm{sinh}(q)& \mathrm{cosh}(q)\end{array}\right),q.$$
(3.1)
Translations in the “time” direction, perpendicular to these curves, are not isometries, so that the Hamiltonian is not stationary. Translations in the “space” direction, along these curves, are isometries, and a basis for $``$ will be obtained by diagonalizing the generator of such translations. In order to construct $``$, we first map the Poincaré disk onto the strip (see Figure 1):

$$z=\mathrm{tanh}(\xi ),\overline{z}=\mathrm{tanh}(\overline{\xi })$$

with

$$\xi =\xi _\mathrm{x}+i\xi _\mathrm{y},\xi _\mathrm{x},\pi /4<\xi _\mathrm{y}<\pi /4.$$

The action (2.2) for the fermion fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }_s=\left(\begin{array}{c}(\mathrm{\Psi }_s)_R\\ (\mathrm{\Psi }_s)_L\end{array}\right)`$ on the strip is

$$𝒜=𝑑\xi _\mathrm{x}𝑑\xi _\mathrm{y}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_s\left(\gamma ^\mathrm{x}\frac{}{\xi _\mathrm{x}}+\gamma ^\mathrm{y}\frac{}{\xi _\mathrm{y}}+\frac{2\mu }{\mathrm{cos}(2\xi _\mathrm{y})}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_s,$$

where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_s=\mathrm{\Psi }_s^{}\gamma ^\mathrm{y}`$. Elements $`g_q`$ of the subgroup $`𝐊`$ are translations parallel to the strip: $`\xi _\mathrm{x}\xi _\mathrm{x}+q`$, so that the quantization space is specified by the curves $`\xi _\mathrm{y}=const.`$ The coordinate $`\xi _\mathrm{y}`$ is the Euclidean “time”. Correlation functions of local operators are expressed as vacuum expectation values of “time”-ordered products, for instance

$$𝒪_{\alpha _1}(\xi _{\mathrm{x}}^{}{}_{1}{}^{},\xi _{\mathrm{y}}^{}{}_{1}{}^{})𝒪_{\alpha _2}(\xi _{\mathrm{x}}^{}{}_{2}{}^{},\xi _{\mathrm{y}}^{}{}_{2}{}^{})\mathrm{}=vac|𝒯[𝒪_{\alpha _1}(\xi _{\mathrm{x}}^{}{}_{1}{}^{},\xi _{\mathrm{y}}^{}{}_{1}{}^{})𝒪_{\alpha _2}(\xi _{\mathrm{x}}^{}{}_{2}{}^{},\xi _{\mathrm{y}}^{}{}_{2}{}^{})\mathrm{}]|vac,$$

where the “time”-ordering $`𝒯`$ means that operators have to be ordered form left to right in decreasing values of their variable $`\xi _\mathrm{y}`$. The Hilbert space $``$ is a module for the canonical equal-“time” anti-commutation relations

$$\{\mathrm{\Psi }_s(\xi _\mathrm{x},\xi _\mathrm{y}),\mathrm{\Psi }_s^{}(\xi _\mathrm{x}^{},\xi _\mathrm{y})\}=\mathrm{𝟏}\delta (\xi _\mathrm{x}\xi _\mathrm{x}^{}),$$

where now $`\mathrm{\Psi }_s(\xi _\mathrm{x},\xi _\mathrm{y})`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_s^{}(\xi _\mathrm{x},\xi _\mathrm{y})`$ are fermion operators acting on $``$, related on different “time” slices $`\xi _\mathrm{y}=const`$ by the equations of motion. The vacuum state $`|vac`$ is $`SU(1,1)`$ invariant, and satisfies the conditions that the fermion operators vanish on it at early “times” $`\xi _\mathrm{y}\pi /4`$ and on its dual $`vac|`$ at late “times” $`\xi _\mathrm{y}\pi /4`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{\xi _\mathrm{y}\pi /4}{lim}\mathrm{\Psi }_s(\xi _\mathrm{x},\xi _\mathrm{y})|vac=\underset{\xi _\mathrm{y}\pi /4}{lim}\mathrm{\Psi }_s^{}(\xi _\mathrm{x},\xi _\mathrm{y})|vac=0\\ \underset{\xi _\mathrm{y}\pi /4}{lim}vac|\mathrm{\Psi }_s(\xi _\mathrm{x},\xi _\mathrm{y})=\underset{\xi _\mathrm{y}\pi /4}{lim}vac|\mathrm{\Psi }_s^{}(\xi _\mathrm{x},\xi _\mathrm{y})=0.\end{array}$$
(3.2)
A basis for the Hilbert space $``$ diagonalizing the subgroup $`𝐊`$ is obtained by considering a module for appropriate modes $`A_ϵ(\omega )`$, $`A_ϵ^{}(\omega )`$ of the Fermion operators $`\mathrm{\Psi }_s(\xi _\mathrm{x},\xi _\mathrm{y})`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_s^{}(\xi _\mathrm{x},\xi _\mathrm{y})`$, where $`ϵ=\pm `$ represents the $`U(1)`$ charge. These modes appear in an expansion in terms of partial waves satisfying the equations of motion and diagonalizing the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ action of the subgroup $`𝐊`$:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_s(\xi _\mathrm{x},\xi _\mathrm{y})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega \rho (\omega )\left(A_{}^{}(\omega )e^{i\omega \xi _\mathrm{x}}\overline{P}_{}(\omega ,\xi _\mathrm{y})+A_+(\omega )e^{i\omega \xi _\mathrm{x}}P_+(\omega ,\xi _\mathrm{y})\right)}`$ (3.3)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_s^{}(\xi _\mathrm{x},\xi _\mathrm{y})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega \rho (\omega )\left(A_+^{}(\omega )e^{i\omega \xi _\mathrm{x}}\overline{P}_+(\omega ,\xi _\mathrm{y})+A_{}(\omega )e^{i\omega \xi _\mathrm{x}}P_{}(\omega ,\xi _\mathrm{y})\right)},`$
where the integrations are from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$. We choose the measure

$$\rho (\omega )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}+\mu +i\frac{\omega }{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}+\mu i\frac{\omega }{2}\right)}{2\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}+\mu \right)^2}$$
(3.4)
in order for the partial waves to be entire functions of the spectral parameter $`\omega `$; this analytical property will be used later. The solutions for the partial waves can be written:

$$P_+(\omega ,\xi _\mathrm{y})=\left(\begin{array}{c}2^{2\mu \frac{1}{2}}e^{i\frac{\pi }{2}\left(\mu +\frac{1}{2}i\frac{\omega }{2}\right)}(1+e^{4i\xi _\mathrm{y}})^\mu e^{\omega \xi _\mathrm{y}}F(\mu ,\frac{1}{2}+\mu i\frac{\omega }{2};1+2\mu ;1+e^{4i\xi _\mathrm{y}})\\ 2^{2\mu \frac{1}{2}}e^{i\frac{\pi }{2}\left(\mu +\frac{1}{2}+i\frac{\omega }{2}\right)}(1+e^{4i\xi _\mathrm{y}})^\mu e^{\omega \xi _\mathrm{y}}F(\mu ,\frac{1}{2}+\mu +i\frac{\omega }{2};1+2\mu ;1+e^{4i\xi _\mathrm{y}})\end{array}\right)$$
(3.5)
and

$$\overline{P}_ϵ(\omega ,\xi _\mathrm{y})=(P_ϵ(\omega ,\xi _\mathrm{y}))^{},(P_{}(\omega ,\xi _\mathrm{y}))^t=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)P_+(\omega ,\xi _\mathrm{y}),$$
(3.6)
where $`^t`$ means transpose, and where $`F(a,b;c;z)`$ is Gauss’s hypergeometric function on a Riemann sheet delimited by the branch cut $`(\mathrm{},1]`$, with $`lim_{z0,\mathrm{}m(z)>0}F(a,b;c;z)=1`$. With this choice of solutions, the partial waves $`P_\pm (\omega ,\xi _\mathrm{y})`$ vanish on the upper boundary $`\xi _\mathrm{y}=\pi /4`$ of the strip, and $`\overline{P}_\pm (\omega ,\xi _\mathrm{y})`$ vanish on the lower boundary $`\xi _\mathrm{y}=\pi /4`$ of the strip.

The canonical anti-commutation relations for the fermion operators imply the following anti-commutation relations for the modes:

$$\{A_ϵ(\omega ),A_ϵ^{}^{}(\omega ^{})\}=\frac{1}{\rho (\omega )}\delta (\omega \omega ^{})\delta _{ϵ,ϵ^{}},\{A_ϵ(\omega ),A_ϵ^{}(\omega ^{})\}=\{A_ϵ^{}(\omega ),A_ϵ^{}^{}(\omega ^{})\}=0.$$
(3.7)
The Hilbert space is the Fock space over this algebra, and the asymptotic conditions (3.2) specify the vacuum $`|vac`$:

$$A_\pm (\omega )|vac=0$$

which we normalize to $`vac|vac=1`$. A complete basis is given by

$$|\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}=A_{ϵ_1}^{}(\omega _1)\mathrm{}A_{ϵ_n}^{}(\omega _n)|vac$$
(3.8)
for a given ordering of the $`\omega _j`$’s, for instance the “in-ordering” $`\omega _1<\mathrm{}<\omega _n`$.

The states constructed diagonalize the subgroup $`𝐊`$:

$$\widehat{g}_q|\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}=e^{iq(\omega _1+\mathrm{}+\omega _n)}|\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}$$

as well as the $`U(1)`$ charge, with eigenvalue $`ϵ_1+\mathrm{}+ϵ_n`$. Here and below we use the notation $`\widehat{g}`$ for representing the action of the group element $`g`$ on the space $``$. These states can be used to obtain a resolution of the identity on $``$:

$$\mathrm{𝟏}_{}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}\underset{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}{}\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}d\omega _j\rho (\omega _j)\right)|\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}^{}{}_{ϵ_n,\mathrm{},ϵ_1}{}^{}\omega _n,\mathrm{},\omega _1|,$$

where states with different orderings of $`\omega _j`$’s than the in-ordering $`\omega _1<\mathrm{}<\omega _n`$ are given by the same expression (3.8) in terms of modes. They differ from states with in-ordering by a sign through the anti-commutation relations (3.7).

