text:
# 1 Introduction.

## 1  Introduction.

This paper originates from the problem of calculation of correlators in XXX model. Let us remind some history. First non-trivial correlator on three cites was calculated by Takahashi . It happens to be given by $`\zeta (3)`$ ($`\zeta `$ is Riemann $`\zeta `$-function). Then tremendous progress was done by Kyoto group (Jimbo, Miwa, Miki, Nakayashiki) who provided general formula for correlators in terms of multiple integrals . Their final results later were confirmed by Bethe anzatz calculations . However, the most interesting result in our opinion consists in relation of certain generalized correlator introduced by Kyoto group with quantum Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equations (qKZ) .

In the special case of level 0 qKZ equations appeared in the paper  in study of form factors for integrable models of quantum field theory. Kyoto group found that the correlators are related to the dual case of level -4.

Another source of our inspiration is the papers  in which the conjecture (confirmed by explicit calculations in many particular cases) was put forward that the correlators in XXX model can be expressed in terms of values of Riemann $`\zeta `$-function with odd positive integer arguments. This conjecture is rather courageous because the formula for correlators following from Kyoto group results are given by multiple integrals which at the first glance can be expressed as some combination of multiple $`\zeta `$-function. The claim that these multiple $`\zeta `$-values are expressible in terms of single ones is highly non-trivial. The goal of the present paper is to explain, at least partly, this miracle.

Let us mention also the paper  in which a generalization of XXX correlators to inhomogeneous case was considered. It so happens that in inhomogeneous case the statement concerning reducibility of correlators becomes much more transparent. Namely, they are expressed in terms of $`\psi `$-functions depending on the inhomogeneity parameters, $`\zeta `$-values occur in the homogeneous limit. The logical continuation of the ideas of this paper requires the consideration of further generalization of the correlators given by Kyoto group which is related to level -4 qKZ equations.

In the present paper we show the real origin of reducibility of correlators. Namely, we explain that in the most far reaching generalization of XXX correlators i.e. in the Kyoto group generalization the reducibility takes place. To do that we use the relation of level -4 and level 0 qKZ equation. In the latter case the formulae for the solutions is much nicer . The multiple integrals in these solutions are reduced to single ones from the very beginning. Using the deformed Riemann bilinear relation  we show that similar fact is valid for level -4 case.

The fact of reducibility of multiple integrals in solution of qKZ on level -4 is the Theorem formulated and proved in the Section 5. Some polynomial coefficients remain undetermined. The technically complicated part of the problem is finding these polynomials. We were able to solve this problem only partly.

The mathematical meaning of reducibility in question is illustrated in the Section 6. The integrals for solutions of qKZ on level -4 can be thought about as some deformations of integrals of differential forms on affine Jacobi variety of hyper-elliptic curve. In the classical case the possibility of reducing the multiple integrals to single ones is explained by the fact that cohomologies of this variety are especially simple . ¿From this point of view one understands why consecutive generalizations are so useful. The cases of homogeneous XXX, inhomogeneous XXX and Kyoto generalizations correspond to q-deformation of different Riemann surfaces. Kyoto generalization corresponds to the case of hyper-elliptic curve in generic position. Inhomogeneous XXX corresponds to the rational curve obtained when the branch points of hyper-elliptic curve coincide pairwise. Finally, the homogeneous case corresponds to the situation when all the branch points come to one point. Obviously, from the point of view of mathematics one has to consider the less degenerate case.

## 2 Jimbo-Miwa solution to qKZ on level -4.

Consider the R-matrix acting in $`^2^2`$ :

$`R(\beta )=R_0(\beta )\overline{R}(\beta )`$ (1)
where

$`\overline{R}(\beta )={\displaystyle \frac{\beta +\pi iP}{\beta +\pi i}}`$ (2)
$`P`$ is permutation and

$`R_0(\beta )={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\beta }{2\pi i}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{\beta }{2\pi i}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\beta }{2\pi i}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\beta }{2\pi i}\right)}}`$
The qKZ on level $`4`$ are written for a function $`g(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})`$ which is meromorphic function of $`\beta _j`$ and takes values in the tensor product $`(^2)^{2n}`$. We write the qKZ equations  close to their original form which appeared in study of form factors . Namely, we do not write down indices counting spaces $`^2`$, for example, we imply that $`R(\beta _i\beta _j)`$ acts in the tensor product of $`i`$-th and $`j`$-th spaces. Also we imply that when the ”rapidities” $`\beta _i`$, $`\beta _j`$ are permuted, corresponding spaces $`^2`$ are permuted as well. With these conventions we can write down the qKZ equations on level -4 as follows:

$`g(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{j+1},\beta _j,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})=R(\beta _j\beta _{j+1})g(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _j,\beta _{j+1},\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})`$ (3)
$`g(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n1},\beta _{2n}+2\pi i)=g(\beta _{2n},\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n1})`$ (4)
For application to correlators we need some particular solution which, according to Jimbo, Miwa  can be written in the form:

$`g(\beta _1,`$ $`\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta _j}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta (\beta _i\beta _j)}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\alpha _1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\alpha _{n1}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\phi (\alpha _i\beta _j)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{i>j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\alpha _i\alpha _j)}{\alpha _i\alpha _j\pi i}}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \alpha _i}+\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle \beta _j}}D(\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1}|\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})`$
where

$$\phi (\alpha )=\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{4}+\frac{\alpha }{2\pi i}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{4}\frac{\alpha }{2\pi i}\right)$$

$$\zeta (\beta )=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{1}{2}(\beta +\pi i)ke^{\frac{\pi k}{2}}}{k\mathrm{sinh}(\pi k)\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{\pi k}{2}\right)}\right)$$

$`D(\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1}|\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})`$ is a polynomial taking values in $`(^2)^{2n}`$. Due to the symmetry property (3) it is sufficient to give its $`\{\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}+\}`$-component:

$`D(\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1}|\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})_{\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}+}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j>k}{}}\left(\alpha _k\beta _j+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi i}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{j<k}{}}\left(\alpha _k\beta _j{\displaystyle \frac{\pi i}{2}}\right)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(2{\displaystyle }\alpha _k+2\beta _l{\displaystyle }\beta _j+\pi i(2l1)){\displaystyle \underset{jl}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _j\beta _j\frac{\pi i}{2}}{\alpha _j\beta _{j+1}+\frac{\pi i}{2}}}`$ (5)
This formula has one not very pleasant feature: it is not symmetric with respect to $`\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _n`$, the symmetry takes place only for the integral. Notice that this solution belongs to the invariant with respect to action of $`SU(2)`$ (singlet) subspace of $`(^2)^{2n}`$. However, the main trouble with this formula is in presence of denominators $`\alpha _r\alpha _s\pi i`$ which makes the integrals essentially multi-fold.

## 3 Smirnov solution to qKZ on level 0.

Originally qKZ equations appeared for level 0 as form factor equations . It is convenient to write them for a covector from $`^{2n}`$ denoted by $`f(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})`$:

$`f(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{j+1},\beta _j,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})=f(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _j,\beta _{j+1},\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})R(\beta _{j+1}\beta _j)`$ (6)
$`f(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n1},\beta _{2n}+2\pi i)=f(\beta _{2n},\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n1})`$
We need solution belonging to the singlet subspace. The difference with level -4 case seems to be minor, but the formulae for solutions are much nicer. Many solutions can be written which are counted by
$`\{k_1,\mathrm{},k_{n1}\}`$, with $`|k_j|n1`$, $`j`$:

$`f^{\{k_1,\mathrm{},k_{n1}\}}(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})={\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\zeta (\beta _i\beta _j){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\alpha _1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\alpha _{n1}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\phi (\alpha _i\beta _j)`$
$`\times \text{det}|e^{k_i\alpha _j}|_{1i,jn1}h(\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1}|\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})`$
where $`h`$ is skew-symmetric w.r. to $`\alpha `$’s polynomial. The $`\{\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}+\}`$ component of $`h`$ is given by

$`h(\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1}|\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})_{\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}+}=`$
$`u(\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1}|\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _n|\beta _{n+1},\mathrm{},\beta _{2n}){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j^{}=n+1}{\overset{2n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _j\beta _j^{}+\pi i}}`$
where

$`u(\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1}|\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _n|\beta _{n+1},\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})=`$
$`=\text{det}(A_i(\alpha _j|\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _n|\beta _{n+1},\mathrm{},\beta _{2n}))|_{i,j=1,\mathrm{},n1}`$ (7)
as for polynomials $`A_i(\alpha )`$ which depend on $`\beta _j`$ as on parameters, it is convenient to write for them generating function:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\gamma ^{ni1}A_i(\alpha |\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _n|\beta _{n+1},\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})=`$ (8)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\underset{j=1}{\overset{2n}{}}(\alpha \beta _j+\frac{\pi i}{2})}{\alpha \gamma +\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{j=1}{\overset{2n}{}}(\alpha \beta _j\frac{\pi i}{2})}{\alpha \gamma \pi i}}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi i\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\alpha \beta _j\frac{\pi i}{2})(\gamma \beta _{n+j}+\frac{\pi i}{2})}{(\alpha \gamma )(\alpha \gamma \pi i)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi i\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\gamma \beta _j\frac{\pi i}{2})(\alpha \beta _{n+j}+\frac{\pi i}{2})}{(\alpha \gamma )(\alpha \gamma +\pi i)}}`$
This expression is manifestly symmetric with respect to two groups of $`\beta _j`$. Important difference with the previous case is that there are no denominators here, effectively the integral is reduced to one-fold ones.

