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

Factorization and its Breaking in Dijet Single Transverse Spin Asymmetries in pppp Collisions

Xiaohui Liu Center of Advanced Quantum Studies, Department of Physics, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China    Felix Ringer Nuclear Science Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA    Werner Vogelsang Institute for Theoretical Physics, Universität Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 14, D-72076 Tübingen, Germany    Feng Yuan Nuclear Science Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
Abstract

We study factorization in single transverse spin asymmetries for dijet production in proton-proton collisions, by considering soft gluon radiation at one-loop order. We show that the associated transverse momentum dependent (TMD) factorization is valid at the leading logarithmic level. At next-to-leading-logarithmic (NLL) accuracy, however, we find that soft gluon radiation generates terms in the single transverse spin dependent cross section that differ from those known for the unpolarized case. As a consequence, these terms cannot be organized in terms of a spin independent soft factor in the factorization formula. We present leading logarithmic predictions for the single transverse spin dijet asymmetry for pppp collisions at RHIC, based on quark Sivers functions constrained by semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering data. We hope that our results will contribute to a better understanding of TMD factorization breaking effects at NLL accuracy and beyond.

I Introduction

There has been a strong interest in correlated dijet production in various hadronic collisions Abazov:2004hm ; Abelev:2007ii ; Khachatryan:2011zj ; daCosta:2011ni ; Aad:2010bu ; Chatrchyan:2011sx ; Adamczyk:2013jei ; Adamczyk:2017yhe ; Aaboud:2019oop , where the two jets are produced mainly in the back-to-back configuration in the transverse plane,

A+BJet1+Jet2+X.A+B\to{\rm Jet}_{1}+{\rm Jet}_{2}+X\ . (1)

Here AA and BB represent the two incoming hadrons with momenta PAP_{A} and PBP_{B}, respectively. The azimuthal angle between the two jets is defined as ϕ=ϕ1ϕ2\phi=\phi_{1}-\phi_{2} with ϕ1,2\phi_{1,2} being the azimuthal angles of the two jets. In the leading order naive parton picture, the Born diagram yields a delta function at ϕ=π\phi=\pi. One-loop gluon radiation will lead to a singular distribution around ϕ=π\phi=\pi. This divergence arises when the total transverse momentum of the dijet (imbalance) is much smaller than the individual jet momentum, q=|k1+k2||k1||k2|PTq_{\perp}=|\vec{k}_{1\perp}+\vec{k}_{2\perp}|\ll|k_{1\perp}|\sim|k_{2\perp}|\sim P_{T}, where large logarithms appear at every order of the perturbative calculation. In the kinematic region qPTq_{\perp}\ll P_{T}, the appropriate resummation method that needs to be applied is the so-called transverse momentum dependent (TMD) resummation or the Collins-Soper-Sterman (CSS) resummation Collins:1984kg . There have been several theoretical efforts to resum the large logarithms for this process Banfi:2003jj ; Banfi:2008qs ; Hautmann:2008vd ; Chiu:2012ir ; Mueller:2013wwa ; Sun:2014gfa ; Sun:2015doa ; Chien:2020hzh . The differential cross section can be written as,

d4σdΩd2q=abcdσ0[d2b(2π)2eiqbWabcd(x1,x2,b)+Yabcd],\displaystyle\frac{d^{4}\sigma}{d\Omega d^{2}q_{\perp}}=\sum_{abcd}\sigma_{0}\left[\int\frac{d^{2}\vec{b}_{\perp}}{(2\pi)^{2}}e^{i\vec{q}_{\perp}\cdot\vec{b}_{\perp}}W_{ab\to cd}(x_{1},x_{2},b_{\perp})+Y_{ab\to cd}\right]\ , (2)

where dΩ=dy1dy2dPT2d\Omega=dy_{1}dy_{2}dP_{T}^{2} represents the phase space of dijet production. Here y1y_{1} and y2y_{2} are the rapidities of the two jets, PTP_{T} is the leading jet transverse momentum, and qq_{\perp} the imbalance transverse momentum between the two jets as defined above. Moreover, σ0\sigma_{0} is the overall normalization of the differential cross section. The first term on the right hand side, WabcdW_{ab\to cd}, contains the all order resummation and the second term, YabcdY_{ab\to cd}, takes into account fixed order corrections. At next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) order, the resummation for WW was conjectured to take the following form Sun:2014gfa ; Sun:2015doa

Wabcd(x1,x2,b)\displaystyle W_{ab\to cd}\left(x_{1},x_{2},b\right) =\displaystyle= x1fa(x1,μ=b0/b)x2fb(x2,μ=b0/b)eSSud(Q2,b)\displaystyle x_{1}\,f_{a}(x_{1},\mu=b_{0}/b_{\perp})x_{2}\,f_{b}(x_{2},\mu=b_{0}/b_{\perp})e^{-S_{\rm Sud}(Q^{2},b_{\perp})} (3)
×\displaystyle\times Tr[𝐇abcdexp[b0/bQdμμγabcds]𝐒abcdexp[b0/bQdμμγabcds]],\displaystyle\textmd{Tr}\left[\mathbf{H}_{ab\to cd}\mathrm{exp}\left[-\int_{b_{0}/b_{\perp}}^{Q}\frac{d\mu}{\mu}\mathbf{\gamma}_{ab\to cd}^{s{\dagger}}\right]\mathbf{S}_{ab\to cd}\mathrm{exp}\left[-\int_{b_{0}/b_{\perp}}^{Q}\frac{d\mu}{\mu}\mathbf{\gamma}_{ab\to cd}^{s}\right]\right]\ ,

for each partonic channel abcdab\to cd, where Q2=s^=x1x2SQ^{2}=\hat{s}=x_{1}x_{2}S, representing the hard momentum scale. In addition, we have b0=2eγEb_{0}=2e^{-\gamma_{E}}, with γE\gamma_{E} being the Euler constant. The fa,b(x,μ)f_{a,b}(x,\mu) are the parton distributions for the incoming partons a,ba,b, and x1,2=PT(e±y1+e±y2)/Sx_{1,2}=P_{T}\left(e^{\pm y_{1}}+e^{\pm y_{2}}\right)/\sqrt{S} are the fractions of the incoming hadrons’ momenta carried by the partons. In the above equation, the hard and soft factors 𝐇\mathbf{H} and 𝐒\mathbf{S} are expressed as matrices in the color space of the partonic channel abcdab\to cd, and γabcds\gamma_{ab\to cd}^{s} are the associated anomalous dimensions for the soft factor. The Sudakov form factor 𝒮Sud{\cal S}_{\textrm{Sud}} resums the leading double logarithms and the universal sub-leading logarithms,

SSud(Q2,b)=b02/b2Q2dμ2μ2[ln(Q2μ2)A+B+D1lnQ2PT2R12+D2lnQ2PT2R22],\displaystyle S_{\rm Sud}(Q^{2},b_{\perp})=\int^{Q^{2}}_{b_{0}^{2}/b_{\perp}^{2}}\frac{d\mu^{2}}{\mu^{2}}\left[\ln\left(\frac{Q^{2}}{\mu^{2}}\right)A+B+D_{1}\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{P_{T}^{2}R_{1}^{2}}+D_{2}\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{P_{T}^{2}R_{2}^{2}}\right]\ , (4)

where R1,2R_{1,2} are the jet radii of the two jets, respectively. In practice the jets are of course reconstructed with the same radius RR but to clarify the structure of our calculation we use two different radii R1,2R_{1,2} to differentiate between the dijets. At one-loop order, A=CAαsπA=C_{A}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}, B=2CAβ0αsπB=-2C_{A}\beta_{0}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi} for a gluon-gluon initial state, A=CFαsπA=C_{F}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}, B=3CF2αsπB=\frac{-3C_{F}}{2}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi} for a quark-quark initial state, and A=(CF+CA)2αsπA=\frac{(C_{F}+C_{A})}{2}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}, B=(3CF4CAβ0)αsπB=(\frac{-3C_{F}}{4}-C_{A}\beta_{0})\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi} for a gluon-quark initial state. In addition, D1,2=CAαs2πD_{1,2}=C_{A}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi} for a gluon jet and D1,2=CFαs2πD_{1,2}=C_{F}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi} for a quark jet, respectively. Here, β0=(112Nf/3)/12\beta_{0}=(11-2N_{f}/3)/12, with NfN_{f} being the number of effective light quarks.

The resummation formula in Eq. (3) was obtained in Refs. Sun:2014gfa ; Sun:2015doa by a detailed analysis of the soft gluon radiation at one-loop order. The leading contributions from soft gluon radiation can be factorized into the associated TMD parton distributions and can be resummed by solving the relevant evolution equations. At NLL, the soft gluon radiation is factorized into the soft factor 𝐒{\bf S} which is given by a matrix in the color space of the partonic channels. The matrix form of the factorization is the same as was found for threshold resummation for the dijet production in proton-proton collisions Kidonakis:1998bk ; Kidonakis:1998nf ; Kidonakis:2000gi ; Kelley:2010fn ; Catani:2013vaa ; Hinderer:2014qta .

It is known that TMD factorization in dijet production in hadronic collisions is highly nontrivial and that there are potential factorization breaking effects Boer:2003tx ; Qiu:2007ey ; Collins:2007nk ; Rogers:2010dm ; Bacchetta:2005rm ; Vogelsang:2007jk ; Bomhof:2007su ; Catani:2011st ; Mitov:2012gt ; Schwartz:2017nmr ; Schwartz:2018obd . First, non-global logarithms (NGLs) Dasgupta:2001sh ; Dasgupta:2002bw start to contribute to the cross section at two-loop order. It has been shown that they cannot easily be included into a factorization formula, although numerical simulations can be made and their contribution can be taken into account Banfi:2003jj ; Banfi:2008qs . In addition, TMD factorization will be explicitly broken at three-loop order for the unpolarized cross section. This leads to a modification of the coefficient A(3)A^{(3)} in the above Sudakov form factor Collins:2007nk ; Becher:2010tm ; Catani:2011st ; Mitov:2012gt ; Rothstein:2016bsq ; Schwartz:2017nmr ; Schwartz:2018obd ; Sun:2015doa .

Factorization breaking effects are particularly evident for the single transverse spin asymmetry (SSA) in dijet production Collins:2007nk , Δσ(S)=(σ(S)σ(S))/2\Delta\sigma(S_{\perp})=(\sigma(S_{\perp})-\sigma(S_{\perp}))/2, where SS_{\perp} represents the transverse polarization vector for one of the incoming nucleons. The SSA for this process is expressed as Δσ(S)ϵαβSαqβ\Delta\sigma(S_{\perp})\propto\epsilon^{\alpha\beta}S_{\perp}^{\alpha}q_{\perp}^{\beta}, i.e., the total transverse momentum of the two jets qq_{\perp} will have a preferred direction Boer:2003tx . This asymmetry is sensitive to the parton’s Sivers function where the transverse momentum distribution is correlated with the transverse polarization vector Sivers:1989cc . In Refs. Bacchetta:2005rm ; Bomhof:2007su , all initial/final state interaction contributions to the SSA were factorized into a complicated gauge link structure associated with the quark Sivers function for the polarized nucleon. However, for the double spin asymmetries involving two Sivers functions, it was shown explicitly that the generalized gauge-link approach to TMD factorization does not apply Rogers:2010dm .

Ref. Qiu:2007ey provided an understanding of the SSA from the twist-three framework where the Qiu-Sterman-Efremov-Tereyav matrix elements are the basic ingredients Efremov:1981sh ; Efremov:1984ip ; Qiu:1991pp ; Qiu:1991wg ; Qiu:1998ia , and the high momentum Sivers function is generated by collinear gluon radiation. In particular, it was shown in Refs. Qiu:2007ey ; Efremov:1984ip that the collinear gluon radiations parallel to the incoming hadrons can be factorized into the associated TMD parton distribution functions. It was also suggested that a factorization formula similar to that in the unpolarized case may hold for the single spin dependent differential cross section Qiu:2007ey ,

dΔσ(S)dΩd2q\displaystyle\frac{d\Delta\sigma(S_{\perp})}{d\Omega d^{2}\vec{q}_{\perp}} =\displaystyle= ϵαβSαqβq2abcdd2p1d2p2d2λ\displaystyle\frac{\epsilon^{\alpha\beta}S_{\perp}^{\alpha}q_{\perp}^{\beta}}{\vec{q}^{2}_{\perp}}\sum\limits_{abcd}\int d^{2}p_{1\perp}d^{2}p_{2\perp}d^{2}\lambda_{\perp}
×p2qMPx2f1Tb(SIDIS)(x2,p2)x1fa(SIDIS)(x1,p1)\displaystyle\times\frac{\vec{p}_{2\perp}\cdot\vec{q}_{\perp}}{M_{P}}\,x_{2}\,f_{1Tb}^{\perp(\rm SIDIS)}(x_{2},p_{2\perp})\,x_{1}\,f_{a}^{(\rm SIDIS)}(x_{1},p_{1\perp})
×[Sabcd(λ)HabcdSivers(P2)]cδ(2)(p1+p2+λq).\displaystyle\times\left[S_{ab\to cd}(\lambda_{\perp})\,H_{ab\to cd}^{\rm Sivers}(P_{\perp}^{2})\right]_{c}\,\delta^{(2)}(\vec{p}_{1\perp}+\vec{p}_{2\perp}+\vec{\lambda}_{\perp}-\vec{q}_{\perp})\,.

Here f1Tb(SIDIS)f_{1Tb}^{\perp(\rm SIDIS)} and fa(SIDIS)f_{a}^{(\rm SIDIS)} denote the transverse-spin dependent TMD quark Sivers function and the unpolarized TMD parton distribution, respectively. These TMD parton distribution functions were chosen following their definitions in semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering (SIDIS) with future pointing gauge links. Although it was not explicitly shown in Ref. Qiu:2007ey , a matrix form of the factorization was suggested, where HabcdSiversH_{ab\to cd}^{\rm Sivers} and SabcdS_{ab\to cd} are partonic hard and soft factors and the []c[\quad]_{c} represents a trace in color space between the hard and soft factors, similar to the unpolarized case in Eq. (3).

In order to check the factorization formula of Eq. (I), it is important to carry out the calculation of soft gluon radiation. Soft gluon emissions contribute in a nontrivial way to the factorization formula. In particular, it will be crucial to show that these contributions can be included in the soft factor in the matrix form of the factorization formula. The goal of the current paper is to derive the soft gluon radiation contribution at one-loop order. As mentioned above, in Ref. Qiu:2007ey it was shown that collinear gluon radiation associated with the incoming nucleons can be treated following the general factorization arguments. This indicates that factorization holds in the leading logarithmic approximation (LLA). However, in order to obtain also all the subleading logarithmic contributions, we need to consider the soft gluon radiation as well. After including soft gluon radiation, we will obtain the complete double logarithmic result.

Our calculations presented in this work show that the factorization and resummation is expected to be valid at LLA. However, factorization breaking effects will emerge at NLL accuracy, in the sense that the contributions from soft gluon radiation cannot be factorized into the same soft factor as for the unpolarized case. This implies that beyond the LLA, we do not have a factorization formula for Δσ\Delta\sigma as in Eq. (3), at least not in the standard way with a spin independent soft factor.