On the Hilbert space $``$, the scaling fields $`𝒪_\alpha (x)`$ act as appropriately regularized exponentials of line integrals of the $`U(1)`$ current:

$$𝒪_\alpha (x)\pi _{}\left(\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi i\alpha _{𝒞_x}𝑑x^\mu ϵ_{\mu ,\nu }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\nu \mathrm{\Psi }\right]\right),$$
(3.9)
where $`𝒞_x`$ is a path from the position $`x`$ to the boundary of the disk and $`\pi _{}`$ is the representation map on the space $``$ (for a precise definition of the action of similar scaling fields on the standard Hilbert space of a Dirac theory on flat background, see for instance ). The resolution of the identity on $``$ then gives the long geodesic distance expansion of the two-point function $`𝒪_\alpha (x)𝒪_\alpha ^{}(y)=vac|𝒯[𝒪_\alpha (x)𝒪_\alpha ^{}(y)]|vac`$. Using the fact that the one-point function $`𝒪_\alpha =vac|𝒪_\alpha |vac`$ is non-zero and defining the function

$$F_\alpha (\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n)_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}\frac{vac|𝒪_\alpha (0)|\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}}{vac|𝒪_\alpha |vac},$$
(3.10)
we have

$`𝒪_\alpha (x)𝒪_\alpha ^{}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪_\alpha 𝒪_\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}{\displaystyle \underset{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}{}}{\displaystyle }\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}d\omega _j\rho (\omega _j)\right)\times `$
$`\times F_\alpha (\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n)_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}(F_\alpha ^{}(\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n)_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n})^{}e^{i(\omega _1+\mathrm{}+\omega _n)\frac{\mathrm{d}(x,y)}{2R}}.`$
In order to obtain this formula, one first brings $`y`$ to the origin and $`x`$ to the real axis inside the Poincaré disk; this can always be done by $`SU(1,1)`$ invariance of the correlator. Since the subgroup $`𝐊`$ generates geodesic translations along the real axis inside the Poincaré disk, matrix elements of the operator $`𝒪_\alpha (x)`$ are related to those of $`𝒪_\alpha (0)`$ by an exponential factor involving the geodesic distance $`\mathrm{d}(x,0)`$. Using $`SU(1,1)`$ invariance again, one can replace this by $`\mathrm{d}(x,y)`$ for the correlator of fields at arbitrary points $`x`$ and $`y`$. In the next section we calculate the matrix elements $`vac|𝒪_\alpha (0)|\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}`$, which we call “form factors” of the scaling fields $`𝒪_\alpha (0)`$.

## 4 Angular quantization and form factors

In order to construct form factors of local fields in quantum integrable models, in  the authors used the idea of embedding the Hilbert space $``$ of a quantum field theory in two-dimensional flat space-time into a tensor product

$$_A_A^{}$$

of the Hilbert space of angular quantization $`_A`$ and its dual $`_A^{}`$. In angular quantization, the Hamiltonian is taken as the generator of rotations around a given point. Form factors of local fields can then be constructed as traces on the angular Hilbert space $`_A`$. We will make a similar construction in order to obtain the matrix elements $`vac|𝒪_\alpha (0)|\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}`$. The angular Hamiltonian will be taken as the generator of rotations around the center of the Poincaré disk; it is the generator for the compact subgroup of the $`SU(1,1)`$ isometry group of the Poincaré disk.

We first briefly develop the formalism of angular quantization  for our theory. Angular quantization is done in conformal polar coordinates $`(\eta ,\theta )`$, where $`\theta `$ is the Euclidean “time” and $`\mathrm{}<\eta <0`$:

$$z=e^{\eta +i\theta },\overline{z}=e^{\eta i\theta }.$$
(4.1)
The fermion fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{pol}=\left(\begin{array}{c}(\mathrm{\Psi }_{pol})_R\\ (\mathrm{\Psi }_{pol})_L\end{array}\right)`$ in these coordinates enter the Dirac action as

$$𝒜=_0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta _{\mathrm{}}^0𝑑\eta \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{pol}\left(\gamma ^\eta _\eta +\gamma ^\theta _\theta \frac{\mu }{\mathrm{sinh}(\eta )}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{pol},$$
(4.2)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{pol}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{pol}^{}\gamma ^\theta `$ and $`\gamma ^\eta ,\gamma ^\theta `$ are, respectively, the same matrices as $`\gamma ^\mathrm{x},\gamma ^\mathrm{y}`$. The angular Hamiltonian derived from this action is

$$H_A=_{\mathrm{}}^0𝑑\eta :\mathrm{\Psi }_{pol}^{}\gamma ^\theta \left(\gamma ^\eta _\eta \frac{\mu }{\mathrm{sinh}(\eta )}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{pol}:,$$
(4.3)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{pol}(\eta )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{pol}^{}(\eta )`$ are now operators on the angular Hilbert space $`_A`$ satisfying the canonical anti-commutation relation

$$\{\mathrm{\Psi }_{pol}(\eta ),\mathrm{\Psi }_{pol}^{}(\eta ^{})\}=\mathrm{𝟏}\delta (\eta \eta ^{}).$$

The $`\eta `$-dependent mass term in the Hamiltonian (4.3) produces a “mass barrier” effect somewhat similar to the effect of the mass term in the theory on flat space ; it prevents the fermions from approaching too much the boundary of the disk. More precisely, it imposes vanishing asymptotic conditions for the fermion fields when $`\mu >\frac{1}{2}`$ (such asymptotic conditions are in fact allowed for all $`\mu >0`$). With these asymptotic conditions, the Hamiltonian is diagonalized by the decomposition

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{pol}(\eta ,\theta )=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\nu }{\sqrt{2\pi }}c_\nu 𝒰_\nu (\eta )e^{\nu \theta },\mathrm{\Psi }_{pol}^{}(\eta ,\theta )=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\nu }{\sqrt{2\pi }}c_\nu ^{}𝒰_\nu ^{}(\eta )e^{\nu \theta }$$
(4.4)
in terms of partial waves

$$𝒰_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{c}u_\nu \\ v_\nu \end{array}\right),$$

with

$`u_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mu )\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}+\mu i\nu \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2\mu )\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}i\nu \right)}}e^{i\nu \eta }(1e^{2\eta })^\mu F(\mu ,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\mu +i\nu ;1+2\mu ;1e^{2\eta })`$ (4.5)
$`v_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mu )\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}+\mu i\nu \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2\mu )\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}i\nu \right)}}e^{i\nu \eta }(1e^{2\eta })^\mu F(\mu ,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\mu i\nu ;1+2\mu ;1e^{2\eta }),`$ (4.6)
where $`F(a,b;c;z)`$ is Gauss’s hypergeometric function on its principal branch. In (4.4), the operators $`c_\nu ,c_\nu ^{}`$ satisfy the canonical anti-commutation relations

$$\{c_\nu ^{},c_\nu ^{}\}=\delta (\nu \nu ^{}).$$

The angular Hilbert space $`_A`$ is the fermionic Fock space over this algebra, with vacuum vector $`|0_A`$ defined by

$$c_\nu |0_A=0(\nu >0),c_\nu ^{}|0_A=0(\nu <0).$$

With an appropriate normal-ordering, the Hamiltonian takes the form

$$H_A=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu \nu (c_\nu ^{}c_\nu +c_\nu c_\nu ^{}).$$

We now consider the embedding $`_A_A^{}`$ that will allow us to calculate form factors of scaling fields $`vac|𝒪_\alpha (0)|\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}`$. The embedding is described by identifying vectors in the Hilbert space $``$ with endomorphisms on the angular Hilbert space $`_A`$:

$$|\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}a_{ϵ_1}(\omega _1)\mathrm{}a_{ϵ_n}(\omega _n)e^{\pi H_A},$$
(4.7)
where the operators $`a_ϵ(\omega )\mathrm{End}(_A)`$ are to be determined. Notice that the vacuum $`|vac`$ is identified with $`e^{\pi H_A}`$. The scalar product on $``$ is identified with the canonical scalar product on the space $`\mathrm{End}(_A)`$, which coincides with the expression of correlation functions as traces on $`_A`$:

$$u|v\frac{\text{Tr}\left(U^{}V\right)}{\text{Tr}\left(e^{2\pi H_A}\right)}\text{ if }|uU,|vV.$$
(4.8)
The representation of a field on $``$ is identified with its representation on $`_A`$:

$$\pi _{}(𝒪)|u\pi _A(𝒪)U\text{ if }|uU,$$

where $`\pi _A`$ is the representation map on the space $`_A`$.

The operators $`a_ϵ(\omega )`$ can be fixed by imposing two conditions. First, the operators on $`_A`$ representing fields at the center of the disk that are mutually local with the fermion field must commute (if they are bosonic) or anti-commute (if they are fermionic) with the operators $`a_ϵ(\omega )`$. It is sufficient to impose this condition with the fermion operators themselves:

$$\{a_ϵ(\omega ),\mathrm{\Psi }_{pol}(\eta \mathrm{})\}=\{a_ϵ(\omega ),\mathrm{\Psi }_{pol}^{}(\eta \mathrm{})\}=0.$$
(4.9)
Second, the embedding (4.7) must reproduce the form factors of fermion fields $`vac|\mathrm{\Psi }_s(\xi _\mathrm{x},\xi _\mathrm{y})|\omega _+=e^{i\omega \xi _\mathrm{x}}P_+(\omega ,\xi _\mathrm{y})`$ and $`vac|\mathrm{\Psi }_s^{}(\xi _\mathrm{x},\xi _\mathrm{y})|\omega _{}=e^{i\omega \xi _\mathrm{x}}P_{}(\omega ,\xi _\mathrm{y})`$ obtained from the partial wave decomposition (3.3). As shown in Appendix A, these two conditions are satisfied by the operators

$$a_+(\omega )=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu g(\nu ;\omega )c_\nu ^{},a_{}(\omega )=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu g(\nu ;\omega )c_\nu ,$$
(4.10)
$$g(\nu ;\omega )=\sqrt{\pi }2^\mu e^{i\frac{\pi }{2}\left(\mu +\frac{1}{2}i\frac{\omega }{2}\right)}\frac{e^{\pi \nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}+\mu +i\nu \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\mu \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}+i\nu \right)}F(\mu +\frac{1}{2}+i\nu ,\mu +\frac{1}{2}i\frac{\omega }{2};1+2\mu ;2i0).$$

Here and below we use the notation

$$F(a,b;c;2\pm i0)=\underset{\epsilon 0^+}{lim}F(a,b;c;2\pm i\epsilon ),$$

where on the right hand side $`F(a,b;c;z)`$ is Gauss’s hypergeometric function on its principal branch. We believe that the solution (4.10) to the two conditions above is unique. One can verify for instance that

$$\frac{\text{Tr}\left(e^{2\pi H_A}\pi _A(\mathrm{\Psi }_s(\xi _\mathrm{x},\xi _\mathrm{y}))a_+(\omega )\right)}{\text{Tr}\left(e^{2\pi H_A}\right)}=e^{i\omega \xi _\mathrm{x}}P_+(\omega ,\xi _\mathrm{y});$$

such expression can be calculated by using the cyclic properties of the traces and the anti-commutation relations for the modes $`c_\nu ,c_\nu ^{}`$. As is shown in Appendix B.1, the operators $`a_ϵ(\omega )`$ anti-commute among themselves:

$$\{a_{ϵ_1}(\omega _1),a_{ϵ_2}(\omega _2)\}=0.$$
(4.11)
Also, since they are linear combinations of free modes, traces of products of such operators satisfy Wick’s theorem. In particular we have the following contractions:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{Tr}\left(e^{2\pi H_A}a_ϵ^{}(\omega )a_ϵ^{}(\omega ^{})\right)}{\text{Tr}\left(e^{2\pi H_A}\right)}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho (\omega )}}\delta (\omega \omega ^{})\delta _{ϵ,ϵ^{}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{Tr}\left(e^{2\pi H_A}a_ϵ(\omega )a_ϵ^{}(\omega ^{})\right)}{\text{Tr}\left(e^{2\pi H_A}\right)}}=0`$ (4.12)
Since these contractions are respectively $`_ϵ\omega |\omega ^{}_ϵ^{}`$ and $`vac|\omega ,\omega ^{}_{ϵ,ϵ^{}}`$ and since any form factor of fermion fields in $``$ can be evaluated by Wick’s theorem, the embedding (4.7) reproduces all form factors of fermion fields.

