This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Exclusive heavy quark dijet cross section

Chul Kim [email protected] Institute of Convergence Fundamental Studies and School of Liberal Arts, Seoul National University of Science and Technology, Seoul 01811, Korea
Abstract

We study the exclusive heavy quark dijet cross section from e+ee^{+}e^{-}-annihilation using soft-collinear effective theory. In order to resum the large logarithms of small jet veto parameter β\beta and jet radius RR, we factorize the cross section into the hard, hard-soft, collinear, and collinear-soft parts. Compared with the case of a massless quark, the jet sector with the collinear and collinear-soft parts can be modified to include the heavy quark mass. The factorization of the jet sector can be systematically achieved through matching onto the boosted heavy quark effective theory. Heavy quark mass corrections enhance the cross section sizably and cannot be ignored when the quark mass is comparable with the jet size EJRE_{J}R. We also analyze the exclusive heavy quark pair production in the limit as RR goes to zero. Using the resummed result, the top isolation effects on the cross section are estimated.

I Introduction

Jets, collimated beams of strongly interacting particles, are an important observable for scrutinizing the Standard Model and for finding new physics signals. Jets are usually characterized by the jet energy (EJE_{J}) and radius (RR). If RR is small, the jets can be handled independently of the hard interactions. Hence QCD factorization to separate short and long distance physics becomes an important tool to study the jet physics, and it enables us to systematically resum large logarithms of small RR that appears in the scattering cross section with the jet Dasgupta:2014yra ; Kang:2016mcy ; Dai:2016hzf .

If a jet with small radius RR contains a heavy quark, the heavy quark mass could be comparable with a jet size, which is roughly given by EJRE_{J}R. In this case the finite size of the heavy quark mass can give significant corrections to the predictions of jets in which the heavy quark has been taken as a massless parton. Therefore understanding the heavy quark mass effects is an important ingredient for a precise estimation of the jet, and furthermore for probing electroweak and new physics since the heavy quark is sensitive to Yukawa couple.

In this paper we study the exclusive heavy quark dijet scattering cross section in e+ee^{+}e^{-}-annihilation. Basically the dijet cross section does not become additionally singular when we take the massless limit on the heavy quark. Therefore the dijet cross section can be a good testing system for investigating heavy quark mass effects by comparing both the massive and massless cases. The dijet cross section depends on the jet veto parameter β\beta and the radius RR. Since both the parameters are small and produce large logarithms, the perturbative expansion at the fixed order in αs\alpha_{s} is not reliable. Hence we consider the resummation of the cross section employing soft-collinear effective theory (SCET) Bauer:2000ew ; Bauer:2000yr ; Bauer:2001yt ; Bauer:2002nz .

The organization of the paper is as follows: In section II we discuss the factorization of the heavy quark dijet cross section. In section III, using the factorization theorem we resum large logarithms and estimated the heavy quark mass impact on the cross section. In section IV, taking the limit of the cross section as R0R\to 0, we consider the exclusive heavy quark pair production. Finally we conclude in section V.

II Factorization of the dijet cross section

For construction of dijet events in e+ee^{+}e^{-}-annihialation, we apply the Sterman-Weinberg (SW) algorithm Sterman:1977wj . In the SW algorithm, energetic particles that are deposited within a cone with the half angle R/2R/2 constitute a jet. At next-to-leading order (NLO) in αs\alpha_{s}, if the angle θ\theta between two energetic particles satisfy

θ<R,\theta<R, (1)

they merge to a jet. So this constraint is the same as the ones for inclusive kT\mathrm{k_{T}}-type algorithms Catani:1993hr ; Ellis:1993tq ; Dokshitzer:1997in ; Cacciari:2008gp . In addition, to be infrared (IR) safe, soft particles with energies less than βQ\beta Q are included in the dijet events. Here QQ is the center of mass energy of the incoming electron and positron, and the veto parameter β\beta is given to be small, i.e, β1\beta\ll 1.

With small β\beta and RR adopted, the dijet cross section with massless partons has been studied in the framework of SCET, and its factorization theorem is formulated as Cheung:2009sg ; Ellis:2010rwa ; Chay:2015ila

σ2(Q,β,R)=σ0H(Q,μ)𝒥n(EJR,μ)𝒥n¯(EJR,μ)S(βQ,R,μ),\sigma_{2}(Q,\beta,R)=\sigma_{0}H(Q,\mu)\mathcal{J}_{n}(E_{J}R,\mu)\mathcal{J}_{\overline{n}}(E_{J}R,\mu)S(\beta Q,R,\mu), (2)

where σ0\sigma_{0} is the Born level cross section, and the jet energy EJE_{J} can be given by Q/2Q/2. HH is the hard function, 𝒥n(n¯)\mathcal{J}_{n(\overline{n})} is the integrated jet function to describe n(n¯)n(\overline{n})-collinear interactions inside the jet, and SS is the soft function for soft gluon radiations that depends on the jet veto. To NLO order in αs\alpha_{s}, each factorized function in Eq. (2) is given by