In the LLA, we can express the spin dependent differential cross section in terms of the Fourier transform bb_{\perp} variable,

dΔσ(S)dΩd2q\displaystyle\frac{d\Delta\sigma(S_{\perp})}{d\Omega d^{2}\vec{q}_{\perp}} =\displaystyle= ϵαβSαabcdd2b(2π)2eiqbWabcdTβ(x1,x2,b).\displaystyle\epsilon^{\alpha\beta}S_{\perp}^{\alpha}\sum_{abcd}\int\frac{d^{2}\vec{b}_{\perp}}{(2\pi)^{2}}e^{i\vec{q}_{\perp}\cdot\vec{b}_{\perp}}W_{ab\to cd}^{T\beta}(x_{1},x_{2},b_{\perp})\ . (6)

Here, we neglect the YY-term contribution compared to the unpolarized case above. In this work we show that the leading logarithmic factorization of WTβW^{T\beta} takes the form

WabcdTβ(x1,x2,b)|LLA\displaystyle W_{ab\to cd}^{T\beta}\left(x_{1},x_{2},b_{\perp}\right)|_{\rm LLA^{\prime}} =\displaystyle= ibβ2x1fa(x1,μ=b0/b)x2TFb(x2,x2,μ=b0/b)\displaystyle\frac{ib_{\perp}^{\beta}}{2}x_{1}\,f_{a}(x_{1},\mu=b_{0}/b_{\perp})x_{2}\,T_{Fb}(x_{2},x_{2},\mu=b_{0}/b_{\perp}) (7)
×HabcdSiverseSSudT(Q2,b),\displaystyle\times H_{ab\to cd}^{\rm Sivers}e^{-S_{\rm Sud}^{T}(Q^{2},b_{\perp})}\ ,

where SSudT(Q2,b)S_{\rm Sud}^{T}(Q^{2},b_{\perp}) can be written in analogy to Eq. (4),

SSudT(Q2,b)=b02/b2Q2dμ2μ2[ln(Q2μ2)A+B+D1ln1R12+D2ln1R22].\displaystyle S_{\rm Sud}^{T}(Q^{2},b_{\perp})=\int^{Q^{2}}_{b_{0}^{2}/b_{\perp}^{2}}\frac{d\mu^{2}}{\mu^{2}}\left[\ln\left(\frac{Q^{2}}{\mu^{2}}\right)A+B+D_{1}\ln\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}+D_{2}\ln\frac{1}{R_{2}^{2}}\right]\ . (8)

Here AA, BB, D1,2D_{1,2} are the same as in Eq. (4). In the above equation, TFT_{F} is the Qiu-Sterman matrix element which is also related to the transverse momentum-moment of the quark Sivers function. It is defined as follows

TF(x2,x2)\displaystyle T_{F}(x_{2},x_{2}^{\prime}) \displaystyle\equiv dζdη4πei(x2PB+η+(x2x2)PB+ζ)\displaystyle\int\frac{d\zeta^{-}d\eta^{-}}{4\pi}e^{i(x_{2}P_{B}^{+}\eta^{-}+(x_{2}^{\prime}-x_{2})P_{B}^{+}\zeta^{-})}
×\displaystyle\times ϵβαSβPA,S|ψ¯(0)(0,ζ)γ+\displaystyle\epsilon_{\perp}^{\beta\alpha}S_{\perp\beta}\,\left\langle P_{A},S|\overline{\psi}(0){\cal L}(0,\zeta^{-})\gamma^{+}\right.
×\displaystyle\times gFα+(ζ)(ζ,η)ψ(η)|PB,S,\displaystyle\left.g{F_{\alpha}}^{+}(\zeta^{-}){\cal L}(\zeta^{-},\eta^{-})\psi(\eta^{-})|P_{B},S\right\rangle\ ,

where FμνF^{\mu\nu} represents the gluon field strength tensor. From the leading order derivation, we have 1MPd2kk2f1T(SIDIS)(x,k)=TF(x,x)\frac{1}{M_{P}}\int d^{2}k_{\perp}\,\vec{k}^{2}_{\perp}\,f_{1T}^{\perp(\rm SIDIS)}(x,k_{\perp})=-T_{F}(x,x). For our soft gluon calculation at leading power, we take the correlation limit, i.e., we neglect all power corrections of the form q/PTq_{\perp}/P_{T}. In this limit, the leading double logarithm is proportional 1/q2×ln(PT2/q2)1/q_{\perp}^{2}\times\ln(P_{T}^{2}/q_{\perp}^{2}). We will show that these contributions will be consistent with the resummation formula of Eq. (7). Some sub-leading logarithmic terms can be factorized in this form as well. These include collinear gluon radiation associated with the incoming hadrons and the final state jets. The former can be resummed by including the scale evolution of the integrated parton distribution and the Qiu-Sterman matrix elements, e.g., by evaluating these distributions at the scale μb=b0/b\mu_{b}=b_{0}/b_{\perp}. The latter are taken into account by the ln(1/R2)\ln(1/R^{2}) terms in the Sudakov form factor SSudS_{\rm Sud} of Eq. (4). Therefore, Eq. (7) is an improvement of the leading logarithmic approximation, to which we will refer as LLA\rm LLA^{\prime} in the following.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we will briefly review the soft gluon contribution to unpolarized dijet production. The basic formalism, including the Eikonal approximation, the phase space integrals to obtain the leading contributions, and the subtraction method to derive the soft gluon radiation associated with the final state jets will be introduced. Sec. III contains the main new derivations of this work. We will carry out the calculation of the soft gluon radiation for the spin dependent differential cross sections. We introduce the general framework, the twist-three collinear expansion, and derive the soft gluon radiation amplitude in this formalism. We apply these techniques to different partonic channels and demonstrate that the leading double logarithmic contributions factorize, and we verify our resummation formula at LLA. In Sec. IV, we consider an example and show that factorization breaking effects appear at NLL, in particular, from soft gluon radiation that does not belong to the incoming hadrons and final state jets. In Sec. V, we will present phenomenological results for the single spin asymmetries in dijet production at RHIC, and compare to recent STAR data Abelev:2007ii ; starpreliminary . Finally, we will summarize our paper in Sec. VI.

II Brief Review of Soft Gluon Radiation for the Unpolarized Case

Dijet production at the leading order can be calculated from partonic 222\to 2 processes,

a(p1)+b(p2)c(k1)+d(k2),a(p_{1})+b(p_{2})\to c(k_{1})+d(k_{2})\ , (10)

where p1,2p_{1,2} and k1,2k_{1,2} are the momenta of the incoming and outgoing two partons, respectively. Their contributions to the cross section can be written as

d4σdΩd2q=abcdσ0x1fa(x1,μ)x2fb(x2,μ)habcd(0)δ(2)(q),\displaystyle\frac{d^{4}\sigma}{d\Omega d^{2}q_{\perp}}=\sum_{abcd}\sigma_{0}x_{1}\,f_{a}(x_{1},\mu)x_{2}\,f_{b}(x_{2},\mu){h}_{ab\to cd}^{(0)}\delta^{(2)}(q_{\perp})\ , (11)

where the overall normalization of the differential cross section is σ0=αs2πs2\sigma_{0}=\frac{\alpha_{s}^{2}\pi}{s^{2}}. The partonic cross sections h(0)h^{(0)} for all the production channels depend on the kinematic variables s^=(p1+p2)2\hat{s}=(p_{1}+p_{2})^{2}, t^=(p1k1)2\hat{t}=(p_{1}-k_{1})^{2} and u^=(p1k2)2\hat{u}=(p_{1}-k_{2})^{2}. As mentioned above, at the leading order, they contribute to a delta function setting q=0q_{\perp}=0, which corresponds to the back-to-back configuration of the two jets in the transverse plane. For soft gluon emissions, we can apply the leading power expansion and derive the dominant contribution from the Eikonal approximation Mueller:2013wwa ; Sun:2015doa . For example, for the outgoing quark, antiquark and gluon lines, we obtain the following factors in the Eikonal approximation:

2kiμ2kikg+iϵg,2kiμ2kikg+iϵg,2kiμ2kikg+iϵg,\frac{2k_{i}^{\mu}}{2k_{i}\cdot k_{g}+i\epsilon}g\ ,~{}~{}-\frac{2k_{i}^{\mu}}{2k_{i}\cdot k_{g}+i\epsilon}g\ ,~{}~{}\frac{2k_{i}^{\mu}}{2k_{i}\cdot k_{g}+i\epsilon}g\ , (12)

respectively, at one-loop order. Here gg is the strong coupling and the kik_{i} represent the momenta of the outgoing particles. For incoming quark, antiquark and gluon lines, we have,

2p1μ2p1kgiϵg,2p1μ2p1kgiϵg,2p1μ2p1kgiϵg,-\frac{2p_{1}^{\mu}}{2p_{1}\cdot k_{g}-i\epsilon}g\ ,~{}~{}\frac{2p_{1}^{\mu}}{2p_{1}\cdot k_{g}-i\epsilon}g\ ,~{}~{}\frac{2p_{1}^{\mu}}{2p_{1}\cdot k_{g}-i\epsilon}g\ , (13)

respectively, where p1p_{1} corresponds to the momentum of the incoming particle.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: Soft gluon radiation contributions to the finite imbalance transverse momentum qq_{\perp}: (a) initial state radiation, and (b), (c) final state radiation. Since we have chosen the gluon polarization vector along p2p_{2}, there is no gluon radiation from the line with momentum p2p_{2}.

Following Ref. Mueller:2013wwa ; Sun:2015doa , we choose physical polarizations of the soft gluon along the incoming particle with momentum p2p_{2}, so that the polarization tensor of the radiated gluon takes the following form:

Γμν(kg)=(gμν+kgμp2ν+kgνp2μkgp2).\Gamma^{\mu\nu}(k_{g})=\left(-g^{\mu\nu}+\frac{k_{g}^{\mu}p_{2}^{\nu}+k_{g}^{\nu}p_{2}^{\mu}}{k_{g}\cdot p_{2}}\right)\ . (14)

This choice will simplify the derivation since there is no soft gluon radiation from the incoming parton line p2p_{2}. Therefore, as shown in Fig. 1, the leading contributions come from the initial state radiation from the line with momentum p1p_{1}, and the final state emissions from the lines k1k_{1} and k2k_{2}. The contributions by these diagrams can be evaluated by taking the amplitudes squared of the Eikonal vertex with the polarization vector of the radiated gluon contracted with the above tensor. This leads to the following expressions for the soft gluon radiation contributions,

2p1μ2p1kg2p1ν2p1kgΓμν\displaystyle\frac{2p_{1}^{\mu}}{2p_{1}\cdot k_{g}}\frac{2p_{1}^{\nu}}{2p_{1}\cdot k_{g}}\Gamma_{\mu\nu} =\displaystyle= Sg(p1,p2),\displaystyle S_{g}(p_{1},p_{2})\ , (15)
2k1μ2k1kg2k1ν2k1kgΓμν\displaystyle\frac{2k_{1}^{\mu}}{2k_{1}\cdot k_{g}}\frac{2k_{1}^{\nu}}{2k_{1}\cdot k_{g}}\Gamma_{\mu\nu} =\displaystyle= Sg(k1,p2),\displaystyle S_{g}(k_{1},p_{2})\ , (16)
2k2μ2k2kg2k2ν2k2kgΓμν\displaystyle\frac{2k_{2}^{\mu}}{2k_{2}\cdot k_{g}}\frac{2k_{2}^{\nu}}{2k_{2}\cdot k_{g}}\Gamma_{\mu\nu} =\displaystyle= Sg(k2,p2),\displaystyle S_{g}(k_{2},p_{2})\ , (17)
22k1μ2k1kg2p1ν2p1kgΓμν\displaystyle 2\frac{2k_{1}^{\mu}}{2k_{1}\cdot k_{g}}\frac{2p_{1}^{\nu}}{2p_{1}\cdot k_{g}}\Gamma_{\mu\nu} =\displaystyle= Sg(k1,p2)+Sg(p1,p2)Sg(k1,p1),\displaystyle S_{g}(k_{1},p_{2})+S_{g}(p_{1},p_{2})-S_{g}(k_{1},p_{1})\ , (18)
22k2μ2k2kg2p1ν2p1kgΓμν\displaystyle 2\frac{2k_{2}^{\mu}}{2k_{2}\cdot k_{g}}\frac{2p_{1}^{\nu}}{2p_{1}\cdot k_{g}}\Gamma_{\mu\nu} =\displaystyle= Sg(k2,p2)+Sg(p1,p2)Sg(k2,p1),\displaystyle S_{g}(k_{2},p_{2})+S_{g}(p_{1},p_{2})-S_{g}(k_{2},p_{1})\ , (19)
22k1μ2k1kg2k2ν2k2kgΓμν\displaystyle 2\frac{2k_{1}^{\mu}}{2k_{1}\cdot k_{g}}\frac{2k_{2}^{\nu}}{2k_{2}\cdot k_{g}}\Gamma_{\mu\nu} =\displaystyle= Sg(k1,p2)+Sg(k2,p2)Sg(k1,k2).\displaystyle S_{g}(k_{1},p_{2})+S_{g}(k_{2},p_{2})-S_{g}(k_{1},k_{2})\ . (20)

Here Sg(p,q)S_{g}(p,q) is a short-hand notation for

Sg(p,q)=2pqpkgqkg.S_{g}(p,q)=\frac{2p\cdot q}{p\cdot k_{g}q\cdot k_{g}}\ . (21)

When we integrate out the phase space of the radiated gluon to obtain the finite transverse momentum for the dijet imbalance, we have to exclude the contributions that belong to the jets. Therefore, only gluon radiation outside of the jets with radius R1,2R_{1,2} contributes. These diagrams have been calculated in Refs. Sun:2015doa , where an offshellness was considered to regulate the collinear divergence associated with the jet within the narrow jet approximation Aversa:1988vb ; Mukherjee:2012uz . In Ref. Liu:2018trl ; Liu:2020dct , a subtraction method was employed to derive the soft gluon radiation contribution. For completeness, we show details of the derivation in the Appendix. Here, we list the final results:

Sg(p1,p2)\displaystyle S_{g}(p_{1},p_{2}) \displaystyle\Rightarrow αs2π21q2(2lnQ2q2),\displaystyle\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{1}{q_{\perp}^{2}}\left(2\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{\perp}^{2}}\right)\ , (22)
Sg(k1,p1)\displaystyle S_{g}(k_{1},p_{1}) \displaystyle\Rightarrow αs2π21q2[lnQ2q2+ln1R12+ln(t^u^)+ϵ(12ln21R12)],\displaystyle\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{1}{q_{\perp}^{2}}\left[\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{\perp}^{2}}+\ln\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}+\ln\left(\frac{\hat{t}}{\hat{u}}\right)+\epsilon\left(\frac{1}{2}\ln^{2}\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}\right)\right]\ , (23)
Sg(k2,p1)\displaystyle S_{g}(k_{2},p_{1}) \displaystyle\Rightarrow αs2π21q2[lnQ2q2+ln1R22+ln(u^t^)+ϵ(12ln21R22)],\displaystyle\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{1}{q_{\perp}^{2}}\left[\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{\perp}^{2}}+\ln\frac{1}{R_{2}^{2}}+\ln\left(\frac{\hat{u}}{\hat{t}}\right)+\epsilon\left(\frac{1}{2}\ln^{2}\frac{1}{R_{2}^{2}}\right)\right]\ , (24)
Sg(k1,p2)\displaystyle S_{g}(k_{1},p_{2}) \displaystyle\Rightarrow αs2π21q2[lnQ2q2+ln1R12+ln(u^^t)+ϵ(12ln21R12)],\displaystyle\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{1}{q_{\perp}^{2}}\left[\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{\perp}^{2}}+\ln\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}+\ln\left(\frac{\hat{u}}{\hat{}t}\right)+\epsilon\left(\frac{1}{2}\ln^{2}\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}\right)\right]\ , (25)
Sg(k2,p2)\displaystyle S_{g}(k_{2},p_{2}) \displaystyle\Rightarrow αs2π21q2[lnQ2q2+ln1R22+ln(t^u^)+ϵ(12ln21R22)],\displaystyle\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{1}{q_{\perp}^{2}}\left[\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{\perp}^{2}}+\ln\frac{1}{R_{2}^{2}}+\ln\left(\frac{\hat{t}}{\hat{u}}\right)+\epsilon\left(\frac{1}{2}\ln^{2}\frac{1}{R_{2}^{2}}\right)\right]\ , (26)
Sg(k1,k2)\displaystyle S_{g}(k_{1},k_{2}) \displaystyle\Rightarrow αs2π21q2[ln1R12+ln1R22+2ln(s^2t^u^)+ϵ(12ln21R12+12ln21R12\displaystyle\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{1}{q_{\perp}^{2}}\left[\ln\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}+\ln\frac{1}{R_{2}^{2}}+2\ln\left(\frac{\hat{s}^{2}}{\hat{t}\hat{u}}\right)+\epsilon\left(\frac{1}{2}\ln^{2}\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}+\frac{1}{2}\ln^{2}\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}\right.\right. (27)
4lns^t^lns^u^)].\displaystyle\left.\left.-4\ln\frac{\hat{s}}{-\hat{t}}\ln\frac{\hat{s}}{-\hat{u}}\right)\right]\ .