There is an explicit formula expressing $`h`$ in terms of $`u`$:

$`h(\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1}|\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})=`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\{1,\mathrm{},2n\}=\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_n\}\{j_1,\mathrm{},j_n\}}{}}u(\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1}|\beta _{i_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{i_n}|\beta _{j_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{j_n})`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{p,q=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _{i_p}\beta _{j_q}}}w_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_{2n}}(\beta _1,\mathrm{}\beta _{2n})`$
where $`ϵ_{i_p}=`$, $`ϵ_{j_p}=+`$, and the basis $`w_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_{2n}}(\beta _1,\mathrm{}\beta _{2n})`$ which is described in  satisfies important relation:

$`w_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_i,ϵ_{i+1},\mathrm{}ϵ_{2n}}(\beta _1,\mathrm{}\beta _i,\beta _{i+1},\mathrm{}\beta _{2n})\overline{R}(\beta _{i+1}\beta _i)=`$
$`=w_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_{i+1},ϵ_i,\mathrm{}ϵ_{2n}}(\beta _1,\mathrm{}\beta _{i+1},\beta _i,\mathrm{}\beta _{2n})`$ (9)
with $`\overline{R}`$ given by the formula (2). Our main statement is that it is possible to write down similar formula for level -4 case. But before explaining this point we have to remind some properties of deformed hyper-elliptic integrals.

## 4 Deformed hyper-elliptic integrals.

In this section we follow mostly the paper . The solutions to level 0 qKZ equations are expressed in terms of the following integrals:

$`P|p={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\phi (\alpha \beta _j)P(e^\alpha )p(\alpha )e^{(n1)\alpha }d\alpha `$ (10)
where $`p(\alpha )`$ and $`P(e^\alpha )`$ are polynomials which depend respectively on $`\beta _j`$ and $`e^{\beta _j}`$ as on parameters. For integral to converge we have to require $`\text{deg}(P)2n2`$.

We shall intensively use the asymptotic series in $`\alpha ^1`$ for the function $`\phi (\alpha \beta _j)`$. These series (denoted by $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\alpha )`$) can be defined from their main property:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\alpha +2\pi i)=\mathrm{\Phi }(\alpha ){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \beta _j+\frac{\pi i}{2}}{\alpha \beta _j+\frac{3\pi i}{2}}}`$ (11)
In the integrals (10) we shall never consider analogues of the differentials of third kind i.e. we shall require:

$`\text{res}_{\alpha =\mathrm{}}\left(p(\alpha )\mathrm{\Phi }(\alpha )\right)=0`$ (12)
It is easy to see that in this case

$`P(e^\alpha )=\left({\displaystyle (e^\alpha +ie^{\beta _j})}{\displaystyle (e^\alpha ie^{\beta _j})}\right)e^\alpha 0`$ (13)
i.e. this polynomial gives zero when substituted into the integral. As for remaining polynomials $`p(\alpha )`$ one can show that only $`2n2`$ give non-trivial result. Indeed, with every polynomial $`l(\alpha )`$ we can associate an ”exact form”:

$$l(\alpha +\pi i)\left(\alpha \beta _j+\frac{\pi i}{2}\right)l(\alpha \pi i)\left(\alpha \beta _j\frac{\pi i}{2}\right)$$

Being put under the integral (10) this ”exact form” gives zero. On the other hand one can reduce degree of any polynomial adding ”exact forms” up to $`2n2`$.

For the basis of nontrivial polynomials we take:

$`s_k(\alpha )=A_k(\alpha |\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _n|\beta _{n+1},\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})`$
$`s_k(\alpha )=\alpha ^{nk1},k=1,\mathrm{},n1`$ (14)
Define

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(f)(\alpha )=f(\alpha +\pi i)f(\alpha \pi i)$$

The following skew-symmetric pairing is well defined on polynomials satisfying (12):

$`pq=\text{res}_{\alpha =\mathrm{}}(p(a)\mathrm{\Phi }(\alpha )\mathrm{\Delta }^1(q(\alpha )\mathrm{\Phi }(\alpha ))`$ (15)
The polynomials $`s_a`$ constitute canonical basis with respect to this pairing:

$$s_as_b=\text{sgn}(a)\delta _{a,b}$$

For the polynomials of $`e^\alpha `$ one also introduces the pairing:

$`PQ={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{P(e^\alpha )Q(e^\alpha )P(e^\alpha )Q(e^\alpha )}{(e^{2\alpha }+e^{2\beta _j})}}e^{2\alpha }`$ (16)
It is not difficult to give explicit formulae for canonical basis $`S_a`$ ($`|j|=1,\mathrm{},n1`$) satisfying

$$S_aS_b=\text{sgn}(a)\delta _{a,b}$$

but we shall not need them. Notice that the structure of the pairing implies that $`S_k`$ and $`S_k`$ should be taken as respectively odd and even polynomials. They contain quasi-constants (symmetric functions of $`e^{\beta _j}`$ as coefficients). We can take

$$S_k=e^{(2k1)\alpha },k=1,\mathrm{},n1$$

as half-basis.

The main property of deformed hyper-elliptic integrals is deformed Riemann bilinear relation:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\left(S_k|s_aS_k|s_bS_k|s_bS_k|s_a\right)=\text{sgn}(a)\delta _{a,b}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\left(S_a|s_kS_b|s_kS_b|s_kS_a|s_k\right)=\text{sgn}(a)\delta _{a,b}`$
This relation introduces into the game the symplectic group $`Sp(2n2)`$. To finish this section let us write two more formulae following from (8). First,

$`c(\alpha _1,\alpha _2){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\left(s_k(\alpha _1)s_k(\alpha _2)s_k(\alpha _2)s_k(\alpha _1)\right)=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\underset{j=1}{\overset{2n}{}}(\alpha _1\beta _j+\frac{\pi i}{2})}{\alpha _1\alpha _2+\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{j=1}{\overset{2n}{}}(\alpha _1\beta _j\frac{\pi i}{2})}{\alpha _1\alpha _2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{j=1}{\overset{2n}{}}(\alpha _2\beta _j+\frac{\pi i}{2})}{\alpha _2\alpha _1+\pi i}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{j=1}{\overset{2n}{}}(\alpha _2\beta _j\frac{\pi i}{2})}{\alpha _2\alpha _1\pi i}}`$
Second, it is obvious from (8) that for any partition there is a symmetric matrix $`c_{kl}`$ depending polynomially on rapidities such that

$`A_k(\alpha |\beta _{i_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{i_n}|\beta _{j_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{j_n})=`$
$`=s_k(\alpha )+{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}c_{kl}(\beta _{i_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{i_n}|\beta _{j_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{j_n})s_l(\alpha )`$ (17)
which means that for any partition the polynomials $`A_k(\alpha |\beta _{i_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{i_n}|\beta _{j_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{j_n})`$, $`s_k(\alpha )`$ constitute a canonical basis with respect to the above pairing.

$$A_kA_l=s_ks_l=0,A_ks_l=\delta _{k,l}$$

## 5 Level -4 from level 0.

It is obvious from equations (3, 4) and (6, 3) that for any pair of solutions the scalar product

$$f(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})g(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})$$

is a quasi-constant. So, if we manage to have a complete set of solutions on level 0 the level -4 solutions are obtained by inverting the square matrix. This is the main idea of our construction. Let us count the solutions on level 0.

Consider the space of skew-symmetric polynomials of variables $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{n1}`$ with the basis $`\text{det}s_{a_p}(\alpha _q)_{p,q}`$. The group $`Sp(2n2)`$ acts in this space as on the space of skew-symmetric tensors. In this space we define a subspace $`H_{\text{irrep}}`$ of maximal irreducible representation of $`Sp(2n2)`$ which is the orbit of this group obtained by action on the polynomial $`\text{det}s_p(\alpha _q)_{p,q}`$ This is the fundamental representation of maximal dimension:

$$d_{\text{irrep}}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n2}{n1}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n2}{n3}\right)$$

The formula (17) implies that for any partition the polynomial

$$\text{det}(A_k(\alpha _l|\beta _{i_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{i_n}|\beta _{j_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{j_n}))|_{1k,ln1}H_{\text{irrep}}$$

belongs to the representation of $`Sp(2n2)`$ in skew-symmetric tensors of degree $`n1`$.

Due to deformed Riemann bilinear relation among the solutions counted by $`\{k_1,\mathrm{},k_{n1}\}`$ only $`d_{\text{irrep}}`$ are linearly independent over the ring of quasi-constants. To obtain them we take the polynomial

$$\text{det}(S_k(e^{\alpha _l}))$$

as basic one and obtain the rest as orbit under the action of Borel subgroup, i.e. by the matrices

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& Z\\ 0& I\end{array}\right)Sp(2n2)$$

where the matrix $`Z`$ is symmetric. Thus we obtain $`d_{\text{irrep}}`$ linearly independent solutions.

On the other hand the covectors $`f(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})`$ belong to singlet subspace of $`(^2)^{2n}`$. The dimension of this subspace equals:

$$d_{\text{sing}}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n}{n}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n}{n1}\right)$$

The marvelous identity

$$d_{\text{irrep}}=d_{\text{sing}}$$

shows that we have exactly the same number of solutions as the dimension of space. So, different linear independent solutions can be combined into the square matrix $`(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})`$. Now we can find the solutions on level -4 solving the equation:

$$(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})𝒢(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})=I$$

So, our goal is to find an efficient way for inverting the matrix $``$.