H(Q,μ)\displaystyle H(Q,\mu) =\displaystyle= 1+αsCF2π(3lnμ2Q2ln2μ2Q28+7π26),\displaystyle 1+\frac{\alpha_{s}C_{F}}{2\pi}\Bigl{(}-3\ln\frac{\mu^{2}}{Q^{2}}-\ln^{2}\frac{\mu^{2}}{Q^{2}}-8+\frac{7\pi^{2}}{6}\Bigr{)}, (3)
𝒥n(EJR,μ)=𝒥n¯(EJR,μ)\displaystyle\mathcal{J}_{n}(E_{J}R,\mu)=\mathcal{J}_{\overline{n}}(E_{J}R,\mu) =\displaystyle= 1+αsCF2π(32lnμ2EJ2R2+12ln2μ2EJ2R2+132π24),\displaystyle 1+\frac{\alpha_{s}C_{F}}{2\pi}\Bigl{(}\frac{3}{2}\ln\frac{\mu^{2}}{E_{J}^{2}R^{2}}+\frac{1}{2}\ln^{2}\frac{\mu^{2}}{E_{J}^{2}R^{2}}+\frac{13}{2}-\frac{\pi^{2}}{4}\Bigr{)}, (4)
S(βQ,R,μ)\displaystyle S(\beta Q,R,\mu) =\displaystyle= 1+αsCF2π(4lnμ24β2Q2lnR24ln2R2π23).\displaystyle 1+\frac{\alpha_{s}C_{F}}{2\pi}\Bigl{(}4\ln\frac{\mu^{2}}{4\beta^{2}Q^{2}}\ln\frac{R}{2}-4\ln^{2}\frac{R}{2}-\frac{\pi^{2}}{3}\Bigr{)}. (5)

All the large logarithms in HH and 𝒥n,n¯\mathcal{J}_{n,\overline{n}} are minimized by the renormalization scale choices of μhQ\mu_{h}\sim Q for HH and μcEJR\mu_{c}\sim E_{J}R for 𝒥n,n¯\mathcal{J}_{n,\overline{n}}. However, the large logarithms of RR in the soft function persist even if we set the soft scale as μs2βQ\mu_{s}\sim 2\beta Q. Therefore the renormalization group (RG) evolution for SS from the factorization scale μ\mu to the soft scale μs\mu_{s} does not completely resum all the possible large logarithms, hence we need to additionally factorize SS to capture scales to minimize all the logarithms. For this, we can subdivide soft interactions into the ‘hard-soft (hsoft)’ and the ‘collinear-soft (csoft)’ interactions. The corresponding modes of gluons scale as

phs\displaystyle p_{hs} =\displaystyle= (phs+,phs,phs)Qβ(1,1,1),\displaystyle(p_{hs}^{+},p_{hs}^{\perp},p_{hs}^{-})\sim Q\beta(1,1,1), (6)
pn,cs\displaystyle p_{n,cs} \displaystyle\sim Qβ(1,R,R2),pn¯,csQβ(R2,R,1),\displaystyle Q\beta(1,R,R^{2}),\ \ p_{\overline{n},cs}\sim Q\beta(R^{2},R,1), (7)

where p+n¯pp_{+}\equiv\overline{n}\cdot p and pnpp_{-}\equiv n\cdot p. The two lightcone vectors, nn and n¯\overline{n}, are back-to-back and satisfy nn¯=2n\cdot\overline{n}=2. The hsoft mode for Eq. (6) is responsible for wide angle soft radiations, hence cannot resolve the jet boundary with the radius RR. However, two csoft modes in Eq. (7) radiate over narrow angles around both the jet axes and can recognize the jet boundary.

The refactorization of soft interactions can be performed similarly to the conventional factorization into hard and collinear interactions from full theory. At scale μβQ\mu\sim\beta Q, we first integrate out the hsoft mode matching onto the lower effective theory with the csoft modes, and obtain the hsoft function. Then at the lower scale, μβQRβQ\mu\sim\beta QR\ll\beta Q, the remaining two csoft modes cannot communicate each other, and thus factorizes.

As a result, the soft function 𝒮\mathcal{S} in Eq. (5) can be factorized into the hsoft, nn- and n¯\overline{n}-csoft functions such as Becher:2015hka ; Chien:2015cka

S(βQ,R,μ)=Shs(2βQ,μ)𝒮n(βQR,μ)𝒮n¯(βQR,μ).S(\beta Q,R,\mu)=S_{hs}(2\beta Q,\mu)\mathcal{S}_{n}(\beta QR,\mu)\mathcal{S}_{\overline{n}}(\beta QR,\mu). (8)

Here the NLO results for the factorized functions are given by

Shs(2βQ,μ)\displaystyle S_{hs}(2\beta Q,\mu) =\displaystyle= 1+αsCF2π(ln2μ24β2Q2π22),\displaystyle 1+\frac{\alpha_{s}C_{F}}{2\pi}\Bigl{(}\ln^{2}\frac{\mu^{2}}{4\beta^{2}Q^{2}}-\frac{\pi^{2}}{2}\Bigr{)}, (9)
𝒮n(βQR,μ)=𝒮n¯(βQR,μ)\displaystyle\mathcal{S}_{n}(\beta QR,\mu)=\mathcal{S}_{\overline{n}}(\beta QR,\mu) =\displaystyle= 1αsCF2π(12ln2μ2β2Q2R2+π212).\displaystyle 1-\frac{\alpha_{s}C_{F}}{2\pi}\Bigl{(}\frac{1}{2}\ln^{2}\frac{\mu^{2}}{\beta^{2}Q^{2}R^{2}}+\frac{\pi^{2}}{12}\Bigr{)}. (10)

Therefore the complete factorization theorem for the dijet cross section is given as

σ2(Q,β,R)\displaystyle\sigma_{2}(Q,\beta,R) =\displaystyle= σ0H(Q,μ)Shs(2βQ,μ)\displaystyle\sigma_{0}H(Q,\mu)S_{hs}(2\beta Q,\mu) (11)
×[𝒥n(EJR,μ)𝒮n(2βEJR,μ)][𝒥n¯(EJR,μ)𝒮n¯(2βEJR,μ)].\displaystyle\times\Bigl{[}\mathcal{J}_{n}(E_{J}R,\mu)\mathcal{S}_{n}(2\beta E_{J}R,\mu)\Bigr{]}\Bigl{[}\mathcal{J}_{\overline{n}}(E_{J}R,\mu)\mathcal{S}_{\overline{n}}(2\beta E_{J}R,\mu)\Bigr{]}.