Compared to the results in Ref. Sun:2015doa , the above results differ by a term proportional to ϵπ2/6\epsilon\,\pi^{2}/6. This is a result of the approximation made in Ref. Sun:2015doa .

III Soft Gluon Radiation for SSA: Leading Logarithmic Contributions

In this section, we will investigate the soft gluon radiation contribution to the SSA in dijet production. The leading order analysis and collinear gluon radiation contributions have been studied in Ref. Qiu:2007ey . In the following, we will first review the leading order results and then derive the soft gluon radiation contribution.

III.1 Leading Order Results

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 2: Leading order diagrams for the initial and final state contributions to the SSA in dijet production. The red bars in these diagrams indicate the propagators that produce the necessary phase for the SSA.

The leading order results of Ref. Qiu:2007ey can be transformed into the factorization formula of Eq. (7). For convenience, we show the diagrams that contribute to the SSA from initial and final state interaction effects in Figs. 2. As demonstrated here, the SSA phases only come from the gluon attachments to the initial/final state partons. The leading order results derived in Ref. Qiu:2007ey can be obtained from Eq. (I) by setting [Sabcd(λ)HabcdSivers(PT2)]cHabcdSivers(PT2)\left[S_{ab\to cd}(\lambda_{\perp})H_{ab\to cd}^{\rm Sivers}(P_{T}^{2})\right]_{c}\equiv H_{ab\to cd}^{\rm Sivers}(P_{T}^{2}). After taking the Fourier transform to impact parameter bb_{\perp}-space, we find the following leading order result:

WabcdTβ(0)(b)=ibβ2x1fa(x1)x2TFb(x2,x2)HabcdSivers.\displaystyle W_{ab\to cd}^{T\beta(0)}(b_{\perp})=\frac{ib_{\perp}^{\beta}}{2}x_{1}f_{a}(x_{1})x_{2}T_{Fb}(x_{2},x_{2})H_{ab\to cd}^{\rm Sivers}\ . (28)

The hard part is written as

HabcdSivers\displaystyle H_{ab\to cd}^{\rm Sivers} =\displaystyle= αs2πs^2i(CIi+CF1i+CF2i)habcdi,\displaystyle\frac{\alpha_{s}^{2}\pi}{\hat{s}^{2}}\sum_{i}(C_{I}^{i}+C_{F1}^{i}+C_{F2}^{i})h^{i}_{ab\to cd}\ , (29)

where ii labels the different contributions to the hard factors hih^{i} by the various Feynman diagrams. Here the factors CIiC_{I}^{i} are for the initial state interaction for the single-spin dependent cross section, and CF1iC_{F1}^{i} and CF2iC_{F2}^{i} are for the final state interactions when gluon is attached to the lines with momentum k1k_{1} and k2k_{2}, respectively. The explicit expressions for CIiC_{I}^{i}, CF1iC_{F1}^{i}, CF2iC_{F2}^{i} and hih^{i} are given in Ref. Qiu:2007ey .

Within the twist-three framework, we can also derive the hard factors at leading order by following a similar analysis as in Ref. Qiu:2007ey . The method for calculating the single transverse-spin asymmetry for hard scattering processes in the twist-three approach has been developed in Refs. Qiu:1991pp ; Qiu:1991wg ; Qiu:1998ia ; Ji:2006ub ; Ji:2006vf ; Ji:2006br ; Kouvaris:2006zy ; Eguchi:2006qz ; Eguchi:2006mc ; Koike:2006qv ; Koike:2007rq ; Koike:2007dg ; Braun:2009mi ; Kang:2008ey ; Vogelsang:2009pj ; Zhou:2008mz ; Schafer:2012ra ; Kang:2011mr ; Sun:2013hua ; Scimemi:2019gge . The collinear expansion is the central step to obtain the final results. We perform our calculations in a covariant gauge. The additional gluon from the polarized hadron is associated with a gauge potential AμA^{\mu}, and one of the leading contributions comes from its component A+A^{+}. Thus, the gluon will carry longitudinal polarization. The gluon’s momentum is dominated by xgPA+pgx_{g}P_{A}+p_{g\perp}, where xgx_{g} is the longitudinal momentum fraction with respect to the polarized proton. The contribution to the single-transverse-spin asymmetry arises from terms linear in pgp_{g\perp} in the expansion of the partonic scattering amplitudes. When combined with A+A^{+}, these linear terms will yield A+\partial^{\perp}A^{+}, a part of the gauge field strength tensor F+F^{\perp+} in Eq. (I). Since pg=p2p2p_{g\perp}=p_{2\perp}^{\prime}-p_{2\perp}, the pgp_{g\perp} expansion of the scattering amplitudes can be performed in terms of the transverse momenta p2p_{2\perp} and p2p_{2\perp}^{\prime}, which we can parametrize in the following way,

p2=x2PA+p2,p2=x2PA+p2.p_{2}=x_{2}P_{A}+p_{2\perp},~{}~{}~{}p_{2}^{\prime}=x_{2}^{\prime}P_{A}+p_{2\perp}^{\prime}\ . (30)

The leading order diagrams shown in Fig. 2 can be calculated following the general procedure discussed above. The method is similar to the analysis of Drell-Yan lepton pair production in Ref. Kang:2011mr . For example, to perform the Fourier transform of the SSA from transverse momentum to the impact parameter bb_{\perp}-space, we take the total transverse momentum of the two jets qq_{\perp}. In the leading order diagrams as shown in Fig. 2, the total transverse momentum qq_{\perp} can be easily identified: q=p2q_{\perp}=p_{2\perp}^{~{}\prime} for the left diagrams and q=p2q_{\perp}=p_{2\perp} for the right diagrams. Because the phases are opposite to each other for the left and right diagram, their total contribution will lead to the expression ϵαβSαqβ=ϵαβSαpgβ\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}S_{\perp}^{\alpha}q_{\perp}^{\beta}=\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}S_{\perp}^{\alpha}p_{g\perp}^{\beta}. Using the definition of the twist-three matrix element, we find that the SSA contribution in the impact parameter bb_{\perp}-space can be written as iϵαβSαbβTF(x2,x2)i\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}S_{\perp}^{\alpha}b_{\perp}^{\beta}T_{F}(x_{2},x_{2}). The hard factors can be calculated accordingly.

III.2 Soft Gluon Radiation

At one-loop order, we have to consider real gluon radiation associated with the production of the dijets. When the radiated gluons are parallel to the incoming partons’ momenta, their contributions can be factorized into the associated parton distribution functions (from the unpolarized nucleon) or the polarized quark Sivers function (from the polarized nucleon). The gluon radiation will generate finite transverse momentum. According to the analysis of Ref. Qiu:2007ey , we can write down the spin-dependent differential cross section as

dΔσ(S)dΩd2q\displaystyle\frac{d\Delta\sigma(S_{\perp})}{d\Omega d^{2}q_{\perp}} =\displaystyle= abcdHabcdSiversϵαβSααs2π2qβ(q2)2x1x2\displaystyle-\sum_{abcd}H_{ab\to cd}^{\rm Sivers}\epsilon^{\alpha\beta}S_{\perp}^{\alpha}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{q_{\perp}^{\beta}}{(q_{\perp}^{2})^{2}}x_{1}x_{2} (31)
×{fa(x1)𝒫~bgbgT(<)TFb(x2,x2)+TFb(x2,x2)𝒫~aa(<)fa(x1)},\displaystyle\times\left\{f_{a}(x_{1})\widetilde{\cal P}_{b^{\prime}g\to bg}^{T(<)}\otimes T_{Fb^{\prime}}(x_{2},x_{2})+T_{Fb}(x_{2},x_{2})\widetilde{\cal P}_{a^{\prime}\to a}^{(<)}\otimes f_{a^{\prime}}(x_{1})\right\}\ ,

where 𝒫~(<){\widetilde{\cal P}}^{(<)} represents the collinear splitting kernel excluding the end point contribution. For the twist-three function it is given by

𝒫~bgbgT(<)TFb(x2,x2)\displaystyle\widetilde{\cal P}_{b^{\prime}g\to bg}^{T(<)}\otimes T_{Fb^{\prime}}(x_{2},x_{2}) =\displaystyle= dxx{12Nc[(1+ξ2)(xxTFb(x,x))+TFb(x,x)2ξ33ξ211ξ]\displaystyle\int\frac{dx}{x}\left\{\frac{1}{2N_{c}}\left[(1+\xi^{2})\left(x\frac{\partial}{\partial x}T_{Fb^{\prime}}(x,x)\right)+T_{Fb^{\prime}}(x,x)\frac{2\xi^{3}-3\xi^{2}-1}{1-\xi}\right]\right. (32)
+(12Nc+CF)TFb(x,xx^g)1+ξ1ξ},\displaystyle\left.+\left(\frac{1}{2N_{c}}+C_{F}\right)T_{Fb^{\prime}}(x,x-\hat{x}_{g})\frac{1+\xi}{1-\xi}\right\}\ ,

where ξ=x2/x\xi=x_{2}/x and x^g=(1ξ)x\hat{x}_{g}=(1-\xi)x. A similar (albeit slightly simpler) expression holds for 𝒫aa(<)fa(x1){\cal P}_{a^{\prime}\to a}^{(<)}\otimes f_{a^{\prime}}(x_{1}). In Eq. (31), the first term in the bracket comes from the collinear gluon radiation associated with the polarized nucleon, whereas the second term is associated with the unpolarized nucleon. An explicit calculation of all the relevant diagrams was presented in Ref. Qiu:2007ey for one particular channel (qqqqqq^{\prime}\to qq^{\prime}), and factorization arguments were given for all other channels. Only the so-called soft- and hard-gluonic poles are considered in the SSA calculations. However, all other pole contributions and T~F\widetilde{T}_{F} contributions can be analyzed as well and similar results are expected.

In the following, we will focus on soft gluon radiation. The factorization of these contributions is more involved for several reasons. First, they contain double logarithms. In terms of transverse momentum distributions, we will find terms of the form 1/q2ln(PT2/q2)1/q_{\perp}^{2}\ln(P_{T}^{2}/q_{\perp}^{2}). These double logarithmic terms come from gluon radiation associated with all external particles. The collinear factorization arguments in Ref. Qiu:2007ey do not apply to these soft gluon emissions. Second, we have to deal with the soft gluon radiation associated with the final state jets. Using recent developments for the unpolarized case, we will be able to derive their contributions to the spin-dependent cross sections. We will first discuss several general features of twist-three calculations of the soft gluon radiation contributions to the SSA, and then we will apply these to the different partonic channels.

III.2.1 Generic Features of Twist-three Calculations

Refer to caption
Figure 3: Generic diagrams for the quark-quark scattering contributions to the single transverse-spin dependent cross section within collinear factorization.

In Fig. 3, we show the generic diagrams that need to be calculated to obtain the soft gluon real radiation contributions. We follow the same strategy as in Ref. Sun:2015doa to evaluate these diagrams. The radiated gluon carries transverse momentum kgk_{g\perp} which will contribute to the total transverse momentum of the two jets. The spin-dependent differential cross section can for a given partonic channel be schematically written as

dΔσ(S)dΩd2q|soft(1)=ϵαβSαx1fa(x1)x2TFb(x2,x2)twist-3β(q,PT;R),\displaystyle\frac{d\Delta\sigma(S_{\perp})}{d\Omega d^{2}q_{\perp}}\Big{|}_{\textrm{soft}}^{(1)}={\epsilon^{\alpha\beta}S_{\perp}^{\alpha}}x_{1}f_{a}(x_{1})x_{2}T_{Fb}(x_{2},x_{2}){\cal H}_{\textrm{twist-3}}^{\beta}(q_{\perp},P_{T};R)\ , (33)

for the one-loop soft gluon radiation, where x1,2x_{1,2} are defined as for leading order kinematics. This is because the soft gluons do not modify the longitudinal momentum fractions of the incoming partons. The partonic cross section twist-3β{\cal H}_{\textrm{twist-3}}^{\beta} depends on the total transverse momentum qq_{\perp}, the hard momentum scale represented by PTP_{T} (or in general, s^\hat{s}, t^\hat{t} and u^\hat{u}) and the jet radius RR. Similar to the unpolarized case discussed in the last section, we have to exclude the gluon emission contributions belonging to the final state jets. Therefore, the partonic cross sections will depend on the jet size RR.

From the diagrams in Fig. 3, we find that at this order the total transverse momentum of the two jets is equal and opposite to the transverse momentum of the radiated gluon: q=kg\vec{q}_{\perp}=-\vec{k}_{g\perp}. Therefore, finite qq_{\perp} also implies finite kgk_{g\perp}. The main objective of the following calculations is to obtain twist-3β{\cal H}_{\textrm{twist-3}}^{\beta} in the twist-three framework. Again, as briefly discussed above, we need to perform the collinear expansion for the incoming quark lines associated with the polarized nucleon. In the twist expansion, we take the limit of kgp2p2pgk_{g\perp}\gg p_{2\perp}\sim p_{2\perp}^{~{}\prime}\sim p_{g\perp}. Meanwhile, we are also working in the correlation limit of qkgPTq_{\perp}\sim k_{g\perp}\ll P_{T}. Therefore, the dominant contribution to the SSA comes from the expansion in powers of pg/kgp_{g\perp}/k_{g\perp}. Any terms of the form pg/PTp_{g\perp}/P_{T} will be power suppressed in the correlation limit of qPTq_{\perp}\ll P_{T}.

To obtain the SSA for this process, the longitudinal gluon pgp_{g} from the polarized nucleon needs to couple to the partonic scattering part to generate the necessary phase for a non-zero single spin asymmetry. Because we work at leading power in the limit of qPTq_{\perp}\ll P_{T}, we can classify the gluon attachments into two types. First, the pgp_{g} gluon attaches to one of the initial/final state partons which does not radiate the soft gluon kgk_{g}. Second, the pgp_{g} gluon attachment and the soft gluon kgk_{g} radiation happen on the same initial/final state parton. Here we discuss both cases, where the first type is easier to calculate, whereas the second type is somewhat more involved.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 4: Soft-gluonic pole contribution associated with the final state particle k1k_{1} and the gluon radiation from the final state particle k2k_{2}. The dashed line in the middle indicates the final state particles which are on mass-shell. The left diagrams represent the contribution when the gluon is attached to the left side of the cut-line, whereas the right diagrams correspond to the attachment to the right side of the cut-line.

We first study the first type of diagrams. Particular examples are shown in Fig. 4, where the pole contribution comes from the gluon attachment to the final state parton k1k_{1} and the soft gluon is radiated off the lines with momentum k2k_{2}. Before an explicit evaluation, we would like to point out a number of important features which will help us to simplify the calculation. We will focus on the leading power contribution in the limit of small q/PTq_{\perp}/P_{T}. Therefore, the twist-three contributions only come from the pip_{i\perp}-expansion associated with the radiated gluon line kgk_{g}. For example, the pip_{i\perp} dependence of the internal propagator (represented by the circle in Fig. 4) will lead to a power suppressed contribution in the limit of qPTq_{\perp}\ll P_{T}. Therefore, we only need to consider the pip_{i\perp}-expansion in the propagators indicated by the red lines in Fig. 4. In addition, the lines cut by red bars are the places where we pick up the pole contributions. The left and right diagrams give opposite contributions from these two poles, because they are on opposite sides of the cut-line.

