text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A decade of beautiful experiments at CERN, Fermilab, and SLAC have provided increasingly precise tests of the Standard Model (SM). The data confirms the SM at the level of quantum effects and probes the Higgs boson mass. The global fit333We fit only the observables considered by the EWWG prior to 2002, including neither APV nor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$. Theoretical systematics are not clearly controlled for the former while the latter as a 3% measurement is insensitive to SM-level radiative corrections. Including them the fit would yield $`CL=0.04`$. has a poor confidence level $`CL=0.02`$, due to two $`3\sigma `$ anomalies. One of these, $`x_W^{\mathrm{OS}}[\nu N]`$ from NUTEV, is recent. The other, the discrepancy between the effective leptonic mixing angle, $`x_W^l=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^l`$, determined from three leptonic asymmetry measurements($`x_W^l[A_L]`$) versus its determination from three hadronic ($`x_W^l[A_H]`$) measurements, is dominated by the $`3\sigma `$ discrepancy between the two most precise, $`A_{LR}`$ and $`A_{FB}^b`$, which has been a persistent feature of the data since the earliest days of LEP and SLC.

In this talk I focus on how the direct lower limit from LEP II, $`m_H>114.4`$ GeV,444 N.B., the 95% lower limit from the direct searches does not imply a 5% chance that $`m_H<114.4`$ but rather means that if the mass were actually 114.4 GeV it could have escaped detection with 5% likelihood. The likelihood for $`m_H<114.4`$ GeV is $`5\%`$. See for instance section 5 of . constrains the interpretation of these anomalies, and especially the asymmetry anomaly. The central observation is that the only measurements which support $`m_H`$ in the allowed region are precisely the ones with big pulls that drive the fit to a poor CL. Without the discrepant measurements the prediction for $`m_H`$ is too low. In particular, the agreement of the SM with the data would not be improved if both anomalies were attributed to systematic error, since the resulting fit (with $`x_W^{\mathrm{OS}}[\nu N]`$ and $`x_W^l[A_H]`$ removed) predicts $`m_H=45`$ GeV, with only a 5% likelihood that $`m_H>114`$ GeV.

The $`W`$ mass measurement plays a central role, discussed in more detail in . In the SM fit, it favors the lower range of the leptonic asymmetries, $`x_W^l[A_L]=0.23113(21)`$, over the larger hadronic result, $`x_W^l[A_H]=0.23217(29)`$. Using the two loop result of  the new experimental result, $`m_W=80.426(34)`$GeV, implies $`x_W^l=0.23095`$ and a very light value for $`m_H`$. Essentially it is $`m_W`$ which decides whether $`A_{LR}`$ or $`A_{FB}^b`$ will have the largest pull.

The interpretation of the data is not clear. All three generic possibilities are in play: new physics, statistical fluctuation, and underestimated systematic error. It is certainly possible that either anomaly is genuine evidence of new physics, in which case the SM fit would be invalidated and we could not use the precision data to constrain the Higgs boson mass until the new physics were understood. Statistical fluctation is also a possible explanation, which is fairly represented by the global CL’s. The new 23 MeV downward shift in $`m_W`$ increases the global CL by a factor two, from 0.01 to 0.02, which still cannot be said to be “favored”.

Concerning the possibility of underestimated systematic error, the three leptonic asymmetry measurements, $`x[A_L]`$, are theoretically clean and use three quite different experimental techniques, so that a large common systematic error is very unlikely. In contrast, both $`x_W^{\mathrm{OS}}[\nu N]`$ and $`x[A_H]`$ depend on subtle systematic issues, involving experimental technique and, especially, nontrivial applications of QCD. The three hadronic asymmetry measurements have important shared systematics, both theoretical and experimental. If the systematic uncertainties of the $`x_W^{\mathrm{OS}}[\nu N]`$ and $`x[A_H]`$ anomalies were much larger than current estimates, the $`CL`$ of the global fit could increase to as much as 0.71. The SM might then appear to provide a good description of the data, however we would then encounter the conflict with the LEP II lower limit on $`m_H`$. This conflict would also signify new physics, to raise the prediction for $`m_H`$ into the allowed region above 114 GeV. Again $`m_H`$ could not be predicted until the new physics is known. With oblique corrections it is possible to “dial in” essentially any value of $`m_H`$.

It should be clear that the focus here on the possibility of underestimated systematic error is not based on the belief that it is the most likely explanation. In both cases the experimental groups have put great effort into understanding and estimating the systematic uncertainties, and the quoted systematic errors are too small to explain the anomalies. In fact, the situation is truly puzzling, and there is no decisive reason to prefer systematic error over new physics as the explanation of either anomaly. Rather we consider the systematic error hypothesis simply in order to understand what it implies and find that it also points to new physics.

Though it is an a posteriori observation, the grouping of the six asymmetry measurements into hadronic and leptonic clusters is a striking feature of the data. The leptonic asymmetries are the three lowest, combining to $`x[A_L]=0.23113(21)`$ with $`\chi ^2/dof=1.7/2`$, $`CL=0.43`$. The hadronic asymmetries are the three highest, tightly clustered around $`x[A_H]=0.23217(29)`$, with $`\chi ^2/dof=0.05/2`$, $`CL=0.97`$. Combining all six measurements we have $`x_W^l=0.23148(17)`$ with $`\chi ^2/dof=10.2/5`$ and $`CL=0.07`$. It is unclear whether the grouping into leptonic and hadronic clusters is by chance or whether it is telling us something, either about new physics or about systematic effects. Since they are linked by common systematics, we consider the the three hadronic asymmetry measurements together when considering the systematic uncertainty hypothesis.

## 2 SM Fits

The SM radiative corrections are computed with ZFITTER v6.30, but with the two loop $`m_W`$. Experimental correlations are from  and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _5(m_Z)`$ is from  as in . Predictions for $`m_H`$ are obtained using $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ and also with a “Bayesian” likelihood method. Both methods give very similar results, and only the former are reported here. When fitting the same observables the SM predictions and $`\chi ^2`$ results agree well with , with small differences from our use of .

Table 1 summarizes $`\chi ^2`$ fits of four data sets, in which none, one, or both sets of anomalous measurements are excluded. We vary $`m_t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _5(m_Z)`$, which are constrained, and $`\alpha _S(m_Z)`$ and $`m_H`$, which are unconstrained. Fit A is our “all data”set, including the ten $`m_H`$-sensitive observables (the six $`x_W^l`$ determinations, $`x_W^{\mathrm{OS}}[\nu N]`$, and three “non-asymmetry” observables, $`m_W`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$, and $`R_l`$) and five $`m_H`$-insensitive observables ($`\sigma _h`$, $`R_b`$, $`R_c`$, $`A_b`$, and $`A_c`$). The CL increases from 0.02 in fit A to 0.17 if $`x_W^{\mathrm{OS}}[\nu N]`$ is omitted (B), or to 0.08 if the hadronic asymmetries are omitted (C), to 0.71 if both are omitted (D).

Fits restricted to the $`m_H`$-sensitive sector, which determines the SM prediction for $`m_H`$, are also shown in table 1. Fit A, with all ten $`m_H`$-sensitive observables, has $`CL=0.005`$, while B and C are at 0.07 and 0.02 respectively, each substantially smaller than the corresponding global fits A,B,C. A fit of just the three most precise $`m_H`$-sensitive observables, $`A_{LR}`$, $`A_{FB}^b`$, and $`m_W`$, which together dominate the $`m_H`$ prediction,555The fit to these three observables has $`m_H=94`$ with $`36<m_H<212`$ (90% CL), compared with $`m_H=90`$ and $`39<m_H<205`$ from the all-data global fit A. yields $`\chi ^2/dof=10.2/2`$ and $`CL=0.006`$. The poor consistency of the $`m_H`$-sensitive sector is cause for concern in assessing the reliability of the SM prediction of $`m_H`$.

Table 1. Results for global fits A - D and for the corresponding fits restricted to $`m_H`$-sensitive observables, A \- D.

|  | All | $`x_W^{\mathrm{OS}}[\nu N]`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| All | A | B |
|  | $`\chi ^2/=25.7/13`$, $`CL=0.019`$ | 16.5/12, 0.17 |
| $`x_W^l[A_H]`$ | C | D |
|  | 16.7/10, 0.081 | 6.3/9, 0.71 |
| $`m_H`$-sensitive only: |  |  |
| All | A | B |
|  | 22.2/8, 0.0046 | 13.2/7, 0.067 |
| $`x_W^l[A_H]`$ | C | D |
|  | 13.2/5, 0.022 | 2.94/4, 0.57 |

The global CL’s fairly reflect the likelihoods of the fits. Consider for example fit B, for which $`A_{FB}^b`$ is the only significant outlyer, with a pull of 2.59. While $`2.59\sigma `$ corresponds to $`CL=0.0096`$, in the context of fit B we should ask for the probability that at least one of 12 independent measurements would deviate by $`2.59\sigma `$. This is $`1(10.0096)^{12}=0.11`$, which appropriately reflects $`CL=0.17`$ from the $`\chi ^2`$ global fit.