From the expression (4.10) one can verify the following identity:

$$a_ϵ^{}(\omega )=e^{\pi H_A}a_ϵ(\omega )e^{\pi H_A}.$$

This is the analogue of crossing symmetry present in theories on flat space. For the scaling fields $`𝒪_\alpha `$, which are scalar and have the property $`𝒪_\alpha ^{}=𝒪_\alpha `$, this leads for instance to

$$(F_\alpha (\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n)_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n})^{}=F_\alpha (\omega _n,\mathrm{},\omega _1)_{ϵ_n,\mathrm{},ϵ_1}$$
(4.13)
using the notation (3.10).

From the representation (3.9) of the scaling fields on $``$, we have the following embedding:

$$𝒪_\alpha (0)|ue^{2\pi i\alpha Q}U\text{ if }|uU,$$

where $`Q`$ is the $`U(1)`$ charge in angular quantization:

$$Q=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu (c_\nu ^{}c_\nu c_\nu c_\nu ^{}).$$
(4.14)
Using this embedding, form factors of the scaling fields $`𝒪_\alpha `$ are given heuristically by the following traces:

$$vac|𝒪_\alpha (0)|\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}=\frac{\text{Tr}\left(e^{2\pi H_A+2\pi i\alpha Q}a_{ϵ_1}(\omega _1)\mathrm{}a_{ϵ_n}(\omega _n)\right)}{\text{Tr}\left(e^{2\pi H_A}\right)}.$$

Both traces in the ratio above are ill-defined and need some regularization $`\text{Tr}\text{Tr}_\epsilon `$. In the next section we will regularize such traces by doing the angular quantization on a Poincaré disk from which a small disk of radius $`\epsilon `$ around the origin has been removed. As the regularization parameter disappears $`\epsilon 0`$, the resulting ratio of traces above is then singular and goes as $`\epsilon ^{\alpha ^2}`$. We can cancel out this singularity by considering normalized form factors:

$$\frac{vac|𝒪_\alpha (0)|\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}}{vac|𝒪_\alpha |vac}=\frac{\text{Tr}\left(e^{2\pi H_A+2\pi i\alpha Q}a_{ϵ_1}(\omega _1)\mathrm{}a_{ϵ_n}(\omega _n)\right)}{\text{Tr}\left(e^{2\pi H_A+2\pi i\alpha Q}\right)}.$$
(4.15)
These can be calculated without explicit reference to a regularization procedure, simply by using, as above, the cyclic properties of the trace and the anti-commutation relations for the modes $`c_\nu `$, $`c_\nu ^{}`$. The calculation of the one-point function requires the use of an explicit regularization procedure:

$$𝒪_\alpha =vac|𝒪_\alpha |vac=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\epsilon ^{\alpha ^2}\frac{\text{Tr}_\epsilon \left(e^{2\pi H_A+2\pi i\alpha Q}\right)}{\text{Tr}_\epsilon \left(e^{2\pi H_A}\right)},$$
(4.16)
and will be done in the next section.

The traces (4.15) are calculated in Appendix B. In particular, the “two-particle” form factors are given in (B.4). Other “multi-particle” form factors of scaling fields $`𝒪_\alpha (0)`$ can be constructed from these “two-particle” form factors by Wick’s theorem, as in (B.9). In Appendix C, we verify that the expression (B.4) for the “two-particle” form factors specializes to the known expression for form factors in the flat-space limit.

## 5 One-point function

We now calculate the one-point function $`O_\alpha `$. This is a simple generalization of the calculation done in  for similar vacuum expectation values in flat space.

We regularize the traces $`\text{Tr}\text{Tr}_\epsilon `$ by cutting a small disk of radius $`\epsilon `$ around the origin and considering the angular quantization of the theory (2.2) on the resulting annulus with the boundary conditions

$$[(\mathrm{\Psi }_{pol})_R(\eta )(\mathrm{\Psi }_{pol})_L(\eta )]_{\eta =\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{\epsilon }{2R}\right)}=[(\mathrm{\Psi }_{pol})_R^{}(\eta )(\mathrm{\Psi }_{pol})_L^{}(\eta )]_{\eta =\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{\epsilon }{2R}\right)}=0.$$
(5.1)
Then the one-point function $`𝒪_\alpha `$ can be expressed as (4.16), where the $`U(1)`$ charge $`Q`$ in the regularized theory is

$$Q=_{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{\epsilon }{2R}\right)}^0𝑑\eta :\mathrm{\Psi }_{pol}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{pol}:,$$

which specializes to (4.14) in the limit $`\epsilon 0`$. It was shown in  that for the theory on flat space, the definition (4.16) with the boundary conditions (5.1) are in accordance with the conformal normalization (1.3). Since the leading behavior at short distances of the two-point function is not affected by the curvature, the expression (4.16) with the boundary conditions (5.1) lead to the same conformal normalization (1.3) for the theory on the Poincaré disk.

In order to evaluate the limit $`\epsilon 0`$ in the expression (4.16), we need the density of angular quantization states $`_\nu \mathrm{ln}(S(\nu ))`$, where the S-matrix $`S(\nu )`$ is associated with the scattering off the “mass barrier” described in the previous section:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}u_\nu \\ v_\nu \end{array}\right)|_\eta \mathrm{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{i\nu \eta }\\ ie^{i\nu \eta }S(\nu )(2R)^{2i\nu }\end{array}\right).$$

Here $`u_\nu `$ and $`v_\nu `$ are the partial waves (4.5) and (4.6). The S-matrix is given by:

$$S(\nu )=(2R)^{2i\nu }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2+i\nu )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2i\nu +\mu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2i\nu )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2+i\nu +\mu )}.$$
(5.2)
Then one finds

$$𝒪_\alpha =\mathrm{exp}\left[_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\nu }{2\pi i}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\left(1+e^{2\pi \nu +2\pi i\alpha }\right)\left(1+e^{2\pi \nu 2\pi i\alpha }\right)}{\left(1+e^{2\pi \nu }\right)^2}\right)_\nu \mathrm{ln}S(\nu )\right].$$
(5.3)
The result of the integration using (5.2) can be expressed in various ways:

$`𝒪_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`(2R)^{\alpha ^2}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}(1e^{2\mu t}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\alpha t)}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(t)}}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`(2R)^{\alpha ^2}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\frac{\alpha ^2}{(\mu +n)^2}}{1\frac{\alpha ^2}{n^2}}}\right)^n`$
$`=`$ $`(2R)^{\alpha ^2}{\displaystyle \frac{G(1+\mu \alpha )G(1+\mu +\alpha )}{G(1+\mu )^2G(1\alpha )G(1+\alpha )}},`$
where $`G(z)`$ is Barnes’ $`G`$-function, characterized mainly by the properties $`G(z+1)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)G(z)`$ and $`G(1)=1`$ (cf. ).

## 6 Long distance expansion of the two-point function

As argued in Appendix B.1, the “two-particle” form factors (B.4), like the partial waves (3.5), are entire functions of the spectral parameters $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ (hence all form factors of scaling fields $`𝒪_\alpha `$ are entire functions of their spectral parameters). Moreover, they have the following behavior as the real part of $`\omega _1`$ or $`\omega _2`$ goes to positive or negative infinity:

$`\sqrt{\rho (\omega _1)}F_\alpha (\omega _1,\omega _2)_{+,}|\omega _1|^{1\pm \alpha }\text{ as }\mathrm{}e(\omega _1)\pm \mathrm{}`$
$`\sqrt{\rho (\omega _2)}F_\alpha (\omega _1,\omega _2)_{+,}|\omega _2|^{1\alpha }\text{ as }\mathrm{}e(\omega _2)\pm \mathrm{}`$
up to proportionality factors, and other “multi-particle” form factors have similar behaviors. Hence for $`1<\alpha \alpha ^{}<1`$, the integrals over $`\omega _j`$’s in (3) are absolutely convergent. They can be evaluated by deforming the contours in their lower half planes and summing over the residues at the poles of the measure $`\rho (\omega _j)`$. The measure $`\rho (\omega )`$ has poles on the imaginary axis; in the lower half plane, they are at positions $`\omega =i(1+2\mu +2k)`$ for $`k`$.

It is instructive to interpret the poles in the measure $`\rho (\omega )`$, and the evaluation of the integrals in (3) by contour deformation as described above, in terms of a different quantization scheme. Let us summarize our construction. We choose an isometry $`𝐊`$ (3.1), subgroup of the full isometry group $`SU(1,1)`$, and we quantize the theory (2.2) on orbits of this isometry. That is, the generator $`K`$ of the subgroup $`𝐊`$ generates “space” translations. A basis for the corresponding Hilbert space $``$ is taken as a set of states diagonalizing $`K`$. They are normalized so that all form factors of local fields are entire functions of its eigenvalues $`\omega `$. With this normalization, the resolution of the identity on $``$ in terms of this basis involves a measure $`\rho (\omega )`$ (3.4) with a specific analytical structure, in particular with singularities on the imaginary axis. Now, these singularities should give information about the spectrum in a quantization scheme where $`K`$ is taken as the Hamiltonian, that is, as the generator of “time” translations.

This last assertion is the analogue of what is well known to happen for instance in a free massive theory on flat space: the singularity structure of the invariant measure $`\rho (p)=(m^2+p^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ as function of the momentum $`p`$ gives the energy spectrum. Momentum operator and energy operator (or Hamiltonian) can be seen as representations of the same translation generator in two different quantization scheme, one where this translation is along the “space” direction, the other where it is along the “time” direction.