The factorization theorem, Eq. (11), can be also applied to the heavy quark dijet cross section that is based on heavy quark pair production. To do so, the jet sector, 𝒥n(n¯)𝒮n(n¯)\mathcal{J}_{n(\overline{n})}\mathcal{S}_{n(\overline{n})}, needs to be modified to include the heavy quark mass. The produced energetic heavy quarks leading to jets have collinear interactions basically, and the momenta of the heavy quarks in nn and n¯\overline{n} directions scale as

pn=(pn+,pn,pn)EJ(1,R,R2),pn¯EJ(R2,R,1).p_{n}=(p_{n}^{+},p_{n}^{\perp},p_{n}^{-})\sim E_{J}(1,R,R^{2}),\ \ p_{\overline{n}}\sim E_{J}(R^{2},R,1). (12)

We will consider the heavy quark mass mm in the limit, mEJREJm\lesssim E_{J}R\ll E_{J}, so the offshellnesses of the heavy quarks scale as pn2pn¯2EJ2R2m2p_{n}^{2}\sim p_{\overline{n}}^{2}\sim E_{J}^{2}R^{2}\gtrsim m^{2}.

These collinear interactions of the heavy quark can be described by the massive version of SCET, i.e., SCETM\mathrm{SCET_{M}} Leibovich:2003jd ; Rothstein:2003wh ; Chay:2005ck . However, the jet veto dependences on β\beta are not effectively resolved by purely collinear interactions, hence we need the csoft modes to capture the veto dependences. The scaling behavior of the csoft modes have been described in Eq. (7). Hence we notice that these csoft modes can be also subsets of the collinear modes in Eq. (12).

When we separate the csoft interactions from the collinear interactions in the heavy quark sector, we can introduce the boosted heavy quark effective theory (bHQET), i.e, the boosted version of HQET. For example, let us consider an energetic heavy quark moving in nn direction. With collinear interactions integrated out, at the lower scale μQβR\mu\sim Q\beta R, the heavy quark only has csoft interactions. The heavy quark momentum can be written as

pμ=mvμ+kμ,p^{\mu}=mv^{\mu}+k^{\mu}, (13)

where vμv^{\mu} is the heavy quark velocity to be normalized as v2=1v^{2}=1, and kμk^{\mu} is a residual csoft momentum. Under the csoft interactions, the velocity does not change. Since mvμmv^{\mu} is nn-collinear momentum, the velocity scales as vμ=(v+,v,v)(1/λ,1,λ)v^{\mu}=(v_{+},v_{\perp},v_{-})\sim(1/\lambda,1,\lambda), where λm/p+\lambda\sim m/p_{+}. Conveniently, if we choose the frame for vv_{\perp} to be zero, the velocity vv can be given by

vμ=v+nμ2+vn¯μ2=v+nμ2+1v+n¯μ2.v^{\mu}=v_{+}\frac{n^{\mu}}{2}+v_{-}\frac{\overline{n}^{\mu}}{2}=v_{+}\frac{n^{\mu}}{2}+\frac{1}{v_{+}}\frac{\overline{n}^{\mu}}{2}. (14)

To construct bHQET from SCETM\mathrm{SCET_{M}}, we first integrate out collinear interactions, i.e., collinear gluons, then match the heavy quark collinear field ξn\xi_{n} in SCETM\mathrm{SCET_{M}} onto the bHQET field,

ξn(x)=v+2eimvxhn(x).\xi_{n}(x)=\sqrt{\frac{v_{+}}{2}}e^{-imv\cdot x}h_{n}(x). (15)

Thus, the bHQET field hnh_{n} has the same spinor property as ξn\xi_{n} and satisfies

n/hn=0,n/n¯/4hn=hn.{n}\!\!\!/h_{n}=0,~{}~{}\frac{{n}\!\!\!/{\overline{n}}\!\!\!/}{4}h_{n}=h_{n}. (16)

This preserves the power counting with respect to large energy that has been applied to SCETM\mathrm{SCET_{M}}. As a result, bHQET at leading power in 1/m1/m is

bHQET(0)=h¯nviDcsn¯/2hn.\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{bHQET}}^{(0)}=\bar{h}_{n}v\cdot iD_{cs}\frac{{\overline{n}}\!\!\!/}{2}h_{n}. (17)

For more details of bHQET Lagrangian, we refer to Ref. DKL .

Therefore the factorization of the heavy quark jet sector can be performed through matching onto bHQET, and the result for the nn-collinear jet is expressed as

𝒥Q,n(EJR,m,μ)𝒮Q,n(2β,EJR,m,μ),\mathcal{J}_{Q,n}(E_{J}R,m,\mu)\mathcal{S}_{Q,n}(2\beta,E_{J}R,m,\mu), (18)

where the subscript ‘QQ’ denotes the heavy quark. The n¯\overline{n}-collinear heavy quark jet sector in the opposite direction can be factorized in the same way.

In Eq. (18), 𝒥Q,n\mathcal{J}_{Q,n} is the integrated heavy quark jet function (iHQJF) Dai:2018ywt , which is the result of integrating out collinear gluon radiations inside the jet. At NLO in αs\alpha_{s}, 𝒥Q,n\mathcal{J}_{Q,n} is given by Dai:2018ywt