It is also instructive to consider the predictions of the $`m_H`$-sensitive observables, table 2. For $`A_{LR}`$ the central value is $`m_H=39`$ GeV, the 95% upper limit is 122 GeV, and the

Table 2. Predictions for $`m_H`$ from the three highest precision $`m_H`$-sensitive observables, from the combined leptonic asymmetries $`x[A_L]`$, the combined hadronic asymmetries $`x[A_H]`$, and the three remaining (non-asymmetry) $`m_H`$-sensitive observables. The value of $`m_H`$ at the $`\chi ^2`$ minimum is shown along with the symmetric 90% confidence interval and the likelihood for $`m_H>114`$ GeV. Values indicated as $`10`$ or $`3000+`$ fall below or above the interval $`10<m_H<3000`$ GeV within which the fits are performed.

|  | $`m_H`$ (GeV) | 90% $`CL`$ | $`CL(m_H>114)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`A_{LR}`$ | 39 | $`10<m_H<122`$ | 0.062 |
| $`A_{FB}^b`$ | 410 | $`130<m_H<1200`$ | 0.97 |
| $`m_W`$ | 35 | $`10<m_H<161`$ | 0.12 |
| $`x_W^l[A_L]`$ | 55 | $`16<m_H<143`$ | 0.10 |
| $`x_W^l[A_H]`$ | 410 | $`140<m_H<1200`$ | 0.97 |
| $`m_W\mathrm{\Gamma }_ZR_l`$ | 17 | $`10<m_H<123`$ | 0.057 |

likelihood for $`m_H>114`$ GeV is $`CL(m_H>114)=0.06`$. The $`W`$ mass also prefers small $`m_H`$. The only important contributor to large $`m_H`$ is $`A_{FB}^b`$, with central value $`m_H=410`$ GeV and symmetric 90% CL interval up to 1200 GeV. Also shown are the predictions of the three leptonic asymmetries which are similar to $`A_{LR}`$, the three hadronic asymmetries which are nearly identical to $`A_{FB}^b`$ (since it has much greater precision than $`A_{FB}^c`$ and $`Q_{FB}`$), and the non-asymmetry measurements $`(m_W,\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z,R_l)`$ which resemble $`m_W`$ though with a stronger preference for light $`m_H`$. The $`\chi ^2`$ distributions are shown in figure 1.

Table 3 summarizes the $`m_H`$ predictions of the four global fits for which $`CL(\chi ^2)`$ is shown in table 1. Fit A is similar to the EWWG all-data fit, with the 95% CL upper limit at $`m_H<205`$ GeV. The omission of $`x_W^{\mathrm{OS}}[\nu N]`$ from fit B increases $`CL(\chi ^2)`$ appreciably but has little effect on $`m_H`$. Fits C and D, with the hadronic asymmetry measurements excluded, both have $`m_H=45`$ GeV as central value, with 7% and 5% CL’s respectively for $`m_H>114`$ GeV. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ distributions for fits A and D are shown in figure 2.

Since the internal consistency of the global fit, $`CL(\chi ^2)`$, and the consistency of the fit with the search limit, $`CL(m_H>114)`$, are independent, it is interesting to consider the combined probability, given by the product

$$P_C=CL(\chi ^2)\times CL(m_H>114).$$
$`(1)`$
The relative values of $`P_C`$ for the different fits are especially interesting. From table 3 we see that $`P_C`$ is approximately independent of whether the hadronic asymmetry measurements $`x_W^l[A_H]`$ are included, although the individual factors on the right side of eq. (1) are very sensitive to $`x_W^l[A_H]`$. For instance, for global fit A ( ‘all’ data), $`CL(\chi ^2)=0.019`$ and $`CL(m_H>114)=0.35`$ so that $`P_C[A]=0.019\times 0.35=0.0066`$.For fit C, with the three $`x_W^l[A_H]`$ omitted, we have $`CL(\chi ^2)=0.081`$, $`CL(m_H>114)=0.068`$, and $`P_C[C]=0.081\times 0.068=0.0055P_C[A]`$. Similarly, $`P_C[B]=0.17\times 0.29=0.049`$ and $`P_C[D]=0.71\times 0.049=0.035P_C[B]`$. If the hadronic asymmetry measurements are omitted, the increase in the global fit confidence level is compensated by a roughly equal decrease in the consistency with the direct search limit.

Table 3. Higgs boson mass predictions for global fits A - D. Each entry shows the value of $`m_H`$ at the $`\chi ^2`$ minimum, the symmetric 90% confidence interval, the CL for consistency with the search limit, and the combined likelihood $`P_C`$, eq. (1), with the factors $`CL(\chi ^2)`$ and $`CL(m_H>114)`$ explicitly displayed.

|  | All | $`x_W^{\mathrm{OS}}[\stackrel{()}{\nu }N]`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| All | A | B |
|  | $`m_H=90`$ | $`m_H=90`$ |
|  | $`39<m_H<205`$ | $`38<m_H<190`$ |
|  | $`CL(m_H>114)=0.35`$ | $`CL(m_H>114)=0.29`$ |
|  | $`P_C=0.019\times 0.35=0.0066`$ | $`P_C=0.17\times 0.29=0.049`$ |
| $`x_W^l[A_H]`$ | C | D |
|  | $`m_H=45`$ | $`m_H=45`$ |
|  | $`18<m_H<123`$ | $`18<m_H<114`$ |
|  | $`CL(m_H>114)=0.068`$ | $`CL(m_H>114)=0.049`$ |
|  | $`P_C=0.081\times 0.068=0.0055`$ | $`P_C=0.71\times 0.049=0.035`$ |

It is easy to show that the product of $`n`$ independent CL’s has an expectation value of $`1/2^n`$ so that the expectation value of $`P_C`$ is 0.25. Consider a continuous probability density function $`f(x)`$ defined for positive $`x`$, with normalization

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xf(x)=1.$$
$`(2)`$
Then the CL for $`x<y`$ is

$$F(y)=_0^y𝑑xf(x)$$
$`(3)`$
and the expected value of F is

$$<F>=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑yF(y)f(y)=\frac{1}{2}$$
$`(4)`$
where equations (2) and (3) suffice to evaluate the integral. For a product of $`n`$ independent CL’s the expectation value of the combined product CL is then given by $`n`$ factors of the form of equation (4), with the result $`1/2^n`$. In the case at hand $`P_C`$ is the product of two $`\chi ^2`$ distributions: $`CL(\chi ^2,N)`$ and $`CL(m_H>114)=CL(\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2,1)/2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ is the difference between the minimum at $`m_H=114`$ and the global minimum. The factor 1/2 in $`CL(m_H>114)`$ is compensated by the fact that the domain of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ extends from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$; modifying equations (2-4) appropriately, the expected value is again 1/2.

In addition to the pairings $`P_C[A]P_C[C]`$ and $`P_C[B]P_C[D]`$, the other prominent feature of table 3 is that $`CL(m_H>114)`$ depends sensitively on whether $`x[A_H]`$ is retained but not on $`x_W^{\mathrm{OS}}[\nu N]`$, i.e., $`CL(m_H>114)_ACL(m_H>114)_B`$ and $`CL(m_H>114)_CCL(m_H>114)_D`$. For fits C and D, with $`x[A_H]`$ omitted, the consistency with the search limit is poor. Relative to 0.25, the value of $`P_C`$ is marginal for all four fits.

## 3 New Physics to Increase $`m_H`$

The low values of $`CL(m_H>114)`$ in fits C and D are either statistical fluctuations (e.g., of $`m_t`$) or they are signals of new physics. Examples of new physics that could do the job are the MSSM with light sneutrinos and sleptons (Altarelli et al. in ) or a fourth generation of quarks and leptons with a massive neutrino (Novikov et al. in ). An illustrative set of parameters for the latter is $`m_N50`$ GeV, $`m_E100`$ GeV, $`m_U+m_D500`$ GeV, $`|m_Um_D|75`$ GeV, and $`m_H300`$ GeV.

The prediction for $`m_H`$ can be increased arbitrarily in models for which the dominant effect of the new physics is via the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ boson self energies, considered in the oblique approximation. Figure 3 shows an $`S,T`$ fit to the minimal data set, with the $`\chi ^2`$ minimum read to the left and $`S,T`$ read to the right. In contrast to the SM fit with a distinct minimum at $`m_H=45`$ GeV, also shown, the oblique fit is flat, with no preference for any range of $`m_H`$. The confidence level is $`0.5`$ and the variation in $`\chi ^2`$ is very small, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^20.2`$ for $`m_H20`$ GeV.

Values of $`m_H`$ above 1 TeV cannot be interpreted literally as applying to a simple Higgs scalar. For $`m_H>1`$ TeV symmetry breaking is dynamical, occurring by new strong interactions that cannot be analyzed perturbatively. If the Higgs mechanism is correct, there are new quanta that form symmetry breaking vacuum condensates. Values of $`m_H`$ above 1 TeV can be regarded only as a rough guide to the order of magnitude of the masses of the condensate-forming quanta.

The range of positive $`T`$ needed in figure 3 occurs in models with custodial $`SU(2)`$ breaking, e.g., from nondegenerate quark or lepton isospin doublets. Negative $`S`$ is less natural but there is not a no-go theorem, and models with $`S<0`$ have been exhibited. It is also possible to fit the data by varying $`T`$ with $`S=0`$ fixed — see figure 11 of . Moderately large, postive $`T`$ is again preferred. In this fit the confidence level for $`m_H`$ above the LEP II lower limit is $`CL(m_H>114\mathrm{GeV})=0.21`$, and the 95% upper limit extends to $`m_H<400`$ GeV.