In a free theory on flat space, the invariant measure exhibits in particular a branch cut starting at $`p=im`$ and going to $`pi\mathrm{}`$, corresponding to the continuous spectrum (from $`m`$ to infinity) of the energy operator. In our free theory on the Poincaré disk, the position of the poles of the measure (3.4) on the imaginary axis are interpreted as the discrete eigenvalues of the generator $`K`$ in the scheme where it is taken as the Hamiltonian. It is a simple matter to repeat the canonical quantization procedure of section 3 for this quantization scheme. One indeed finds a discrete set of eigenstates $`|k_1,\mathrm{},k_n_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n},k_j,n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ with eigenvalues $`\lambda _1+\mathrm{}+\lambda _n`$, where

$$\lambda _j=1+2\mu +2k_j.$$

Since these states diagonalize a generator of time translation, they can be more naturally interpreted as multi-particle states. Matrix elements of the operator $`𝒪_\alpha `$ between the vacuum $`|0`$ and multi-particle states in this scheme can be found from similar matrix elements in the Hilbert space $``$ by the following identification:

$$0|𝒪_\alpha |k_1,\mathrm{},k_n_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}=𝒪_\alpha \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(i^{k_j}\sqrt{\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2\mu +k_j)}{k_j!}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}+\mu \right)}\right)F_\alpha (i\lambda _1,\mathrm{},i\lambda _n)_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}$$

and $`_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}k_n,\mathrm{},k_1|𝒪_\alpha |0=0|𝒪_\alpha |k_1,\mathrm{},k_n_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}^{}`$. The resolution of the identity is given by the sum

$$1=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}\underset{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}{}\underset{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n0}{}|k_1,\mathrm{},k_n_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}^{}{}_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}{}^{}k_1,\mathrm{},k_n|,$$

which provides a long distance expansion for the two-point function:

$`𝒪_\alpha (x)𝒪_\alpha ^{}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}{\displaystyle \underset{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\times `$
$`\times 0|𝒪_\alpha (0)|k_1,\mathrm{},k_n_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}^{}{}_{ϵ_n,\mathrm{},ϵ_1}{}^{}k_n,\mathrm{},k_1|𝒪_\alpha ^{}(0)|0e^{(\lambda _1+\mathrm{}+\lambda _n)\frac{\mathrm{d}(x,y)}{2R}}.`$
This expansion coincides with the sum of residues coming from the evaluation of the integrals in (3) by contour deformation. Using crossing symmetry (4.13) and summing over the $`U(1)`$ charges, this can be written

$$𝒪_\alpha (x)𝒪_\alpha ^{}(y)=𝒪_\alpha 𝒪_\alpha ^{}\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{(N!)^2}\underset{k_1,\mathrm{},k_{2N}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f_\alpha (k_1,\mathrm{},k_{2N})f_\alpha ^{}(k_{2N},\mathrm{},k_1)e^{(\lambda _1+\mathrm{}+\lambda _{2N})\frac{\mathrm{d}(x,y)}{2R}},$$
(6.1)
where

$$𝒪_\alpha f_\alpha (k_1,\mathrm{},k_{2N})=0|𝒪_\alpha (0)|k_1,\mathrm{},k_{2N}_{\underset{N}{\underset{}{+,+,\mathrm{}}},\underset{N}{\underset{}{,,\mathrm{}}}}.$$
(6.2)
The functions $`f_\alpha (k_1,\mathrm{},k_{2N})`$ are evaluated in closed form in Appendices B.2, B.3. The first few terms of (6.1) give the following expansion for the two-point function:

$`F(t)=14^{2\mu +1}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi \alpha )\mathrm{sin}(\pi \alpha ^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mu +\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mu \alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mu +\alpha ^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mu \alpha ^{})}{\pi ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+2\mu )^2}}e^{(4\mu +2)t}\times `$
$`\left(12\alpha \alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu +1}{(\mu +1)^2}}e^{2t}+O(e^{4t})\right)+O(e^{(8\mu +4)t}),`$ (6.3)
where the function $`F(t)`$ was defined in (1.5).

It is interesting to notice that in the massless limit $`\mu 0`$, the two-point function still decreases exponentially at long distance. This is a signal of the infrared regulator properties of the negative curvature of the Poincaré disk .

## 7 Two-point function from Painlevé VI transcendents

From , the two-point function can be described in terms of a Painlevé VI transcendent:

$$F(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[_{\mathrm{tanh}^2t}^1𝑑s\frac{d}{ds}\mathrm{ln}\tau (s)\right],$$
(7.1)
where $`\frac{d}{ds}\mathrm{ln}\tau (s)`$ is given in (1.2) and the Painlevé transcendent $`w(s)`$ satisfies (1.1) with $`\gamma =0`$.

As said in the introduction, the integration constants specifying the Painlevé transcendent can be taken to be the exponents in the behaviors of $`w`$ at $`s0`$ (short distance) and at $`s1`$ (long distance), given, respectively, in (1.4) and (1.6) (such a solution exists). The proportionality constants $`B`$ and $`A`$ are then unambiguous. In particular, using results of Jimbo  there is an explicit expression for the constant $`B`$ involved in the short distance behavior of $`w`$:

$$B=\mu \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha ^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\alpha \alpha ^{})^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\alpha ^{}+\mu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\alpha ^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\alpha ^{})^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\alpha \alpha ^{}+\mu )}.$$
(7.2)
From this, one can obtain the full short distance expansion of $`w`$, valid for $`0<\alpha +\alpha ^{}<1`$:

$$w=Bs^{\alpha +\alpha ^{}}\underset{p,q=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_{p,q}s^{p(\alpha +\alpha ^{})+q(1\alpha \alpha ^{})}$$

where $`C_{0,0}=1`$. Once $`B`$ is fixed, the other coefficients $`C_{p,q}`$ are uniquely determined by the differential equation (1.1).

The leading long distance asymptotics (1.6) of this Painlevé transcendent is fixed by specifying the proportionality constant $`A`$. This constant can be obtained by comparing our form factor result (6) with the expansion (1.7); this leads to the value (1.8). Since we must have $`0<w<1`$ for all $`0<s<1`$, the asymptotics (1.6) is valid only for $`A>0`$, and the asymptotics (1.4) only for $`B>0`$. This imposes $`\alpha \alpha ^{}>0`$. From the behavior (1.6) and using the differential equation, one can obtain the full long distance expansion of $`w`$:

$$1w=A(1s)^{1+2\mu }\underset{p,q=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}D_{p,q}(1s)^{p(1+2\mu )+q}$$
(7.3)
with $`D_{0,0}=1`$. For instance, the coefficients $`D_{0,q}`$ are given by

$$\underset{q=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}D_{0,q}(1s)^q=s^{\alpha \alpha ^{}}F(1\alpha ^{}+\mu ,\alpha +\mu ;1+2\mu ;1s)^2.$$
(7.4)
The long distance expansion (7.3) can also be obtained from the full form factors expansion (6.1). For instance, one can verify that the coefficient $`D_{0,1}`$ in (7.4) is consistent with the coefficient of $`e^{2t}`$ in the parenthesis in the form factor expansion (6).

Solving numerically the differential equation by using the appropriate initial conditions, it is possible to verify the consistency of our result (1.8) for the constant involved in the long distance asymptotics of $`w`$, our result (5) for the one-point function, and the value (7.2) for the constant involved in the short distance asymptotics of $`w`$. We used as initial condition the long distance asymptotics (7.3) with non-zero coefficients $`D_{0,q}`$ given in (7.4) and with the value (1.8) for the normalization constant. We numerically verified that the behavior (1.4) with the constant (7.2) is recovered, and that the equation (1.3) is satisfied to a high accuracy.

## 8 Conclusion

We have fully characterized the two-point function $`𝒪_\alpha (x)𝒪_\alpha ^{}(y)`$ in the Dirac theory on the Poincaré disk, with fermion mass $`m`$ and Gaussian curvature $`\frac{1}{R^2}`$, in the region $`0<\alpha +\alpha ^{}<1,\alpha \alpha ^{}>0`$ and $`mR>\frac{1}{2}`$. A comparison of our long distance expansion with the expansion obtained from the Painlevé VI differential equation strongly suggests both that our “form factor” expansion is correct and that the Painlevé VI differential equation indeed describes the two-point function of the scaling fields $`𝒪_\alpha `$ in the region of parameters above. Notice that our results and the description above in terms of the differential equation are valid in the region $`0<mR<\frac{1}{2}`$ as well; however, they do not describe all the possible behaviors in this region.

It would be very interesting to extend this description to a larger region of $`\alpha ,\alpha ^{}`$, and to fully analyze the region $`0<mR<\frac{1}{2}`$ and the analytical continuation to negative values of $`mR`$. Probably one of the most interesting eventual application of this description is to the analysis of an appropriate scaling limit of a “near-critical” lattice Ising model on the Poincaré disk. Two-point functions of flat-space Ising spin and disorder variables in the scaling limit (described by two-point functions of spin and disorder fields in the free Majorana field theory) are simply related to two-point functions of the scaling fields $`𝒪_{\pm \frac{1}{2}}`$ in the free Dirac theory on flat space . If similar relations exist between the Ising spin and disorder variables on the Poincaré disk and the fields $`𝒪_{\pm \frac{1}{2}}`$ in the free Dirac theory on the Poincaré disk, the study of the latter can give information about the effect of the Poincaré geometry on the statistical properties of the Ising model. For instance, the one-point function (5) for $`\alpha =\frac{1}{2}`$ should be proportional to the square of the Ising magnetization near “criticality”. In the same spirit, from the point of view of the Ising model on the Poincaré disk, the region $`mR<\frac{1}{2}`$, and in particular the analytical continuation to negative values of $`mR`$, should show the most interesting features, especially in view of the arguments of . Some work has already been done in relating the scaling fields $`𝒪_{\pm \frac{1}{2}}`$ in the Dirac theory on the Poincaré disk to spin and disorder fields in the Majorana theory on the Poincaré disk . We hope to present results of a more complete investigation in a future publication .

Acknowledgment

I am very grateful to S. Lukyanov for suggesting the research project to me and for numerous discussions. I have also extremely benefited from discussions with P. Fonseca, A. B. Zamolodchikov and G. Moore, and comments from C. A. Tracy. This research was supported in part by an NSERC Postgraduate Scholarship.