Notice that $`(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})`$ naturally splits into the product:

$$𝒫(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})$$

where the multipliers $`𝒫`$ and $``$ carrying respectively transcendental and rational dependence on $`\beta _j`$ are defined as follows.

$`𝒫(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})=P_{\text{irrep}}\stackrel{~}{𝒫}(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})P_{\text{irrep}}`$
where $`P_{\text{irrep}}`$ is the projector on the irreducible representation of $`Sp(2n2)`$ discussed above and the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}`$ acts in the $`(n1)`$-th skew-symmetric power of $`^{2n2}`$, its matrix elements are given by

$$\text{det}(S_{a_k}|s_{b_l})|_{1k,ln1}$$

The rational in $`\beta _j`$ matrix $`(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})`$ acts from the singlet subspace of $`(^2)^{2n}`$ into the space of maximal irreducible representation of $`Sp(2n2)`$ in $`^{n1}^{2n2}`$. In the space $`(^2)^{2n}`$ we take the basis $`w_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_{2n}}(\beta _1,\mathrm{}\beta _{2n})`$ in such a way that the components of covectors in this space are counted by partitions $`\beta _{i_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{i_n}|\beta _{j_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{j_n}`$. Different vectors from $`^{n1}^{2n2}`$ are counted by $`(n1)a_1<a_2<\mathrm{}<a_{n1}(n1)`$. In this basis the matrix elements of $`(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})`$ are

$$\frac{1}{(\beta _{i_p}\beta _{j_q})}\text{det }(\stackrel{~}{c}_{k,a_l}(\beta _{i_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{i_n}|\beta _{j_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{j_n}))|_{1k,ln1}$$

where

$$\stackrel{~}{c}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& c\\ 0& I\end{array}\right)$$

and $`c_{i,j}`$ is defined in (17).

Now we want to invert these matrices. Due to deformed Riemann bilinear relation inverting of the transcendental part is trivial:

$`𝒫(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})^1=P_{\text{irrep}}\stackrel{~}{𝒫}^{}(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})P_{\text{irrep}}`$
where the matrix elements of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}^{}`$ are given by

$$\text{det}(S_{b_k}^{}|s_{a_l})|_{1k,ln1}$$

with

$$S_b^{}=\text{sgn}(b)S_b$$

So, surprisingly enough the main difficulty happens to be in inverting of the rational matrix. In this section we give one approach to the problem which proves that the inverse matrix possesses nice properties.

First, we have to take care of the basis $`w`$. What we actually need is a construction of dual basis. This construction can be found in  , we do not give it explicitly here, the main properties of the dual basis $`w^{}`$ are:

$`\overline{R}(\beta _{i+1}\beta _i)w^{}(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _i,\beta _{i+1},\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_i,ϵ_{i+1},\mathrm{},ϵ_{2n}}=`$
$`=w^{}(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{i+1},\beta _i,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_{i+1},ϵ_i,\mathrm{},ϵ_{2n}},`$
$`w(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_{2n}}w^{}(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})_{ϵ_1^{},\mathrm{},ϵ_{2n}^{}}={\displaystyle \delta _{ϵ_i,ϵ_i^{}}}`$
Consider the operator $`^{}(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})`$ which coincide with Hermitian conjugation of $`(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})`$ for real $`\beta _j`$ and then is continued analytically. For the matrix elements of this operator in usual basis for $`^{n1}^{2n2}`$ and the basis $`w^{}`$ in $`(^2)^{2n}`$ one finds :

$$\frac{1}{(\beta _{i_p}\beta _{j_q}+i\pi )}\text{det }(\stackrel{~}{c}_{k,a_l}(\beta _{i_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{i_n}|\beta _{j_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{j_n}))|_{1k,ln1}$$

Let us write the identity:

$$^1(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})=^{}(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})\left((\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})^{}(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})\right)^1$$

The operator $`^{}`$ is nicer then $``$ itself because it acts from the space of irreducible representation of $`Sp(2n2)`$ to itself. Its matrix elements are:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\{1,\mathrm{},2n\}=\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_n\}\{j_1,\mathrm{},j_n\}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\beta _{i_p}\beta _{j_q}+i\pi )(\beta _{i_p}\beta _{j_q})}}`$
$`\times \text{det }(\stackrel{~}{c}_{k,a_l}(\beta _{i_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{i_n}|\beta _{j_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{j_n}))\text{det }(\stackrel{~}{c}_{k,b_l}(\beta _{i_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{i_n}|\beta _{j_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{j_n}))`$
Unfortunately we could not find a way of efficiently inverting this operator, but we were able to calculate its determinant:

$`\text{det}(`$ $`(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})^{}(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n}))=`$
$`=Const\left({\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}(\beta _i\beta _j\pi i)\right)^{\left(\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n4}{n2}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n4}{n4}\right)\right)}`$ (18)
The proof of this formula is based on two facts. First, one can easily calculate the degree of the determinant as function of $`\beta `$’s. Second, the polynomial $`u`$ satisfies the following recurrence relation  :

$`u(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{n1}|\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{n1},\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\pi i}{2}}|\beta _{n+1},\mathrm{},\beta _{2n1},\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{\pi i}{2}})=`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}(\alpha _j\beta ){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}(1)^j\left({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}(\alpha _j\beta _k+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi i}{2}}){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}(\alpha _j\beta _k{\displaystyle \frac{\pi i}{2}})\right)`$
$`\times u(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\widehat{\alpha _j},\mathrm{},\alpha _{n1}|\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{n1}|\beta _{n+1},\mathrm{},\beta _{2n1})`$ (19)
Using this relations one can calculate the rank of residue of $`^{}`$ at the point $`\beta _i=\beta _j+\pi i`$.

Putting all this information together we arrive at the following
Theorem. The solutions to qKZ equations on level -4 counted by $`\{k_1,\mathrm{},k_{n1}\}`$, with $`|k_j|n1`$, $`j`$ can be written in the following form:

$`g^{\{k_1,\mathrm{},k_{n1}\}}(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})={\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta (\beta _i\beta _j)}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\alpha _1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\alpha _{n1}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\phi (\alpha _i\beta _j)`$
$`\times \text{det}|e^{k_i\alpha _j}|_{1i,jn1}\stackrel{~}{h}(\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1}|\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})`$ (20)
where $`\stackrel{~}{h}(\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1}|\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})`$ is a polynomial of all its argument, skew-symmetric with respect to $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1}`$
Proof.  The only point which remains to be proved is that $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ is indeed a polynomial because a priori we can be sure only that it is a rational function. The structure of $`h`$ and the formula for determinant (18) imply that there are no other possible singularities than poles at $`\beta _i=\beta _j+\pi i`$. By recurrence relation following from (19) the residue of $`h`$ at $`\beta _i=\beta _j+\pi i`$ is defined by the same function $`h`$ for $`nn1`$. So, the rank of the residue is defined by the dimension of singlet subspace of $`^{2n2}`$:

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n2}{n1}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n2}{n2}\right)$$

which is the same as the exponent in (18). Now it is clear that in inverse matrix the pole is canceled by zero coming from the determinant. QED

As in level 0 case there is a linear dependence between the solutions which is removed by Riemann bilinear relation.

The problem of direct inverting the matrix $``$ seems to be too complicated. So, we need alternative ways to define the polynomials $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$. First, let us reformulate the original definition. We can present $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ in the following form:

$`\stackrel{~}{h}(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{n1}|\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{2n})=`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\{1,\mathrm{},2n\}=\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_n\}\{j_1,\mathrm{},j_n\}}{}}v(\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1}|\beta _{i_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{i_n}|\beta _{j_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{j_n})`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{p,q=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{i_p}\beta _{j_q}+\pi i}{\beta _{i_p}\beta _{j_q}}}w_{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_{2n}}^{}(\beta _1,\mathrm{}\beta _{2n})`$
Then the function $`v`$ is subject to two requirements. The first follows from the fact that $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ must belong to singlet subspace. Using the transformation of the basis $`w^{}`$ under the action of $`su(2)`$ described in  one finds the equations:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}v(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{n1}|\beta _{i_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{i_{n1}},\beta _{j_p}|\beta _{j_1},\mathrm{},\widehat{\beta _{j_p}},\mathrm{},\beta _{j_{n+1}})`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{qp}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{j_p}\beta _{j_q}\pi i}{\beta _{j_p}\beta _{j_q}}}=0`$ (21)
The second equation is equivalent to the fact that $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ is obtained by inverting the matrix $``$:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\{1,\mathrm{},2n\}=\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_n\}\{j_1,\mathrm{},j_n\}}{}}v(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{n1}|\beta _{j_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{j_n}|\beta _{i_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{i_n})`$
$`\times u(\alpha _1^{},\mathrm{},\alpha _{n1}^{}|\beta _{i_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{i_n}|\beta _{j_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{j_n}){\displaystyle \underset{p,q=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _{i_p}\beta _{j_q}}}=`$
$`=c(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{n1}|\alpha _1^{},\mathrm{},\alpha _{n1}^{})`$ (22)
where $`c(\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1}|\alpha _1^{},\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1}^{})`$ is the ”intersection form”. Essential part of this ”intersection form” is $`\text{det}\left|c(\alpha _i,\alpha _j^{})\right|`$, but some additional terms should be added in order that $`c(\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1}|\alpha _1^{},\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1}^{})`$ belongs to $`H_{\text{irrep}}`$ with respect to both sets $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1}`$ and $`\alpha _1^{},\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1}^{}`$. Introduce Grassmann variables $`\xi _j`$, $`\eta _j`$ ($`j=1,\mathrm{},n1`$):

$$\xi _i\xi _j=\xi _j\xi _j,\xi _i\eta _j=\eta _j\xi _j,\eta _i\eta _j=\eta _j\eta _i$$