## 4 Discussion

Taken together the precision electroweak data and the direct searches for the Higgs boson create a complex puzzle with many possible outcomes. An overview is given in the “electroweak schematic diagram,” figure 4. The diagram illustrates how various hypotheses about the two $`3\sigma `$ anomalies lead to new physics or to the conventional SM fit. The principal conclusion is reflected in the fact that the only lines leading into the ‘SM’ box are labeled ‘Statistical Fluctuation.’ That is, systematic error of both $`x[A_H]`$ and $`x_W^{OS}[\nu N]`$ cannot save the SM fit, since it implies the conflict with the search limit, indicated by the box labeled $`CL(m_H>114)=0.05`$, which in turn either implies new physics or reflects statistical

fluctuation (e.g., of $`m_t`$). The problem is exhibited by the small value of $`P_C`$ for each of the fits in table 3.

The ‘New Physics’ box in figure 4 is reached if either $`3\sigma `$ anomaly is genuine or, conversely, if neither is genuine and the resulting 95% $`CL`$ conflict with the search limit is genuine. The global confidence levels of fits A and B fairly reflect the probability that they are due to statistical fluctuations. They do not favor the SM and they also do not exclude it: “It is a part of probability that many improbable things will happen.”

The smoothest path to the SM traverses the central box, fit B, and then exits via ‘Statistical Fluctuation’ to the SM. In this scenario QCD effects might explain the NuTeV anomaly and the 17% confidence level of fit B could be a statistical fluctuation. This is a valid possibility, but two other problems indicated in the central box should also be considered in this scenario. First, the consistency of the $`m_H`$-sensitive measurements is marginal, indicated by the 6.7% confidence level of fit B. Second, the persistent conflict between the leptonic and hadronic asymmetry measurements, currently $`2.9\sigma `$ with $`CL=0.0037`$, is at the heart of the determination of $`m_H`$. Thus even if we assume that the $`CL`$ of the global fit is a statistical fluctuation, the reliability of the prediction of $`m_H`$ depends on even less probable fluctuations.

The leptonic asymmetry measurements have been finalized. There are still some ongoing analyses of the hadronic asymmetry data, but unless major new systematic effects are uncovered, large changes are unlikely. To do better we will need a second generation Z factory, such as the proposed Giga-Z project. However, to fully exploit the potential of such a facility it will be necessary to improve the precision of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _5(m_Z)`$ by a factor of $`5`$ or better, requiring a dedicated program to measure $`\sigma (e^+e^{}\mathrm{HADRONS})`$ below $`5`$ GeV to $`1\%`$. The $`W`$ boson and top quark mass measurements will be improved at the TeVatron, LHC, and, eventually, at a linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider.

The issues raised by the data heighten the excitement of the moment in high energy physics. If both $`3\sigma `$ anomalies reflect systematic effects, the resulting SM fit is inconsistent with the LEP II limit. For the SM prediction of $`m_H`$ to be valid the anomalies must be a propitious combination of systematic effect ($`x_W^{\nu N}`$) and statistical fluctuation ($`x[A_L]`$ vs. $`x[A_H]`$). The end of the decade of precision electroweak measurements leaves us with a great puzzle, that puts into question the mass scale at which the physics of electroweak symmetry breaking will be found. The solution of the puzzle could emerge at the TeVatron. If it is not found there it will emerge at the LHC, which at its design luminosity will be able to search for the new quanta of the symmetry breaking sector over the full range allowed by unitarity.

Acknowledgement: I wish to thank the organizers for the opportunity to attend this very interesting workshop and Peter Zerwas for kind hospitality beyond the call of duty.


format: text

text:
# Vector Bundles on a K3 SurfaceSupported in part by the JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A) (2) 10304001.

## 1. Introduction

A locally free sheaf $`E`$ of $`𝒪_X`$-modules is called a vector bundle on an algebraic variety $`X`$. As a natural generalization of line bundles vector bundles have two important roles in algebraic geometry. One is the linear system. If $`E`$ is generated by its global sections $`H^0(X,E)`$, then it gives rise to a morphism to a Grassmann variety, which we denote by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_E:XG(H^0(E),r)`$, where $`r`$ is the rank of $`E`$. This morphism is related with the classical linear system by the following diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& X& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Phi }_E}{}& G(H^0(E),r)& \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Phi }_L& & & & \mathrm{Pl}\ddot{\mathrm{u}}\mathrm{cker}\hfill \\ & 𝐏^{}H^0(L)& \mathrm{}& 𝐏^{}(^rH^0(E)),& \end{array}$$
(1)
where $`L`$ is the determinant line bundle of $`E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_L`$ is the morphism associated to it.

The other role is the moduli. The moduli space of line bundles relates a (smooth complete) algebraic curve with an abelian variety called the Jacobian variety, which is crucial in the classical theory of algebraic functions in one variable. The moduli of vector bundles also gives connections among different types varieties, and often yields new varieties that are difficult to describe by other means.

In higher rank case it is natural to consider the moduli problem of $`E`$ under the restriction that $`detE`$ is unchanged. In view of the above diagram, vector bundles and their moduli reflect the geometry of the morphism $`X𝐏^{}H^0(L)`$ via Grassmannians and Plücker relations. In this article we consider the case where $`X`$ is a K3 surface, which is one of two 2-dimensional analogues of an elliptic curve and seems an ideal place to see such reflection.

## 2. Curves of genus one

The moduli space of line bundles on an algebraic variety is called the Picard variety. The Picard variety $`\mathrm{Pic}C`$ of an algebraic curve $`C`$ is decomposed into the disjoint union $`_{d𝐙}\mathrm{Pic}_dC`$ by the degree $`d`$ of line bundles. Here we consider the case of genus 1. All components $`\mathrm{Pic}_dC`$ are isomorphic to $`C`$ if the ground field is algebraically closed. 111More precisely, this holds true if $`C`$ has a rational point. But this is no more true otherwise. For example the Jacobian $`\mathrm{Pic}_0C`$ has always a rational point but $`C`$ itself does not. 222Two components $`\mathrm{Pic}_0C`$ and $`\mathrm{Pic}_{g1}C`$ deserve the name Jacobian. They coincide in our case $`g=1`$. We give other examples:

Example 1 Let $`C_4`$ be an intersection of two quadrics $`q_1(x)=q_2(x)=0`$ in the projective space $`𝐏^3`$ and $`P`$ the pencil of defining quadrics. Then the Picard variety $`\mathrm{Pic}_2C_4`$ is the double cover of $`P𝐏^1`$ and the branch locus consists of 4 singular quadrics in $`P`$. Precisely speaking, its equation is given by $`\tau ^2=\mathrm{disc}(\lambda _1q_1+\lambda _2q_2)`$.

Let $`G(2,5)𝐏^9`$ be the 6-dimensional Grassmann variety embedded into $`𝐏^9`$ by the Plücker coordinate. Its projective dual is the dual Grassmannian $`G(5,2)\widehat{𝐏}^9`$, where $`G(2,5)`$ parameterizes 2-dimensional subspaces and $`G(5,2)`$ quotient spaces.

Example 2 A transversal linear section $`C=G(2,5)H_1\mathrm{}H_5`$ is a curve genus 1 and of degree 5. Its Picard variety $`\mathrm{Pic}_2C`$ is isomorphic to the dual linear section $`\widehat{C}=G(5,2)H_1,\mathrm{},H_5`$, the intersection with the linear subspace spanned by 5 points $`H_1,\mathrm{},H_5\widehat{𝐏}^9`$.

## 3. Moduli K3 surfaces

A compact complex 2-dimensional manifold $`S`$ is a K3 surface if the canonical bundle is trivial and the irregularity vanishes, that is, $`K_S=H^1(𝒪_S)=0`$. A smooth quartic surface $`S_4𝐏^3`$ is the most familiar example. Let us first look at the 2-dimensional generalization of Example 1:

Example 3 Let $`S_8`$ be an intersection of three general quadrics in $`𝐏^5`$ and $`N`$ the net of defining quadrics. Then the moduli space $`M_S(2,𝒪_S(1),2)`$ is a double cover of $`N𝐏^2`$ and the branch locus, which is of degree 6, consists of singular quadrics in $`N`$.

Here $`M_S(r,L,s)`$, $`L`$ being a line bundle, is the moduli space of stable sheaves $`E`$ on a K3 surface $`S`$ with rank $`r`$, $`detEL`$ and $`\chi (E)=r+s`$. Surprisingly two surfaces $`S_8=(2)(2)(2)𝐏^5`$ and $`M_S(2,𝒪_S(1),2)\stackrel{2:1}{}𝐏^2`$ in this example are both K3 surfaces. This is not an accident. In respect of moduli space, vector bundles a K3 surface look like Picard varieties in the preceding section.

###### Theorem 1

(,) The moduli space $`M_S(r,L,s)`$ is smooth of dimension $`(L^2)2rs+2`$. $`M_S(r,L,s)`$ is again a K3 surface if it is compact and and of dimension $`2`$.

A K3 surface $`S`$ and a moduli K3 surface appearing as $`M_S(r,L,s)`$ are not isomorphic in general 333We take the complex number field C as ground field except for sections 2 and 7. but their polarized Hodge structures, or periods, are isomorphic to each other over $`𝐐`$ (). The moduli is not always fine but there always exists a universal $`𝐏^{r1}`$-bundle over the product $`S\times M_S(r,L,s)`$. Let $`𝒜`$ be the associated sheaf of Azumaya algebras, which is of rank $`r^2`$ and locally isomorphic to the matrix algebra $`Mat_r(𝒪_{S\times M})`$. $`𝒜`$ is isomorphic to $`nd`$ if a universal family $``$ exists. The Hodge isometry between $`H^2(S,𝐐)`$ and $`H^2(M_S(r,L,s),𝐐)`$ is given by $`c_2(𝒜)/2rH^4(S\times M,𝐐)H^2(S,𝐐)^{}H^2(M,𝐐)`$.