## Appendix A Construction of the embedding

Here we describe a method for obtaining the expression (4.10) for the operators $`a_ϵ(\omega )`$. We first solve the locality condition (4.9) for a set of operators $`Z_ϵ(r)`$ depending on a complex parameter $`r`$:

$$\{Z_ϵ(r),\mathrm{\Psi }_{pol}(\eta \mathrm{})\}=\{Z_ϵ(r),\mathrm{\Psi }_{pol}^{}(\eta \mathrm{})\}=0,$$

with the following ansatz:

$$Z_+(r)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu f(\nu )c_\nu ^{}r^{i\nu },Z_{}(r)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu f(\nu )c_\nu r^{i\nu }.$$

This leads to the equations:

$$\underset{\eta \mathrm{}}{lim}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu e^{i\nu \eta }f(\nu )r^{i\nu }=0,\underset{\eta \mathrm{}}{lim}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu S(\nu )(2R)^{2i\nu }e^{i\nu \eta }f(\nu )r^{i\nu }=0,$$

where $`S(\nu )`$ is given in (5.2). The first equation is satisfied if $`f(\nu )`$ is analytical in the lower half $`\nu `$-plane and increases at most exponentially as $`\mathrm{}m(\nu )\mathrm{}`$, and the second equation is satisfied if $`S(\nu )f(\nu )`$ is analytical in the upper-half $`\nu `$-plane and increases at most exponentially as $`\mathrm{}m(\nu )\mathrm{}`$. Indeed, under such conditions it is possible, for $`\eta `$ negative and large enough, to send the contour of integration to $`\mathrm{}m(\nu )\mathrm{}`$ in the integral $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu e^{i\nu \eta }f(\nu )r^{i\nu }`$, giving zero contribution, and similarly for the integral $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu S(\nu )(2R)^{2i\nu }e^{i\nu \eta }f(\nu )r^{i\nu }`$ by sending the contour of integration to $`\mathrm{}m(\nu )\mathrm{}`$. This set of conditions on $`f(\nu )`$ forms a simple Riemann-Hilbert problem, a solution of which is:

$$f(\nu )=\sqrt{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}+\mu +i\nu \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}+\mu \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}+i\nu \right)}.$$
(A.1)
The operators $`a_ϵ(\omega )`$ can then be formed by taking appropriate linear combinations of $`Z_ϵ(r)`$. These linear combinations can be obtained by requiring that the states $`|\omega _ϵa_ϵ(\omega )e^{\pi H_A}`$ diagonalize the subgroup $`𝐊`$ and that they be correctly normalized. First consider states $`|r_ϵ`$ embedded in $`_A_A^{}`$ by the identification $`|r_ϵZ_ϵ(r)e^{\pi H_A}`$. Using this embedding we can calculate the following matrix elements:

$`vac|\pi _{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_R(z,\overline{z}))|r_+`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}+\mu \right)}}(1z\overline{z})^\mu r^{\frac{1}{2}}(1\overline{z}r)^\mu (1zr^1)^{\mu 1}`$
$`vac|\pi _{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_L(z,\overline{z}))|r_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}+\mu \right)}}(1z\overline{z})^\mu r^{\frac{1}{2}}(1zr^1)^\mu (1\overline{z}r)^{\mu 1}.`$ (A.2)
From this and from the transformation properties of the fermion fields one can infer the transformation properties of the states $`|r_ϵ`$ under the isometry group $`SU(1,1)`$:

$$\widehat{g}|\frac{ar+\overline{b}}{br+\overline{a}}_ϵ=H_{\frac{\mu }{2}+\frac{1}{4},g}(r)\overline{H}_{\frac{\mu }{2}+\frac{1}{4},g}(r^1)|r_ϵ,$$

where the functions $`H_{s,g}`$ and $`\overline{H}_{s,g}`$ are automorphic factors:

$$H_{s,g}(z)=(bz+\overline{a})^{2s},\overline{H}_{s,g}(\overline{z})=(\overline{b}\overline{z}+a)^{2s}.$$

Diagonalizing this action for the subgroup $`𝐊`$, we obtain the operators $`a_ϵ(\omega )`$:

$$a_ϵ(\omega )=\frac{2^{\mu \frac{1}{2}}e^{i\frac{\pi }{2}\left(\mu +\frac{1}{2}+i\frac{\omega }{2}\right)}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}+\mu \right)^2}{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}+\mu +i\frac{\omega }{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}+\mu i\frac{\omega }{2}\right)}_1^1𝑑r(1r)^{\mu \frac{1}{2}+i\frac{\omega }{2}}(1+r)^{\mu \frac{1}{2}i\frac{\omega }{2}}r^{\mu \frac{1}{2}}Z_ϵ(r),$$
(A.3)
where the integral is performed in the region $`\pi <\mathrm{arg}(r)<0`$ (other integration contours are possible but equivalent). The normalization was fixed by comparing with the partial wave (3.5). The expression (A.3) for $`a_ϵ(\omega )`$ is equivalent to (4.10).

## Appendix B Construction of form factors

We study the normalized form factors of scaling fields (4.15):

$$F_\alpha (\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n)_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{}ϵ_n}=a_{ϵ_1}(\omega _1)\mathrm{}a_{ϵ_n}(\omega _n)_\alpha ,$$

where we use the notation

$$\mathrm{}_\alpha =\frac{\text{Tr}\left(e^{2\pi K+2\pi i\alpha Q}\mathrm{}\right)}{\text{Tr}\left(e^{2\pi K+2\pi i\alpha Q}\right)}.$$
(B.1)
We will assume that the spectral parameters $`\omega _j`$ are real, except when explicitly stated.

### B.1 Construction of “two-particle” form factors

From the cyclic properties of the trace and the anti-commutation relations for the angular quantization modes, we have

$$c_\nu ^{}c_\nu ^{}_\alpha =\frac{\delta (\nu \nu ^{})}{1+e^{2\pi \nu 2\pi i\alpha }}.$$

From the definition (4.10), the trace (4.15) is then expressed as an integral:

$`a_+(\omega _1)a_{}(\omega _2)_\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{4^\mu e^{(\omega _2\omega _1)\frac{\pi }{4}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mu )^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}d\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mu +\frac{1}{2}+i\nu \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mu +\frac{1}{2}i\nu \right)\mathrm{cosh}(\pi \nu )}{1+e^{2\pi \nu 2\pi i\alpha }}}\times `$
$`F(\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i\nu ,\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _1}{2}};1+2\mu ;2+i0)F(\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i\nu ,\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _2}{2}};1+2\mu ;2i0).`$
The contour of integration goes between the poles at $`\nu =i\alpha i/2`$ and $`\nu =i\alpha +i/2`$.

The integrand is proportional to $`e^{\pi \nu }(\nu )^{1+i(\omega _1\omega _2)/2}`$ when $`\nu \mathrm{}`$, and to $`e^{\pi \nu }(\nu )^{1i(\omega _1\omega _2)/2}`$ when $`\nu \mathrm{}`$. This can be obtained from the asymptotics

$$F(a,b;c;2\pm i0)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)}(2a)^{bc}e^{\pm i\pi (a+bc)}\left(1+O(a^1)\right)+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(cb)}(2a)^be^{\pm i\pi b}\left(1+O(a^1)\right),$$

valid for $`|a|\mathrm{},|\mathrm{arg}(a)|<\pi `$. The integral can be regularized by multiplying the integrand by a factor $`e^{p\nu }`$ with some complex parameter $`p`$; the integral is then convergent for $`\mathrm{}e(p)=\pi ,\mathrm{}m(p)0`$. It can be evaluated by the method of residues, closing the contour for instance in the upper half plane if $`\mathrm{}m(p)>0`$. The “two-particle” form factor is the analytical continuation to $`p=0`$ of the resulting expression. Contributions of poles in the upper half plane give

$$a_+(\omega _1)a_{}(\omega _2)_\alpha =\frac{4^\mu i\pi e^{(\omega _2\omega _1)\frac{\pi }{4}}}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi (\mu \alpha ))\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mu )^2}\left[G_\alpha (\omega _1,\omega _2)e^{i\pi (\mu \alpha )}G_\mu (\omega _1,\omega _2)\right],$$
(B.2)
where $`G_\alpha (\omega _1,\omega _2)`$ is the analytical continuation to $`p=0`$ of the following series:

$`G_\alpha ^{(p)}(\omega _1,\omega _2)={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}[\mathrm{sin}(\pi \alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mu +\alpha +n)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mu +\alpha +n)}}e^{ip(\frac{1}{2}+\alpha +n)}`$ (B.3)
$`\times F(\mu +1+\alpha +n,\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _1}{2}};2\mu +1;2+i0)F(\mu +1+\alpha +n,\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _2}{2}};2\mu +1;2i0)]`$
and $`G_\mu (\omega _1,\omega _2)`$ is the analytical continuation to $`p=0`$ of the series above with $`\alpha `$ replaced by $`\mu `$. Note that the function $`G_\mu (\omega _1,\omega _2)`$ is shown below to be identically zero.

The series $`G_\alpha ^{(p)}(\omega _1,\omega _2)`$ is convergent in the upper half $`p`$-plane $`\mathrm{}m(p)>0`$ as well as on $`\mathrm{}m(p)=0,\mathrm{}e(p)\{0,\pi ,\pi \}`$. The analytical continuation to $`p=0`$ can be done via a “zeta-regularization”. More precisely, we subtract, inside the summation symbol in (B.3), the leading large $`n`$ asymptotics of the summand:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\mu +1)^2\mathrm{sin}(\pi \alpha )4^\mu (2n)^1e^{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }}e^{ip(\frac{1}{2}+\alpha +n)}\times `$
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{(2n)^{i\omega }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mu +\frac{1}{2}i\frac{\omega _1}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mu +\frac{1}{2}i\frac{\omega _2}{2}\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(2n)^{i\omega }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mu +\frac{1}{2}+i\frac{\omega _1}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mu +\frac{1}{2}+i\frac{\omega _2}{2}\right)}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\pi (\alpha \mu +n)}(2n)^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mu +\frac{1}{2}i\frac{\omega _1}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mu +\frac{1}{2}+i\frac{\omega _2}{2}\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\pi (\alpha \mu +n)}(2n)^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mu +\frac{1}{2}+i\frac{\omega _1}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mu +\frac{1}{2}i\frac{\omega _2}{2}\right)}}],`$
where $`\omega =(\omega _1+\omega _2)/2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(\omega _1\omega _2)/2`$. The resulting series is convergent at $`p=0`$. We then add to this series at $`p=0`$ the following quantity:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\mu +1)^2\mathrm{sin}(\pi \alpha )4^\mu e^{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }}\times `$
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mu +\frac{1}{2}i\frac{\omega _1}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mu +\frac{1}{2}i\frac{\omega _2}{2}\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (1+i\omega )}{2^{1+i\omega }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mu +\frac{1}{2}+i\frac{\omega _1}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mu +\frac{1}{2}+i\frac{\omega _2}{2}\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (1i\omega )}{2^{1i\omega }}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\pi (\alpha \mu )}(2^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mu +\frac{1}{2}i\frac{\omega _1}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mu +\frac{1}{2}+i\frac{\omega _2}{2}\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (1+i\mathrm{\Delta })}{2^{1+i\mathrm{\Delta }}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\pi (\alpha \mu )}(2^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mu +\frac{1}{2}+i\frac{\omega _1}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mu +\frac{1}{2}i\frac{\omega _2}{2}\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (1i\mathrm{\Delta })}{2^{1i\mathrm{\Delta }}}}],`$
where $`\zeta (z)`$ is Riemann’s zeta function. The result is $`G_\alpha (\omega _1,\omega _2)`$. Notice that the function $`G_\alpha (\omega _1,\omega _2)`$ is real for real $`\omega _1,\omega _2`$.

The resulting expression for $`G_\alpha (\omega _1,\omega _2)`$ defines a function of $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ analytical in the region $`|\mathrm{}m(\omega _1+\omega _2)|<2`$, $`|\mathrm{}m(\omega _1\omega _2)|<2`$. By repeating the procedure above for the full large $`n`$ asymptotics of the summand of $`G_\alpha ^{(p)}(\omega _1,\omega _2)`$, one can see that the function $`G_\alpha (\omega _1,\omega _2)`$ thus defined has no singularity in the finite complex $`\omega _1`$\- and $`\omega _2`$-planes: the function $`G_\alpha (\omega _1,\omega _2)`$ is an entire function of $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$.