Let

$`C={\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}c(\alpha _i,\alpha _j^{})\xi _i\eta _j,`$
$`S={\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}c(\alpha _i,\alpha _j)\xi _i\xi _j,`$
$`S^{}={\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}c(\alpha _i^{},\alpha _j^{})\eta _i\eta _j,`$
Then

$`c(\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1}|\alpha _1^{},\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1}^{})\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _{n1}\eta _1\mathrm{}\eta _{n1}={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\left[\frac{n1}{2}\right]}{}}}c_k(SS^{})^kC^{n12k}`$
where the coefficients $`c_k`$ are

$$c_0=1,c_k=\frac{(n1)!}{k!(k+1)!(n2k1)!}$$

If we consider $`v(\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1}|\beta _{i_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{i_n}|\beta _{j_1},\mathrm{},\beta _{j_n})`$ for different partitions as $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n}{n}\right)`$ independent unknowns then we have sufficient number of linear equations: $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n}{n}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n}{n1}\right)`$ from (22) and $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n}{n1}\right)`$ from (21).

Our main goal is to describe efficiently the polynomials $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$. The way to approach this problem will be discussed in another paper. To finish the present paper we would like to give an intuitive idea about reasons behind the possibility of rewriting original Jimbo-Miwa formula in the form without denominators.

## 6 Cohomological meaning of new formula.

Consider the ”classical” limit:

$$\beta _j=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}x_j,\alpha =\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}z\mathrm{}0$$

In this limit

$`P|p={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\phi (\alpha \beta _j)P(e^\alpha )p(\alpha )e^{(n1)\alpha }d\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{\gamma }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{p(z)}{w}}𝑑z`$
where the hyper-elliptic surface $`X`$ is defined by

$$w^2=(zx_j),$$

There are two points ($`\mathrm{}^\pm `$) on the curve lying above the point $`z=\mathrm{}`$. The genus equals $`n1`$. The contour $`\gamma `$ is defined by $`P`$. In particular,

$$S_kb_k,S_ka_k$$

The polynomials

$$\stackrel{~}{s}_a=\underset{\mathrm{}0}{lim}s_a$$

describe canonical basis of differentials. Namely for

$$\sigma _a=\frac{\stackrel{~}{s}_a(z)}{w}dz$$

one has

$$\sigma _a\sigma _b=\underset{\mathrm{}^\pm }{}\text{res}\left(\sigma _ad^1(\sigma _b)\right)=\text{sgn}(a)\delta _{a,b}$$

The differentials $`\sigma _k`$ are of first kind, $`\sigma _k`$ \- of second, there is also the third kind differential

$$\sigma _0=\frac{z^{n1}}{w}dz$$

Consider the Jacobi variety of $`X`$:

$$J=^{2n2}/(^{n1}+B^{n1})$$

where $`B`$ is the matrix of $`B`$-periods of normalized holomorphic differentials:

$$B_{ij}=\underset{b_i}{}\omega _j$$

We define Riemann theta-function

$$\theta (\zeta ),\text{for}\zeta ^{2n2}$$

Consider the divisor $`\{P_1,\mathrm{},P_g\}`$ where $`P_j`$ are points on the Riemann surface: $`P_j=\{z_j,w_j\}`$. Abel transformation is defined as follows

$$\{P_1,\mathrm{},P_{n1}\}\zeta =\stackrel{P_j}{}\omega $$

defines map

$$\text{Symm}(X^{n1})J$$

which is not one to one. However, if we consider non-compact varieties

$$J(\mathrm{\Theta }_{}\mathrm{\Theta }_+)$$

where

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_\pm =\{\zeta |\theta (\zeta +\rho _\pm )=0\},\rho _\pm =\stackrel{\mathrm{}^\pm }{}\omega $$

and

$$\text{Symm}(X^{n1})D$$

where

$$D=\{\{P_1,\mathrm{},P_{n1}\}|P_j=\mathrm{}^\pm ,P_i=\sigma (P_j)\}$$

they are isomorphic. The integrand of the Jimbo-Miwa formula gives in the classical limit a differential form on

$$\text{Symm}(X^{n1})D$$

which is isomorphic to

$$f(\zeta )d\zeta _1\mathrm{}d\zeta _{n1}$$

with $`f(\zeta )`$ meromorphic on $`J`$ with poles on $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\pm `$. The question arises concerning cohomologies. They are described by the following theorem conjectured in  and proved in .
Theorem (A. Nakayashiki) The dimension of cohomologies space is

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n1}{n1}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n1}{n3}\right)$$

in terms of $`\text{Symm}(X^{n1})D`$ it is realized as follows. $`2n1`$ differential of 1-st, 2-ond, 3-d kind $`\sigma _a`$. Let

$$\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_a=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\sigma _a(P_k)$$

The cohomologies are realized as follows:

$$\{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{a_1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{a_{n1}}\}/\{\omega \stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{a_1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{a_{n3}}\}$$

where

$$\omega =\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_k\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_k$$

This is the reason why classical limit of Jimbo-Miwa formula can be reduced to one-fold integrals. We suppose that similar interpretation is possible in deformed case.

## 7 Conclusion

In this communication the problem to reduce the Jimbo-Miwa solution of the qKZ on level -4 to one-fold integrals is solved only partially. As we have shown it is related to the cohomological origin of our formulae. In our next paper we shall give an explicit form of the polynomials $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ from the formula (20). We shall also discuss the relation of the above solution to the correlation functions of the XXX model. In order to treat this problem properly we need to carry out an accurate analysis of singularities which appear in intermediate stage. The main task is to prove that final result for the correlation functions is really finite. The explicit form of this result is in agreement with the ansatz from the paper . The conjecture  about the structure of the correlation functions in the homogeneous limit through the Riemann $`\zeta `$-function at odd argument follows from the form of the correlation functions in the inhomogeneous case which in it’s turn follows from the solution to the qKZ on level -4.

## 8 Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank R. Flume, M. Jimbo and T. Miwa for useful discussions. This research has been supported by the following grants: NSF grant PHY-9988566, the Russian Foundation of Basic Research under grant # 01–01–00201, by INTAS under grants #00-00055 and # 00-00561. HEB would like to thank the administration of the Max-Planck Institute for Mathematics for hospitality and perfect conditions for the work.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Hadronic final states in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation have been intensively studied in recent years, both at LEP and SLC, in order to perform QCD tests and to determine $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}`$ . Interesting studies on bottom flavoured hadronic events have also been performed, in order to test the flavour independence of the strong coupling constant and to search for “running mass” effects . However, up to now, heavy flavoured jets have been studied with the same tools used to study light flavoured jets. For example, the same shape variables used for light-quark jets (like thrust, cluster multiplicities, etc.) have been applied to heavy flavoured events. On the other hand, heavy flavoured events may have some advantages, because the kinematic distributions of the produced heavy quark can be computed theoretically with much better accuracy than the corresponding light-quark quantities. Furthermore, the kinematic of the final-state heavy flavoured hadron is more closely related to that of the final-state quark, since hadronization effects involve energy scales that are much smaller than the quark mass.

Recently, the SLD Collaboration  has published preliminary data on the double inclusive $`B`$-$`\overline{B}`$ production, and studied quantities (proposed in Ref. ) that carry information about the angular dependence of the $`B`$-$`\overline{B}`$ energy correlations.

The main purpose of the present work is to demonstrate that a slight variant of the quantities introduced in Ref.  has suitable properties to perform a novel, heavy-flavour-specific determination of the strong coupling constant. We will demonstrate the following facts:

* The observables we are considering have a well-defined, finite expansion in the strong coupling constant.
* Non-perturbative corrections of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m`$, where $`m`$ is the heavy-quark mass, cancel in these variables. The only remaining non-perturbative corrections are of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/E_{\mathrm{CM}}`$, where $`E_{\mathrm{CM}}`$ is the centre-of-mass energy.
* Potentially large terms, enhanced by powers of $`\mathrm{log}(E_{\mathrm{CM}}/m)`$, cancel at all orders in perturbation theory, provided $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}`$ is evaluated at a scale near $`E_{\mathrm{CM}}`$. This cancellation holds as long as one can neglect multiple heavy-flavour pair production in our process, which is certainly the case for $`b`$ production in $`Z^0`$ decays.

The quantities we are considering have a well defined massless limit, provided one can neglect multiple heavy-flavour pair production. This limitation is what makes these quantities heavy-flavour specific. In fact, only for heavy flavours multiple pair production is truly negligible. Thus, although these quantities have formally a well defined massless limit, they cannot be used in a straightforward way to study light-flavour production.

Tools to compute heavy-flavour production at the next-to-leading-order (NLO) level have been available in the literature for the past few years . We have used our calculations  in order to compute the NLO corrections to the observables we propose.

In Sec. 2, we define the variables we are considering and show that their perturbative expansion in terms of the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}\left(M_Z\right)`$ is well behaved, and free from large logarithms of the ratio of the quark mass over the centre-of-mass energy. The SLD Collaboration has provided us with (preliminary) data for these new variables , and thus we have been able to check our NLO predictions against the data.