Example 2 has also a K3 analogue. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}𝐏^{15}`$ be a 10-dimensional spinor variety $`SO(10)/U(5)`$, that is, the orbit of a highest weight vector in the projectivization of the 16-dimensional spinor representation. The anti-canonical class is 8 times the hyperplane section and a transversal linear section $`S=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}H_1\mathrm{}H_8`$ is a K3 surface (of degree 12). As is similar to $`G(2,5)`$ the projective dual $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{12}\widehat{𝐏}^{15}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}`$ is again a 10-dimensional spinor variety.

Example 4 The moduli space $`M_S(2,𝒪_S(1),3)`$ is isomorphic to the dual linear section $`\widehat{S}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{12}H_1,\mathrm{},H_8`$.

In this case, moduli is fine and the relation between $`S`$ and the moduli K3 are deeper. The universal vector bundle $``$ on the product gives an equivalence between the derived categories $`𝐃(S)`$ and $`𝐃(\widehat{S})`$ of coherent sheaves, the duality $`\widehat{\widehat{S}}S`$ holds (cf. ) and moreover the Hilbert schemes $`\mathrm{Hilb}^2S`$ and $`\mathrm{Hilb}^2\widehat{S}`$ are isomorphic to each other.

Remark (1) Theorem 1 is generalized to the non-compact case by Abe .

(2) If a universal family $``$ exists, the derived functor with kernel $``$ gives an equivalence of derived categories of coherent sheaves on $`S`$ and the moduli K3 (Bridgeland ). In even non-fine case the derived category $`𝐃(S)`$ is equivalent to that of the moduli K3 $`M`$ twisted by a certain element $`\alpha H^2(M,𝐙/r𝐙)`$ (Cǎldǎraru ).

## 4. Shafarevich conjecture

Let $`S`$ and $`T`$ be algebraic K3 surfaces and $`f`$ a Hodge isometry between $`H^2(S,𝐙)`$ and $`H^2(T,𝐙)`$. Then the associated cycle $`Z_fH^4(S\times T,𝐙)H^2(S,𝐙)^{}H^2(T,𝐐)`$ on the product $`S\times T`$ is a Hodge cycle. This is algebraic by virtue of the Torelli type theorem of Shafarevich and Piatetskij-Shapiro. Shafarevich conjectured in  a generalization to Hodge isometries over $`𝐐`$. Our moduli theory is able to answer this affirmatively.

###### Theorem 2

Let $`f:H^2(S,𝐐)H^2(T,𝐐)`$ be a Hodge isometry. Then the associated (Hodge) cycle $`Z_fH^4(S\times T,𝐐)`$ is algebraic.

In , we already proved this partially using Theorem 1 (cf.  also). What we need further is the moduli space of projective bundles. Let $`PS`$ be a $`𝐏^{r1}`$-bundle over $`S`$. The cohomology class $`[P]H^1(S,PGL(r,𝒪_S))`$ and the natural exact sequence (in the classical topology)

$$0𝐙/r𝐙SL(r,𝒪_S)PGL(r,𝒪_S)1$$

define an element of $`H^2(S,𝐙/r𝐙)`$, which we denote by $`w(P)`$.

Fix $`\alpha H^2(S,𝐙)`$ and $`r`$, we consider the moduli of $`𝐏^{r1}`$-bundles $`P`$ over $`S`$ with $`w(P)=\alpha `$ mod $`r`$ which are stable in a certain sense. If the self intersection number $`(\alpha ^2)`$ is divisible by $`2r`$, then the moduli space contains a 2-dimensional component, which we denote by $`M_S(\alpha /r)`$. The following, a honest generalization of computations in , is the key of our proof:

###### Proposition 1

Assume that $`(\alpha ^2)`$ is divisible by $`2r^2`$. Then $`H^2(M_S(\alpha /r),𝐙)`$ is isomorphic to $`L_0+𝐙\alpha /rH^2(S,𝐐)`$ as polarized Hodge structure, where $`L_0`$ is the submodule of $`H^2(S,𝐙)`$ consisting of $`\beta `$ such that the intersection number $`(\beta .\alpha )`$ is divisible by $`r`$.

For example let $`S_2`$ be a double cover of $`𝐏^2`$ with branch sextic. If $`\alpha H^2(S,𝐙)`$ satisfies $`(\alpha .h)1\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ and $`(\alpha ^2)0\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}`$, then $`M_S(\alpha /2)`$ is a K3 surface of degree 8. This is the inverse correspondence of Example 1 (cf. , ). Details will be published elsewhere.

## 5. Non-Abelian Brill-Noether locus

Let $`C`$ be a smooth complete algebraic curve. As a set a Brill-Noether locus of $`C`$ is a stratum of the Picard variety $`\mathrm{Pic}C`$ defined by $`h^0(L)`$, the number of global sections of a line bundle $`L`$. The standard notation is

$$W_d^r=\{[L]|h^0(L)r+1\}\mathrm{Pic}_dC,$$

for which we refer . Non-Abelian analogues are defined in the moduli space $`𝒰_C(2)`$ of stable 2-bundles on $`C`$ similarly. The non-Abelian Brill-Noether locus of type III is

$$𝒮𝒰_C(2,K:n)=\{F|detF𝒪_C(K_C),h^0(F)n\}𝒰_C(2)$$

for a non-positive integer $`n`$, and type II is

$$𝒮𝒰_C(2,K:nG)=\{F|detFdetG𝒪_C(K_C),dim\mathrm{Hom}(G,F)n\}𝒰_C(2)$$

for a vector bundle $`G`$ of rank 2 and $`n\mathrm{deg}G\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$. By virtue of the (Serre) duality, these have very special determinantal descriptions. We give them scheme structures using these descriptions ().

Assume that $`C`$ lies on a K3 surface $`S`$. If $`E`$ belongs to $`M_S(r,L,s)`$, then the restriction $`E|_C`$ is of canonical determinant and we have $`h^0(E|_C)h^0(E)\chi (E)=r+s`$. So $`E|_C`$ belongs to $`𝒮𝒰_C(2,K:r+s)`$ if it is stable. This is one motivation of the above definition. The case of genus 11, the gap value of genera where Fano 3-folds of the next section do not exist, is the molst interesting.

###### Theorem 3

() If $`C`$ is a general curve of genus $`11`$, then the Brill-Noether locus $`T=𝒮𝒰_C(2,K:7)`$ of type III is a K3 surface and the restriction $`L`$ of the determinant line bundle is of degree $`20`$.

There exists a universal family $``$ on $`C\times T`$. We moreover have the following:

* the restriction $`|_{x\times T}`$ is is stable and belongs to $`M_T(2,L,5)`$, for every $`xC`$, and
* the classification morphism $`C\widehat{T}=M_T(2,L,5)`$ is an embedding.

This embedding is a non-Abelian analogue of the Albanese morphism $`X`$ $`\mathrm{Pic}_0(\mathrm{Pic}_0X)`$ and we have the following:

Corollary A general curve of genus eleven has a unique embedding to a K3 surface.

In , we studied the forgetful map $`\phi _g`$ from the moduli space $`𝒫_g`$ of pairs of a curve $`C`$ of genus $`g`$ and a K3 surface $`S`$ with $`CS`$ to the moduli space $`_g`$ of curves of genus $`g`$ and the generically finiteness of $`\phi _{11}`$. The above correspondence $`C\widehat{T}`$ gives the inverse rational map of $`\phi _{11}`$. We recall the fact that $`\phi _{10}`$ is not dominant in spite of the inequality $`dim𝒫_{10}=29>dim_{10}=27`$ ().

## 6. Fano 3-folds

A smooth 3-dimensional projective variety is called a Fano 3-fold if the anti-canonical class $`K_X`$ is ample. In this section we assume that the Picard group $`\mathrm{Pic}X`$ is generated by $`K_X`$. The self intersection number $`(K_X)^3=2g2`$ is always even and the integer $`g2`$ is called the genus, by which the Fano 3-folds are classified into 10 deformation types. The values of $`g`$ is equal to $`2,\mathrm{},10`$ and $`12`$. A Fano 3-folds of genus $`g5`$ is a complete intersection of hypersurfaces in a suitable weighted projective space.

By Shokurov , the anticanonical linear system $`|K_X|`$ always contain a smooth member $`S`$, which is a K3 surface. In  we classified Fano 3-folds $`X`$ of Picard number one using rigid bundles, that is, $`EM_S(r,L,s)`$ with $`(L^2)2rs=2`$. For example $`X`$ is isomorphic to a linear section of the 10-dimensional spinor variety, that is,

$$X\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}H_1\mathrm{}H_7,$$
(2)
in the case of genus 7 and a linear section

$$X\mathrm{\Sigma }_{16}H_1H_2H_3,$$
(3)
of the 6-dimensional symplectic, or Lagrangian, Grassmann variety $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{16}=SP(6)/`$ $`U(3)𝐏^{13}`$ in the case of genus 9. The non-Abelian Brill-Noether loci shed new light on this classification.