The function $`G_\mu (\omega _1,\omega _2)`$ can now be evaluated in the following way. From (B.2), we have

$$a_+(\omega _1)a_{}(\omega _2)_0=\frac{4^\mu i\pi e^{(\omega _2\omega _1)\frac{\pi }{4}}}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi \mu )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mu )^2}e^{i\pi \mu }G_\mu (\omega _1,\omega _2).$$

By covariance under the subgroup $`𝐊`$ we find

$$(\omega _1+\omega _2)G_\mu (\omega _1,\omega _2)=0.$$

Since the function $`G_\mu (\omega _1,\omega _2)`$ is entire, this implies that it must be identically zero. Notice that a similar calculation leads to $`a_{}(\omega _1)a_+(\omega _2)_0=0`$. Since the commutator $`\{a_{}(\omega _1),a_+(\omega _2)\}`$ is a $`c`$-number, an immediate consequence is the anti-commutation property (4.11).

Hence we finally have

$$F_\alpha (\omega _1,\omega _2)_{+,}=\frac{4^\mu i\pi e^{(\omega _2\omega _1)\frac{\pi }{4}}}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi (\mu \alpha ))\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mu )^2}G_\alpha (\omega _1,\omega _2).$$
(B.4)
### B.2 Two-particle form factors in the discrete basis

It is possible to evaluate the function $`G_\alpha (\omega _1,\omega _2)`$ for some purely imaginary values of $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$. We will evaluate it for the values $`\omega _1=i(1+2\mu +2k_1)`$ and $`\omega _2=i(1+2\mu +2k_2)`$ for integers $`k_10`$ and $`k_20`$. This can be done by using the analytical continuation described above. Equivalently, it can be done by simply replacing these values of $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ in the expression (B.3), evaluating the resulting series at $`p=0`$ in a region of $`\mu `$ where it is convergent and analytically continuing the result in $`\mu `$. With

$$G_{\alpha ;k_1,k_2}G_\alpha (i(1+2\mu +2k_1),i(1+2\mu +2k_2)),$$

this gives

$$G_{\alpha ;k_1,k_2}=\mathrm{sin}(\pi \alpha )\underset{m_1=0}{\overset{k_1}{}}\underset{m_2=0}{\overset{k_2}{}}\frac{(k_1)_{m_1}(k_2)_{m_2}2^{m_1+m_2}}{(2\mu +1)_{m_1}(2\mu +1)_{m_2}m_1!m_2!}H_{\alpha ;m_1,m_2}$$
(B.5)
where

$$H_{\alpha ;m_1,m_2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mu +\alpha +m_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mu +\alpha +m_2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mu +\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mu +\alpha )}_3F_2(1,1+\mu +\alpha +m_1,1+\mu +\alpha +m_2;1+\mu +\alpha ,1\mu +\alpha ;1).$$

The $`_3F_2`$ hypergeometric function above can be evaluated in closed form, for any given integer $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$, in terms of Gamma functions and rational functions of $`\mu `$ and $`\alpha `$. The two-particle form factors $`(\text{6.2})`$ in the discrete basis are expressed in terms of $`G_{\alpha ;k_1,k_2}`$:

$$f_\alpha (k_1,k_2)=2^{2\mu +1}i(1)^{k_1}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2\mu +k_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2\mu +k_2)}{k_1!k_2!}}\frac{G_{\alpha ;k_1,k_2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2\mu )^2\mathrm{sin}(\pi (\mu \alpha ))}.$$
(B.6)
### B.3 “Multi-particle” form factors

The “multi-particle” form factors of scaling fields can be evaluated by Wick’s theorem in terms of the two-particle form factors. We have

$$F_\alpha (\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n)_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}=\underset{j=2}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^jF_\alpha (\omega _1,\omega _j)_{ϵ_1,ϵ_j}F_\alpha (\omega _2,\mathrm{},\widehat{\omega _j},\mathrm{},\omega _n)_{ϵ_2,\mathrm{},\widehat{ϵ_j},\mathrm{},ϵ_n}$$
(B.7)
where the hat over an argument means omission of this argument. Of course this will be non-zero only for $`_{j=1}^nϵ_j=0`$. Forming the $`n\times n`$ matrix $`𝐅_\alpha (\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n)_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}`$ with matrix elements $`[𝐅_\alpha (\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n)_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}]_{i,j}=F_\alpha (\omega _i,\omega _j)_{ϵ_i,ϵ_j}`$, the “multi-particle” form factors can be written as Pfaffians<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 Using this, one can immediately write the form factor expansion (3) as a Fredholm determinant in the case $`\alpha =\alpha ^{}`$. :

$$F_\alpha (\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n)_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}=\mathrm{Pf}\left(𝐅_\alpha (\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n)_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}\right).$$
(B.8)
Using (4.11), it is always possible to choose the order such that $`N`$ operators with positive $`U(1)`$ charge are followed by $`N`$ operators with negative $`U(1)`$ charge. Forming the $`N\times N`$ matrix $`𝐆_\alpha (\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _N;\stackrel{~}{\omega }_1,\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_N)`$ with matrix elements $`[𝐆_\alpha (\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _N;\stackrel{~}{\omega }_1,\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_N)]_{i,j}=F_\alpha (\omega _i,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_j)_+`$, we have

$$F_\alpha (\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _N,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\omega }_N)_{\underset{N}{\underset{}{+,+,\mathrm{}}},\underset{N}{\underset{}{,,\mathrm{}}}}=(1)^{N(N1)/2}det(𝐆_\alpha (\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _N;\stackrel{~}{\omega }_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\omega }_N)).$$
(B.9)
Similar expressions are valid for the form factors $`0|𝒪_\alpha |k_1,\mathrm{},k_n_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n}`$ in the discrete basis.

## Appendix C Flat space limit of form factors

It is a simple matter to verify that the “two-particle” form factors (B.4) specialize to the known expression in the flat space limit. Two-particle form factors of the scaling fields $`𝒪_\alpha `$ in the flat space limit, with particle at rapidities $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _2`$ and states normalized by $`_{ϵ_1}\beta _1|\beta _2_{ϵ_2}^{flat}=2\pi \delta _{ϵ_1,ϵ_2}\delta (\beta _1\beta _2)`$, are obtained by

$`vac|𝒪_\alpha |\beta _1,\beta _2_+^{flat}=\underset{\mu \mathrm{}}{lim}\times `$ (C.1)
$`(2\mu )^{\alpha ^2+1}2\pi \sqrt{\rho (2\mu \mathrm{sinh}(\beta _1))\rho (2\mu \mathrm{sinh}(\beta _2))\mathrm{cosh}(\beta _1)\mathrm{cosh}(\beta _2)}F_\alpha (2\mu \mathrm{sinh}(\beta _1),2\mu \mathrm{sinh}(\beta _2))_+`$
and the one-point function is obtained by

$$𝒪_\alpha ^{flat}=\underset{\mu \mathrm{}}{lim}(2\mu )^{\alpha ^2}𝒪_\alpha .$$

Using the expression (B.4), this gives the known normalized flat space form factors, first obtained in :

$$\frac{vac|𝒪_\alpha |\beta _1,\beta _2_+^{flat}}{𝒪_\alpha ^{flat}}=\frac{i\mathrm{sin}(\pi \alpha )}{\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{\beta _1\beta _2}{2}\right)}e^{\alpha (\beta _1\beta _2)}.$$


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

High energy coherent vector meson photo- and electroproduction provides new tools for understanding of many exciting phenomena in the QCD physics of the hadron-nucleus interactions. The photon wave function comprises a variety of hadronic components as well as a direct contribution of the quark-antiquark pairs. In the high energy regime, the photon transforms into a $`q\overline{q}`$ pair long before the nuclear target. The transverse size of the produced $`q\overline{q}`$ pair is controlled by the mass of the quark ($`rm_q^1`$, provided $`m_q\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$). Correspondingly, the scale of virtuality in the considered processes is $`Q^2m_q^2`$. The strength of the high-energy interaction of small dipoles in QCD depends on the size of the area occupied by the color field within the interacting objects: the smaller the size, the weaker the interaction . Probably the most sensitive indicator of the size of the interacting objects is the $`t`$-dependence of exclusive vector meson electro- and photoproduction. The current HERA data on the vector meson electroproduction on the proton target, see e.g. , are consistent with the prediction of  that the t-slopes of the $`\rho `$ and $`J/\psi `$ production production cross sections should converge to the same value with the rate of convergence consistent with the estimate of . This indicates that at small $`x`$, $`x=(M_V^2+Q^2)/s`$ ($`x`$ is related to the momentum fractions of the exchanged gluons – see the discussion of Eq. (4); $`s`$ is the invariant energy for $`\gamma N`$ scattering), the configurations of much smaller size than the average light meson size dominate $`J/\psi `$ production for all $`Q^2`$ and $`\rho `$ production for $`Q^25`$ GeV2. In the kinematics of small $`x`$ and large $`Q^2`$, the QCD factorization theorem predicts that the cross sections of coherent production of vector mesons off nuclei are proportional to the square of the nuclear gluon parton density 111Note that the corrections due to the skewedness effects at large $`Q^2`$ and small $`x`$ are calculable in terms of the QCD evolution equation for the generalized parton distributions. $`G_A(x,Q^2)`$ . It is reasonably well known from various data analyses that $`G_A(x,Q^2)`$ is not shadowed and even may be enhanced at $`0.02÷0.03x0.2`$: $`G_A(x,Q^2)AG_N(x,Q^2)`$. One should note that the small-$`x`$ behavior of nuclear parton distributions is crucial for various aspects of small-$`x`$ dynamics with nuclei. The nuclear parton distributions have been analyzed both phenomenologically, by fitting to the available data  (which for $`Q^22`$ GeV2 are available only for $`x10^2`$), and theoretically, by using various models, see Ref.  for the review. These analyses suggest a rather significant nuclear shadowing assuming that the leading twist effects dominate. However, the $`F_{2A}/F_{2D}`$ data are restricted to rather moderate $`Q^2`$, where higher twist effects due to e.g. diffractive vector meson production are not negligible.

On the theoretical end, there are two types of models. One class focuses on sufficiently large virtualities, where leading twist dominates. It assumes that the soft physics (aligned jet model) which dominates at the starting scale of evolution for quark shadowing should be present in the gluon sector as well, so that the gluon shadowing effects at the initial evolution scale of a few GeV2 should be comparable to that of quarks . More recently a more quantitative approach became possible. It is based on the combination of the Gribov theorem connecting diffraction and shadowing , and the Collins factorization theorem for hard diffraction in DIS . As a result, this approach effectively takes into account the nonconservation of the number of particles in QCD evolution and the restoration of the gluon fields by the small color singlets. When combined with the HERA hard diffractive data and quasieikonal modeling of the multiple rescattering terms, it leads to the prediction that the gluon shadowing is significantly larger than that for quarks at the starting scale of QCD evolution of $`Q^24`$ GeV2.