In Sec. 3 we investigate the massless limit of these variables, and show explicitly that potentially large logarithms cancel out.

In Sec. 4 we study theoretical uncertainties of our results. We analyze the dependence of the NLO results on the renormalization scale and compare the results obtained with the pole-mass definition to those obtained using the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass, addressing the question of which of the two mass definitions is more suitable for this calculation. Finally, in Sec. 5 we give our conclusions.

In Appendix A, we collect some leading order (LO) formulae used in our analysis, and in Appendix B we comment on the renormalization scheme used in this paper.

## 2 Double-inclusive heavy-quark cross section

Heavy flavoured hadron production proceeds through the process

$$e^+e^{}Z^0/\gamma Q+\overline{Q}+X,$$

(where $`Q`$ is a heavy quark of mass $`m`$) followed by the hadronization of the final heavy quarks. In the following we will focus upon $`B`$ meson production.

Defining the $`B`$ hadron scaled energy $`x_B=2E_B/E_{\mathrm{CM}}`$, we consider the following quantities 111 The quantities $`D_i`$ and $`D_{ij}`$ were also considered in  and the ratios $`G_{ij}`$ in .

$`D_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _B}}{\displaystyle x_B^{i1}\frac{d\sigma _B}{dx_B}𝑑x_B},`$ (2.1)
$`D_{ij}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _B}}{\displaystyle x_{B_1}^{i1}x_{B_2}^{j1}\frac{d^3\sigma _B}{dx_{B_1}dx_{B_2}d\mathrm{cos}\varphi }𝑑x_{B_1}𝑑x_{B_2}},`$ (2.2)
$`G_{ij}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D_{ij}(\varphi )}{D_iD_j}},`$ (2.3)
where $`d\sigma _B/dx_B`$ is the differential cross section for the final-state hadron production, $`\varphi `$ is the angle between the two hadrons, $`\sigma _B`$ the total cross section and $`x_{B_{1/2}}`$ are the scaled energies of the two final $`B`$ hadrons.

The quantities studied by the authors of  are related to the ratios $`G_{ij}/G_{11}`$ by a calculable perturbative factor ($`P_iP_j/P_1^2`$ in the notation of ). In Ref.  these ratios were compared to experimental results. However, these quantities have a few drawbacks. First of all, they depend upon a “theoretical” factor. It would be preferable to deal with quantities that have an experimental definition, free of theoretical assumptions. Second and most important, they have a perturbative expansion that starts at leading order with a constant. Therefore, even when corrected at the NLO level, they would allow only for a LO determination of $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}`$. Conversely, they can be used to test the production mechanism, since in the ratios $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}`$ cancels at first approximation.

In this work, we claim that the quantities $`G_{ij}`$, defined in Eq. (2.3), should instead be studied in order to perform precision QCD tests. We will in fact show in the following that these quantities have a perturbative expansion in $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}(E_{\mathrm{CM}})`$ with coefficients that remain finite even in the limit of large $`E_{\mathrm{CM}}/m`$ ratios.

We write the hadronic differential cross sections as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _B}{dx_B}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _b}{dx_b}𝒟_{\mathrm{NP}}^B(x)\delta (x_Bxx_b)𝑑x_b𝑑x},`$ (2.4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma _B}{dx_{B_1}dx_{B_2}d\mathrm{cos}\varphi }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma _b}{dx_{b_1}dx_{b_2}d\mathrm{cos}\varphi }𝒟_{\mathrm{NP}}^B(x_1)𝒟_{\mathrm{NP}}^B(x_2)}`$ (2.5)
$`\times \delta (x_{B_1}x_1x_{b_1})\delta (x_{B_2}x_2x_{b_2})dx_{b_1}dx_{b_2}dx_1dx_2,`$
where $`d\sigma _b`$, $`x_b`$, $`x_{b_{1/2}}`$ are the quark differential cross section and the quark scaled energies. The quark differential cross sections $`d\sigma _b`$ are calculable order-by-order in perturbative QCD, since the heavy-quark mass $`m`$ acts as a cut-off for final-state collinear singularities. However, in order to go from the QCD partonic cross section $`d\sigma _b/dx_b`$ to the hadronic one $`d\sigma _B/dx_B`$, we have to take into consideration non-perturbative effects, of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m`$, that are present in the hadronic cross section. We assume that all these effects are described by a non-perturbative fragmentation function $`𝒟_{\mathrm{NP}}^B`$.

The quark differential cross sections, although calculable, contain logarithmically enhanced terms of the form $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}^k\mathrm{log}^l\left(m/E_{\mathrm{CM}}\right)`$, so that their perturbative expansion is not well behaved for $`E_{\mathrm{CM}}m`$.

In the quantities $`G_{ij}(\varphi )`$ these large logarithms cancel, together with the dependence upon the non-perturbative fragmentation function. This is a consequence of the factorization theorem, if one makes the additional assumption that secondary production of heavy-flavour pairs is negligible, which is in fact the case at the $`Z^0`$ peak.

The factorization theorem states that mass singularities in inclusive cross sections can be absorbed into process independent, universal factors. In our case, mass singularities are precisely the $`\mathrm{log}(E_{\mathrm{CM}}/m)`$ terms. Thus, for $`E_{\mathrm{CM}}m`$ we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _b}{dx_b}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\sigma }}{d\widehat{x}_b}𝒟_b(z)\delta (x_bz\widehat{x}_b)𝑑\widehat{x}_b𝑑z},`$ (2.6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma _b}{dx_{b_1}dx_{b_2}d\mathrm{cos}\varphi }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\widehat{\sigma }}{d\widehat{x}_{b_1}d\widehat{x}_{b_2}d\mathrm{cos}\varphi }𝒟_b(z_1)𝒟_b(z_2)}`$ (2.7)
$`\times \delta (x_{b_1}z_1\widehat{x}_{b_1})\delta (x_{b_2}z_2\widehat{x}_{b_2})d\widehat{x}_{b_1}d\widehat{x}_{b_2}dz_1dz_2,`$
where the hatted cross sections do not depend upon $`m`$, and all terms that are large in the $`m\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ limit (i.e. terms proportional to powers of $`\mathrm{log}(E_{\mathrm{CM}}/m)`$) are absorbed in the fragmentation functions $`𝒟_b(z)`$ 222 Notice that if we had not assumed a negligible secondary heavy-flavour pair production, we should have introduced also the gluon and light-quark component of the heavy-quark fragmentation function.. Inserting Eqs. (2.6) and (2.7) into Eqs. (2.4) and (2.5) and considering the definitions in Eqs. (2.1) and (2.2), we get

$`D_i`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle x^{i1}𝒟_{\mathrm{NP}}^B(x)𝑑x}\right)\left({\displaystyle z^{i1}𝒟_b(z)𝑑z}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _B}}{\displaystyle \widehat{x}_b^{i1}\frac{d\widehat{\sigma }}{d\widehat{x}_b}𝑑\widehat{x}_b},`$ (2.8)
$`D_{ij}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle x_1^{i1}𝒟_{\mathrm{NP}}^B(x_1)𝑑x_1}\right)\left({\displaystyle x_2^{j1}𝒟_{\mathrm{NP}}^B(x_2)𝑑x_2}\right)`$ (2.9)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle z_1^{i1}𝒟_b(z_1)𝑑z_1}\right)\left({\displaystyle z_2^{j1}𝒟_b(z_2)𝑑z_2}\right)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _B}}{\displaystyle \widehat{x}_{b_1}^{i1}\widehat{x}_{b_2}^{j1}\frac{d^3\widehat{\sigma }}{d\widehat{x}_{b_1}d\widehat{x}_{b_2}d\mathrm{cos}\varphi }𝑑\widehat{x}_{b_1}𝑑\widehat{x}_{b_2}},`$
and we see that, in the ratio defining $`G_{ij}(\varphi )`$ (see Eq. (2.3)), the $`𝒟_b`$ factors (that contain mass singularities) cancel out, leaving a finite expression 333Of course, this holds if we neglect terms that are suppressed by powers of $`m`$. Terms suppressed by powers of $`m`$ and enhanced by powers of $`\mathrm{log}(E_{\mathrm{CM}}/m)`$ may still (and in fact are) present in $`G_{ij}`$. Furthermore, uncalculable effects of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/E_{\mathrm{CM}}`$ may still be present..