###### Theorem 4

A Fano 3-fold $`X`$ of genus $`7`$ is isomorphic to the Brill–Noether locus $`𝒮𝒰_C(2,K:5)`$ of Type III for a smooth curve $`C`$ of genus $`7`$.

This description is dual to the description (2) in the following sense. First two ambient spaces of $`X`$, the moduli $`𝒰_C(2)`$ and the Grassmannian $`G(5,10)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}`$ are of the same dimension. Secondly let $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ be the normal bundles of $`X`$ in these ambient spaces. Then we have $`N_1N_2^{}𝒪_X(K_X)`$, that is, two normal bundles are twisted dual to each other.

###### Theorem 5

A Fano $`3`$-fold of genus $`9`$ is isomorphic to the Brill–Noether locus $`𝒮𝒰_C(2,K:3G)`$ of Type II for a nonsingular plane quartic curve $`C`$ and $`G`$ a rank $`2`$ stable vector bundle over $`C`$ of odd degree.

This descriptions is also dual to (3) in the above sense: The moduli $`𝒰_C(2)`$ and the Grassmannian $`G(3,6)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{16}`$ are of the same dimension and the two normal bundles of $`X`$ are twisted dual to each other. Each Fano 3-fold of genus 8, 12 and conjecturally 10 has also such a pair of descriptions.

## 7. Elementary construction

The four examples in sections 1 and 2 are very simple and invite us to a simplification of moduli construction. Let $`C_4`$ be as in Example 1 and $`at_2`$ the affine space associated to the 16-dimensional vector space $`_{i=0}^3(𝐂^2𝐂^2)x_i`$, where $`(x_i)`$ is the homogeneous coordinate of $`𝐏^3`$. Let $`at_{2,1}`$ be the closed subscheme defined by the condition that

$`A(x)=_{i=0}^3A_ix_iat_2`$ is of rank $`1`$ everywhere on $`C_4`$

and $`R`$ its coordinat ring. Then the Picard variety $`\mathrm{Pic}_2C_4`$ is the projective spectrum $`\mathrm{Proj}R^{SL(2)\times SL(2)}`$ of the invariant ring by construction. (See  for details.) The above condition is equivalent to that $`detA(x)`$ is a linear combination of $`q_1(x)`$ and $`q_2(x)`$. The invariant ring is generated by three elements by Theorem 2.9.A of Weyl . Two of them, say $`B_1,B_2`$, are of degree 2 and correspond to $`q_1(x)`$ and $`q_2(x)`$, respectively. The rest, say $`T`$ of degree 4, is the determinant of 4 by 4 matrix obtained from the four coefficients $`A_0,\mathrm{},A_3𝐂^2𝐂^2`$ of $`A(x)`$. There is one relation $`T^2=f_4(B_1,B_2)`$ . Hence $`\mathrm{Proj}R^{SL(2)\times SL(2)}`$ is a double cover of $`𝐏^1`$ as desired.

The moduli space $`M_S(2,𝒪_S(1),2)`$ in Example 3 is constructed similarly. Let $`𝒜lt_4`$ be the affine space associated to the vector space $`_{i=0}^5(^2𝐂^4)x_i`$ and $`𝒜lt_{4,2}`$ the subscheme defined by the condition that $`_{i=0}^5A_ix_i𝒜lt_4`$ is of rank $`2`$ everywhere on $`S_8`$. Then the invariant ring of the action of $`SL(4)`$ on $`𝒜lt_{4,2}`$ is generated by four elements $`B_1,B_2,B_3,T`$ of degree 2, 2, 2, 6. There is one relation $`T^2=f_6(B_1,B_2,B_3)`$ and $`M_S(2,𝒪_S(1),2)`$, the projective spectrum $`\mathrm{Proj}R^{SL(4)}`$, is a double cover of $`𝐏^2`$ as described.

The moduli space of vector bundles on a surface was first constructed by Gieseker . He took the Mumford’s GIT quotient  of Grothendieck’s Quot scheme  by $`PGL`$ and used the Gieseker matrix to measure the stability of the action. In the above construction, we take the quotient of $`𝒜lt_{4,2}`$, which is nothing but the affine variety of Gieseker matrices of suitable rank 2 vector bundles, by a general linear group $`GL(4)`$.

The Jacobian, or the Picard variety, of a curve is more fundamental. Weil  constructed $`\mathrm{Pic}_gC`$ as an algebraic variety using the symmetric product $`\mathrm{Sym}^gC`$ and showed its projectivity by Lefschetz’ $`3\mathrm{\Theta }`$ theorem. Later Seshadri and Oda  constructed $`\mathrm{Pic}_dC`$ for arbitray $`d`$ (over the same ground field as $`C`$) by also taking the GIT quotient of Quot schemes. The above constructions eliminate Quot schemes and the concept of linearization from those of Gieseker, Seshadri and Oda.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

QCD is unique among the theories of the standard model in that both strong and weak coupling regimes are relevant to modern collider experiments. This manifests itself most dramatically in hadronic final states of high-energy collisions, whose branching pattern is sensitive to physics spanning the whole range of scales from the (perturbative) hard collision virtuality down to (non-perturbative) hadronic masses. Accordingly final states are a privileged laboratory for QCD studies: perturbative investigations have for example led to many measurements of the strong coupling, $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ , and to tests of the underlying $`\mathrm{SU}(3)`$ group structure of the theory ; and final-states are also proving to be a rich source of information on the poorly understood relation between perturbative, partonic predictions and the non-perturbative, hadronic degrees of freedom observed in practice .

Among the most widely studied final-state properties are measures ($`v`$) of the extent to which the geometric properties of an event’s energy-momentum flow differ from that of a Born event (the lowest order contribution to the given process, for example $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$). Fixed-order perturbative calculations, which involve a small number of additional partons, are suitable for describing large departures from the Born-event energy flow pattern, in which the extra partons are energetic and at large angles. Such configurations are however rare, their likelihood being suppressed by powers of the perturbative coupling.

The most common events are instead those in which the departure from the Born energy-flow pattern is small, $`v1`$, with any extra partons being soft and/or collinear to the original Born-event partons. This poses a problem for fixed-order studies because each power of the coupling is then accompanied by up to two powers of the large logarithm $`\mathrm{ln}1/v`$, associated with soft and collinear divergences. As a result, the perturbative series involves terms $`(\alpha _\mathrm{s}\mathrm{ln}^21/v)^n`$, and must be resummed to all orders.

Today’s state of the art calculations exploit the fact that for many measures (‘observables’), the dominant all-orders perturbative contribution can be written as an exponential of leading-logarithmic (LL) terms $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}^n\mathrm{ln}^{n+1}1/v`$. Furthermore the next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) terms, $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}^n\mathrm{ln}^n1/v`$, factorise and can be calculated to all orders . But to obtain this NLL accuracy one needs a detailed understanding of the observable’s analytical properties and of the corresponding phase-space integrals. Thus it is usual for an entire paper to be dedicated to the resummation, in a single process, of just one or two observables.

In this letter we instead adopt the novel approach of simultaneously examining a whole class of observables, for which it will be possible to carry out a common analysis. The results, involving a ‘master’ formula with applicability conditions, will be relevant to a range of processes including $`e^+e^{}`$ to $`2`$ or $`3`$ jets, DIS to $`1`$ or $`2`$ jets, Drell-Yan (or $`\gamma `$, $`W^\pm `$, Higgs,…) plus a jet, and hadronic dijet production. The final answer for some specific observable will be expressed in terms of straightforwardly (and automatically) identifiable characteristics of the observable.

## 2 Master formula and applicability conditions

Let us start by taking a Born event consisting of $`n`$ hard partons or ‘legs’ ($`n_i`$ of which are incoming), with momenta $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$. We shall consider the resummation, in the $`n`$-jet limit, of $`n`$-jet infrared and collinear (IRC) safe observables — these measure the extent to which an event’s energy flow departs from that of an $`n`$-parton event. For the resummation approach to be valid the observable (a function $`V`$ of the final-state momenta) should:

1. vanish smoothly as a single extra ($`n`$+$`1`$)th parton of momentum $`k`$ is made asymptotically soft and collinear to leg $`\mathrm{}`$, the functional dependence being of the form:

$$V(\{\stackrel{~}{p}\},k)=d_{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{k_t}{Q}\right)^a_{\mathrm{}}e^{b_{\mathrm{}}\eta }g_{\mathrm{}}(\varphi ).$$
(1)
Here $`Q`$ is a hard scale of the problem; $`\{\stackrel{~}{p}\}`$ represents the Born (hard) momenta after recoil from the emission, which is defined in terms of its transverse momentum $`k_t`$ and rapidity $`\eta `$ with respect to leg $`\mathrm{}`$, and where relevant, by an azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$ relative to a Born event plane. By requiring the functional form (1) (in practice, almost always valid), the problem of analysing the observable reduces in part to identifying, for each leg $`\mathrm{}`$, the coefficients $`a_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`b_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`d_{\mathrm{}}`$ as well as the function $`g_{\mathrm{}}(\varphi )`$ parameterising the azimuthal dependence (the normalisation may be fixed by the condition $`g_{\mathrm{}}(\pi /2)=1`$). IRC safety implies $`a_{\mathrm{}}>0`$ and $`b_{\mathrm{}}>a_{\mathrm{}}`$ (see also ). We further require the observable to be positive definite.
2. be *recursively* IRC (rIRC) safe: meaning that, given an ensemble of arbitrarily soft and collinear emissions, the addition of a relatively much softer or more collinear emission should not significantly alter the value of the observable. The formal requirement can be formulated as follows: we introduce momenta $`\kappa _i(\lambda _i)`$ that are *functions* of parameters $`\lambda _i`$ such that,

$$V(\{\stackrel{~}{p}\},\kappa _i(\lambda _i))=\lambda _i,$$
(2)
with the condition that in the soft and/or collinear limits, $`\lambda _i0`$, the azimuthal angle $`\varphi _i`$ of $`\kappa _i(\lambda _i)`$ should be fixed. Each of the momentum functions $`\kappa _1(\lambda )`$, $`\kappa _2(\lambda )`$, etc. may be different as long as they all satisfy eq. (2). The conditions for rIRC safety then become that