Another group of the models  aims to model the effects of the modification of nuclear gluon field both in the regime of high gluon densities, where the decomposition over the twists is not applicable and at large $`Q^2`$ where the leading twist dominates. It assumes that parton densities are saturated at $`Q^2Q_s^2`$ ($`Q_s^2(x)`$ is the saturation scale). An important feature of these models is that they do not lead to the leading twist shadowing at $`Q^2Q_s^2`$, see e.g. discussion in . In particular, in these models the effect of nuclear shadowing for the interaction of a small dipole is modeled in the frozen impact parameter eikonal approximation with the dipole coupled to the unscreened nucleon gluon field, leading to the shadowing $`xG_N(x,Q^2)/Q^2`$.

A large leading twist gluon shadowing would significantly slow down the increase of the cross section of the small dipole-nucleus interaction with energy (which is proportional to the gluon density) and, hence, would significantly extend the $`x`$ range, where unitarity for the interaction of small dipoles with nuclei is not violated in the DGLAP approximation. As a result, this may strongly affect the pattern of the possible onset of the regime of the black body limit (BBL).

In the $`x`$-range, where nuclear gluons are not shadowed, one expects the regime of color transparency for coherent production of onium states. A leading twist shadowing would lead to the onset of the perturbative color opacity with the decrease of $`x`$. However, this shadowing merely slows down the increase of the gluon density with the decrease of $`x`$. Hence, at sufficiently small $`x`$, the perturbative color opacity regime will be also violated. This may lead to the onset of BBL or another nonlinear regime of QCD.

The crucial questions for understanding the interplay among the above mentioned phenomena are the following. What is the kinematical region where the squeezing of the $`q\overline{q}`$ dipole takes place, which justifies the application of perturbative QCD? What are the leading mechanisms of nuclear shadowing at very small $`x`$, where the small size dipole-nucleon interaction become large? Can the gluon saturation effect at small $`x`$ stop the increase of the cross section before reaching the BBL.

In order to establish the effect of nuclear opacity and clarify the role of the leading and higher twist mechanisms of nuclear shadowing in an unambiguous way, it is necessary to investigate the interaction of a small dipole with the nuclear medium and check whether the amplitude of the interaction is reduced as compared to the color transparency expectation of the amplitude being proportional to the atomic number. Production of light vector mesons at small $`x`$ in DIS by the longitudinally polarized photons and photoproduction of onium states seem to be optimal for these purposes. The studies of the dipole model in Ref.  suggest that one is safely into the perturbative domain at $`x10^3`$ only if the transverse distances are below $`d0.3`$ fm. For the light mesons this requires $`Q^215`$ GeV2 and, hence, an eA collider with energies of HERA and large luminosity. The photoproduction of $`J/\psi `$ appears to be the borderline case – the amplitude seems to be getting a significant contribution from the transitional region between perturbative and nonperturbative QCD. Although $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction suits well the studies of the onset of color opacity, in general it may be rather problematic to distinguish the perturbative regime, where the amplitude is proportional to the gluon density, from the regime, where the fast increase of the gluon density results in the violation of the leading twist approximation and the transition to the black body limit (BBL) takes place. In Ref.  it was suggested to study the onset of BBL in the coherent photoproduction of dijets from heavy nuclei since in this case the role of the leading twist shadowing is negligible. On the contrary, the coherent $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ photoproduction off heavy nuclei seems to be essentially unique for the investigation of the onset of the perturbative color opacity in the leading twist (LT) shadowing regime. In this case, the interaction is dominated by such small transverse interquark distances $`d_t`$, $`d_t0.1`$ fm, that physics of interactions is definitely perturbative up to very large energies. For example, the cross section of the interaction of a dipole with $`d_t0.1`$ fm is $`\sigma (d_t=0.1\mathrm{fm},x=10^4)=3.5`$ mb and is even smaller for larger $`x`$.

In order to probe the onset of perturbative color opacity in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ production, one would need to reach $`x10^2`$. This would require an electron-nucleus collider in the HERA energy range with a luminosity per nucleon comparable to the luminosity in the electron-proton collisions, which appears to be rather problematic for HERA. At the same time there are plans for studying the photoproduction off nuclei at LHC using ultraperipheral heavy ion collisions, including the studies of the coherent onium photoproduction. For the review and extended list of references, see Ref. .

Recently it was demonstrated  that the yield of $`J/\psi `$ in the coherent production in the kinematics of the ultraperipheral ion collisions at LHC is suppressed at the central rapidities by a factor of 6 compared to that in the impulse approximation. Such a significant effect of the suppression would clearly signal the revealing of the color opacity phenomena. However, as mentioned above, the gluon virtualities in this case are on the borderline between the perturbative and nonperturbative QCD regimes ($`Q_{eff}^23÷4`$ GeV2) and the leading twist approximation might not be accurate enough for the evaluation of the scattering amplitude, especially since the nonperturbative region could probably give a significant correction .

In summary, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ photoproduction stands out as the simplest probe of the propagation of small color dipoles, $`d_t=0.1`$ fm, at LHC energies, which will allow to investigate the nuclear gluon fields at the effective scale $`Q^240`$ GeV2. In this case, the estimates of nuclear shadowing via the leading twist mechanism based on perturbative QCD used in Ref. , will be much better justified. The main objective of this work is to present the results of a study of the coherent production of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ in the ultraperipheral collisions of heavy ions in the kinematics of LHC.

## 2 Production of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ in ultraperipheral collisions

The cross section of the coherent $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ production integrated over the transverse momenta of the nucleus, which emitted a photon, can be written using the standard Weizsacker-Williams approximation  in the form:

$$\frac{d\sigma (AA\mathrm{{\rm Y}}AA)}{dy}=N_\gamma (y)\sigma _{\gamma A\mathrm{{\rm Y}}A}(y)+N_\gamma (y)\sigma _{\gamma A\mathrm{{\rm Y}}A}(y).$$
(1)
Here $`y=ln\frac{2\gamma m_NM_V}{s}`$ is the c.m. rapidity of the produced $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$; $`\gamma `$ is Lorentz factor; $`\sigma (y)`$ is the cross section for the photoproduction of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$; $`N_\gamma (y)`$ is the flux of the equivalent photons :

$$N(y)=\frac{Z^2\alpha }{\pi ^2}d^2b\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AA}(\stackrel{}{b})\frac{1}{b^2}X^2\left[K_1^2(X)+\frac{1}{\gamma }K_0^2(X)\right],$$
(2)
where $`K_0(X)`$ and $`K_1(X)`$ are modified Bessel functions of the argument $`X=bm_Ve^y/(2\gamma )`$; $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ is the transverse distance between the centers of the colliding nuclei. The standard Glauber profile factor,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AA}(\stackrel{}{b})=\mathrm{exp}\left(\sigma _{NN}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑zd^2b_1\rho _A(z,\stackrel{}{b}_1)\rho _A(z,\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{b}_1)\right),$$
(3)
accounts for the inelastic strong interactions of the nuclei at impact parameters $`b2R_A`$ and, hence, suppresses the corresponding contribution to the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ photoproduction. In our calculations we use the nuclear matter density $`\rho _A(z,\stackrel{}{b})`$ obtained from the mean field Hartree-Fock-Skyrme (HFS) model, which describes many global properties of nuclei  as well as many single-particle nuclear structure characteristics extracted from the high energy $`A(e,ep)`$ reactions .

The amplitude of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ photoproduction (necessary for the calculation of $`\sigma _{\gamma A\mathrm{{\rm Y}}A}`$ in Eq. (1)) in the leading twist approximation is described by the series of the Feynman diagrams in Fig. 1.

The QCD factorization theorem for exclusive meson photoproduction  allows one to express the imaginary part of the forward amplitude for the production of a heavy vector meson by a photon, $`\gamma +TV+T`$, through the convolution of the wave function of the meson at the zero transverse separation between the quark and antiquark, the hard interaction block and the generalized parton distribution (GPD) of the target, $`G_T(x_1,x_2,Q^2,t_{min})`$, at $`t_{min}x^2m_N^2`$. The gluon light cone fractions $`x_i`$ for the gluons attached to the quark loop satisfy the relation:

$$x_1x_2=\frac{m_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^2}{s}x,$$
(4)
where $`s=4E_N\omega =4\gamma \omega m_N`$ is the invariant energy for $`\gamma N`$ scattering ($`E_N=\gamma m_N`$ is the energy per nucleon in the c.m. of the nucleus-nucleus collisions). If the quark Fermi motion and binding effects were negligible, $`x_2x_1`$. Numerical estimates using realistic potential model wave functions indicate that for $`J/\psi `$, $`x_11.5x,x_2x/2`$ , and that for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, $`x_2/x_10.1`$ . Modeling of the GPDs at moderate $`Q^2`$ suggests that, to a good approximation, $`G_T(x_1,x_2)`$ can be approximated by the gluon density at $`x=(x_1+x_2)/2`$ . For large $`Q^2`$ and small $`x`$, GPDs are dominated by the evolution from $`x_i(init)x_i`$. Since the evolution conserves $`x_1x_2`$, the effect of skewedness is determined primarily by the evolution from nearly diagonal distributions.

Hence, we can approximate the amplitude of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ photoproduction off nucleus at $`k_t^2=0`$, presented by a series of diagrams in Fig. 1, as

$$M(\gamma +A\mathrm{{\rm Y}}+A)=M(\gamma +N\mathrm{{\rm Y}}+A)\frac{G_A(x,Q_{eff}^2)}{AG_N(x,Q_{eff}^2)}F_A(t_{min}),$$
(5)
where $`F_A`$ is nuclear form factor normalized so that $`F_A(0)=A`$; $`Q_{eff}^2(\mathrm{{\rm Y}})40`$ GeV2 according to the estimates of . It is worth noting that really we are not sensitive here to the precise value of $`Q_{eff}^2`$ since for large $`Q^2`$, the gluon shadowing decreases slowly with $`Q^2`$. Note that the skewedness effects, which are expected to be small at $`Q^2`$ a few GeV2, become important in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ case. They appear to increase the cross section of the reaction $`\gamma +p\mathrm{{\rm Y}}+p`$ by a factor $`2`$, see Refs. . Potentially, this could obscure the connection between the perturbative color opacity effect and shadowing of the nuclear gluon densities. However, the analysis of  shows that the ratio of GPD on nucleus and on a nucleon for $`t=t_{min}`$ is a weak function of $`x_2`$, slowly dropping from its diagonal value ($`x_2=x_1`$) with the decrease of $`x_2`$. Overall this observation is in a agreement with the general trend mentioned above that it is more appropriate to do a comparison of the diagonal and non-diagonal cases at $`x=(x_1+x_2)/2`$.