Since non-perturbative effects cancel in the definition of $`G_{ij}`$, from now on we will make no distinction between the quantities $`D_i`$, $`D_{ij}`$ defined at the quark and at the hadron level. With the available codes for the calculation of NLO corrections in the production of heavy quarks  at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders 444A version of the program described in  was used which implements the dipole subtraction method for massive partons  to combine real and virtual corrections., we can compute the contributions up to order $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}^2`$ to the quantities $`D_i`$, $`D_{ij}(\varphi )`$ and $`G_{ij}(\varphi )`$. We can write the perturbative expansions for $`D_i`$ and $`D_{ij}(\varphi )`$ for massive final-state quarks, renormalized in the pole-mass scheme, in the region away from the two-jet final state (the two parton final state gives a contribution proportional to $`\delta (\varphi \pi )`$) as

$`D_i`$ $`=`$ $`1a_i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\mathrm{S}(\mu )}{2\pi }}+𝒪\left(\alpha _\mathrm{S}^2\right),`$ (2.10)
$`D_{ij}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`B_{ij}(\varphi ){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\mathrm{S}(\mu )}{2\pi }}+\left[C_{ij}(\varphi )+2\pi b_0B_{ij}(\varphi )\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{E_{\mathrm{CM}}^2}}\right)\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\mathrm{S}(\mu )}{2\pi }}\right)^2`$ (2.11)
$`+𝒪(\alpha _\mathrm{S}^3),\mathrm{for}\varphi \pi ,`$
so that the expression for $`G_{ij}`$ becomes

$`G_{ij}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`B_{ij}(\varphi ){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\mathrm{S}(\mu )}{2\pi }}+\{C_{ij}(\varphi )`$ (2.12)
$`+[2\pi b_0\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{E_{\mathrm{CM}}^2}}\right)+a_i+a_j]B_{ij}(\varphi )\left\}\right({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\mathrm{S}(\mu )}{2\pi }})^2+𝒪(\alpha _\mathrm{S}^3),`$
where

$$b_0=\frac{11C_A4n_fT_F}{12\pi },$$
(2.13)
$`\mu `$ is the renormalization scale, $`C_A=N_c=3`$ for an SU(3) gauge theory, $`T_F=1/2`$ and $`n_f`$ is the number of active flavours.

We observe that expanding the ratio in powers of $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}`$ is essential to implement the cancellation of large logarithms in $`G_{ij}`$ order-by-order in the perturbative series. If we had not done so, the numerator and denominator of $`G_{ij}`$ would contain large logarithms at some fixed order, and their ratio would be misleading (i.e. it would be sensitive to higher order terms with higher powers of logarithms).

In Fig. 1 we have plotted $`G_{ij}`$ at leading and next-to-leading order in $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}`$, for $`i,j=1,2,3`$, at a renormalization scale $`\mu =E_{\mathrm{CM}}=91.2`$ GeV, using $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}(E_{\mathrm{CM}})=0.12`$, with $`n_f=5`$ active flavours. The NLO curves are in good agreement with the SLD preliminary data.

Conversely, the SLD data can be used to extract the value of $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}`$. In fact, from the knowledge of the numerical values of the coefficients of the $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}`$ and $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}^2`$ contributions in Eq. (2.12), we can fit $`G_{ij}(\varphi )`$ to the data, keeping $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}`$ as a free parameter.

We have computed tables for the $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}`$ and $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}^2`$ coefficients of Eq. (2.12), that can be used in a more detailed analysis. These tables (and the programs to generate them) can be obtained from the authors.

### 2.1 Secondary $`𝒃`$-quark and the running coupling

We should mention here that, in the calculations of Ref. , the $`b`$ quark is treated as a heavy particle, and thus does not contribute to the running of the coupling constant. Thus, in principle, one should use this calculation in conjunction with the 4-flavour coupling constant $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}^{(4)}`$. Since we are dealing with $`Z^0`$ decays, however, secondary $`b`$-quark pairs may in fact be produced (from gluon splitting), and when this happens, they behave, in some sense, as light flavours, contributing terms that effectively modify the running of $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}`$.

In Fig. 2, we show the Feynman graphs for secondary heavy-flavour production, giving rise to four massive-quark final state.

The graphs in Fig. 2 also appear with the two identical quarks and/or the two identical antiquarks exchanged. When taking the amplitude squared, this gives rise to two interference terms. Their contribution is known to be extremely small, and will be neglected in the following.

In addition, virtual $`b`$-quark loops arise only in the self-energy insertion of the emitted (on-shell) gluon. Their contribution is zero in the renormalization scheme we use, since, in this scheme, the heavy flavour decouples for small momenta (see Appendix B for more details). Thus, the only effect of the heavy flavour is given by the graphs of Fig. 2.

In the quantities we are considering, the possibility of detecting secondary (instead of primary) $`B`$ mesons has little impact, since secondary $`B`$’s are very soft. If we make the approximation of neglecting effects that are suppressed by powers of the mass in the secondary $`b`$ line, the contribution of the graphs of Fig. 2 (without interference) is easily included using the following prescription:

* compute the cross section with the number of light flavours $`n_{lf}`$ equal to 5;
* use the 5 flavour coupling $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}^{(5)}`$;
* do not include any other graph with secondary heavy flavours.

In essence, the prescription amounts to including the secondary heavy flavour by simply increasing $`n_{lf}`$ by one. When doing this, one in fact is also changing the renormalization scheme for the heavy flavour, by treating it as if it were light. Thus, the correct coupling constant to use in this framework is $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}^{(5)}`$. In Appendix B we discuss this change of scheme in more detail and from a slightly different point of view.

Secondary $`b`$-quark production may also arise from primary light quarks, connected with the $`Z^0/\gamma `$ vertex. We neglect altogether this mechanism, since it generates only soft $`b`$ quarks.

## 3 The $`𝒎\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ limit

As explained in Sec. 2, $`G_{ij}(\varphi )`$ are free from potentially dangerous logarithms of the ratio $`E_{\mathrm{CM}}/m`$. In order to investigate the stability of our expressions in the $`m\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ limit, we introduce the integral of $`G_{ij}`$ over $`\varphi `$ and we define (we drop the $`B/b`$ subscript for ease of notation)

$`r_{ij}={\displaystyle _1^1}G_{ij}(\varphi )d\mathrm{cos}\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{x_1^{i1}x_2^{j1}}{x_1^{i1}x_2^{j1}}},`$ (3.1)
where

$`x_1^{i1}`$ $`=`$ $`x_2^{i1}D_i,`$ (3.2)
$`x_1^{i1}x_2^{j1}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _1^1}D_{ij}(\varphi )d\mathrm{cos}\varphi .`$ (3.3)
To evaluate Eq. (3.1) up to order $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}^2`$ and for $`i,j=2,3`$, we rewrite $`r_{ij}`$ as follows

$`r_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{x_1^{i1}x_2^{j1}x_1^{i1}x_2^{j1}}{x_1^{i1}x_2^{j1}}}`$ (3.4)
$`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{(1x_1^{i1})(1x_2^{j1})1x_1^{i1}1x_2^{j1}}{x_1^{i1}x_2^{j1}}},`$
and we expand in $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}`$

$`1x_1^{i1}`$ $`=`$ $`1x_2^{i1}=a_i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\mathrm{S}(\mu )}{2\pi }}+𝒪\left(\alpha _\mathrm{S}^2\right),`$ (3.5)
$`(1x_1^{i1})(1x_2^{j1})`$ $`=`$ $`b_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\mathrm{S}(\mu )}{2\pi }}+\left[c_{ij}+2\pi b_0b_{ij}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{E_{\mathrm{CM}}^2}}\right)\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\mathrm{S}(\mu )}{2\pi }}\right)^2+𝒪\left(\alpha _\mathrm{S}^3\right),`$
to obtain

$$r_{ij}=1+b_{ij}\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{S}(\mu )}{2\pi }+\left[c_{ij}+\left(a_i+a_j\right)b_{ij}a_ia_j+2\pi b_0b_{ij}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{E_{\mathrm{CM}}^2}\right)\right]\left(\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{S}(\mu )}{2\pi }\right)^2+𝒪\left(\alpha _\mathrm{S}^3\right).$$
(3.7)
Note that, in Eq. (3.4), the expectation value of $`x_1^{i1}`$ and $`x_2^{j1}`$ should be known only up to order $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}`$, and that, in the correlation term $`(1x_1^{i1})(1x_2^{j1})`$, the two-jet final state gives zero contribution, since it is proportional to $`\delta (1x_1)\delta (1x_2)`$, at all orders in $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}`$. This is the reason why we do not need to know the $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}^2`$ two-loop virtual term for $`e^+e^{}Q\overline{Q}`$.

The coefficients $`a_i`$ and $`b_{ij}`$ can be computed analytically. We have collected their expressions in Appendix A.

In Table 1, we give the numerical values for the coefficients $`a_i`$, $`b_{ij}`$ and $`c_{ij}`$, for a down-type quark with mass $`m=0.01`$, $`0.1`$, $`1`$, $`3`$, $`5`$ and $`10`$ GeV, at a center-of-mass energy $`E_{\mathrm{CM}}=\mu =91.2`$ GeV.

Observe that, while the individual coefficients $`a_i`$ and $`c_{ij}`$ can be quite large, due to the presence of logarithmic terms, the ratio $`r_{ij}`$ is well behaved, as illustrated in Table 2. This is due to the fact that the large logarithms present in the single coefficients cancel out in the ratio $`r_{ij}`$.

## 4 Theoretical uncertainties

In this section, we investigate the theoretical uncertainties related to the renormalization scale and mass scheme used in the calculation.

The renormalization-scale dependence of $`r_{ij}`$ is illustrated in Table 3 for the case $`m=5`$ GeV, using the two-loop evolution of $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}`$ with $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}=0.12`$ for $`\mu =E_{\mathrm{CM}}=91.2`$ GeV. For $`E_{\mathrm{CM}}/2<\mu <2E_{\mathrm{CM}}`$ the variation of $`(r_{ij}1)`$ around the central value $`\mu =E_{\mathrm{CM}}`$ is roughly $`\pm 10\%`$ at leading order. It is reduced to $`\pm 5\%`$ at NLO.