Because k1k_{1} and k2k_{2} are final sate observed momenta, it is convenient to keep them fixed in the pip_{i\perp}-expansion. As a consequence, the momentum flow will go through the radiated gluon momentum. For convenience, we define kgk_{g} as the radiated gluon momentum with pi=0p_{i\perp}=0, i.e., there is no pip_{i\perp} dependence in kgk_{g}. We label kgLk_{gL} as the momentum of the radiated gluon for the left diagram in Fig. 4, and kgRk_{gR} for the right diagram, respectively. Due to the fact that the momentum flows are different for these two diagrams, kgLk_{gL} and kgRk_{gR} will be different as well. Each of them is constrained by the on-shell condition for the radiated gluon. For example, we know that kgL=kg+p2k_{gL\perp}=k_{g\perp}+p_{2\perp}^{\prime}. This gives the following momentum decomposition for kgLk_{gL}:

kgL=kg+kgp22p2kgp2+p2,\displaystyle k_{gL}=k_{g}+\frac{\vec{k}_{g\perp}\cdot\vec{p}_{2\perp}^{~{}\prime}}{2p_{2}\cdot k_{g}}p_{2}+p_{2\perp}^{\prime}\ , (34)

We find that kgL2=0k_{gL}^{2}=0 which satisfies the on-shell condition up to the linear term of pip_{i\perp}. In the above expansion and the following calculations, we neglect all higher order terms of pip_{i\perp} beyond the linear terms. Similarly, we find for the right diagram of Fig. 4,

kgR=kg+kgp22p2kgp2+p2.\displaystyle k_{gR}=k_{g}+\frac{\vec{k}_{g\perp}\cdot\vec{p}_{2\perp}}{2p_{2}\cdot k_{g}}p_{2}+p_{2\perp}\ . (35)

Once the kinematics are determined, we can proceed to calculate the soft gluon radiation contributions. This is similar to the unpolarized case. We multiply the Eikonal amplitudes of the diagrams shown in Fig. 4 and perform the collinear expansion of pip_{i\perp}. For example, for the upper two diagrams, we have

Left:\displaystyle{\rm Left:} 2k2μ(k2+kgL)22k2ν(k2+kgL)2Γμν(kgL),\displaystyle\frac{2k_{2\mu}}{(k_{2}+k_{gL})^{2}}\frac{2k_{2\nu}}{(k_{2}+k_{gL})^{2}}\Gamma^{\mu\nu}(k_{gL})\ , (36)
Right:\displaystyle{\rm Right:} 2k2μ(k2+kgR)22k2ν(k2+kgR)2Γμν(kgR),\displaystyle\frac{2k_{2\mu}}{(k_{2}+k_{gR})^{2}}\frac{2k_{2\nu}}{(k_{2}+k_{gR})^{2}}\Gamma^{\mu\nu}(k_{gR})\ , (37)

where Γμν(kg)\Gamma^{\mu\nu}(k_{g}) was defined in Eq. (14). We stress that kgLk_{gL} and kgRk_{gR} depend on pip_{i\perp}, which implies that Γμν\Gamma^{\mu\nu} will as well. Because the left and right diagrams give contributions with opposite sign for the phase, which is necessary to generate the SSA for this process, we will add their pip_{i\perp} expansions with different signs. In the end, the total contribution from these two diagrams leads to the following expression:

Fig.4(a,b):\displaystyle{\rm Fig.~{}\ref{soft-pole-example}}(a,b): 2k2μ(k2+kgL)22k2ν(k2+kgL)2Γμν(kgL)2k2μ(k2+kgR)22k2ν(k2+kgR)2Γμν(kgR)\displaystyle\frac{2k_{2\mu}}{(k_{2}+k_{gL})^{2}}\frac{2k_{2\nu}}{(k_{2}+k_{gL})^{2}}\Gamma^{\mu\nu}(k_{gL})-\frac{2k_{2\mu}}{(k_{2}+k_{gR})^{2}}\frac{2k_{2\nu}}{(k_{2}+k_{gR})^{2}}\Gamma^{\mu\nu}(k_{gR}) (38)
=pgα2k2p2(kgαk2p2k2αkgp2)(p2kgk2kg)2\displaystyle~{}~{}=-p_{g\perp}^{\alpha}\frac{2k_{2}\cdot p_{2}(k_{g\perp}^{\alpha}k_{2}\cdot p_{2}-k_{2\perp}^{\alpha}k_{g}\cdot p_{2})}{(p_{2}\cdot k_{g}k_{2}\cdot k_{g})^{2}}
=pgα2(kgαξ2k2α)(k2p2k2kgp2kg)2,\displaystyle~{}~{}=-p_{g\perp}^{\alpha}2(k_{g\perp}^{\alpha}-\xi_{2}k_{2\perp}^{\alpha})\left(\frac{k_{2}\cdot p_{2}}{k_{2}\cdot k_{g}p_{2}\cdot k_{g}}\right)^{2}\ ,

where ξ2=kgp2/k2p2\xi_{2}=k_{g}\cdot p_{2}/k_{2}\cdot p_{2}. Noticing that Sg(k2,p2)=4/(kgξ2k2)2S_{g}(k_{2},p_{2})=4/(k_{g\perp}-\xi_{2}k_{2\perp})^{2}, we can simplify the above result as

Fig.4(a,b):pgαkgαSg(k2,p2).{\rm Fig.~{}\ref{soft-pole-example}}(a,b):~{}~{}p_{g\perp}^{\alpha}\frac{\partial}{\partial k_{g\perp}^{\alpha}}S_{g}(k_{2},p_{2})\ . (39)

Applying the twist-three procedure, the above leads to the following contribution to twist-3β{\cal H}_{\textrm{twist-3}}^{\beta},

twist-3β|Fig.4(a,b):kgβSg(k2,p2).{\cal H}_{\textrm{twist-3}}^{\beta}|_{\rm Fig.~{}\ref{soft-pole-example}(a,b)}:~{}~{}\frac{\partial}{\partial k_{g\perp}^{\beta}}S_{g}(k_{2},p_{2})\ . (40)

To determine the leading power contribution from soft gluon radiation, we need to integrate out the phase space of the radiated gluon. We will come back to this point after completing the analysis of all relevant diagrams.

Now we turn to the lower two diagrams of Fig. 4. Here, kgLk_{gL} and kgRk_{gR} are the same as in the upper two diagrams. However, the pip_{i\perp}-expansion comes from different propagators,

Left:\displaystyle{\rm Left:} 2k2μ(k2+kgL)22k1ν(k1+kgL)2Γμν(kgL),\displaystyle\frac{2k_{2\mu}}{(k_{2}+k_{gL})^{2}}\frac{2k_{1\nu}}{(k_{1}+k_{gL})^{2}}\Gamma^{\mu\nu}(k_{gL})\ , (41)
Right:\displaystyle{\rm Right:} 2k1μ(k1+kgR)22k2ν(k2+kgR)2Γμν(kgR).\displaystyle\frac{2k_{1\mu}}{(k_{1}+k_{gR})^{2}}\frac{2k_{2\nu}}{(k_{2}+k_{gR})^{2}}\Gamma^{\mu\nu}(k_{gR})\ . (42)

We also find that the final result is a little more complicated than for the upper two diagrams. After some algebra, we find that it can be written as

Fig.4(c,d):pgαkgα[Sg(k1,p2)+Sg(k2,p2)Sg(k1,k2)].\displaystyle{\rm Fig.~{}\ref{soft-pole-example}}(c,d):~{}~{}p_{g\perp}^{\alpha}\frac{\partial}{\partial k_{g\perp}^{\alpha}}\left[S_{g}(k_{1},p_{2})+S_{g}(k_{2},p_{2})-S_{g}(k_{1},k_{2})\right]\ . (43)

The above derivations can be generalized to all other diagrams of the first type.

Refer to caption
Figure 5: Second type of diagrams associated with the final state interaction contribution with the jet k1k_{1} (quark or gluon). The red bars represent the pole contributions. The first diagram gives the so-called soft-gluonic pole contributions, whereas the remaining three belong to the so-called hard gluonic pole contributions.

For the second type of diagrams, the longitudinal gluon from the polarized proton can attach to both the final state jet and the radiated gluon. Therefore, we have both soft-gluonic pole and hard-gluonic pole contributions. One particular example is shown in Fig. 5. Here, the gluonic pole contributions come from the final state particle k1k_{1} which also radiated a soft gluon to generate the leading power contribution in the correlation limit of small q/PTq_{\perp}/P_{T}. The first diagram corresponds to the soft-gluonic pole and the rest to the hard-gluonic pole. The soft gluon pole leads to a delta function δ(x2x2)\delta(x_{2}-x_{2}^{\prime}). In general, the hard gluon pole leads to a different delta function. However, in the correlation limit, the hard pole reduces to the same delta function. For example, the hard pole (labeled by the red bar in Fig. 5) leads to the following kinematics:

x2x2=kgk1PA(k1+kg).\displaystyle x_{2}^{\prime}-x_{2}=\frac{k_{g}\cdot k_{1}}{P_{A}\cdot(k_{1}+k_{g})}\ . (44)

In the correlation limit 111This is also true in the collinear limit where the radiated gluon is parallel to the final state jet., i.e., kgμk1μk_{g}^{\mu}\ll k_{1}^{\mu}, the above reduces to x2=x2x_{2}^{\prime}=x_{2}. Therefore, the soft-gluonic and hard-gluonic pole contributions come from the same kinematics and there will be cancelations among them. These cancelations are very similar to those occurring for the SSA in the Drell-Yan process demonstrated in Ref. Ji:2006vf . In particular, because of the color factor ifabcTc=[Ta,Tb]if_{abc}T^{c}=[T^{a},T^{b}], we can decompose the last diagram into the other two diagrams associated with the hard-gluonic pole. The combination exactly cancels out the soft-gluonic pole contribution from the first diagram. We have explicitly checked this cancelation for all these diagrams. To carry out the calculation, we have to follow the transverse momentum flow, and perform the pip_{i\perp} expansion. The method is the same as that used to calculate the first type of diagrams: the kinematics of kgk_{g} and pgp_{g} will be determined from the on-shell conditions for kgk_{g} and the pole contributions. More importantly, similar to the first type of diagrams, we only need to take into account the pip_{i\perp} expansion from the denominators of the relevant propagators, since the expansions of the numerators are power suppressed. Therefore, the calculations are the same for all partons in the initial/final state, regardless of whether they are quarks or gluons. Both have the same denominators.

Refer to caption
Figure 6: Same as Fig. 5 but for diagrams associated with the initial state interaction contributions with parton p1p_{1} .
Refer to caption
Figure 7: Same as Fig. 5 but for diagrams associated with the final state interaction contributions with k2k_{2}.

In the end, the total contribution will be a combination of the last two diagrams with the color factor of the third one. In summary, we can represent all four diagrams as the one on the left side. This can be repeated for diagrams associated with the initial state interaction with p1p_{1} and the final state interaction with k2k_{2}. We show the relevant diagrams in Figs. 6 and 7. These “effective” diagrams will be among the important ingredients for the final results.

Refer to caption
Figure 8: Summary of gluon radiation diagrams for initial state interaction.

It is convenient to add the contributions from the first type and second type of diagrams. As an example, in Fig. 8, we show those diagrams for the initial state interaction contributions. These diagrams show that we can add soft gluon radiation on top of the initial state interaction diagram. The core part is the same for these three, in particular, the associated color factors. We will work out the color factors for the different channels later on. Here, we focus on the kinematics of the soft gluon radiation contribution and in particular on the leading power contributions.

As shown in Fig. 4, the contributions to the SSA come from the interference between the diagrams of Fig. 8 and the diagrams of Fig. 1. There will be diagrams where the longitudinal gluon is attached to the left side of the cut-line and to the right side of the cut-line. For convenience, we label these soft gluon radiation diagrams by their association with the external momenta. For example, we will label the first diagram of Fig. 8 by p1μp_{1}^{\mu}, the second diagram by k1μk_{1}^{\mu} and the third by k2μk_{2}^{\mu}. We label the diagrams in Fig. 1 similarly. The interference between the second diagram of Fig. 8 and the second one of Fig. 1 has been calculated above and the result is

k1μk1νkgβSg(k1,p2).\displaystyle k_{1}^{\mu}k_{1}^{\nu}\Rightarrow\frac{\partial}{\partial k_{g\perp}^{\beta}}S_{g}(k_{1},p_{2})\ . (45)

Similarly, we find the following result for the interference between the second diagram of Fig. 8 and the third diagram of Fig. 1:

k1μk2νkgβ[Sg(k1,p2)+Sg(k2,p2)Sg(k1,k2)].\displaystyle k_{1}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu}\Rightarrow\frac{\partial}{\partial k_{g\perp}^{\beta}}\left[S_{g}(k_{1},p_{2})+S_{g}(k_{2},p_{2})-S_{g}(k_{1},k_{2})\right]\ . (46)

The calculation for the interference between the first diagram of Fig. 8 and the diagrams in Fig. 1 is much more involved. However, after a lengthy derivation, we find the results are very similar to the above two, and they can be all summarized as follows:

p1μp1ν\displaystyle p_{1}^{\mu}p_{1}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow kgβSg(p1,p2),\displaystyle\frac{\partial}{\partial k_{g\perp}^{\beta}}S_{g}(p_{1},p_{2})\ , (47)
k1μk1ν\displaystyle k_{1}^{\mu}k_{1}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow kgβSg(k1,p2),\displaystyle\frac{\partial}{\partial k_{g\perp}^{\beta}}S_{g}(k_{1},p_{2})\ , (48)
k2μk2ν\displaystyle k_{2}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow kgβSg(k2,p2),\displaystyle\frac{\partial}{\partial k_{g\perp}^{\beta}}S_{g}(k_{2},p_{2})\ , (49)
k1μp1ν,p1μk1ν\displaystyle k_{1}^{\mu}p_{1}^{\nu},p_{1}^{\mu}k_{1}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow kgβ[Sg(k1,p2)+Sg(p1,p2)Sg(k1,p1)],\displaystyle\frac{\partial}{\partial k_{g\perp}^{\beta}}\left[S_{g}(k_{1},p_{2})+S_{g}(p_{1},p_{2})-S_{g}(k_{1},p_{1})\right]\ , (50)
k2μp1ν,p1μk2ν\displaystyle k_{2}^{\mu}p_{1}^{\nu},p_{1}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow kgβ[Sg(k2,p2)+Sg(p1,p2)Sg(k2,p1)],\displaystyle\frac{\partial}{\partial k_{g\perp}^{\beta}}\left[S_{g}(k_{2},p_{2})+S_{g}(p_{1},p_{2})-S_{g}(k_{2},p_{1})\right]\ , (51)
k1μk2ν,k2μk1ν\displaystyle k_{1}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu},k_{2}^{\mu}k_{1}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow kgβ[Sg(k1,p2)+Sg(k2,p2)Sg(k1,k2)].\displaystyle\frac{\partial}{\partial k_{g\perp}^{\beta}}\left[S_{g}(k_{1},p_{2})+S_{g}(k_{2},p_{2})-S_{g}(k_{1},k_{2})\right]\ . (52)

Interestingly, we note that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the above results and those for the gluon radiation contributions for the unpolarized case in Sec. II. This is a very important feature to obtain the final factorization result for the SSA.

Refer to caption
Figure 9: Summary of the gluon radiation diagrams for the final state interaction contributions with k1k_{1}.
Refer to caption
Figure 10: Summary of the gluon radiation diagrams for the final state interaction contributions with k2k_{2}.

The above analysis can be extended to diagrams with final state interaction contributions with k1k_{1} and k2k_{2}. For completeness, we show the diagrams in Fig. 9 and 10. The final results are the same as those given above for the initial state interaction contributions.