𝒥Q,n(EJR,m,μ)\displaystyle\mathcal{J}_{Q,n}(E_{J}R,m,\mu) =\displaystyle= 𝒥Q,n¯(EJR,m,μ)=1+αsCF2π[3+b2(1+b)lnμ2B2+12ln2μ2B2+f(b)+g(b)\displaystyle\mathcal{J}_{Q,\overline{n}}(E_{J}R,m,\mu)=1+\frac{\alpha_{s}C_{F}}{2\pi}\Biggl{[}\frac{3+b}{2(1+b)}\ln\frac{\mu^{2}}{B^{2}}+\frac{1}{2}\ln^{2}\frac{\mu^{2}}{B^{2}}+f(b)+g(b) (19)
+11+b(2+ln(1+b))12ln2(1+b)Li2(b)+2π212],\displaystyle+\frac{1}{1+b}\bigl{(}2+\ln(1+b)\bigr{)}-\frac{1}{2}\ln^{2}(1+b)-\mathrm{Li}_{2}(-b)+2-\frac{\pi^{2}}{12}\Biggr{]},

where bm2/(EJ2R2)b\equiv m^{2}/(E_{J}^{2}R^{2}) and B=EJ2R2+m2B=\sqrt{E_{J}^{2}R^{2}+m^{2}}. The functions f(b)f(b) and g(b)g(b) have integration forms,

f(b)\displaystyle f(b) =\displaystyle= 01𝑑z1+z21zlnz2+b1+b,\displaystyle\int^{1}_{0}dz\frac{1+z^{2}}{1-z}\ln\frac{z^{2}+b}{1+b}, (20)
g(b)\displaystyle g(b) =\displaystyle= 01𝑑z2z1z(11+bz2z2+b).\displaystyle\int^{1}_{0}dz\frac{2z}{1-z}\Bigl{(}\frac{1}{1+b}-\frac{z^{2}}{z^{2}+b}\Bigr{)}. (21)

In the limit b0(m0)b\to 0~{}(m\to 0), these functions are f(0)=5/22π23f(0)=5/2-2\pi^{2}-3 and g(0)=0g(0)=0. In the limit bb goes to an infinity, corresponding to R0R\to 0, they go to f()=g()=0f(\infty)=g(\infty)=0.

The heavy quark csoft function 𝒮Q,n\mathcal{S}_{Q,n} in Eq. (18) is analyzed in bHQET and is defined as

𝒮Q,n(2β,EJR,m,μ)=12NcsXcsσ2Trv+2pJ+0|Yn¯cshn|QsXcsQsXcs|h¯nYn¯csn¯/2|0,\mathcal{S}_{Q,n}(2\beta,E_{J}R,m,\mu)=\frac{1}{2N_{c}}\sum_{s}\sum_{X_{cs}\in\sigma_{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\frac{v_{+}}{2p_{J}^{+}}\langle 0|~{}Y_{\overline{n}}^{cs\dagger}h_{n}~{}|Q_{s}X_{cs}\rangle\langle Q_{s}X_{cs}|~{}\bar{h}_{n}Y_{\overline{n}}^{cs}\frac{{\overline{n}}\!\!\!/}{2}~{}|0\rangle, (22)

where v+=pJ+/m2EJ/mv_{+}=p_{J}^{+}/m\sim 2E_{J}/m, QsQ_{s} is the heavy quark with spin ss, and XcsX_{cs} is the csoft final state, which should be in the phase space that the heavy quark jet and the veto cover. Yn¯csY_{\overline{n}}^{cs} is the csoft Wilson line, where nn-csoft gluon radiations from other sectors have been eikonalized as

Yn¯cs(x)=Pexp[igx𝑑sn¯An,cs(sn)].Y_{\overline{n}}^{cs}(x)=\mathrm{P}\exp\Bigl{[}ig\int^{\infty}_{x}ds~{}\overline{n}\cdot A_{n,cs}(sn)\Bigr{]}. (23)

Here ‘P’ denotes the path ordering, and An,csμA_{n,cs}^{\mu} is the csoft gluon propagating in nn direction. From Eq. (15), the spin sum rule for the bHQET field is given by

shn|Qs(p+)Qs(p+)|h¯n=2mn/2=mn/.\sum_{s}h_{n}|Q_{s}(p_{+})\rangle\langle Q_{s}(p_{+})|\bar{h}_{n}=2m\frac{{n}\!\!\!/}{2}=m{n}\!\!\!/. (24)

So the csoft function at tree level is normalized as 𝒮Q,n(0)=1\mathcal{S}_{Q,n}^{(0)}=1.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: The available phase space for real radiations of nn-csoft gluon in the dijet cross section at one loop.

At one loop order, the available phase space for a radiated csoft gluon is illustrated in Fig. 1. The momentum constraint for the gluon to be inside a jet is given by

𝐤2<R24k+2.{\bf{k}}_{\perp}^{2}<\frac{R^{2}}{4}k_{+}^{2}. (25)

And, due to the jet veto constraint, the gluon satisfying the condition, k+2k0<2βQk_{+}\sim 2k^{0}<2\beta Q, can be counted as part of the dijet events even if it is outside the jet.

In Fig. 1, on the 𝐤2=0{\bf{k}}_{\perp}^{2}=0 axis we obtain the logarithm of mm, which becomes singular as m0m\to 0. The soft IR divergence arises on the k+=0k_{+}=0 axis. Note that overall one loop result including virtual contributions is given by zero if the real gluon emission covers the full phase space without the dijet event constraint. This indicates that the virtual contributions can be considered as the negative contribution of the real radiations with the full phase space. So, when the virtual contributions are combined, nonvanishing contributions come from the outside of the shaded region in Fig. 1. Hence the net result has only ultraviolet (UV) divergences without the IR divergence or the term with lnm\ln m.

As a result, we obtain the csoft function 𝒮Q,n\mathcal{S}_{Q,n} to NLO in αs\alpha_{s} as

𝒮Q,n(2β,EJR,m,μ)\displaystyle\mathcal{S}_{Q,n}(2\beta,E_{J}R,m,\mu) =\displaystyle= 1+αsCF2π[12ln2μ24β2B2+b1+blnμ24β2B2ln(1+b)1+b\displaystyle 1+\frac{\alpha_{s}C_{F}}{2\pi}\Bigl{[}-\frac{1}{2}\ln^{2}\frac{\mu^{2}}{4\beta^{2}B^{2}}+\frac{b}{1+b}\ln\frac{\mu^{2}}{4\beta^{2}B^{2}}-\frac{\ln(1+b)}{1+b} (26)
+12ln2(1+b)+Li2(b)+π212].\displaystyle\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ +\frac{1}{2}\ln^{2}(1+b)+\mathrm{Li}_{2}(-b)+\frac{\pi^{2}}{12}\Bigr{]}.