In order to investigate the mass-scheme dependence, we now explicitly distinguish between the pole mass $`m`$ and the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass $`\overline{m}(\mu )`$ (also called running mass). Using the relation between $`m`$ and $`\overline{m}(\mu )`$

$$m=\overline{m}(\mu )\left\{1+\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{S}(\mu )}{2\pi }C_F\left[2\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\overline{m}(\mu )^2}{\mu ^2}\right)\right]+𝒪\left(\alpha _\mathrm{S}^2\right)\right\},$$
(4.1)
and defining

$$z=\left(\frac{m}{E_{\mathrm{CM}}}\right)^2,\overline{z}(\mu )=\left(\frac{\overline{m}(\mu )}{E_{\mathrm{CM}}}\right)^2,$$
(4.2)
we have

$$\overline{r}_{ij}\left(\overline{z}\right)r_{ij}\left(\overline{z}\left(\mu \right)+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{z}\left(\mu \right)\right)=r_{ij}(\overline{z}(\mu ))+\left(\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{S}(\mu )}{2\pi }\right)^2\mathrm{\Delta }b_{ij}\left(\overline{z}\left(\mu \right)\right)+𝒪\left(\alpha _\mathrm{S}^3\right),$$
(4.3)
with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }b_{ij}(\overline{z}(\mu ))=4C_F\overline{z}(\mu )\left[1\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{ln}\left(\overline{z}(\mu )\frac{E_{\mathrm{CM}}^2}{\mu ^2}\right)\right]\frac{db_{ij}}{dz}(\overline{z}(\mu )).$$
(4.4)
We have evaluated Eq. (4.3) for $`\overline{m}(E_{\mathrm{CM}})=3`$ GeV using the analytic expressions for the coefficients $`b_{ij}`$ collected in Appendix A. The value $`\overline{m}(E_{\mathrm{CM}})=3`$ GeV corresponds roughly to what one gets by converting $`m`$ at the $`b`$-mass scale to $`\overline{m}`$, and then evolving $`\overline{m}`$ up to $`\mu =E_{\mathrm{CM}}`$. We have further studied the dependence of Eq. (4.3) on the renormalization scale $`\mu `$. We have used the 2-loop evolution of $`\overline{m}(\mu )`$, which gives $`\overline{m}(E_{\mathrm{CM}}/2)=3.20`$ GeV and $`\overline{m}(2E_{\mathrm{CM}})=2.83`$ GeV. The results for $`(\overline{r}_{ij}1)`$ are listed in Table 4. Using the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ definition for the mass, the theoretical uncertainties due to the scale ambiguity are practically of the same size as in the pole-mass scheme.

Comparing the results for $`r_{ij}`$ obtained with an on-shell mass $`m=5`$ GeV with those obtained with an $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass $`\overline{m}(E_{\mathrm{CM}})=3`$ GeV, we found that, at leading order, the differences between $`(r_{ij}1)`$ using the two different mass definitions amount to $`5÷6`$%. This theoretical uncertainty is reduced to less than 4% at NLO.

An interesting question can be raised about the use of the pole mass versus the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass, that is to say, which one is more natural in this context. In practice, this is a very difficult question to answer. In inclusive processes, in general, the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass is better, since it accounts for large powers of logarithms of $`m/E_{\mathrm{CM}}`$ multiplying powers of the mass at all orders in perturbation theory. The case we are considering, however, is not an inclusive process, since we are weighting the cross section with final-state kinematic variables. We are thus unable to give a full answer to this question. However, we can certainly ask whether, at the order we are considering, there is some numerical indication that using the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass accounts at least for a large part of the logarithmic terms in our expression. The mass dependence of the coefficients of $`r_{ij}`$ is reported in Table 2. Calling $`r_{ij}^{(2)}`$ the coefficient of $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}^2`$ in $`r_{ij}`$, we consider the expression

$$X_{ij}(z)=\frac{r_{ij}^{(2)}(z)r_{ij}^{(2)}(0)}{z}$$
(4.5)
as a function of $`\mathrm{log}z`$. The same expression in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme is given by

$$\overline{X}_{ij}(\overline{z})=\frac{r_{ij}^{(2)}(\overline{z})r_{ij}^{(2)}(0)}{\overline{z}}+\frac{4}{(2\pi )^2}C_F\left[1\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{log}\overline{z}\right]\frac{db_{ij}}{dz}(\overline{z}),$$
(4.6)
where we use $`\mu =E_{\mathrm{CM}}`$, and $`\overline{z}=\overline{z}(\mu )`$. If the slope of the second expression versus $`\mathrm{log}m`$ is smaller than the slope of the first one, we can take this as an indication of the fact that it is more appropriate to use the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass instead of the pole mass. The results are displayed in Fig. 3. The value $`r_{ij}^{(2)}(0)`$ has been taken to correspond to $`m=0.1`$ GeV in Table 2 (the point $`m=0.01`$ GeV has been excluded, because of the large errors). The points at $`m=1`$, 3, 5 and 10 GeV are then plotted.

It is quite clear from the figure that the logarithmic slope is smaller for the pole-mass scheme. Furthermore, the radiative correction to the mass term is always smaller for the pole-mass scheme than for the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme. We thus conclude that the quantities $`r_{ij}`$ seem to be more naturally described in the pole-mass scheme rather than in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-mass scheme.

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper we have investigated new measurable quantities (related to the quantities introduced in Ref. ) defined in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation, that carry information about the angle-dependent $`B`$-$`\overline{B}`$ energy correlation. We have shown that these variables have a well-behaved expansion in terms of the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}`$, since large logarithms in the ratio of the mass of the final quarks over the centre-of-mass-energy cancel out order by order, together with non-perturbative effects of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m`$.

We have compared the computed NLO results with the available preliminary data from the SLD Collaboration , and found good agreement. In addition, we have generated tables 555The programs and the tables can be obtained upon request from the authors. that can be used in a fit to the data, in order to extract the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}`$ at next-to-leading order.

We have investigated the renormalization-scale and mass-scheme dependence of our results, and found that, varying the renormalization scale $`\mu `$ in the range $`E_{\mathrm{CM}}/2<\mu <2E_{\mathrm{CM}}`$, the scale dependence of $`(r_{ij}1)`$ is reduced from roughly $`\pm 10\%`$ at leading order to $`\pm 5\%`$ at next-to-leading order. The theoretical uncertainties related to the mass definition are less than 4% at NLO. We have shown that these quantities seem to be more naturally described in the pole-mass rather than in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-mass scheme.

From the discussion given in this paper, one may wonder if similar quantities may be defined for massless quarks, given the fact that mass singularities cancel in the variables we are considering, and thus they remain well defined in the massless limit. This is not quite the case. In fact, it is crucial for our discussion that the secondary heavy-flavour production may be neglected. If this were not the case, evolution of the fragmentation function would become multi-dimensional, involving several flavour components and a singlet contribution. Thus, the advantage of having a heavy flavour in the final state lies in the fact that the evolution becomes essentially non-singlet, so that we are left with a single component of the fragmentation function, that simply cancels in the ratios we propose.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank P. N. Burrows and G. Nesom for numerous discussions and for making available to us experimental data on the $`B`$-$`\overline{B}`$ correlations. Thanks also to P. Uwer for discussions and comments on the manuscript. The research of A.B. was supported by a Heisenberg grant of the DFG and C.O. thanks the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC) for supporting his research.

## A Analytic results for $`𝒂_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}𝒂_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{,}𝒃_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}\mathbf{,}𝒃_{\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}}\mathbf{,}𝒃_{\mathrm{𝟑𝟑}}`$

In this appendix, we collect the analytic results for the coefficients $`a_i`$ and $`b_{ij}`$, $`i,j=2,3`$, defined in Eqs. (3.5) and (3). Calling the generic coefficient $`F(z)`$, where $`z=m^2/s`$ and $`s=E_{\mathrm{CM}}^2`$, we write

$$F(z)=\frac{2C_F}{\beta \left[c_V(1+2z)+c_A(14z)\right]}\left[c_VF^V(z)+c_AF^A(z)\right],$$
(A.1)
where $`\beta =\sqrt{14z}`$ and $`\omega =(1\beta )/(1+\beta )`$. The electroweak couplings $`c_V`$ and $`c_A`$ are given by

$`c_V`$ $`=`$ $`Q_b^2f^{\gamma \gamma }+2g_V^bQ_bRe\left[\chi (s)\right]f^{\gamma Z}+g_V^{b\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}|\chi (s)|^2f^{ZZ},`$
$`c_A`$ $`=`$ $`g_A^{b\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}|\chi (s)|^2f^{ZZ},`$ (A.2)
with

$`f^{\gamma \gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`1\lambda _{}\lambda _+,`$
$`f^{ZZ}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\lambda _{}\lambda _+)(g_V^{e2}+g_A^{e2})2(\lambda _{}\lambda _+)g_V^eg_A^e,`$
$`f^{\gamma Z}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\lambda _{}\lambda _+)g_V^e+(\lambda _{}\lambda _+)g_A^e.`$ (A.3)
Here, $`Q_b=1/3`$ is the electric charge of the bottom quark, and $`g_{A/V}^f`$ denote the axial and vector couplings of the fermion $`f`$. In particular, $`g_V^e=\frac{1}{2}+2\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta _W`$, $`g_A^e=\frac{1}{2}`$ for an electron, and $`g_V^b=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta _W`$, $`g_A^b=\frac{1}{2}`$ for a bottom quark, where $`\vartheta _W`$ is the weak mixing angle. The function $`\chi (s)`$ reads

$$\chi (s)=\frac{1}{4\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta _W\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta _W}\frac{s}{sM_Z^2+iM_Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z},$$
(A.4)
where $`M_Z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$ stand for the mass and the width of the Z boson. Finally, $`\lambda _{}`$ ($`\lambda _+`$) denotes the longitudinal polarization of the electron (positron) beam.