* the limit

    $$\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\frac{1}{ϵ}V(\{\stackrel{~}{p}\},\kappa _1(ϵ\lambda _1),\mathrm{},\kappa _m(ϵ\lambda _m))$$
    (3)
    should be well-defined and non-zero (except possibly in a region of phase-space of zero measure). This can be interpreted as a requirement that the soft and collinear scaling properties of the observable should be the same regardless of whether there is just one, or many emissions.
    * the following two limits should be identical,

    $$\begin{array}{c}\underset{\lambda _{m+1}0}{lim}\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\frac{1}{ϵ}V(\{\stackrel{~}{p}\},\kappa _1(ϵ\lambda _1),\mathrm{},\kappa _m(ϵ\lambda _m),\kappa _{m+1}(ϵ\lambda _{m+1}))\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\frac{1}{ϵ}V(\{\stackrel{~}{p}\},\kappa _1(ϵ\lambda _1),\mathrm{},\kappa _m(ϵ\lambda _m)),\end{array}$$
    (4)
    *i.e.* having taken the limit eq. (3), the addition of an extra much softer and/or more collinear emission should not affect the value of the of the observable. At first sight this closely resembles normal IRC safety, but actually differs critically because of the order of the limits on the left-hand side of eq. (4).

These conditions (until now never formulated), which should hold regardless of how precisely the $`\kappa _i(\lambda )`$ vanish as $`\lambda 0`$, allow one to translate a restriction on the ensemble of emissions, $`V(\{\stackrel{~}{p}\},k_1,\mathrm{},k_m)<v`$, into a restriction on each individual emission, $`V(\{\stackrel{~}{p}\},k_i)v`$ (modulo NLL corrections discussed below). This is necessary in order to ensure exponentiation of the LL terms.111An interesting exercise is to verify that the JADE 3-jet resolution parameter in $`e^+e^{}`$, which is known not to exponentiate , is indeed rIRC unsafe.
3. be continuously global  — this means that for a single soft emission, the observable’s parametric dependence on the emission’s transverse momentum (with respect to the nearest leg) should be independent of the emission direction, $`_\eta _{\mathrm{ln}k_t}\mathrm{ln}V(\{\stackrel{~}{p}\},k)=0`$ and $`_\varphi _{\mathrm{ln}k_t}\mathrm{ln}V(\{\stackrel{~}{p}\},k)=0`$. In practice, this is perhaps the most restrictive of the conditions. It avoids the need to analyse possibly quite complicated angular boundaries between regions with different transverse-momentum dependences and calculate the corresponding non-global logarithms . It implies $`a_1=a_2=\mathrm{}=a_na`$.

Given the above conditions, one can derive the following NLL master resummation formula for the probability $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(v)`$ that the observable’s value is less than $`v`$ :

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Sigma }(v)& =\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{n}{}}C_{\mathrm{}}\left[r_{\mathrm{}}(L)+r_{\mathrm{}}^{}(L)\left(\mathrm{ln}\overline{d}_{\mathrm{}}b_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{2E_{\mathrm{}}}{Q}\right)+B_{\mathrm{}}T\left(\frac{L}{a+b_{\mathrm{}}}\right)\right]\hfill \\ & +\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{n_i}{}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{f_{\mathrm{}}(x_{\mathrm{}},v^{\frac{2}{a+b_{\mathrm{}}}}\mu _\text{f}^2)}{f_{\mathrm{}}(x_{\mathrm{}},\mu _\text{f}^2)}+\mathrm{ln}S(T(L/a))+\mathrm{ln}(C_1r_1^{},\mathrm{},C_nr_n^{}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
where $`L=\mathrm{ln}1/v`$, $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the colour factor associated with Born leg $`\mathrm{}`$ ($`C_F`$ for a quark and $`C_A`$ for a gluon), and $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ is its energy, $`B_{\mathrm{}}`$ accounts for hard collinear splittings and is $`3/4`$ for quarks and $`(11C_A4T_Rn_f)/(12C_A)`$ for gluons, $`\mathrm{ln}\overline{d}_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{ln}d_{\mathrm{}}+_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}g_{\mathrm{}}(\varphi )`$, and for incoming legs, the $`f_{\mathrm{}}`$ are the appropriate (Born flavour) parton densities.

The functions $`r_{\mathrm{}}(L)`$ contain all the LL (and some NLL) terms and are defined by

$$r_{\mathrm{}}(L)=_{Q^2v^{\frac{2}{a}}}^{Q^2v^{\frac{2}{a+b_{\mathrm{}}}}}\frac{dk_t^2}{k_t^2}\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}(k_t)}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{k_t}{v^{1/a}Q}\right)^{a/b_{\mathrm{}}}+_{Q^2v^{\frac{2}{a+b_{\mathrm{}}}}}^{Q^2}\frac{dk_t^2}{k_t^2}\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}(k_t)}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q}{k_t},$$
(6)
where $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ runs at two-loop order and is to be taken in the Bremsstrahlung scheme . Exponentiation guarantees that the LL terms of $`r_{\mathrm{}}`$ are in the class $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}^nL^{n+1}`$.

All remaining terms are relevant only at NLL accuracy: $`r_{\mathrm{}}^{}=_Lr_{\mathrm{}}`$; $`T(L)`$ is given by

$$T(L)=_{Q^2e^{2L}}^{Q^2}\frac{dk_t^2}{k_t^2}\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}(k_t)}{\pi }.$$
(7)
The process dependence associated with large-angle soft radiation is contained in $`S(T(L/a))`$, whose form depends on the number of legs:

$`n=2:`$ $`\mathrm{ln}S(t)=t2C_F\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_{qq^{}}}{Q}},`$
$`n=3:`$ $`\mathrm{ln}S(t)=t\left[C_A\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_{qg}Q_{q^{}g}}{Q_{qq^{}}Q}}+2C_F\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_{qq^{}}}{Q}}\right],`$
$`n=4:`$ $`\mathrm{ln}S(t)=t{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_{12}}{Q}}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Tr}(He^{t\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}/2}Me^{t\mathrm{\Gamma }/2})}{\mathrm{Tr}(HM)}},`$
where $`Q_{ab}^2=2p_a.p_b`$ and $`q`$, $`q^{}`$ and $`g`$ denote the (anti)-quarks and gluon. The $`n=2,3`$ formulae apply to $`e^+e^{}`$, DIS and Drell-Yan production, while a process such as $`gg\mathrm{Higgs}+g`$ would simply involve different colour factors. The $`n=4`$ formula applies to hadronic dijet production ($`1`$ and $`2`$ label the incoming legs). The quantities $`H`$, $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are the hard, soft and anomalous dimension matrices of  (modulo normalisations and our explicit extraction of the factor $`t`$ from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, see ).

Finally, we examine the factor $``$. Without it, eq. (5) corresponds essentially to the probability of vetoing all (independent) emissions $`k`$ with $`V(\{\stackrel{~}{p}\},k)>v`$. But given some ensemble of emissions $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_m`$ that individually satisfy $`V(\{\stackrel{~}{p}\},k_i)<v`$, the observable may be such that one still has $`V(\{\stackrel{~}{p}\},k_1,\mathrm{},k_m)>v`$. It is then necessary to apply a somewhat stronger veto in order to guarantee $`V(\{\stackrel{~}{p}\},k_1,\mathrm{},k_m)<v`$. This (and the converse situation of $`V(\{\stackrel{~}{p}\},k_i)>v`$ being allowed in the presence of multiple emissions) is accounted for by the NLL function $``$,

$$(R_1^{},\mathrm{},R_n^{})=\mathrm{exp}\left\{R^{}\mathrm{ln}\frac{V(\{\stackrel{~}{p}\},k_1,\mathrm{},k_m)}{\mathrm{max}\{V(\{\stackrel{~}{p}\},k_1),\mathrm{},V(\{\stackrel{~}{p}\},k_m)\}}\right\},$$
(8)
where $`R^{}=_{\mathrm{}}R_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$, $`R_{\mathrm{}}^{}=C_{\mathrm{}}r_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$. The average is carried out over ensembles of emissions generated as follows (*cf.* section 2 of ): first one specifies the value of the maximum of the $`V(\{\stackrel{~}{p}\},k_i)`$, say $`v_{\mathrm{max}}`$ ($`1`$). For each event (ensemble), a random number ($`m`$, formally infinite) of emissions is generated, according to an independent emission pattern uniform in $`\mathrm{ln}k_t`$, $`\eta `$ and $`\varphi `$, such that on average, below $`v_{\mathrm{max}}`$, the density per unit $`\mathrm{ln}V(\{\stackrel{~}{p}\},k)`$ of emissions on leg $`\mathrm{}`$ is $`R_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$. To ensure a result containing only NLL terms, one takes the result in the limit $`v_{\mathrm{max}}0`$. Full details, including the derivation and a treatment of subtleties associated with the running of the coupling and the recoil momenta, $`\{\stackrel{~}{p}\}`$ (determined anew for each set of emitted momenta), are given elsewhere .