This is a new result from this paper. 𝒮Q,n¯\mathcal{S}_{Q,\overline{n}} for n¯\overline{n}-csoft interactions has the same result. If we take the limit m0m\to 0, Eq. (26) becomes the massless result shown in Eq. (10).

Finally, we confirm that the heavy quark dijet cross section can be factorized as

σ2(Q,β,R,m)\displaystyle\sigma_{2}(Q,\beta,R,m) =\displaystyle= σ0H(Q,μ)Shs(2βQ,μ)[𝒥Q,n(EJR,m,μ)𝒮Q,n(2β,EJR,m,μ)]\displaystyle\sigma_{0}H(Q,\mu)S_{hs}(2\beta Q,\mu)\Bigl{[}\mathcal{J}_{Q,n}(E_{J}R,m,\mu)\mathcal{S}_{Q,n}(2\beta,E_{J}R,m,\mu)\Bigr{]} (27)
×[𝒥Q,n¯(EJR,m,μ)𝒮n¯(2β,EJR,m,μ)],\displaystyle\times\Bigl{[}\mathcal{J}_{Q,\overline{n}}(E_{J}R,m,\mu)\mathcal{S}_{\overline{n}}(2\beta,E_{J}R,m,\mu)\Bigr{]},

where EJ=Q/2E_{J}=Q/2. We might be able to consider the heavy quark mass correction to the hard function HH, but it can be safely ignored since it is suppressed by m2/Q2m^{2}/Q^{2}. Compared with the massless case, the hsoft function also remains unchanged since hsoft radiations are insensitive to the quark mass. If we consider the limit m0m\to 0 in Eq. (27), the result recovers Eq. (11). This is a good consistency check for the heavy quark cross section. Furthermore we can apply Eq. (27) to the limit EJRmE_{J}R\gg m. In this case the result can be considered as the one with all power corrections in the expansion of (m2/EJ2R2)n(m^{2}/E_{J}^{2}R^{2})^{n}.

III Resummation of large logarithms in the heavy quark dijet cross section

In Eq. (27) each factorized function has its own scale to minimize large logarithms. So, through RG evolution of the factorized functions from the factorization scale to their own scales, we can consistently resum the large logarithms. The factorized functions satisfy the following RG equations,

dfdlnμ=γff,f=H,Shs,𝒥Q,𝒮Q.\frac{df}{d\ln\mu}=\gamma_{f}f,~{}~{}~{}f=H,S_{hs},\mathcal{J}_{Q},\mathcal{S}_{Q}. (28)

Here 𝒥Q𝒥Q,n(n¯)\mathcal{J}_{Q}\equiv\mathcal{J}_{Q,n(\overline{n})}, and 𝒮Q𝒮Q,n(n¯)\mathcal{S}_{Q}\equiv\mathcal{S}_{Q,n(\overline{n})}. To next-to-leading logarithm (NLL) accuracy needed to resum contributions of order unity, the anomalous dimensions are given by

γh\displaystyle\gamma_{h} =\displaystyle= 2ΓC(αs)lnμ2Q23αsCFπ,γhs=2ΓC(αs)lnμ24β2Q2,\displaystyle-2\Gamma_{C}(\alpha_{s})\ln\frac{\mu^{2}}{Q^{2}}-\frac{3\alpha_{s}C_{F}}{\pi},~{}~{}\gamma_{hs}=2\Gamma_{C}(\alpha_{s})\ln\frac{\mu^{2}}{4\beta^{2}Q^{2}}, (29)
γc\displaystyle\gamma_{c} =\displaystyle= ΓC(αs)lnμ2B2+αsCF2π3+b1+b,γcs=ΓC(αs)lnμ2B2+αsCFπb1+b,\displaystyle\Gamma_{C}(\alpha_{s})\ln\frac{\mu^{2}}{B^{2}}+\frac{\alpha_{s}C_{F}}{2\pi}\frac{3+b}{1+b},~{}~{}\gamma_{cs}=\Gamma_{C}(\alpha_{s})\ln\frac{\mu^{2}}{B^{2}}+\frac{\alpha_{s}C_{F}}{\pi}\frac{b}{1+b}, (30)

where γc\gamma_{c} is for 𝒥Q\mathcal{J}_{Q} and γcs\gamma_{cs} is for 𝒮Q\mathcal{S}_{Q}. The scale invariance of the cross section is easily checked through the result,

γh+γhs+2(γc+γcs)=0.\gamma_{h}+\gamma_{hs}+2(\gamma_{c}+\gamma_{cs})=0. (31)

In Eq. (29) and (30), ΓC\Gamma_{C} is the cusp anomalous dimension Korchemsky:1987wg ; Korchemskaya:1992je . We employed the first two terms in the expansion, ΓC=k=0Γk(αs/4π)k+1\Gamma_{C}=\sum_{k=0}\Gamma_{k}(\alpha_{s}/4\pi)^{k+1}, where the two coefficients are given as

Γ0=4CF,Γ1=4CF[(679π23)CA109nf].\Gamma_{0}=4C_{F},~{}~{}~{}\Gamma_{1}=4C_{F}\Bigl{[}\bigl{(}\frac{67}{9}-\frac{\pi^{2}}{3}\bigr{)}C_{A}-\frac{10}{9}n_{f}\Bigr{]}. (32)

Solving the RG equations in Eq. (28), we exponentiate large logarithms to NLL accuracy, and the result for the cross section is given by