A simple calculation using the Born differential cross section for $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}g`$ gives

$`a_2^V(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}+z{\displaystyle \frac{14}{3}}z^3\right)\mathrm{ln}(\omega )+\left({\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{6}}z+7z^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{3}},`$ (A.5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{a_2^A(z)a_2^V(z)}{z}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}10z+12z^2+{\displaystyle \frac{20}{3}}z^3\right)\mathrm{ln}(\omega )+\left({\displaystyle \frac{35}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{59}{3}}z10z^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{3}},`$ (A.6)
$`a_3^V(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{25}{24}}+{\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}z+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}z^2{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}z^3{\displaystyle \frac{11}{12}}z^4\right)\mathrm{ln}(\omega )`$ (A.7)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{433}{12}}+{\displaystyle \frac{137}{2}}z+{\displaystyle \frac{779}{6}}z^2+11z^3\right){\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{24}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{a_3^A(z)a_3^V(z)}{z}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{55}{12}}20z+21z^2+{\displaystyle \frac{40}{3}}z^3+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{2}}z^4\right)\mathrm{ln}(\omega )`$ (A.8)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{823}{36}}{\displaystyle \frac{845}{18}}z{\displaystyle \frac{175}{6}}z^215z^3\right){\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{4}},`$
$`b_{22}^V(z)`$ $`=`$ $`2z\left(1+z^3\right)\mathrm{ln}(\omega )+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{19}{6}}z{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}z^2z^3\right)\beta ,`$ (A.9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{b_{22}^A(z)b_{22}^V(z)}{z}}`$ $`=`$ $`2z\left(2+3z5z^3\right)\mathrm{ln}(\omega )+\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{17}{6}}z+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}z^2+5z^3\right)\beta ,`$ (A.10)
$`b_{32}^V(z)`$ $`=`$ $`z\left({\displaystyle \frac{19}{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}z2z^2+{\displaystyle \frac{17}{3}}z^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}z^4\right)\mathrm{ln}(\omega )`$ (A.11)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{17}{20}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1721}{180}}z+{\displaystyle \frac{47}{45}}z^2{\displaystyle \frac{103}{18}}z^3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}z^4\right){\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{b_{32}^A(z)b_{32}^V(z)}{z}}`$ $`=`$ $`z\left(7+10z10z^314z^4\right)\mathrm{ln}(\omega )`$ (A.12)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{27}{20}}{\displaystyle \frac{287}{60}}z+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{15}}z^2+{\displaystyle \frac{37}{6}}z^3+7z^4\right)\beta ,`$
$`b_{33}^V(z)`$ $`=`$ $`z\left({\displaystyle \frac{14}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{13}{6}}z8z^2+{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}z^3+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}z^4z^5\right)\mathrm{ln}(\omega )`$ (A.13)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{43}{30}}+{\displaystyle \frac{533}{45}}z{\displaystyle \frac{221}{36}}z^2{\displaystyle \frac{1037}{90}}z^3{\displaystyle \frac{31}{6}}z^4+z^5\right){\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{b_{33}^A(z)b_{33}^V(z)}{z}}`$ $`=`$ $`z\left(12+17z+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}z^212z^328z^4{\displaystyle \frac{70}{3}}z^5\right)\mathrm{ln}(\omega )`$ (A.14)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{109}{15}}{\displaystyle \frac{661}{30}}z+{\displaystyle \frac{53}{20}}z^2+{\displaystyle \frac{157}{6}}z^3+{\displaystyle \frac{287}{6}}z^4+35z^5\right){\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{3}}.`$
In the $`m\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ limit, we have $`\beta \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$, $`\omega z=m^2/s\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, so that

$`a_2`$ $`=`$ $`2C_F\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{ln}(z){\displaystyle \frac{11}{9}}\right),`$
$`a_3`$ $`=`$ $`2C_F\left({\displaystyle \frac{25}{24}}\mathrm{ln}(z){\displaystyle \frac{433}{288}}\right),`$
$`b_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`2C_F{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}},`$
$`b_{32}`$ $`=`$ $`2C_F{\displaystyle \frac{17}{40}},`$
$`b_{33}`$ $`=`$ $`2C_F{\displaystyle \frac{43}{60}}.`$ (A.15)
This behavior is well illustrated from the collections of values in Table 1: while the $`b_{ij}`$ are finite in the $`m\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ limit, the coefficients $`a_i`$ diverge as $`\mathrm{log}(m/E_{\mathrm{CM}})`$.

## B Renormalization schemes

Our calculation was carried out in the “mixed” renormalization scheme of Ref. , in which the light flavours $`n_{lf}`$ are subtracted in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme, while the heavy-flavour loops are subtracted at zero momentum. In this scheme the heavy flavour decouples at low energy. In fact, convergent heavy-flavour loops are suppressed by powers of the mass of the heavy flavour. The only unsuppressed contributions come from divergent graphs. But those are subtracted at zero external momenta, so their contribution is removed by renormalization for small momenta. In the mixed scheme, charge renormalization is given by the prescription

$$\alpha _\mathrm{S}^b=\mu ^{2ϵ}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\mathrm{S}(\mu )\left\{1\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\mathrm{S}(\mu )\frac{1}{\overline{ϵ}}\left[b_0^{(n_{lf})}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}\right)^ϵ\frac{T_F}{3\pi }\right]+𝒪\left(\alpha _\mathrm{S}^2\right)\right\},$$
(B.1)
where $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}^b`$ is the bare coupling constant, and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\mathrm{S}(\mu )`$ is the mixed-scheme coupling constant at the scale $`\mu `$. We have defined

$$b_0^{(n_{lf})}=\frac{11C_A4T_Fn_{lf}}{12\pi },$$
(B.2)
and

$$\frac{1}{\overline{ϵ}}=\frac{1}{ϵ}+\mathrm{log}(4\pi )\gamma _E,$$
(B.3)
where dimensional regularization is used, with the number of space-time dimensions equal to $`42ϵ`$.

In the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme the renormalization prescription is

$$\alpha _\mathrm{S}^b=\mu ^{2ϵ}\alpha _\mathrm{S}(\mu )\left\{1\alpha _\mathrm{S}(\mu )\frac{1}{\overline{ϵ}}b_0^{(n_f)}\right\},$$
(B.4)
where $`n_f=n_{lf}+1`$, and $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}(\mu )`$ is the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ coupling constant at the scale $`\mu `$. The couplings in the two schemes obey a 4-flavour and 5-flavour renormalization-group equation respectively

$$\frac{d}{d\mathrm{log}\mu ^2}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\mathrm{S}(\mu )=b_0^{(n_{lf})}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\mathrm{S}^2(\mu ),\frac{d}{d\mathrm{log}\mu ^2}\alpha _\mathrm{S}(\mu )=b_0^{(n_f)}\alpha _\mathrm{S}^2(\mu ),$$
(B.5)
that can be easily derived by imposing the constancy of the bare coupling $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}^b`$ under a renormalization group transformation. Combining Eqs. (B.1) and (B.4) we have

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\mathrm{S}(\mu )=\alpha _\mathrm{S}(\mu )\frac{T_F}{3\pi }\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}\right)\alpha _\mathrm{S}^2(\mu )+𝒪\left(\alpha _\mathrm{S}^3\right),$$
(B.6)
which is the standard $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ matching condition for flavour crossing.

In the heavy flavour production calculation we are considering, if we express the result (usually given in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\mathrm{S}`$) in terms of $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}`$, an extra term arises, equal to

$$\text{Born}\times \alpha _\mathrm{S}(\mu )\frac{T_F}{3\pi }\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}\right).$$
(B.7)
The only other diagrams where secondary heavy flavours appear are the graphs with a gluon splitting into a heavy-flavour pair. It can be shown that, if we neglect powers of $`m/E_{\mathrm{CM}}`$, the term in Eq. (B.7) is exactly the term one needs to turn the calculation of the heavy-flavour splitting, which is regulated in the collinear limit by the heavy-flavour mass, into the corresponding $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ subtracted calculation, provided that interference terms of the heavy flavours coming from gluon splitting with the primary heavy flavours are fully neglected.

Equation (B.7) follows immediately from the theory of heavy-flavour fragmentation functions. According to Ref. , Eq. (3.16), the cross section for the inclusive production of a heavy quark via gluon splitting, with a fraction $`x`$ of the energy of the gluon, is (at leading order and neglecting powers of $`m/E_{\mathrm{CM}}`$)

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dx}=\sigma _0\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{S}T_F}{2\pi }\left[x^2+(1x)^2\right]\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}\right)+\frac{d\widehat{\sigma }}{dx}+𝒪(\alpha _\mathrm{S}^2),$$
(B.8)
where $`\sigma _0`$ is the cross section for the production of the gluon and $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ stands for the massless limit, $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ subtracted cross section for the gluon splitting process. Integrating both sides in $`x`$ one finds

$$\widehat{\sigma }=\sigma \sigma _0\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{S}T_F}{3\pi }\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}\right).$$
(B.9)
The second term on the right-hand-side is precisely the contribution of Eq. (B.7).