As mentioned above, in order to derive the leading power contribution to the SSA for this process from the above terms, we need to integrate over the phase space of the radiated gluon, where we keep the transverse momentum q=kg\vec{q}_{\perp}=-\vec{k}_{g\perp}. Let us first work out the simple example of the p1μp1νp_{1}^{\mu}p_{1}^{\nu} term. This term is similar to that for Drell-Yan lepton pair production calculated in Ref. Ji:2006vf . The phase space integral takes the following form

twist-3β|p1μp1ν\displaystyle{\cal H}_{\textrm{twist-3}}^{\beta}\big{|}_{p_{1}^{\mu}p_{1}^{\nu}} =\displaystyle= g22d3kg(2π)32Ekgδ(2)(q+kg)kgβSg(p1,p2)\displaystyle\frac{g^{2}}{2}\int\frac{d^{3}k_{g}}{(2\pi)^{3}2E_{k_{g}}}\delta^{(2)}(q_{\perp}+k_{g\perp})\frac{\partial}{\partial k_{g\perp}^{\beta}}S_{g}(p_{1},p_{2}) (53)
=\displaystyle= αs2π2ξ01dξξkgβ1kg2|kg=q,\displaystyle\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\int_{\xi_{0}}^{1}\frac{d\xi}{\xi}\frac{\partial}{\partial k_{g\perp}^{\beta}}\frac{1}{\vec{k}_{g\perp}^{2}}|_{\vec{k}_{g\perp}=-\vec{q}_{\perp}}\ ,

where ξ=kgp2/p1p2\xi=k_{g}\cdot p_{2}/p_{1}\cdot p_{2} and the lower limit of the ξ\xi-integral comes from the kinematic limit ξ0=kg2/Q2\xi_{0}=k_{g\perp}^{2}/Q^{2}. Working out the integral, we arrive at

twist-3β|p1μp1ν\displaystyle{\cal H}_{\textrm{twist-3}}^{\beta}\big{|}_{p_{1}^{\mu}p_{1}^{\nu}} =\displaystyle= αs2π22qβ(q2)2lnQ2q2,\displaystyle\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{2q_{\perp}^{\beta}}{(q_{\perp}^{2})^{2}}\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{\perp}^{2}}\ , (54)

which is consistent with the double logarithmic behavior for Drell-Yan lepton pair production calculated in Ref. Ji:2006vf .

On the other hand, we can also carry out the above integral using integration by parts as follows:

twist-3β|p1μp1ν\displaystyle{\cal H}_{\textrm{twist-3}}^{\beta}\big{|}_{p_{1}^{\mu}p_{1}^{\nu}} =\displaystyle= αs2π2[kgβξ01dξξ1kg2+ξ0kgβ1ξ0kg2]kg=q\displaystyle\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial k_{g\perp}^{\beta}}\int_{\xi_{0}}^{1}\frac{d\xi}{\xi}\frac{1}{\vec{k}_{g\perp}^{2}}+\frac{\partial\xi_{0}}{\partial k_{g\perp}^{\beta}}\frac{1}{\xi_{0}\vec{k}_{g\perp}^{2}}\right]_{\vec{k}_{g\perp}=-\vec{q}_{\perp}} (55)
=\displaystyle= αs2π2[kgβ(1kg2lnQ2kg2)+1kg2lnkg2kgβ]kg=q\displaystyle\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial k_{g\perp}^{\beta}}\left(\frac{1}{k_{g\perp}^{2}}\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{k_{g\perp}^{2}}\right)+\frac{1}{\vec{k}_{g\perp}^{2}}\frac{\partial\ln k_{g\perp}^{2}}{\partial k_{g\perp}^{\beta}}\right]_{\vec{k}_{g\perp}=-\vec{q}_{\perp}}
=\displaystyle= αs2π2[kgβ(1kg2)lnQ2kg2]kg=q.\displaystyle\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial k_{g\perp}^{\beta}}\left(\frac{1}{k_{g\perp}^{2}}\right)\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{k_{g\perp}^{2}}\right]_{\vec{k}_{g\perp}=-\vec{q}_{\perp}}\ .

Of course, this gives the same result as above. However, this provides a convenient way to derive other terms as well. The rule is that the derivative only acts on the 1/kg21/k_{g\perp}^{2}, not on the logarithmic terms. Taking the example of Sg(k1,p2)S_{g}(k_{1},p_{2}) and Sg(k1,p1)S_{g}(k_{1},p_{1}), we can follow the strategy and construct the following two terms:

𝒯β(k1)\displaystyle{\cal T}^{\beta}(k_{1}) =\displaystyle= αs8π2dξξkgβ[Sg(k1,p2)+Sg(k1,p1)],\displaystyle\frac{\alpha_{s}}{8\pi^{2}}\int\frac{d\xi}{\xi}\frac{\partial}{\partial k_{g\perp}^{\beta}}\left[S_{g}(k_{1},p_{2})+S_{g}(k_{1},p_{1})\right]\ , (56)
β(k1)\displaystyle{\cal R}^{\beta}(k_{1}) =\displaystyle= αs8π2dξξkgβ[Sg(k1,p2)Sg(k1,p1)].\displaystyle\frac{\alpha_{s}}{8\pi^{2}}\int\frac{d\xi}{\xi}\frac{\partial}{\partial k_{g\perp}^{\beta}}\left[S_{g}(k_{1},p_{2})-S_{g}(k_{1},p_{1})\right]\ . (57)

In the above two equations, β{\cal R}^{\beta} does not contain a ln(1/kg2)\ln(1/k_{g\perp}^{2}) term. Therefore, we can perform the integration by parts directly and obtain the final result

β(k1)\displaystyle{\cal R}^{\beta}(k_{1}) =\displaystyle= αs8π2kgβdξξ[Sg(k1,p2)Sg(k1,p1)]\displaystyle\frac{\alpha_{s}}{8\pi^{2}}\frac{\partial}{\partial k_{g\perp}^{\beta}}\int\frac{d\xi}{\xi}\left[S_{g}(k_{1},p_{2})-S_{g}(k_{1},p_{1})\right] (58)
=\displaystyle= αs2π2kgβ(1kg2lnu^t^).\displaystyle\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{\partial}{\partial k_{g\perp}^{\beta}}\left(\frac{1}{k_{g\perp}^{2}}\ln\frac{\hat{u}}{\hat{t}}\right)\ .

For 𝒯β{\cal T}^{\beta}, we notice that Sg(k1,p2)+Sg(k1,p1)=Sg(p1,p2)+4k1kg/(kg2k1kg)S_{g}(k_{1},p_{2})+S_{g}(k_{1},p_{1})=S_{g}(p_{1},p_{2})+4\vec{k}_{1\perp}\cdot\vec{k}_{g\perp}/(k_{g\perp}^{2}k_{1}\cdot k_{g}), where the first term has been calculated above and the second term does not have a term ln(1/kg)\ln(1/k_{g\perp}). Applying this, we arrive at the following result for 𝒯β{\cal T}^{\beta}:

𝒯β(k1)\displaystyle{\cal T}^{\beta}(k_{1}) =\displaystyle= αs2π2kgβ(1kg2)[lnQ2kg2+ln1R12].\displaystyle\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{\partial}{\partial k_{g\perp}^{\beta}}\left(\frac{1}{k_{g\perp}^{2}}\right)\left[\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{k_{g\perp}^{2}}+\ln\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}\right]\ . (59)

Note that in practice we do the algebra and phase space integration in dimensional regularization in d=42ϵd=4-2\epsilon dimensions. For simplicity, we are not displaying here terms of 𝒪(ϵ){\cal O}(\epsilon). From the results for 𝒯β{\cal T}^{\beta} and β{\cal R}^{\beta}, we are able to derive the corresponding results for the terms associated with Sg(k1,p1)S_{g}(k_{1},p_{1}) and Sg(k1,p2)S_{g}(k_{1},p_{2}). Following the same technique, we can also derive the results for Sg(k2,p2)S_{g}(k_{2},p_{2}) and Sg(k2,p1)S_{g}(k_{2},p_{1}). For Sg(k1,k2)S_{g}(k_{1},k_{2}), since it does not contain a ln(1/kg2)\ln(1/k_{g\perp}^{2}) term, we can directly carry out the derivative with respect to kgβk_{g\perp}^{\beta}. Finally, we summarize all results here:

twist-3β|p1μp1ν\displaystyle{\cal H}_{\textrm{twist-3}}^{\beta}\big{|}_{p_{1}^{\mu}p_{1}^{\nu}} =\displaystyle= αs2π2qβ(q2)22lnQ2q2,\displaystyle\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{q_{\perp}^{\beta}}{(q_{\perp}^{2})^{2}}2\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{\perp}^{2}}, (60)
twist-3β|k1μk1ν\displaystyle{\cal H}_{\textrm{twist-3}}^{\beta}\big{|}_{k_{1}^{\mu}k_{1}^{\nu}} =\displaystyle= αs2π2qβ(q2)2[lnQ2q2+ln1R12+lnu^t^],\displaystyle\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{q_{\perp}^{\beta}}{(q_{\perp}^{2})^{2}}\left[\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{\perp}^{2}}+\ln\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}+\ln\frac{\hat{u}}{\hat{t}}\right]\ , (61)
twist-3β|k2μk2ν\displaystyle{\cal H}_{\textrm{twist-3}}^{\beta}\big{|}_{k_{2}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu}} =\displaystyle= αs2π2qβ(q2)2[lnQ2q2+ln1R22+lnt^u^],\displaystyle\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{q_{\perp}^{\beta}}{(q_{\perp}^{2})^{2}}\left[\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{\perp}^{2}}+\ln\frac{1}{R_{2}^{2}}+\ln\frac{\hat{t}}{\hat{u}}\right]\ , (62)
twist-3β|k1μp1ν,p1μk1ν\displaystyle{\cal H}_{\textrm{twist-3}}^{\beta}\big{|}_{k_{1}^{\mu}p_{1}^{\nu},p_{1}^{\mu}k_{1}^{\nu}} =\displaystyle= αs2π2qβ(q2)2[2lnQ2q2+2lnu^t^],\displaystyle\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{q_{\perp}^{\beta}}{(q_{\perp}^{2})^{2}}\left[2\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{\perp}^{2}}+2\ln\frac{\hat{u}}{\hat{t}}\right]\ , (63)
twist-3β|k2μp1ν,p1μk2ν\displaystyle{\cal H}_{\textrm{twist-3}}^{\beta}\big{|}_{k_{2}^{\mu}p_{1}^{\nu},p_{1}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu}} =\displaystyle= αs2π2qβ(q2)2[2lnQ2q2+2lnt^u^],\displaystyle\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{q_{\perp}^{\beta}}{(q_{\perp}^{2})^{2}}\left[2\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{\perp}^{2}}+2\ln\frac{\hat{t}}{\hat{u}}\right]\ , (64)
twist-3β|k1μk2ν,k2μk1ν\displaystyle{\cal H}_{\textrm{twist-3}}^{\beta}\big{|}_{k_{1}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu},k_{2}^{\mu}k_{1}^{\nu}} =\displaystyle= αs2π2qβ(q2)2[2lnQ2q22lns^2t^u^].\displaystyle\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{q_{\perp}^{\beta}}{(q_{\perp}^{2})^{2}}\left[2\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{\perp}^{2}}-2\ln\frac{\hat{s}^{2}}{\hat{t}\hat{u}}\right]\ . (65)

Again, we have neglected the terms of 𝒪(ϵ){\cal O}(\epsilon) for simplicity. It is interesting to note that all of the above terms contribute to the leading double logarithms, whereas only k1μk1νk_{1}^{\mu}k_{1}^{\nu} and k2μk2νk_{2}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu} contribute to the jet related logarithms. Therefore, we need to consider all of them to derive the leading double logarithmic contributions. Next, we need to combine the above results with the associated color factors for the different channels in order to obtain the contributions to the SSA.

III.2.2 qqqqqq^{\prime}\to qq^{\prime} channel

Let us first derive the SSA for the simplest channel, qqqqqq^{\prime}\to qq^{\prime}, the quark-quark scattering with different flavors. This channel only has a tt-channel diagram. The leading order results have been calculated in Ref. Qiu:2007ey . The hard factor is given by

HqqqqSivers=αs2πs^2Nc254Nc22(s^2+u^2)t^2,\displaystyle H_{qq^{\prime}\to qq^{\prime}}^{\rm Sivers}=\frac{\alpha_{s}^{2}\pi}{\hat{s}^{2}}\frac{N_{c}^{2}-5}{4N_{c}^{2}}\frac{2(\hat{s}^{2}+\hat{u}^{2})}{\hat{t}^{2}}\ , (66)

where the color factors for the initial and final state interactions are: CI=12Nc2C_{I}=-\frac{1}{2N_{c}^{2}}, CF1=Nc224Nc2C_{F1}=\frac{N_{c}^{2}-2}{4N_{c}^{2}}, CF2=14Nc2C_{F2}=-\frac{1}{4N_{c}^{2}}.

For the initial state interaction contributions, we calculate the interference between the diagrams in Fig. 1 and Fig. 8. We obtain the following associated color factors:

p1μp1ν\displaystyle p_{1}^{\mu}p_{1}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow CF,\displaystyle C_{F}\ , (67)
k1μk1ν\displaystyle k_{1}^{\mu}k_{1}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow CF,\displaystyle C_{F}\ , (68)
k2μk2ν\displaystyle k_{2}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow CF,\displaystyle C_{F}\ , (69)
p1μk1ν\displaystyle p_{1}^{\mu}k_{1}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow 12Nc,\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2N_{c}}\ , (70)
p1μk2ν\displaystyle p_{1}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow 32CFCA2,\displaystyle\frac{3}{2}C_{F}-\frac{C_{A}}{2}\ , (71)
k1μk2ν\displaystyle k_{1}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow 32CFCA.\displaystyle\frac{3}{2}C_{F}-C_{A}\ . (72)

In order to obtain the final results, we multiply the leading power contributions of Eqs. (60)-(65) with the associated color factors. Adding these results, we obtain the leading contribution from soft gluon radiation which can be written as

twist-3β(CI)(qqqq)\displaystyle{\cal H}_{\textrm{twist-3}}^{\beta(C_{I})}({qq^{\prime}\to qq^{\prime}}) =\displaystyle= CIhqiqjqiqj(0)αs2π2qβ(q2)2[2CFlnQ2q2+CF(ln1R12+ln1R22)].\displaystyle C_{I}h_{q_{i}q_{j}\to q_{i}q_{j}}^{(0)}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{-q_{\perp}^{\beta}}{(q_{\perp}^{2})^{2}}\left[2C_{F}\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{\perp}^{2}}+C_{F}\left(\ln\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}+\ln\frac{1}{R_{2}^{2}}\right)\right]\ . (73)

Here we only kept the terms relevant at LLA\rm LLA^{\prime}, and we have hqiqjqiqj(0)=αs2πs^22(s^2+u^2)t^2h_{q_{i}q_{j}\to q_{i}q_{j}}^{(0)}=\frac{\alpha_{s}^{2}\pi}{\hat{s}^{2}}\frac{2(\hat{s}^{2}+\hat{u}^{2})}{\hat{t}^{2}}. We will come back to the remaining terms in Sec. IV when we discuss factorization breaking effects. The minus sign in the above equation is due to the fact fact that CIC_{I} was computed on the basis of the quark Sivers function for the SIDIS process, which has an opposite sign compared to the normalization of the twist-three matrix element TFT_{F}. It appears that the terms in Eq. (73) do have a clear factorization structure that includes the leading double logarithmic term and the terms associated with the final state jets. The latter are represented by logarithmic terms of the jet radii R1,2R_{1,2}.