σ2(Q,β,R,m)=exp[(μh,μhs,μc,μcs)]H(μh)Shs(μhs)[𝒥Q(μc)𝒮Q(μcs)]2,\sigma_{2}(Q,\beta,R,m)=\exp\Bigl{[}\mathcal{M}(\mu_{h},\mu_{hs},\mu_{c},\mu_{cs})\Bigr{]}H(\mu_{h})S_{hs}(\mu_{hs})\bigl{[}\mathcal{J}_{Q}(\mu_{c})\mathcal{S}_{Q}(\mu_{cs})\bigr{]}^{2}, (33)

where the factorization scale dependence in each factorized function in Eq. (27) has been exactly cancelled. Here we set the default scales for the evolutioned functions as {μh0,μhs0,μc0,μcs0}={Q,2βQ,B,2βB}\{\mu_{h}^{0},\mu_{hs}^{0},\mu_{c}^{0},\mu_{cs}^{0}\}=\{Q,2\beta Q,B,2\beta B\}, where B=(QR/2)2+m2B=\sqrt{(QR/2)^{2}+m^{2}}. The exponentiation factor in Eq. (33) is

(μh,μhs,μc,μcs)\displaystyle\mathcal{M}(\mu_{h},\mu_{hs},\mu_{c},\mu_{cs}) =\displaystyle= 4SΓ(μh,μhs)4SΓ(μc,μcs)+2lnμh2Q2aΓ(μh,μhs)2lnμc2B2aΓ(μc,μcs)\displaystyle 4S_{\Gamma}(\mu_{h},\mu_{hs})-4S_{\Gamma}(\mu_{c},\mu_{cs})+2\ln\frac{\mu_{h}^{2}}{Q^{2}}a_{\Gamma}(\mu_{h},\mu_{hs})-2\ln\frac{\mu_{c}^{2}}{B^{2}}a_{\Gamma}(\mu_{c},\mu_{cs}) (34)
+4ln2βaΓ(μhs,μcs)2CFβ0(3+b1+blnαs(μh)αs(μc)+2b1+blnαs(μh)αs(μcs)).\displaystyle\!\!\!\!\!\!+4\ln 2\beta~{}a_{\Gamma}(\mu_{hs},\mu_{cs})-\frac{2C_{F}}{\beta_{0}}\Bigl{(}\frac{3+b}{1+b}\ln\frac{\alpha_{s}(\mu_{h})}{\alpha_{s}(\mu_{c})}+\frac{2b}{1+b}\ln\frac{\alpha_{s}(\mu_{h})}{\alpha_{s}(\mu_{cs})}\Bigr{)}.

Here SΓS_{\Gamma} and aΓa_{\Gamma} are defined as

SΓ(μ1,μ2)=α2α1dαsb(αs)ΓC(αs)α1αsdαsb(αs),aΓ(μ1,μ2)=α2α1dαsb(αs)ΓC(αs),S_{\Gamma}(\mu_{1},\mu_{2})=\int^{\alpha_{1}}_{\alpha_{2}}\frac{d\alpha_{s}}{b(\alpha_{s})}\Gamma_{C}(\alpha_{s})\int^{\alpha_{s}}_{\alpha_{1}}\frac{d\alpha_{s}^{\prime}}{b(\alpha_{s}^{\prime})},~{}~{}~{}a_{\Gamma}(\mu_{1},\mu_{2})=\int^{\alpha_{1}}_{\alpha_{2}}\frac{d\alpha_{s}}{b(\alpha_{s})}\Gamma_{C}(\alpha_{s}), (35)

where α1,2αs(μ1,2)\alpha_{1,2}\equiv\alpha_{s}(\mu_{1,2}), and b(αs)=dαs/dlnμb(\alpha_{s})=d\alpha_{s}/d\ln\mu is QCD beta function to be expanded as b(αs)=2αsk=0βk(αs/4π)k+1b(\alpha_{s})=-2\alpha_{s}\sum_{k=0}\beta_{k}(\alpha_{s}/4\pi)^{k+1}.

The exponentiation of Eq. (34) is not sufficient for the full resummation at NLL accuracy since it does not include large nonglobal logarithms Dasgupta:2001sh ; Banfi:2002hw , which start to appear at order αs2\alpha_{s}^{2}. In our case collinear gluon radiations from the heavy quark have a limited phase space bounded by RR. Then the decoupled csoft gluons from the collinear gluon and the heavy quark can give rise to the nonglobal logarithms at the higher orders than order αs\alpha_{s}. Resummation of the nonglobal logarithms involved with a heavy quark is beyond the scope of this paper.111Very recent study of nonglobal logarithm resummation related to top pair production Balsiger:2020ogy would be helpful for the future analysis.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: The bb-dijet ratio with variations of RR, β\beta, and QQ. Here black solid line denotes the resummed result with inclusion of the fixed NLO contribution, and the red solid line is the fixed NLO result without resummation. The dashed lines are the results in the massless limit.

For numerical implementation, we have considered the dijet ratio of e+ee^{+}e^{-}-annihilation, i.e., f2=σ2/σtotf_{2}=\sigma_{2}/\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}. Here σtot\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}} is the inclusive cross section for the heavy quark pair production, and it is given as σtot=σ0(1+αs/π)\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}=\sigma_{0}(1+\alpha_{s}/\pi) to NLO in αs\alpha_{s}. In Fig. 2 the resummed results for the bb dijet ratio have been illustrated and compared with the fixed order results at NLO. The resummed result has significant suppression.

In Fig. 2 (a) and (b), the bb quark mass effects have been estimated by comparing with the results in the massless limit. The inclusion of the heavy quark mass enhances the results sizably. For example, the bb dijet ratio with β=0.1\beta=0.1 at ZZ pole increases by 1116%11-16~{}\% due to the quark mass under variation of R[0.2,0.4]R\in[0.2,0.4]. If we consider the charm dijet ratio in the same situation, the charm quark mass effect enhances it by 27%2-7~{}\%.