The effect of leading twist nuclear shadowing can be quantified by considering the diagram (b) in Fig. 1. All possible unitary cuts of the diagram lead to inelastic shadowing in hadron-nucleus total cross sections . Applying these ideas to DIS on nuclei and using the factorization theorem for hard diffraction , coupled with the QCD analysis of the HERA data on diffractive DIS , nuclear parton distributions can be predicted . In general, the theory of leading twist nuclear shadowing should be applied in two steps. Firstly, the nuclear gluon density distribution is calculated at the starting evolution scale of the effective momentum transfer $`Q_0^2=4`$ GeV2

$`G_A(x,Q_0^2)=AG_N(x,Q_0^2)8\pi \mathrm{}e[{\displaystyle \frac{(1i\eta )^2}{1+\eta ^2}}{\displaystyle }d^2b{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}dz_1{\displaystyle \underset{z_1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}dz_2{\displaystyle \underset{x}{\overset{x_{IP}^0}{}}}dx_{IP}`$
$`\times g_N^D({\displaystyle \frac{x}{x_{IP}}},x_{IP},Q_0^2,t_{min})\rho _A(\stackrel{}{b},z_1)\rho _A(\stackrel{}{b},z_2)e^{ix_{IP}m_N(z_1z_2)}e^{\frac{1}{2}\sigma _{eff}(x,Q_0^2)(1i\eta )\underset{z_1}{\overset{z_2}{}}𝑑z\rho _A(\stackrel{}{b},z)}].`$ (6)
Here $`g_N^D(\frac{x}{x_{IP}},x_{IP},Q_0^2,t_{min})`$ is the diffractive gluon density distribution of the nucleon; $`x_{IP}`$ is the Pomeron momentum fraction; $`\eta `$ is the ratio of the real to imaginary parts of the elementary diffractive amplitude; $`x_{IP}^0=0.03`$ is the cut-off parameter of the theory. As an input, we used the H1 parameterization  of $`g_N^D(\frac{x}{x_{IP}},x_{IP},Q_0^2,t_{min})`$. The effect of the interactions with three and more nucleons of the target (graph (c) in Fig. 1) is included in the attenuation factor $`T=\mathrm{exp}(\sigma _{eff}(x,Q_0^2)(1i\eta )/2\underset{z_1}{\overset{z_2}{}}𝑑z\rho _A(\stackrel{}{b},z))`$. The effective cross section $`\sigma _{eff}(x,Q_0^2)`$ accounts for the elastic rescattering of the produced diffractive state off the nuclear nucleon in the series of the rescattering diagram (graphs (b) and (c) in Fig. 1) and is defined by the equation

$`\sigma _{eff}(x,Q_0^2)={\displaystyle \frac{16\pi }{(1+\eta ^2)G_N(x,Q_0^2)}}{\displaystyle \underset{x}{\overset{x_{IP}^0}{}}}𝑑x_{IP}g_N^D({\displaystyle \frac{x}{x_{IP}}},x_{IP},Q_0^2,t_{min}).`$ (7)
Secondly, since the photoproduction of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ corresponds to larger $`Q^2`$ scales $`40`$ GeV2, the gluon density distributions were evolved up to this scale using the NLO QCD evolution equations. In the limit of low nuclear density, when the effect of the attenuation factor $`T`$ can be neglected, Eq. (6) can be applied to evaluate $`G_A`$ at any scale $`Q^2`$ and not only at $`Q_0^2`$. In the general case, Eq. (6) should be used only at rather moderate $`Q_0^2`$ and should serve as an input for QCD evolution: The modelling of multiple rescattering by the attenuation factor $`T`$ ignores the fluctuations in the strength of the interaction around the average value $`\sigma _{eff}`$, which is a good approximation only at moderate $`Q_0^2`$. Indeed, at $`Q_0^23÷4`$ GeV2, the interactions are predominantly soft with small cross section fluctuations. The effect of cross section fluctuations is automatically included in QCD evolution, which leads to violation of the Glauber - like structure of the expression for the shadowing for $`Q^2>Q_0^2`$.

One can also address the question of the accuracy of the substitution of the ratio of the generalized gluon densities by the ratio of the diagonal parton densities at the normalization scale. In the case of scattering off two nucleons (only graph (b) in Fig. 1), one can express the leading twist screening via the nondiagonal matrix element of the diffractive distribution function, $`\stackrel{~}{g}^D`$ (an analog of generalized PDF). It depends on the light-cone fraction, which the nucleon lost in the $`|in`$ and $`out|`$ states: $`x_{IP}`$ $`x_{IP}x`$ respectively, $`\beta _{in}=x_1/x_{IP},\beta _{out}=(x_1x)/(x_{IP}x)`$, and $`t,Q^2`$. If we make a natural assumption that

$$\stackrel{~}{g}^D(x_1,x,x_{IP},Q_0^2,t)=\sqrt{g^D(\beta _{in},Q_0^2,x_{IP},t)g^D(\beta _{out},Q_0^2,x_{IP}x,t)},$$
(8)
we find that in the kinematics we discuss, the resulting skewedness effects are small numerically. They are smaller than the uncertainties in the input gluon diagonal diffractive PDFs.

The discussion of the nuclear gluon distribution culminates in the fact that the cross section of the process $`\gamma A\mathrm{{\rm Y}}A`$ can be readily obtained by squaring the amplitude in Eq. (5)

$$\sigma _{\gamma A\mathrm{{\rm Y}}A}(s)=\frac{d\sigma _{\gamma N\mathrm{{\rm Y}}N}(s,t_{min})}{dt}\left[\frac{G_A(\frac{M_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^2}{s},Q_{eff}^2)}{AG_N(\frac{M_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^2}{s},Q_{eff}^2)}\right]^2\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{t_{min}}{}}𝑑t\left|d^2b𝑑ze^{i\stackrel{}{q}_t\stackrel{}{b}}e^{iq_lz}\rho _A(\stackrel{}{b},z)\right|^2,$$
(9)
where $`t=|\stackrel{}{q}_t|^2+|q_l|^2`$ is the square of the vector meson transverse momentum and $`q_l=m_NM_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^2/s`$ is the minimal longitudinal momentum transfer in the photoproduction vertex.

The elementary cross section of forward $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ photoproduction in the energy range of interest is not known well experimentally. In our calculation, we used a simple parametrized form

$$\frac{d\sigma _{\gamma N\mathrm{{\rm Y}}N}(s,t)}{dt}=10^4B_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\left[\frac{s}{s_0}\right]^{0.85}\mathrm{exp}(B_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}t)$$
(10)
with the reference scale $`s_0=6400`$ GeV2; the slope parameter $`B_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=3.5GeV^2`$ and the energy dependence, which follows from the calculations  of the photoproduction of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ in the leading $`\mathrm{log}Q^2`$ approximation with an account for the skewedness of the partonic density distributions. The cross section is normalized so that the total cross section is in $`\mu b`$.

The results of the calculations using Eq. (9) are presented in Fig. 2. The figure depicts the ratio of $`\sigma _{\gamma A\mathrm{{\rm Y}}A}`$ calculated with Eq. (9) to that calculated ignoring the effect of nuclear shadowing (setting $`G_A=AG_N`$). We find a rather strong suppression of the coherent $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ photoproduction cross section off nuclei. Note that UPC collisions at LHC are sensitive to the $`x`$-range of $`3\times 10^4x5\times 10^3`$.

Since the significant effect of shadowing is far beyond the energies available in the fixed target experiments with the photon beams, the only opportunity to study this phenomenon is coherent production in UPC at LHC222In principle, HERA can reach into the necessary kinematics. However, this would require both the approval of HERAIII program and development of the system necessary for high luminosity runs with heavy nuclei.. In this kinematics, the coherent events can be selected by the requirement of anticoincidence with the signal in the Zero Degree Calorimeter( the requirement is that there are no neutrons in the final state) and by selecting the produced $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ with the small transverse momentum, which strongly suppresses the contribution of the incoherent diffraction. The specific transverse momentum distributions for both coherent and incoherent production are shown in Fig. 3. The cross section of the incoherent $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ photoproduction was estimated in the impulse approximation as

$$\frac{d\sigma _{\gamma A\mathrm{{\rm Y}}X}(s,t)}{dt}=A\frac{d\sigma _{\gamma N\mathrm{{\rm Y}}N}(s,t)}{dt}.$$
(11)
This constitutes the upper limit for incoherent contribution.

The rapidity distributions for coherent $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ production in the UPC with Ca and Pb beams are shown in Fig. 4 and the corresponding total cross sections are given in Table 1. For comparison in Fig. 4 we also present results (the dotted curve) of the calculation using the model of Eskola et al.  for the gluon shadowing, which predicts somewhat smaller suppresion of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ yield. In order to illustrate that that eikonal dipole models of rescatterings give a much smaller suppression, we present also the result of the eikonal calculation (the dot-dashed curve) using the analysis of the value of $`\sigma (d,x)`$ from (the result of  for $`d0.1`$ fm are very similar, see comparison in ).

It appears that a detector with good acceptance for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ production for the currently discussed luminosities for heavy ion runs of LHC will collect enough statistics to measure the cross section of the discussed process with good precision. As seen from comparison to the calculations in the Impulse Approximation (Fig. 4), the yield of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is expected to be suppressed by a factor of two at central rapidities due to leading twist shadowing. Practically, the only opportunity to draw the conclusion about the onset of the color opacity from the measurement of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ yield in the ultraperipheral ion collisions at LHC, which we see at the moment, is the comparison of the calculations with the data. Obviously until the rather large uncertainty in the absolute value of the $`\gamma +N\mathrm{{\rm Y}}+N`$ cross section exists, such a conclusion cannot be considered as decisive. However, in the coming couple of years it is expected that this elementary cross section will be measured at HERA with much better accuracy. Besides, the energy dependence of the elementary cross section can be considered as well established theoretically. Hence, a measurement of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ yield at the edge of the rapidity distribution, where the effect of shadowing is still insignificant, could help to fix the uncertainty and verify the calculation of the cross section in the impulse approximation in all ranges of rapidities. Therefore, a comparison with the data at the central rapidities would provides us with an estimate of the shadowing effect. Note that there exists a procedure  to separate the production of mesons at small and large impact parameters through the study of the nucleus break up, which would allow to determine the ratio of the cross section of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ production by left and right moving photons for a given rapidity. Another possibility will be to measure the elementary cross section at LHC in UPC collisions of protons with nuclei. Though this cross section is a factor of $`A^{4/3}`$ smaller, the expected luminosity in $`pA`$ collisions is a factor of 100 larger than in $`AA`$ collisions.

## 3 Conclusion

We found that the UPC program at LHC will provide a practical way to search for the onset of the perturbative color opacity via the study of the coherent $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ production at LHC and will decisively discriminate between the leading twist and higher twist scenarios of gluon shadowing at large $`Q^2`$.

This work was supported by GIF, Sofia Kovalevskaya Program of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and DOE.