We note that attempting to evaluate $``$ for an observable that is rIRC unsafe will yield a result that is either ill-defined or improperly behaved for $`R^{}0`$. This can be thought of as analogous to the divergence of NLO terms of a fixed order calculation for observables that are IRC unsafe.

Before proceeding, some remarks on the master formula are in order. As can be verified in a straightforward way, we note that:

* eq. (5) is independent of the frame in which one determines the $`d_{\mathrm{}}`$, because the frame-dependence of the $`d_{\mathrm{}}`$ is cancelled by that of the $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$;
* to NLL accuracy, eq. (5) is also independent of the choice of hard scale $`Q`$;
* hard emissions collinear to each leg $`\mathrm{}`$ are accounted for through the factor $`B_{\mathrm{}}`$ in eq. (5), and, in the case of radiation from an incoming leg, also through the modification of the corresponding parton density factorisation scale from $`\mu _\text{f}`$ to $`\mu _\text{f}v^{\frac{1}{a+b_{\mathrm{}}}}`$. Hard collinear contributions depend only on the combination $`a+b_{\mathrm{}}`$, which is to be related to the fact that in this region, for an emission $`k`$ with a fixed energy fraction, the observable behaves simply as $`V(\{\stackrel{~}{p}\},k)(k_t/Q)^{a+b_{\mathrm{}}}`$;
* finally the continuous globalness of the observable ensures that, to NLL accuracy, eq. (5) is insensitive to the details of the observable’s dependence on large-angle soft gluons, the only relevant information being that for any large-angle emission the observables scales as $`V(\{\stackrel{~}{p}\},k)(k_t/Q)^a`$.

Given the above elements, one could imagine a procedure whereby the applicability conditions and the parameters of eq. (1) are established by hand, analytically, with only the $``$ being determined numerically. A related approach was presented in , though instead of using a master formula, we had to analytically carry out a resummation for a ‘simplified’ version of the full observable — new results were obtained there for three observables in $`e^+e^{}`$ 2 jets. This was already a considerable improvement over the traditional, entirely manual resummation approach, which requires a painstaking analysis of the observable’s dependence on arbitrary numbers of emissions followed by involved mathematical procedures to obtain a result which quite often cannot even be expressed in closed form (see  for a tortuous example).

However the introduction of a master formula makes it possible to implement a fundamentally new approach. Given a subroutine that calculates the observable for an arbitrary set of four momenta, a computer program can carry out the entire resummation: it first establishes whether the applicability conditions hold true and determines for each leg $`\mathrm{}`$ the parameters and functions of (1), $`a_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`b_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`d_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`g_{\mathrm{}}(\varphi )`$.222In our current implementation, for technical reasons, $`a_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`b_{\mathrm{}}`$ are restricted be multiples of $`1/4`$, but the extension to any power of $`1/2`$ is trivial. This is achieved by probing the observable with randomly chosen test configurations of soft and collinear emissions, taking the asymptotic limit with the help of high precision arithmetic (we choose to use Bailey’s portable multiple-precision package ).

If any of the applicability conditions fail to hold (*e.g.* for the Jade 3-jet resolution parameter in $`e^+e^{}`$, which is not recursively IRC safe and so does not exponentiate ), the program does not proceed, *i.e.* a resummed answer is provided only when the correctness of the result is guaranteed to NLL accuracy.

This method allows one to make an attempt at the resummation of an arbitrary observable in a fully automated way, accessible even to non-experts. This is to be compared to the standard approach, involving a painstaking (and historically sometimes error-prone) manual analysis of the observable, requiring a search for integral transformations (in up to 5 variables !) to reduce it to a factorised form — this form is then used for the actual resummation, after which one evaluates the inverse transforms.

Usually the two approaches give indistinguishable results, though in some instances one or the other may be preferred: for some observables (involving cancellations between contributions from different emissions), exponentiation is only partial, resulting in (5) being accurate only up to some finite value of $`R^{}`$ (typically of order 1) — beyond this point $``$ diverges  and only the use of the appropriate integral transform method can give a full answer (*e.g.* Drell-Yan $`p_t`$ resummations with a Fourier transform to impact parameter). For certain other observables however, the ‘factorising’ integral transform has yet to be found (*e.g.* the Durham 3-jet resolution parameter) and a numerical approach represents the only way of obtaining a resummed answer.

## 3 Resummation in hadronic dijets events

We have verified that our approach reproduces the analytically known results in $`e^+e^{}`$ and DIS (*e.g.* ). Here, to demonstrate its feasibility more generally, we show the first resummed result for an event shape in hadronic dijet production. Rapid progress is currently being made on measurements  and fixed-order predictions  for such observables, with the results showing a clear need for resummations. We shall examine the (global) transverse thrust (as opposed to DØ’s discontinuously global variant ), defined as:

$$T_{}\underset{\stackrel{}{n}_{}}{\mathrm{max}}\frac{_i|\stackrel{}{p}_i\stackrel{}{n}_{}|}{_ip_i},$$
(9)
where the sum runs over all particles in the final state, $`p_{}`$ is the momentum transverse to the beam direction (rather than to a given leg, denoted by $`p_t`$) and $`\stackrel{}{n}_{}`$ is the unit transverse vector that maximises the projection.

The transverse thrust has a couple of features worth commenting: firstly, it receives non-negligible contributions from emissions nearly collinear to the beams — thus it will be sensitive to radiation from the ‘underlying event’, making it useful for quantitative studies of non-perturbative effects that are qualitatively new compared to those examined up to now in $`e^+e^{}`$ and DIS. Various other observables will be proposed in forthcoming work , a number of which will be less sensitive to radiation from the incoming legs, providing a good degree of complementarity. Secondly, whereas (9) sums over all particles, experiments can only measure up to some maximum rapidity $`\eta _{\mathrm{max}}`$. In the presence of such a restriction it can be shown that the resummation still remains valid for values of $`ve^{(a+b_{\mathrm{min}})\eta _{\mathrm{max}}}`$, where $`b_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is the smaller of the two incoming leg $`b_{\mathrm{}}`$ values .

Let us now examine the automated resummation itself: the quantity to be resummed is actually $`\tau _{}1T_{}`$, since it is this that vanishes in the Born limit. The observable passes all the (automated) applicability tests and table 1, generated automatically, shows the leg properties for a particular reference Born configuration. The different $`b_{\mathrm{}}`$ values for incoming and outgoing legs imply different leading logarithmic structures. The azimuthal dependence $`g_{\mathrm{}}(\varphi )`$ is tabulated and integrated numerically, except in the case of certain easily recognisable analytical functions. The function $``$ has a simple analytical form,333It can be automatically established that $`\tau _{}`$ is additive, $`V(\{\stackrel{~}{p}\},k_1,\mathrm{},k_m)=_iV(\{\stackrel{~}{p}\},k_i)`$, implying $`=e^{\gamma _ER^{}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+R^{})`$ . however to demonstrate the feasibility of our whole approach we shall show results based on a numerically determined $``$.

One further step is needed before presenting actual distributions: our master formula applies to individual Born configurations. For example in the case of $`p\overline{p}`$ 2 jets, the analysis is carried out with a fixed rapidity for the pair of jets and fixed values of the Mandelstam invariants of the underlying hard process. In contrast experimental measurements integrate over a range of Born configurations. A priori there is no reason for the leg parameters or $``$ to be independent of the configuration and it could be necessary to repeat the analysis for a range of configurations. However for most observables, modulo certain permutations of momenta (as can be verified automatically), it is only the $`d_{\mathrm{}}`$ that depend on the configuration and they are easily redetermined as one integrates over Born configurations.

The resulting distribution for $`\tau _{}`$ is shown in fig. 1, decomposed into the most relevant underlying hard subprocesses, for the Tevatron run II regime ($`\sqrt{s}=1.96`$TeV). We select events containing two outgoing jets with $`E_{}>50`$GeV and $`|\eta |<1.0`$ and use the CTEQ6M parton density set , corresponding to $`\alpha _s(M_Z)=0.118`$. We have set $`Q=\mu _F=\mu _R`$ to be the Born partonic c.o.m. energy, though in future work we intend to explore a range of alternative scales. As is to be expected, channels with lower overall colour charge have broader distributions. We note that the different shapes of the various channels constitutes information that might be exploitable in fits of parton distributions. Of course detailed phenomenological analyses, both for perturbative and non-perturbative quantities, will also require matching to fixed-order predictions, another step that we leave to future work. Here we just remark that resummed results obtained from the master formula are in semi-analytical form (fully analytic but for the pure NLL function $``$), so that they can be easily expanded to give the fixed-order coefficients needed when matching.

## 4 Conclusions

In this letter we have provided the elements needed for a novel, automated approach to general NLL resummation, specifically for the case of continuously global, exponentiable $`(n+1)`$-jet final-state observables in the $`n`$-jet limit. Results are obtained simply by specifying the Born process (and the number of hard partons) and providing the definition of the observable to be resummed in the form of a computer routine, similar to the long-established practice for fixed-order calculations, and in contrast to the tedious manual approach that has been used up to now for resummations. The results are provided in semi-analytical form, making it straightforward to obtain the expansions needed for procedures such as matching to fixed-order predictions.