In Fig. 2 (c) and (d), scale variations of the resummed result have been estimated. When we obtain the errors, we independently vary the scales, μi(i=h,hs,c,cs)\mu_{i}~{}(i=h,hs,c,cs), from μi0/2\mu_{i}^{0}/2 to 2μi02\mu_{i}^{0}. The scale uncertainty from the four scale variations is rather large. In spite of this, we still observe meaningful deviations from the fixed order results. If we obtain the dijet ratio to higher order accuracy in the resummation, the uncertainty should be significantly reduced. This will be the focus of future work.

IV Exclusive heavy quark pair production

If we look into Fig. 2 (a), we see that the heavy quark dijet cross section can be safely extended to the limit R=0R=0. Unlike the massless case, a collinear divergence does not arise in this limit due to the heavy quark mass. So, if we consider the exclusive heavy quark pair production, the IR safe cross section can be obtained from the dijet cross section taking the limit R0R\to 0. In this case, the jet veto with β\beta in the dijet cross section can be considered as an energy cut of soft hadrons. As a result, the cross section for the heavy quark pair can be regarded as the cross section for “the hemisphere isolation of the heavy quark”.

The factorization theorem for the exclusive heavy quark pair production can be immediately obtained from the result of the dijet cross section in Eq. (27), and it leads to

σQQ¯(Q,β,m)=σ0H(Q,μ)Shs(2βQ,μ)[𝒞m2(m,μ)𝒮m2(2βm,μ)].\sigma_{Q\bar{Q}}(Q,\beta,m)=\sigma_{0}H(Q,\mu)S_{hs}(2\beta Q,\mu)\Bigr{[}\mathcal{C}_{m}^{2}(m,\mu)\mathcal{S}_{m}^{2}(2\beta m,\mu)\Bigr{]}. (36)

Here, taking the limit of 𝒥Q\mathcal{J}_{Q} and 𝒮Q\mathcal{S}_{Q} as R0R\to 0, we obtain the collinear function 𝒞m\mathcal{C}_{m} and the csoft function 𝒮m\mathcal{S}_{m} respectively. The NLO results are given by

𝒞m(m,μ)\displaystyle\mathcal{C}_{m}(m,\mu) =\displaystyle= 1+αsCF2π[12lnμ2m2+12ln2μ2m2+2+π212],\displaystyle 1+\frac{\alpha_{s}C_{F}}{2\pi}\Bigl{[}\frac{1}{2}\ln\frac{\mu^{2}}{m^{2}}+\frac{1}{2}\ln^{2}\frac{\mu^{2}}{m^{2}}+2+\frac{\pi^{2}}{12}\Bigr{]}, (37)
𝒮m(2βm,μ)\displaystyle\mathcal{S}_{m}(2\beta m,\mu) =\displaystyle= 1+αsCF2π[lnμ24β2m212ln2μ24β2m2π212].\displaystyle 1+\frac{\alpha_{s}C_{F}}{2\pi}\Bigl{[}\ln\frac{\mu^{2}}{4\beta^{2}m^{2}}-\frac{1}{2}\ln^{2}\frac{\mu^{2}}{4\beta^{2}m^{2}}-\frac{\pi^{2}}{12}\Bigr{]}. (38)

Here 𝒞m\mathcal{C}_{m} is the matching coefficient onto bHQET and the result of integrating out virtual collinear interactions of the heavy quark Neubert:2007je ; Fleming:2007xt ; Fickinger:2016rfd .

Using the factorization theorem in Eq. (36), we resum the large logarithms of Q/mQ/m and β\beta to NLL accuracy. The result is free from nonglobal logarithms since R=0R=0. In Fig. 3, we show the rate of the exclusive heavy quark pair production over total cross section for QQ¯XQ\bar{Q}X, which is defined as f2(Q)=σQQ¯/σtotf_{2}^{(Q)}=\sigma_{Q\bar{Q}}/\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}. Like the dijet case, the exclusive cross sections are suppressed due to the resummation of large logarithms.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: The exclusive heavy quark pair production fractions over the inclusive production. Red lines denote the non-resummed results. (a): bb quark pair production rates, and the dijet ratios with R=0.1R=0.1 and R=0.4R=0.4. (b-c): the fractions for the top pair productions with variations of QQ and β\beta. Here all the resummed results are obtained at NLL accuracy and include the fixed NLO results.

In Fig. 3 (a), the resummed results for the bb quark pair production have been illustrated in the range Q[50,300]GeVQ\in[50,300]~{}\mathrm{GeV}. Compared with the resummed bb-jet rate with R=0.4R=0.4, the suppression of the bb quark pair production becomes larger as QQ increases. This is not surprising if we consider the dead cone effect Dokshitzer:1991fc ; Dokshitzer:1991fd ; Ellis:1991qj . As the heavy quark mass impact becomes smaller, the probability of collinear gluon radiations from the heavy quark become higher. In case of the exclusive production, in principle no collinear gluon radiation is allowed. Hence the rate for the bb quark pair production should be suppressed as the energy is large.

The exclusive production for the bb quark is not realistic and the prediction here can be spoiled by nonperturbative interactions such as hadronization effects. Instead, for example, we may consider the dijet ratio with R=0.1R=0.1 as shown in Fig. 3 (a) (the dotted lines). In this case the resummed results are more reliable, but still give small fractions, f20.5f_{2}\sim 0.5. An interesting point is that the resummed results for both the cases describe very similar situation with a leading process at parton level, i.e., only QQ¯Q\bar{Q} in the final state. Here the fraction f2f_{2} can be also considered as the ratio over LO cross section, σ0\sigma_{0}, since NLO corrections to the total cross section are quite small. The smallness of f2f_{2} implies that we cannot adhere to the view that the parton at leading process can be identified with a sharp jet.

In Fig. 3 (b) and (c), the resummed results for the exclusive top pair production have been illustrated. Here the error bands have been estimated in the same way as the case of the dijet ratio. The top fraction is over 70%70\% in wide range of QQ. This indicates that the top does not radiate many collinear gluons due to the large top quark mass. So, even with the extreme isolation of the top quark, we can expect rather a large cross section.