Table 1: The color factors for the soft gluon radiation interference diagrams for the qqqqqq^{\prime}\to qq^{\prime} channel. The different rows show the results for the unpolarized case as well as for the initial and final state interaction contributions to the SSA.
p1μp1νp_{1}^{\mu}p_{1}^{\nu} k1μk1νk_{1}^{\mu}k_{1}^{\nu} k2μk2νk_{2}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu} p1μk1νp_{1}^{\mu}k_{1}^{\nu} p1μk2νp_{1}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu} k1μk2νk_{1}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu}
CuC_{u} CF~{}~{}C_{F}~{}~{} CF~{}~{}C_{F}~{}~{} CF~{}~{}C_{F}~{}~{} 12Nc~{}-\frac{1}{2N_{c}}~{}~{} 14(2CACF)\frac{1}{4}(2C_{A}-C_{F}) 14CF~{}-\frac{1}{4}C_{F}~{}~{}
CIC_{I} CFC_{F} CFC_{F} CFC_{F} 12Nc-\frac{1}{2N_{c}} 12\frac{1}{2} 1-1
CF1C_{F1} CFC_{F} CFC_{F} CFC_{F} 12Nc-\frac{1}{2N_{c}} CA21Nc22\frac{C_{A}}{2}-\frac{1}{N_{c}^{2}-2} 1Nc22-\frac{1}{N_{c}^{2}-2}
CF2C_{F2} CFC_{F} CFC_{F} CFC_{F} 12Nc-\frac{1}{2N_{c}} 1Nc-\frac{1}{N_{c}} CF12NcC_{F}-\frac{1}{2N_{c}}

We can extend the above calculations to the final state interaction contributions associated with k1k_{1} and k2k_{2}. We summarize the relevant color factors for the different terms in Table 1. The total contribution can be written as

twist-3β(CF1+CF2)(qqqq)\displaystyle{\cal H}_{\textrm{twist-3}}^{\beta(C_{F1}+C_{F2})}({qq^{\prime}\to qq^{\prime}}) =\displaystyle= HqqqqSiversαs2π2qβ(q2)2[2CFlnQ2q2+CF(ln1R12+ln1R22)],\displaystyle H_{qq^{\prime}\to qq^{\prime}}^{\rm Sivers}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{-q_{\perp}^{\beta}}{(q_{\perp}^{2})^{2}}\left[2C_{F}\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{\perp}^{2}}+C_{F}\left(\ln\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}+\ln\frac{1}{R_{2}^{2}}\right)\right]\ , (74)

where HqqqqSiversH_{qq^{\prime}\to qq^{\prime}}^{\rm Sivers} was defined in Eq. (66). Clearly, the first term contributes to the leading double logarithms of the SSA for this process. In addition, the divergence associated with the two final state quark jets has the desired structure. Combining the above result with the collinear gluon radiation contributions from incoming partons, see Eq. (31), we obtain the spin-dependent differential cross section for the qqqq{qq^{\prime}\to qq^{\prime}} channel

dΔσ(S)dΩd2q\displaystyle\frac{d\Delta\sigma(S_{\perp})}{d\Omega d^{2}q_{\perp}} =\displaystyle= HqqqqSiversϵαβSααs2π2qβ(q2)2x1x2\displaystyle-H_{qq^{\prime}\to qq^{\prime}}^{\rm Sivers}\epsilon^{\alpha\beta}S_{\perp}^{\alpha}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{q_{\perp}^{\beta}}{(q_{\perp}^{2})^{2}}x_{1}x_{2} (75)
×{fq(x1)𝒫qgqgT(<)TFq(x2,x2)+TFq(x2,x2)𝒫qq(<)fq(x1)\displaystyle\times\left\{f_{q}(x_{1}){\cal P}_{q^{\prime}g\to q^{\prime}g}^{T(<)}\otimes T_{Fq^{\prime}}(x_{2},x_{2})+T_{Fq^{\prime}}(x_{2},x_{2}){\cal P}_{q\to q}^{(<)}\otimes f_{q}(x_{1})\right.
+fq(x1)TFq(x2,x2)[2CFlnQ2q2+CF(ln1R12+ln1R22)]},\displaystyle\left.+f_{q}(x_{1})T_{Fq^{\prime}}(x_{2},x_{2})\left[2C_{F}\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{\perp}^{2}}+C_{F}\left(\ln\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}+\ln\frac{1}{R_{2}^{2}}\right)\right]\right\}\ ,

in the correlation limit of qPTq_{\perp}\ll P_{T}. When taking the Fourier transform to bb_{\perp}-space and adding the virtual and jet contributions to cancel the divergences, we expect to obtain the following one-loop result for WTβW^{T\beta} at LLA\rm LLA^{\prime} accuracy:

WqqqqTβ(1)\displaystyle W_{qq^{\prime}\to qq^{\prime}}^{T\beta(1)} =\displaystyle= HqqqqSiversibβ2αs2πx1x2{lnμ2b2b02[fq(x1,μ)𝒫qgqgTTFq(x2,x2,μ)\displaystyle H_{qq^{\prime}\to qq^{\prime}}^{\rm Sivers}\frac{ib_{\perp}^{\beta}}{2}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi}x_{1}x_{2}\left\{-\ln\frac{\mu^{2}b_{\perp}^{2}}{b_{0}^{2}}\Big{[}f_{q}(x_{1},\mu){\cal P}_{q^{\prime}g\to q^{\prime}g}^{T}\otimes T_{Fq^{\prime}}(x_{2},x_{2},\mu)\right.
+\displaystyle+ TFq(x2,x2,μ)𝒫aqfa(x1,μ)]\displaystyle T_{Fq^{\prime}}(x_{2},x_{2},\mu){\cal P}_{a^{\prime}\to q}\otimes f_{a^{\prime}}(x_{1},\mu)\Big{]}
+\displaystyle+ fq(x1,μ)TFq(x2,x2,μ)CF[ln2(Q2b2b02)(32ln1R12ln1R22)lnQ2b2b02]}.\displaystyle\left.f_{q}(x_{1},\mu)T_{Fq^{\prime}}(x_{2},x_{2},\mu)C_{F}\left[\ln^{2}\left(\frac{Q^{2}b_{\perp}^{2}}{b_{0}^{2}}\right)-\left(\frac{3}{2}-\ln\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}-\ln\frac{1}{R_{2}^{2}}\right)\ln\frac{Q^{2}b_{\perp}^{2}}{b_{0}^{2}}\right]\right\}\ .

Here we have included the subtraction of the collinear divergences, and 𝒫qgqgT{\cal P}_{qg\to qg}^{T} and 𝒫aq{\cal P}_{a^{\prime}\to q} are the complete splitting kernels for the associated twist-three and leading-twist parton distributions, respectively. To derive the above results, we have assumed that the virtual contributions cancel the soft divergences of the real gluon radiation. It is important to show that this is indeed the case. However, this is beyond the scope of this work and we plan to come back to this issue in a later publication.

We summarize three important aspects of the above result at this order. First, the collinear splitting is associated with the twist-three and twist-two parton distribution functions. This is the essence of the factorization of collinear gluon radiations as demonstrated in Ref. Qiu:2007ey . Second, the result for the leading double logarithms is consistent with the collinear and soft factorization at LLA\rm LLA^{\prime}. Each of the incoming quark lines contributes half of this double logarithmic term. This is an important feature for the Sudakov resummation. Third, the logarithms associated with the jets are also factorized in terms of the individual jets and we obtain the expected color charges of the final state jets. These results are consistent with the factorization argument.

In the following two subsections, we will extend the above analysis to two other important channels, gqgqgq\to gq and q¯qgg\bar{q}q\to gg. The former is the dominant channel for the SSA in dijet production for the typical kinematics at RHIC.

III.2.3 qgqgqg\to qg

The leading order derivation for the channel qgqgqg\to qg was carried out in Ref. Qiu:2007ey . In order to simplify the analysis for the soft gluon radiation contribution, we follow Ref. Sun:2015doa and decompose the fundamental partonic scattering amplitude as

A1u¯jTjkaTkibui+A2u¯jTjkbTkiaui,A_{1}\bar{u}_{j}T_{jk}^{a}T_{ki}^{b}u_{i}+A_{2}\bar{u}_{j}T_{jk}^{b}T_{ki}^{a}u_{i}\ , (77)

with two different color structures at the Born level. Here, aa and bb are the color indices for the incoming and outgoing gluons, and ii and jj for the incoming and outgoing quarks. The amplitudes A1A_{1} and A2A_{2} depend on the momenta of the two incoming particles, p1p_{1} and p2p_{2}, and on the momenta of the two outgoing particles k1k_{1} and k2k_{2} for the quarks and gluons, respectively. The single spin asymmetry can be formulated starting from the decomposed amplitude above. For example, the initial state interaction contribution can be derived from the following expression:

ifcad(A1u¯jTjkdTkibui+A2u¯jTjkbTkidui)(A1u¯iTikbTkjauj+A2u¯iTikaTkjbuj).\displaystyle-if_{cad}\left(A_{1}\bar{u}_{j}T_{jk}^{d}T_{ki}^{b}u_{i}+A_{2}\bar{u}_{j}T_{jk}^{b}T_{ki}^{d}u_{i}\right)\left(A_{1}^{*}\bar{u}_{i^{\prime}}T_{i^{\prime}k^{\prime}}^{b}T_{k^{\prime}j^{\prime}}^{a}u_{j^{\prime}}+A_{2}\bar{u}_{i^{\prime}}T_{i^{\prime}k^{\prime}}^{a}T_{k^{\prime}j^{\prime}}^{b}u_{j^{\prime}}\right)\ . (78)

The color indices ii and ii^{\prime} are coupled to the adjoint representation of the twist-three Qiu-Sterman matrix element. Therefore, we can rewrite uiu¯iu_{i}\bar{u}_{i^{\prime}} as TiicT^{c}_{ii^{\prime}}, and the above result leads to

CI:0I\displaystyle C_{I}:~{}{\cal H}_{0}^{I} =\displaystyle= 1Ncolor(ifcad)Tr[(A1TdTb+A2TbTd)Tc(A1TbTa+A2TaTb)]\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}}\left(-if_{cad}\right){\rm Tr}\left[\left(A_{1}T^{d}T^{b}+A_{2}T^{b}T^{d}\right)T^{c}\left(A_{1}^{*}T^{b}T^{a}+A_{2}^{*}T^{a}T^{b}\right)\right] (79)
=\displaystyle= 1Ncolor[(A1+A2)2+Nc2A22],\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}}\left[-(A_{1}+A_{2})^{2}+N_{c}^{2}A_{2}^{2}\right]\ ,

where Ncolor=(Nc21)NcCFN_{\textrm{color}}=(N_{c}^{2}-1)N_{c}C_{F}. Similarly, for the final state interaction with the gluon line, we have

CF1:0F1\displaystyle C_{F1}:~{}{\cal H}_{0}^{F1} =\displaystyle= 1Ncolor(ifcbd)Tr[(A1TaTd+A2TdTa)Tc(A1TbTa+A2TaTb)]\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}}\left(-if_{cbd}\right){\rm Tr}\left[\left(A_{1}T^{a}T^{d}+A_{2}T^{d}T^{a}\right)T^{c}\left(A_{1}^{*}T^{b}T^{a}+A_{2}^{*}T^{a}T^{b}\right)\right] (80)
=\displaystyle= 1Ncolor[(A1+A2)2+Nc2A12].\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}}\left[-(A_{1}+A_{2})^{2}+N_{c}^{2}A_{1}^{2}\right]\ .

For the final state interaction contribution from the final state quark line, we have

CF2:0F2\displaystyle C_{F2}:~{}{\cal H}_{0}^{F2} =\displaystyle= 1NcolorTr[(A1TcTaTb+A2TcTbTa)Tc(A1TbTa+A2TaTb)]\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}}{\rm Tr}\left[\left(A_{1}T^{c}T^{a}T^{b}+A_{2}T^{c}T^{b}T^{a}\right)T^{c}\left(A_{1}^{*}T^{b}T^{a}+A_{2}^{*}T^{a}T^{b}\right)\right] (81)
=\displaystyle= 1Ncolor[1Nc2(A1+A2)2+2A1A2].\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}}\left[\frac{1}{N_{c}^{2}}(A_{1}+A_{2})^{2}+2A_{1}A_{2}^{*}\right]\ .

Noticing that the initial state interaction carries a minus sign, the total contribution will be

HqgqgSivers\displaystyle H_{qg\to qg}^{\rm Sivers} =\displaystyle= 0F1+0F20I\displaystyle{\cal H}_{0}^{F1}+{\cal H}_{0}^{F2}-{\cal H}_{0}^{I} (82)
=\displaystyle= 1Ncolor[Nc2(A12A22)+1Nc2(A1+A2)2+2A1A2].\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}}\left[N_{c}^{2}\left(A_{1}^{2}-A_{2}^{2}\right)+\frac{1}{N_{c}^{2}}(A_{1}+A_{2})^{2}+2A_{1}A_{2}^{*}\right]\ .

From our parameterization of the Born amplitude, we have

(A1+A2)2=2(s^2+u^2)s^u^,A1A2=2(s^2+u^2)t^2,\displaystyle(A_{1}+A_{2})^{2}=\frac{2(\hat{s}^{2}+\hat{u}^{2})}{-\hat{s}\hat{u}},~{}~{}A_{1}A_{2}^{*}=-\frac{2(\hat{s}^{2}+\hat{u}^{2})}{\hat{t}^{2}}\ , (83)
A12=2s^u^s^2+u^2t^2,A22=2u^s^s^2+u^2t^2.\displaystyle A_{1}^{2}=\frac{2\hat{s}}{-\hat{u}}\frac{\hat{s}^{2}+\hat{u}^{2}}{\hat{t}^{2}},~{}~{}A_{2}^{2}=\frac{2\hat{u}}{-\hat{s}}\frac{\hat{s}^{2}+\hat{u}^{2}}{\hat{t}^{2}}. (84)

Substituting the above expressions into Eq. (82), we reproduce the result for the leading order HqgqgSiversH_{qg\to qg}^{\rm Sivers} in Ref. Qiu:2007ey .

Now, let us turn to the soft gluon radiation contributions. For the initial state interactions, we have soft gluon radiation contributions from the incoming gluon line, the outgoing gluon line and quark line. The relevant diagrams will follow those in Fig. 8. In this case, the upper two lines are gluons. The associated amplitudes for these three diagrams are given by

2p1μ2p1kg(ifcae)(ifdef)(A1u¯TfTbu+A2u¯TbTfu),\displaystyle\frac{2p_{1}^{\mu}}{2p_{1}\cdot k_{g}}(-if_{cae})(-if_{def})\left(A_{1}\bar{u}T^{f}T^{b}u+A_{2}\bar{u}T^{b}T^{f}u\right)\ , (85)
2k1μ2k1kg(ifdae)(ifcbf)(A1u¯TeTfu+A2u¯TfTeu),\displaystyle\frac{2k_{1}^{\mu}}{2k_{1}\cdot k_{g}}(-if_{dae})(-if_{cbf})\left(A_{1}\bar{u}T^{e}T^{f}u+A_{2}\bar{u}T^{f}T^{e}u\right)\ , (86)
2k2μ2k2kg(ifdae)(A1u¯TcTeTbu+A2u¯TcTbTeu).\displaystyle\frac{2k_{2}^{\mu}}{2k_{2}\cdot k_{g}}(-if_{dae})\left(A_{1}\bar{u}T^{c}T^{e}T^{b}u+A_{2}\bar{u}T^{c}T^{b}T^{e}u\right)\ . (87)

Here cc is the color index of the radiated gluon and dd corresponds to the longitudinal gluon from the polarized nucleon attached to the partonic scattering part. The contributions to the SSA come from the interference of the above amplitudes and those in Fig. 1, which we list here for the qgqgqg\to qg channel,

2p1ν2p1kg(ifcag)(A1u¯TgTbu+A2u¯TbTgu),\displaystyle\frac{2p_{1}^{\nu}}{2p_{1}\cdot k_{g}}(-if_{cag})\left(A_{1}\bar{u}T^{g}T^{b}u+A_{2}\bar{u}T^{b}T^{g}u\right)\ , (88)
2k1ν2k1kg(ifcbg)(A1u¯TaTgu+A2u¯TgTau),\displaystyle\frac{2k_{1}^{\nu}}{2k_{1}\cdot k_{g}}(-if_{cbg})\left(A_{1}\bar{u}T^{a}T^{g}u+A_{2}\bar{u}T^{g}T^{a}u\right)\ , (89)
2k2ν2k2kg(A1u¯TcTaTbu+A2u¯TcTbTau).\displaystyle\frac{2k_{2}^{\nu}}{2k_{2}\cdot k_{g}}\left(A_{1}\bar{u}T^{c}T^{a}T^{b}u+A_{2}\bar{u}T^{c}T^{b}T^{a}u\right)\ . (90)