We have demonstrated that the approach can be implemented in practice, by presenting automatically generated predictions for the transverse thrust in hadronic dijet production, the first event shape to be resummed in this important process. Only concerns for brevity prevent us from showing results for a range of other observables and processes, including several new observables in hadronic dijet production and jet rates in $`e^+e^{}`$ and DIS.

An open question is whether such an approach, based on the analysis of *classes* of observables can be applied in other resummations contexts, or in the search for higher resummation accuracies. We enthusiastically advocate investigations in this direction.

### Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Mrinal Dasgupta, Yuri Dokshitzer, Eric Laenen and Pino Marchesini for useful discussions and suggestions and Zoltan Nagy for providing us with the latest version of NLOJET++ and assistance in using it. We are grateful to each other’s institutes for hospitality and to CERN and the University of Milano-Bicocca for the use of computing facilities.


text:
# References

Deformation of environment having string structure

in view of the topological characteristics

Trinh V.K.

Department of physics of polymers and crystals MGU

E-mail : khoa@polly.phys.msu.ru

Summary: In this paper the new model of plastic deformation is constructed. For classification of plastic statuses the theory of knot is used.

1. In the paper  the relation between the theory of knot and the statistical mechanics are shown. In this clause the theory of knots creates the new device and the large opportunities to consider precisely - solublely the statistical mechanics. Here occurs dynamic symmetry in the evolutionary equation. In the most simple case, definition of invariant polinomial of the knot is equivalent to definition of function of distributions for two-dimantion models in a critical point. In the same sense definition of invariant polinomial of knot is equivalent to definition of integral Feimann , means, that each diagram Feimann corresponds invariant polinomial of knot. In research of 2-dimantion model a condition of integrability is connected to a subgroup of group braid as the equation Yang - Basters . In the theory Chern-Simons-Witten the statistical sum is covariantly equivalent with ” Link invariant ”. Here we use a method of presentation of groups to construct the integral Feimann for the function of distribution of probability in the probem of plastic deformation in the scheme of work .

2. Last years there is the extensive experimental data , allowing to formulate the new approaches to problems of plasticity. Among them it deserves special attention to the synergetics approach, considering a deformable firm body as open, tightly nonequilibrium system, and plastic deformation - as dissipative process lowering level of elastic stress of environment . In essence, in a condition of self-organizing it is soliton with certain topological characteristics . In the present time the wave character of plastic deformation of firm bodies does not cause doubts.

According to the synergetics approach the density of distribution of probabilities of transition is the silution of the equation Fokker - Planck. However, using potential character of the process of deformation, instead of the equation Fokker - Planck it is possible to use the equation Schrodingers . So, shall consider this equation as

$$\frac{f}{t}=\frac{^2f}{e^2}\frac{W\left(e\right)}{T}f$$
$`\left(1\right)`$
where $`W(e)`$ \- free energy in a role of potential of deformation, $`T`$\- temperature. It is possible to write the solution as integral Feimann :

$$f(e,0;e\left(t\right),t)=𝒩\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}𝑑\tau G\right\}𝒟e\left(t\right)$$

$$G=\left[\frac{W\left(e\left(\tau \right)\right)}{T}+\frac{\dot{e}^2\left(\tau \right)}{2}\right]$$
$`\left(2\right)`$
and the point above $`e`$ designates derivative on time.

3. Basic our idea in such approach is, that we consider strings as trajectories of deformation in the mechanics of continuous environment. For simplicity we consider only a 2-dimention case, it means that these trajectories are located on a surface in the space Oclid . The configuration of space of system n of strings is

$$\begin{array}{c}M_n=\{(Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_n):Z_iZ_j,ij\}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(3\right)`$
Topology of a configuration of space not trivial. It is necessary to investigate not equivalent homotopic integrals Feimann. The homotopic class will be determined through ” winding number ” n. Let’s consider two strings $`a`$ and $`b`$. Number n is determined for part of a curve $`C`$, which does not pass through string b, located in $`\xi `$:

$$\begin{array}{c}n=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\underset{C}{}\frac{dz}{z\xi }\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(4\right)`$
More general, if we choose coordinates with two axes, it is possible to determine ” winding angle ” $`\theta `$ curve $`C`$ for a string $`b`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\theta =\theta _1\theta _o+2\pi n\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(5\right)`$
where $`\theta _o`$ and $`\theta _1`$ are corners of an initial and final point of the curve. However, each string has internal space. In genera , we can choose internal this space as group Lie $`G`$ . So, it is possible to generalize ” number of turns ”, which will receive the following values in this internal space:

$$\begin{array}{c}\theta =sign\left(C\right)\theta _1\theta _o+2\pi w\hfill \\ w=nT_aT_b=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\underset{C}{}\frac{dz}{z\xi }T_aT_b\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(6\right)`$
where $`T_a,T_b`$ is a presentation of strings a and b. We carry out parametrize of a trajectory through $`z(t)`$, $`t_ott_1`$. So, we consider propagatory Feimann of a string $`a`$ from a place $`z_o=z(t_o)`$ to a place $`z_1=zt_1)`$. Similarly with  we have the propagatory Feimann for homotopic class $`l`$ as

$$\begin{array}{c}K_l(z_1,t_1,z_o,t_o)=D_lz\left(t\right)D_l\overline{z}\left(t\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\underset{t_o}{\overset{t_1}{}}G𝑑t\right)\delta ^2\left(2\pi lT_aT_b\theta \right)\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(7\right)`$
where $`G(3)`$ were given in the solution of equation Schrodinger. Using Forier presentation, for function Dirac we shall receive

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta ^2\left(2\pi lT_aT_b\theta \right)=\frac{dkd\overline{k}}{4\pi ^2}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\left(k\varphi +\overline{k}\varphi \right)\right]\hfill \\ P\mathrm{exp}\{i\left[2\pi k(lT_aT_bw)\right]+c.c\}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(8\right)`$
where $`c.c`$ \- it is the member of approximation of the high order. It is the description as functional integral of topological property of the configuration spaces. As there was a self-organizing in process of plastic deformation, has appeared not trivial topological ”interaction ” between strings. Substituting (8) in (7) it is received

$$\begin{array}{c}K_l(z_1,t_1,z_o,t_o)=\frac{dkd\overline{k}}{4\pi ^2}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\left(k\varphi +\overline{k}\varphi \right)\right]\hfill \\ .\overline{K_l}(z_1,t_1,z_o,t_o;k,\overline{k})\hfill \\ \overline{K_l}(z_1,t_1,z_o,t_o;k,\overline{k})=D_lz\left(t\right)D_l\overline{z}\left(t\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\underset{t_o}{\overset{t_1}{}}G𝑑t\right)\hfill \\ .\mathrm{exp}\{i\underset{t_o}{\overset{t_1}{}}\left[k(\frac{iz^.}{z\xi }+\left(1\pi l\right)T_aT_b+c.c]dt\right\}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(9\right)`$
For homotopic class $`(l_1,\mathrm{},l_{i1},l_{i+1},\mathrm{},l_n)`$, designating a difference of an initial and final corner of a trajectory i concerning trajectory j through $`\varphi _{ij}`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\varphi _{ij}=sign\left(C_i\right)\theta _{ij1}\theta _{ijo}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(10\right)`$
we receive propargator Feimann for a the trajectory i, having the presentation $`T_i`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}K_{li}(z_{1i},t_1,z_{oi},t_o)=\frac{dkd\overline{k}}{4\pi ^2}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(k\varphi _{ij}+\overline{k}\varphi _{ij}\right)\right]\hfill \\ .\overline{K}_{li}(z_{li1},t_1,z_{lio},t_o;k,\overline{k})\hfill \\ \overline{K}_{li}(z_{i1},t_1,z_{io},t_o;k,\overline{k})=D_lz\left(t\right)D_l\overline{z}\left(t\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\underset{t_o}{\overset{t_1}{}}G𝑑t\right)\hfill \\ .\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\underset{t_o}{\overset{t_1}{}}[k_{j=1,j}^n(\frac{iz_i^.}{z_iz_j}+1\pi l_j)T_iT_j+c.c]dt\right\}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(11\right)`$
4. Environment with string structure is an environment such as polymer or material of composites . In a usual situation it is considered neutral. Research a status of deformation of such environment was executed on model Flory in . In  it is considered the influence of topology on deformation. We identify a string with an ideal polymeric circuit. In any the point of a circuit, from definition of deformation, we can receive

$$<dl^2><dl^2>=2e<dl^2>$$

where $``$ \- average value on distribution of probability of deformation, $`<>`$ \- average value on Gauss distribution for ideal polymer. It means, that it is possible to receive Gauss distribution through the distribution of probabilities of deformation and vice versa . In this message the deformation was considered as the process of fuctuation . So, for each group $`G`$ and its presentation there is the statistical sum or function of distribution. the topological character of this group plays a main role during formation of the plastic structure. In the classical theory of plasticity every trajectory determines the appropriate plastic status. The interaction between trajectories was not taken into account. Here exists not trivial topology because there is interaction of strings in process of self-organizing.

In a result the theory of strings of plasticity is constructed on following scheme.

Let in beginning in body there are elastic strings or long elastic areas of a type strings (for example, macromolecular of polymers ). In a status of self-organizing each string has group and its presentation. For each type of interaction of strings one is determined the statistical sum or the integral Feimann , o. exists classification of plastic status with the help of invariant of knot. The probability of transition is determined due to this propagator .