V Conclusion

We have considered the exclusive heavy quark dijet cross section. The factorization theorem is similar to the cross section for the massless case. But, the jet sector is modified to have the quark mass, and the factorization into the collinear and the csoft part can be systematically performed through matching between SCETM\mathrm{SCET_{M}} and bHQET.

Using the factorization theorem we obtained the resummed result for the heavy quark dijet cross section to NLL accuracy and compared it with the result in the massless limit. As a consequence, the heavy quark dijet ratios become quite suppressed by the resummation of large logarithms, and the heavy quark mass effects sizably enhances the results compared to the massless limit unless EJRE_{J}R is much larger than the quark mass.

Since the heavy quark mass removes the collinear divergence, we can investigate the extreme limit of the dijet cross section as R0R\to 0. The resulting cross section has been also analyzed to NLL accuracy. Compared with the LO result, the cross section for the exclusive top pair production is not suppressed much due to the large top quark mass, while the bb quark production is severely suppressed especially when the energy becomes large. The suppression through resummation of large logarithms implies that the results of some exclusive processes cannot be approximated as the LO results in αs\alpha_{s} at the parton level. It would be interesting to apply this idea to exclusive leptonic processes with a tight energy cut of soft photons.

Acknowledgements.
The author is grateful to Adam Leibovich for useful comments. This study was supported by the Research Program funded by Seoul National University of Science and Technology.

References

  • (1) M. Dasgupta, F. Dreyer, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, JHEP 1504, 039 (2015) [arXiv:1411.5182 [hep-ph]].
  • (2) Z. B. Kang, F. Ringer and I. Vitev, JHEP 1610, 125 (2016) [arXiv:1606.06732 [hep-ph]].
  • (3) L. Dai, C. Kim and A. K. Leibovich, Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 11, 114023 (2016) [arXiv:1606.07411 [hep-ph]].
  • (4) C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming and M. E. Luke, Phys. Rev. D 63, 014006 (2000) [hep-ph/0005275].
  • (5) C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 63, 114020 (2001) [hep-ph/0011336].
  • (6) C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 65, 054022 (2002) [hep-ph/0109045].
  • (7) C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, I. Z. Rothstein and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 66, 014017 (2002) [hep-ph/0202088].
  • (8) G. F. Sterman and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 1436 (1977)
  • (9) S. Catani, Y. L. Dokshitzer, M. H. Seymour and B. R. Webber, Nucl. Phys. B 406, 187 (1993).
  • (10) S. D. Ellis and D. E. Soper, Phys. Rev. D 48, 3160 (1993) [hep-ph/9305266].
  • (11) Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. D. Leder, S. Moretti and B. R. Webber, JHEP 9708, 001 (1997) [hep-ph/9707323].
  • (12) M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, JHEP 0804, 063 (2008) [arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]].
  • (13) W. M. Y. Cheung, M. Luke and S. Zuberi, Phys. Rev. D 80, 114021 (2009) [arXiv:0910.2479 [hep-ph]].
  • (14) S. D. Ellis, C. K. Vermilion, J. R. Walsh, A. Hornig and C. Lee, JHEP 1011, 101 (2010) [arXiv:1001.0014 [hep-ph]].
  • (15) J. Chay, C. Kim and I. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 3, 034012 (2015) [arXiv:1505.00121 [hep-ph]].
  • (16) T. Becher, M. Neubert, L. Rothen and D. Y. Shao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) no.19, 192001 [arXiv:1508.06645 [hep-ph]].
  • (17) Y. T. Chien, A. Hornig and C. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.1, 014033 [arXiv:1509.04287 [hep-ph]].
  • (18) A. K. Leibovich, Z. Ligeti and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 564, 231 (2003) [hep-ph/0303099].
  • (19) I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. D 70, 054024 (2004) [hep-ph/0301240].
  • (20) J. Chay, C. Kim and A. K. Leibovich, Phys. Rev. D 72, 014010 (2005) [hep-ph/0505030].
  • (21) L. Dai, C. Kim and A. K. Leibovich, in preparation.
  • (22) L. Dai, C. Kim and A. K. Leibovich, JHEP 1809, 109 (2018) [arXiv:1805.06014 [hep-ph]].
  • (23) G. Korchemsky and A. Radyushkin, Nucl. Phys. B 283 (1987), 342-364
  • (24) I. Korchemskaya and G. Korchemsky, Phys. Lett. B 287 (1992), 169-175
  • (25) A. V. Manohar and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 76, 074002 (2007) [hep-ph/0605001].
  • (26) M. Dasgupta and G. P. Salam, Phys. Lett. B 512, 323 (2001) [hep-ph/0104277].
  • (27) A. Banfi, G. Marchesini and G. Smye, JHEP 0208, 006 (2002) [hep-ph/0206076].
  • (28) M. Balsiger, T. Becher and A. Ferroglia, [arXiv:2006.00014 [hep-ph]].
  • (29) M. Neubert, [arXiv:0706.2136 [hep-ph]].
  • (30) S. Fleming, A. H. Hoang, S. Mantry and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 77, 114003 (2008) [arXiv:0711.2079 [hep-ph]].
  • (31) M. Fickinger, S. Fleming, C. Kim and E. Mereghetti, JHEP 11 (2016), 095 [arXiv:1606.07737 [hep-ph]].
  • (32) Y. L. Dokshitzer, V. A. Khoze and S. I. Troian, J. Phys. G 17 (1991), 1481-1492
  • (33) Y. L. Dokshitzer, V. A. Khoze and S. I. Troian, J. Phys. G 17 (1991), 1602-1604
  • (34) R. K. Ellis, W. J. Stirling and B. R. Webber, Camb. Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol. 8, 1-435 (1996)