Similar to the previous case, the following interference terms are simple,

p1μp1νCA,k1μk1νCA,k2μk2νCF,\displaystyle p_{1}^{\mu}p_{1}^{\nu}\Rightarrow C_{A},~{}~{}k_{1}^{\mu}k_{1}^{\nu}\Rightarrow C_{A},~{}~{}k_{2}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu}\Rightarrow C_{F}\ , (91)

which will be multiplied by the leading order initial state interaction contribution of Eqs. (60)-(62). The other interference terms are a little bit more complicated. We have

p1μk1ν\displaystyle p_{1}^{\mu}k_{1}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow 1Ncolor(ifcae)(ifdef)(ifcbg)Tr[(A1TfTb+A2TbTf)Td(A1TgTa+A2TaTg)]\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}}(-if_{cae})(-if_{def})(-if_{cbg}){\rm Tr}\left[\left(A_{1}T^{f}T^{b}+A_{2}T^{b}T^{f}\right)T^{d}\left(A_{1}^{*}T^{g}T^{a}+A_{2}^{*}T^{a}T^{g}\right)\right] (92)
=NcNcolor(A12+A1A2Nc22A22),\displaystyle=\frac{N_{c}}{N_{\textrm{color}}}\left(A_{1}^{2}+A_{1}A_{2}^{*}-\frac{N_{c}^{2}}{2}A_{2}^{2}\right)\ ,
p1μk2ν\displaystyle p_{1}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow 1Ncolor(ifcae)(ifdef)Tr[(A1TfTb+A2TbTf)Td(A1TbTaTc+A2TaTbTc)]\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}}(-if_{cae})(-if_{def}){\rm Tr}\left[\left(A_{1}T^{f}T^{b}+A_{2}T^{b}T^{f}\right)T^{d}\left(A_{1}^{*}T^{b}T^{a}T^{c}+A_{2}^{*}T^{a}T^{b}T^{c}\right)\right] (93)
=Nc2Ncolor(A12+A22),\displaystyle=\frac{N_{c}}{2N_{\textrm{color}}}\left(A_{1}^{2}+A_{2}^{2}\right)\ ,
k1μk2ν\displaystyle k_{1}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow 1Ncolor(ifdae)(ifcbf)Tr[(A1TeTf+A2TfTe)Td(A1TbTaTc+A2TaTbTc)]\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}}(-if_{dae})(-if_{cbf}){\rm Tr}\left[\left(A_{1}T^{e}T^{f}+A_{2}T^{f}T^{e}\right)T^{d}\left(A_{1}^{*}T^{b}T^{a}T^{c}+A_{2}^{*}T^{a}T^{b}T^{c}\right)\right] (94)
=Nc2Ncolor(A12(Nc21)A22+2A1A2).\displaystyle=\frac{N_{c}}{2N_{\textrm{color}}}\left(-A_{1}^{2}-(N_{c}^{2}-1)A_{2}^{2}+2A_{1}A_{2}^{*}\right)\ .

By combining them with the associated kinematic contributions in Eqs. (60)-(65) and adding them, we obtain the leading logarithmic result for the SSA from the initial state interaction for this channel. In particular, the above three terms add up to

CA0I=CANcolor[(A1+A2)2Nc2A22],\displaystyle-C_{A}{\cal H}_{0}^{I}=\frac{C_{A}}{N_{\textrm{color}}}\left[(A_{1}+A_{2})^{2}-N_{c}^{2}A_{2}^{2}\right]\ , (95)

which exactly cancels the leading logarithmic contribution from the p1μp1νp_{1}^{\mu}p_{1}^{\nu} term which also has the color factor CAC_{A}. We thus obtain the final result for the initial state interaction contribution:

twist-3β(CI)\displaystyle{\cal H}_{\textrm{twist-3}}^{\beta(C_{I})} =\displaystyle= 0Iαs2π2qβ(q2)2[(CA+CF)lnQ2q2+CAln1R12+CFln1R22].\displaystyle-{\cal H}_{0}^{I}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{-q_{\perp}^{\beta}}{(q_{\perp}^{2})^{2}}\left[(C_{A}+C_{F})\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{\perp}^{2}}+C_{A}\ln\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}+C_{F}\ln\frac{1}{R_{2}^{2}}\right]\ . (96)

For the final state interaction associated with the final state gluon jet, we have the following amplitudes for the associated diagrams in Fig. 9:

2p1μ2p1kg(ifcae)(ifdbf)(A1u¯TeTfu+A2u¯TfTeu),\displaystyle\frac{2p_{1}^{\mu}}{2p_{1}\cdot k_{g}}(-if_{cae})(-if_{dbf})\left(A_{1}\bar{u}T^{e}T^{f}u+A_{2}\bar{u}T^{f}T^{e}u\right)\ , (97)
2k1μ2k1kg(ifcbe)(ifdef)(A1u¯TaTfu+A2u¯TfTau),\displaystyle\frac{2k_{1}^{\mu}}{2k_{1}\cdot k_{g}}(-if_{cbe})(-if_{def})\left(A_{1}\bar{u}T^{a}T^{f}u+A_{2}\bar{u}T^{f}T^{a}u\right)\ , (98)
2k2μ2k2kg(ifdbe)(A1u¯TcTaTeu+A2u¯TcTeTau).\displaystyle\frac{2k_{2}^{\mu}}{2k_{2}\cdot k_{g}}(-if_{dbe})\left(A_{1}\bar{u}T^{c}T^{a}T^{e}u+A_{2}\bar{u}T^{c}T^{e}T^{a}u\right)\ . (99)

Again, the interference contributions from p1μp1νp_{1}^{\mu}p_{1}^{\nu}, k1μk1νk_{1}^{\mu}k_{1}^{\nu} and k2μk2νk_{2}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu} have the same structure as those for the initial state interaction diagrams in Eq. (91). The remaining contributions can be written as follows:

p1μk1ν\displaystyle p_{1}^{\mu}k_{1}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow 1Ncolor(ifcae)(ifdbf)(ifcbg)Tr[(A1TeTf+A2TfTe)Td(A1TgTa+A2TaTg)]\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}}(-if_{cae})(-if_{dbf})(-if_{cbg}){\rm Tr}\left[\left(A_{1}T^{e}T^{f}+A_{2}T^{f}T^{e}\right)T^{d}\left(A_{1}^{*}T^{g}T^{a}+A_{2}^{*}T^{a}T^{g}\right)\right] (100)
=NcNcolor(A22+A1A2Nc22A12),\displaystyle=\frac{N_{c}}{N_{\textrm{color}}}\left(A_{2}^{2}+A_{1}A_{2}^{*}-\frac{N_{c}^{2}}{2}A_{1}^{2}\right)\ ,
p1μk2ν\displaystyle p_{1}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow 1Ncolor(ifcae)(ifdbf)Tr[(A1TeTf+A2TfTe)Td(A1TbTaTc+A2TaTbTc)]\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}}(-if_{cae})(-if_{dbf}){\rm Tr}\left[\left(A_{1}T^{e}T^{f}+A_{2}T^{f}T^{e}\right)T^{d}\left(A_{1}^{*}T^{b}T^{a}T^{c}+A_{2}^{*}T^{a}T^{b}T^{c}\right)\right] (101)
=Nc2Ncolor(2A1A2A22(Nc21)A12),\displaystyle=\frac{N_{c}}{2N_{\textrm{color}}}\left(2A_{1}A_{2}^{*}-A_{2}^{2}-(N_{c}^{2}-1)A_{1}^{2}\right)\ ,
k1μk2ν\displaystyle k_{1}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow 1Ncolor(ifcbe)(ifdef)Tr[(A1TaTf+A2TfTa)Td(A1TbTaTc+A2TaTbTc)]\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}}(-if_{cbe})(-if_{def}){\rm Tr}\left[\left(A_{1}T^{a}T^{f}+A_{2}T^{f}T^{a}\right)T^{d}\left(A_{1}^{*}T^{b}T^{a}T^{c}+A_{2}^{*}T^{a}T^{b}T^{c}\right)\right] (102)
=Nc2Ncolor(A12+A22).\displaystyle=\frac{N_{c}}{2N_{\textrm{color}}}\left(A_{1}^{2}+A_{2}^{2}\right)\ .

Adding up the three contributions, we have

CA0F1=CANcolor[(A1+A2)2Nc2A12].\displaystyle-C_{A}{\cal H}_{0}^{F1}=\frac{C_{A}}{N_{\textrm{color}}}\left[(A_{1}+A_{2})^{2}-N_{c}^{2}A_{1}^{2}\right]\ . (103)

The total contribution from the final state interaction with the gluon jet is given by

twist-3β(CF1)\displaystyle{\cal H}_{\textrm{twist-3}}^{\beta(C_{F1})} =\displaystyle= 0F1αs2π2qβ(q2)2[(CA+CF)lnQ2q2+CAln1R12+CFln1R22].\displaystyle{\cal H}_{0}^{F1}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{-q_{\perp}^{\beta}}{(q_{\perp}^{2})^{2}}\left[(C_{A}+C_{F})\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{\perp}^{2}}+C_{A}\ln\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}+C_{F}\ln\frac{1}{R_{2}^{2}}\right]\ . (104)

For the final state interaction with the quark line, we find the following amplitudes for the associated diagrams of Fig. 10:

2p1μ2p1kg(ifcae)(A1u¯TdTeTbu+A2u¯TdTbTeu),\displaystyle\frac{2p_{1}^{\mu}}{2p_{1}\cdot k_{g}}(-if_{cae})\left(A_{1}\bar{u}T^{d}T^{e}T^{b}u+A_{2}\bar{u}T^{d}T^{b}T^{e}u\right)\ , (105)
2k1μ2k1kg(ifcbe)(A1u¯TdTaTeu+A2u¯TdTeTau),\displaystyle\frac{2k_{1}^{\mu}}{2k_{1}\cdot k_{g}}(-if_{cbe})\left(A_{1}\bar{u}T^{d}T^{a}T^{e}u+A_{2}\bar{u}T^{d}T^{e}T^{a}u\right)\ , (106)
2k2μ2k2kg(A1u¯TcTdTaTbu+A2u¯TcTdTbTau),\displaystyle\frac{2k_{2}^{\mu}}{2k_{2}\cdot k_{g}}\left(A_{1}\bar{u}T^{c}T^{d}T^{a}T^{b}u+A_{2}\bar{u}T^{c}T^{d}T^{b}T^{a}u\right)\ , (107)

and the interference terms are

p1μk1ν\displaystyle p_{1}^{\mu}k_{1}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow 1Ncolor(ifcae)(ifcbg)Tr[(A1TdTeTb+A2TdTbTe)Td(A1TgTa+A2TaTg)]\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}}(-if_{cae})(-if_{cbg}){\rm Tr}\left[\left(A_{1}T^{d}T^{e}T^{b}+A_{2}T^{d}T^{b}T^{e}\right)T^{d}\left(A_{1}^{*}T^{g}T^{a}+A_{2}^{*}T^{a}T^{g}\right)\right] (108)
=Nc2Ncolor(A12A224A1A2),\displaystyle=\frac{N_{c}}{2N_{\textrm{color}}}\left(-A_{1}^{2}-A_{2}^{2}-4A_{1}A_{2}^{*}\right)\ ,
p1μk2ν\displaystyle p_{1}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow 1Ncolor(ifcae)Tr[(A1TdTeTb+A2TdTbTe)Td(A1TbTaTc+A2TaTbTc)]\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}}(-if_{cae}){\rm Tr}\left[\left(A_{1}T^{d}T^{e}T^{b}+A_{2}T^{d}T^{b}T^{e}\right)T^{d}\left(A_{1}^{*}T^{b}T^{a}T^{c}+A_{2}^{*}T^{a}T^{b}T^{c}\right)\right] (109)
=12NcNcolor(2A1A2A12+(Nc21)A22),\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2N_{c}N_{\textrm{color}}}\left(-2A_{1}A_{2}^{*}-A_{1}^{2}+(N_{c}^{2}-1)A_{2}^{2}\right)\ ,
k1μk2ν\displaystyle k_{1}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow 1Ncolor(ifcbe)Tr[(A1TdTaTe+A2TdTeTa)Td(A1TbTaTc+A2TaTbTc)]\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}}(-if_{cbe}){\rm Tr}\left[\left(A_{1}T^{d}T^{a}T^{e}+A_{2}T^{d}T^{e}T^{a}\right)T^{d}\left(A_{1}^{*}T^{b}T^{a}T^{c}+A_{2}^{*}T^{a}T^{b}T^{c}\right)\right] (110)
=12NcNcolor(2A1A2A22+(Nc21)A12).\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2N_{c}N_{\textrm{color}}}\left(-2A_{1}A_{2}^{*}-A_{2}^{2}+(N_{c}^{2}-1)A_{1}^{2}\right)\ .

The above three terms lead to

CA0F2=CANcolor[1Nc2(A1+A2)22A1A2].\displaystyle-C_{A}{\cal H}_{0}^{F2}=\frac{C_{A}}{N_{\textrm{color}}}\left[-\frac{1}{N_{c}^{2}}(A_{1}+A_{2})^{2}-2A_{1}A_{2}^{*}\right]\ . (111)

The final result from the final state interaction with the quark line is

twist-3β(CF2)\displaystyle{\cal H}_{\textrm{twist-3}}^{\beta(C_{F2})} =\displaystyle= 0F2αs2π2qβ(q2)2[(CA+CF)lnQ2q2+CAln1R12+CFln1R22].\displaystyle{\cal H}_{0}^{F2}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{-q_{\perp}^{\beta}}{(q_{\perp}^{2})^{2}}\left[(C_{A}+C_{F})\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{\perp}^{2}}+C_{A}\ln\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}+C_{F}\ln\frac{1}{R_{2}^{2}}\right]\ . (112)

Adding up all initial and final state interaction contributions, we obtain the following result for the SSA at the leading logarithmic order:

twist-3β(gqgq)\displaystyle{\cal H}_{\textrm{twist-3}}^{\beta}(gq\to gq) =\displaystyle= HqgqgSiversαs2π2qβ(q2)2[(CA+CF)lnQ2q2+CAln1R12+CFln1R22].\displaystyle H_{qg\to qg}^{\rm Sivers}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{-q_{\perp}^{\beta}}{(q_{\perp}^{2})^{2}}\left[(C_{A}+C_{F})\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{\perp}^{2}}+C_{A}\ln\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}+C_{F}\ln\frac{1}{R_{2}^{2}}\right]\ . (113)

Including the collinear gluon radiation contributions from the incoming partons as in Eq. (31), we obtain the spin-dependent differential cross section for the gqgqgq\to gq channel in the correlation limit of qPTq_{\perp}\ll P_{T} which is given by

dΔσ(S)dΩd2q\displaystyle\frac{d\Delta\sigma(S_{\perp})}{d\Omega d^{2}q_{\perp}} =\displaystyle= HqgqgSiversϵαβSααs2π2qβ(q2)2x1x2\displaystyle-H_{qg\to qg}^{\rm Sivers}\epsilon^{\alpha\beta}S_{\perp}^{\alpha}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{q_{\perp}^{\beta}}{(q_{\perp}^{2})^{2}}x_{1}x_{2} (114)
×{fg(x1)𝒫qgqgT(<)TFq(x2,x2)+TFq(x2,x2)𝒫gg(<)fg(x1)\displaystyle\times\left\{f_{g}(x_{1}){\cal P}_{qg\to qg}^{T(<)}\otimes T_{Fq}(x_{2},x_{2})+T_{Fq}(x_{2},x_{2}){\cal P}_{g\to g}^{(<)}\otimes f_{g}(x_{1})\right.
+fg(x1)TFq(x2,x2)[(CA+CF)lnQ2q2+CAln1R12+CFln1R22]}.\displaystyle\left.+f_{g}(x_{1})T_{Fq}(x_{2},x_{2})\left[(C_{A}+C_{F})\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{\perp}^{2}}+C_{A}\ln\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}+C_{F}\ln\frac{1}{R_{2}^{2}}\right]\right\}\ .

After taking the Fourier transform to bb_{\perp}-space, we expect to have the following one-loop result for WTβW^{T\beta}:

WgqgqTβ(1)\displaystyle W_{gq\to gq}^{T\beta(1)} =\displaystyle= HqgqgSiversibβ2αs2πx1x2{lnμ2b2b02[fg(x1,μ)𝒫qgqgTTFq(x2,x2,μ)\displaystyle H_{qg\to qg}^{\rm Sivers}\frac{ib_{\perp}^{\beta}}{2}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi}x_{1}x_{2}\left\{-\ln\frac{\mu^{2}b_{\perp}^{2}}{b_{0}^{2}}\Big{[}f_{g}(x_{1},\mu){\cal P}_{qg\to qg}^{T}\otimes T_{Fq}(x_{2},x_{2},\mu)\right. (115)
+\displaystyle+ TFq(x2,x2,μ)𝒫agfa(x1,μ)]\displaystyle T_{Fq}(x_{2},x_{2},\mu){\cal P}_{a^{\prime}\to g}\otimes f_{a^{\prime}}(x_{1},\mu)\Big{]}
+\displaystyle+ fg(x1,μ)TFq(x2,x2,μ)[CA+CF2ln2(Q2b2b02)\displaystyle f_{g}(x_{1},\mu)T_{Fq}(x_{2},x_{2},\mu)\left[\frac{C_{A}+C_{F}}{2}\ln^{2}\left(\frac{Q^{2}b_{\perp}^{2}}{b_{0}^{2}}\right)\right.
(32CF+2β0CACAln1R12CFln1R22)lnQ2b2b02]}.\displaystyle~{}~{}~{}\left.\left.-\left(\frac{3}{2}C_{F}+2\beta_{0}C_{A}-C_{A}\ln\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}-C_{F}\ln\frac{1}{R_{2}^{2}}\right)\ln\frac{Q^{2}b_{\perp}^{2}}{b_{0}^{2}}\right]\right\}\ .

III.2.4 qq¯ggq\bar{q}\to gg

The computation for the qq¯ggq\bar{q}\to gg channel is very similar to the case discussed above. Here, we can parametrize the leading Born amplitude as

A1v¯TaTbu+A2v¯TbTau,\displaystyle A_{1}\bar{v}T^{a}T^{b}u+A_{2}\bar{v}T^{b}T^{a}u\ , (116)

where, of course, the amplitudes will be different from those for the qgqgqg\to qg channel. In particular, we have (A1+A2)2=2(t^2+u^2)t^u^(A_{1}+A_{2})^{2}=\frac{2(\hat{t}^{2}+\hat{u}^{2})}{\hat{t}\hat{u}}, A1A2=2(t^2+u^2)s^2A_{1}A_{2}^{*}=\frac{2(\hat{t}^{2}+\hat{u}^{2})}{\hat{s}^{2}}, A12=2t^u^2(t^2+u^2)s^2A_{1}^{2}=\frac{2\hat{t}}{\hat{u}}\frac{2(\hat{t}^{2}+\hat{u}^{2})}{\hat{s}^{2}} and A22=2u^t^2(t^2+u^2)s^2A_{2}^{2}=\frac{2\hat{u}}{\hat{t}}\frac{2(\hat{t}^{2}+\hat{u}^{2})}{\hat{s}^{2}} for the current case.

The single spin asymmetry comes from the initial state interaction with the antiquark line and the two final state gluon lines. For the initial state interaction contribution, we have

CI(qq¯):0qq¯I\displaystyle C_{I}^{(q\bar{q})}:~{}{\cal H}_{0q\bar{q}}^{I} =\displaystyle= 1Ncolor(qq¯)Tr[(A1TcTaTb+A2TcTbTa)Tc(A1TbTa+A2TaTb)]\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}^{(q\bar{q})}}{\rm Tr}\left[\left(A_{1}T^{c}T^{a}T^{b}+A_{2}T^{c}T^{b}T^{a}\right)T^{c}\left(A_{1}^{*}T^{b}T^{a}+A_{2}^{*}T^{a}T^{b}\right)\right] (117)
=\displaystyle= 1Ncolor(qq¯)[1Nc2(A1+A2)2+2A1A2],\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}^{(q\bar{q})}}\left[\frac{1}{N_{c}^{2}}(A_{1}+A_{2})^{2}+2A_{1}A_{2}^{*}\right]\ ,

where Ncolor(qq¯)=Nc2CFN_{\textrm{color}}^{(q\bar{q})}=N_{c}^{2}C_{F}. For the final state interaction contribution with the gluon line of k1k_{1}, we obtain

CF1(qq¯):0qq¯F1\displaystyle C_{F1}^{(q\bar{q})}:~{}{\cal H}_{0q\bar{q}}^{F1} =\displaystyle= 1Ncolor(qq¯)(ifcae)Tr[(A1TeTb+A2TbTe)Tc(A1TbTa+A2TaTb)]\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}^{(q\bar{q})}}\left(-if_{cae}\right){\rm Tr}\left[\left(A_{1}T^{e}T^{b}+A_{2}T^{b}T^{e}\right)T^{c}\left(A_{1}^{*}T^{b}T^{a}+A_{2}^{*}T^{a}T^{b}\right)\right] (118)
=\displaystyle= 1Ncolor(qq¯)[Nc2A22(A1+A2)2].\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}^{(q\bar{q})}}\left[{N_{c}^{2}}A_{2}^{2}-(A_{1}+A_{2})^{2}\right]\ .

Using the the symmetry of the channel, the final state interaction contribution from the gluon line k2k_{2} can be obtained from the above result as

CF2(qq¯):0qq¯F2\displaystyle C_{F2}^{(q\bar{q})}:~{}{\cal H}_{0q\bar{q}}^{F2} =\displaystyle= 1Ncolor(qq¯)[Nc2A12(A1+A2)2].\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}^{(q\bar{q})}}\left[{N_{c}^{2}}A_{1}^{2}-(A_{1}+A_{2})^{2}\right]\ . (119)

The total contribution at the leading order is given by

Hqq¯ggSivers\displaystyle H_{q\bar{q}\to gg}^{\rm Sivers} =\displaystyle= 0qq¯F1+0qq¯F20qq¯I\displaystyle{\cal H}_{0q\bar{q}}^{F1}+{\cal H}_{0q\bar{q}}^{F2}-{\cal H}_{0q\bar{q}}^{I} (120)
=\displaystyle= 1Ncolor(qq¯)[Nc2(A12+A22)2A1A22Nc2+1Nc2(A1+A2)2].\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}^{(q\bar{q})}}\left[N_{c}^{2}\left(A_{1}^{2}+A_{2}^{2}\right)-2A_{1}A_{2}^{*}-\frac{2N_{c}^{2}+1}{N_{c}^{2}}(A_{1}+A_{2})^{2}\right]\ .

Substituting the expressions of A1A_{1} and A2A_{2} into the above equation, we reproduce the result for the leading order Hqq¯ggSiversH_{q\bar{q}\to gg}^{\rm Sivers} in Ref. Qiu:2007ey .

Next, we can work out the soft gluon radiation contribution as well. For the initial state interaction contributions (CIC_{I}), we consider the soft gluon radiation from the incoming anti-quark line, and two the outgoing gluon lines. The relevant diagrams again correspond to those shown in Fig. 8. The associated amplitudes for these three diagrams are

2p1μ2p1kg(A1v¯TcTdTaTbu+A2v¯TcTdTbTau),\displaystyle\frac{2p_{1}^{\mu}}{2p_{1}\cdot k_{g}}\left(A_{1}\bar{v}T^{c}T^{d}T^{a}T^{b}u+A_{2}\bar{v}T^{c}T^{d}T^{b}T^{a}u\right)\ , (121)
2k1μ2k1kg(ifcae)(A1v¯TdTeTbu+A2v¯TdTbTeu),\displaystyle\frac{2k_{1}^{\mu}}{2k_{1}\cdot k_{g}}(-if_{cae})\left(A_{1}\bar{v}T^{d}T^{e}T^{b}u+A_{2}\bar{v}T^{d}T^{b}T^{e}u\right)\ , (122)
2k2μ2k2kg(ifcbe)(A1v¯TdTaTeu+A2v¯TdTeTau),\displaystyle\frac{2k_{2}^{\mu}}{2k_{2}\cdot k_{g}}(-if_{cbe})\left(A_{1}\bar{v}T^{d}T^{a}T^{e}u+A_{2}\bar{v}T^{d}T^{e}T^{a}u\right)\ , (123)

where cc is again the color index of the radiated gluon and dd corresponds to the longitudinal gluon from the polarized nucleon. The single spin asymmetry contributions come from the interference of the above amplitudes and those of Fig. 1. For qq¯ggq\bar{q}\to gg channel, we have

2p1ν2p1kg(A1v¯TcTaTbu+A2v¯TcTbTau),\displaystyle\frac{2p_{1}^{\nu}}{2p_{1}\cdot k_{g}}\left(A_{1}\bar{v}T^{c}T^{a}T^{b}u+A_{2}\bar{v}T^{c}T^{b}T^{a}u\right)\ , (124)
2k1ν2k1kg(ifcag)(A1v¯TgTbu+A2v¯TbTgu),\displaystyle\frac{2k_{1}^{\nu}}{2k_{1}\cdot k_{g}}(-if_{cag})\left(A_{1}\bar{v}T^{g}T^{b}u+A_{2}\bar{v}T^{b}T^{g}u\right)\ , (125)
2k2ν2k2kg(ifcbg)(A1v¯TaTgu+A2v¯TgTau).\displaystyle\frac{2k_{2}^{\nu}}{2k_{2}\cdot k_{g}}(-if_{cbg})\left(A_{1}\bar{v}T^{a}T^{g}u+A_{2}\bar{v}T^{g}T^{a}u\right)\ . (126)

In our previous notation, the resulting interference terms are

p1μp1νCF,k1μk1νCA,k2μk2νCA.\displaystyle p_{1}^{\mu}p_{1}^{\nu}\Rightarrow C_{F},~{}~{}k_{1}^{\mu}k_{1}^{\nu}\Rightarrow C_{A},~{}~{}k_{2}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu}\Rightarrow C_{A}\ . (127)

The other interference terms can be evaluated as

p1μk1ν\displaystyle p_{1}^{\mu}k_{1}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow 1Ncolor(qq¯)(ifcae)Tr[(A1TcTdTaTb+A2TcTdTbTa)Td(A1TbTe+A2TeTb)]\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}^{(q\bar{q})}}(if_{cae}){\rm Tr}\left[\left(A_{1}T^{c}T^{d}T^{a}T^{b}+A_{2}T^{c}T^{d}T^{b}T^{a}\right)T^{d}\left(A_{1}^{*}T^{b}T^{e}+A_{2}^{*}T^{e}T^{b}\right)\right] (128)
=12NcNcolor(qq¯)((Nc21)A22A122A1A2),\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2N_{c}N_{\textrm{color}}^{(q\bar{q})}}\left((N_{c}^{2}-1)A_{2}^{2}-A_{1}^{2}-2A_{1}A_{2}^{*}\right)\ ,
p1μk2ν\displaystyle p_{1}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow 1Ncolor(qq¯)(ifcbe)Tr[(A1TcTdTaTb+A2TcTdTbTa)Td(A1TeTa+A2TaTe)]\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}^{(q\bar{q})}}(if_{cbe}){\rm Tr}\left[\left(A_{1}T^{c}T^{d}T^{a}T^{b}+A_{2}T^{c}T^{d}T^{b}T^{a}\right)T^{d}\left(A_{1}^{*}T^{e}T^{a}+A_{2}^{*}T^{a}T^{e}\right)\right] (129)
=12NcNcolor(qq¯)((Nc21)A12A222A1A2),\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2N_{c}N_{\textrm{color}}^{(q\bar{q})}}\left((N_{c}^{2}-1)A_{1}^{2}-A_{2}^{2}-2A_{1}A_{2}^{*}\right)\ ,
k1μk2ν\displaystyle k_{1}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow 1Ncolor(qq¯)(ifcae)(ifcbf)Tr[(A1TdTeTb+A2TdTbTe)Td(A1TfTa+A2TaTf)]\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}^{(q\bar{q})}}(-if_{cae})(if_{cbf}){\rm Tr}\left[\left(A_{1}T^{d}T^{e}T^{b}+A_{2}T^{d}T^{b}T^{e}\right)T^{d}\left(A_{1}^{*}T^{f}T^{a}+A_{2}^{*}T^{a}T^{f}\right)\right] (130)
=NcNcolor(qq¯)(12(A12+A22)2A1A2).\displaystyle=\frac{N_{c}}{N_{\textrm{color}}^{(q\bar{q})}}\left(-\frac{1}{2}(A_{1}^{2}+A_{2}^{2})-2A_{1}A_{2}^{*}\right)\ .

The above three terms add up to

CA0qq¯I=1Ncolor(qq¯)[1Nc(A1+A2)22NcA1A2],\displaystyle-C_{A}{\cal H}_{0q\bar{q}}^{I}=\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}^{(q\bar{q})}}\left[-\frac{1}{N_{c}}(A_{1}+A_{2})^{2}-2N_{c}A_{1}A_{2}^{*}\right]\ , (131)

which exactly cancels the leading log contribution from k1μk1νk_{1}^{\mu}k_{1}^{\nu} and k2μk2νk_{2}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu} with color factor CAC_{A}. Therefore, we obtain the following final result for the initial state interaction contribution:

twist-3β(CI)=0qq¯Iαs2π2qβ(q2)2[CF2lnQ2q2+CA(ln1R12+ln1R22)].\displaystyle{\cal H}_{\textrm{twist-3}}^{\beta(C_{I})}=-{\cal H}_{0q\bar{q}}^{I}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{-q_{\perp}^{\beta}}{(q_{\perp}^{2})^{2}}\left[C_{F}2\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{\perp}^{2}}+C_{A}\left(\ln\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}+\ln\frac{1}{R_{2}^{2}}\right)\right]\ . (132)

For the final state interaction associated with the final state gluon jet k1k_{1}, we find the following amplitudes, see Fig. 9,

2p1μ2p1kg(ifdae)(A1v¯TcTeTbu+A2v¯TcTbTeu),\displaystyle\frac{2p_{1}^{\mu}}{2p_{1}\cdot k_{g}}(-if_{dae})\left(A_{1}\bar{v}T^{c}T^{e}T^{b}u+A_{2}\bar{v}T^{c}T^{b}T^{e}u\right)\ , (133)
2k1μ2k1kg(ifcaf)(ifdfe)(A1v¯TeTbu+A2v¯TbTeu),\displaystyle\frac{2k_{1}^{\mu}}{2k_{1}\cdot k_{g}}(-if_{caf})(-if_{dfe})\left(A_{1}\bar{v}T^{e}T^{b}u+A_{2}\bar{v}T^{b}T^{e}u\right)\ , (134)
2k2μ2k2kg(ifcbf)(ifdae)(A1v¯TeTfu+A2v¯TfTeu).\displaystyle\frac{2k_{2}^{\mu}}{2k_{2}\cdot k_{g}}(-if_{cbf})(-if_{dae})\left(A_{1}\bar{v}T^{e}T^{f}u+A_{2}\bar{v}T^{f}T^{e}u\right)\ . (135)

Again, the interference contributions from p1μp1νp_{1}^{\mu}p_{1}^{\nu}, k1μk1νk_{1}^{\mu}k_{1}^{\nu} and k2μk2νk_{2}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu} have the same structure as those for the initial state interaction diagrams. The remaining contributions can be written as

p1μk1ν\displaystyle p_{1}^{\mu}k_{1}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow 1Ncolor(qq¯)(ifdae)(ifcag)Tr[(A1TcTeTb+A2TcTbTe)Td(A1TbTg+A2TgTb)]\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}^{(q\bar{q})}}(-if_{dae})(if_{cag}){\rm Tr}\left[\left(A_{1}T^{c}T^{e}T^{b}+A_{2}T^{c}T^{b}T^{e}\right)T^{d}\left(A_{1}^{*}T^{b}T^{g}+A_{2}^{*}T^{g}T^{b}\right)\right] (136)
=Nc2Ncolor(qq¯)(A12+A22),\displaystyle=\frac{N_{c}}{2N_{\textrm{color}}^{(q\bar{q})}}\left(A_{1}^{2}+A_{2}^{2}\right)\ ,
p1μk2ν\displaystyle p_{1}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow 1Ncolor(qq¯)(ifdae)(ifcbg)Tr[(A1TcTeTb+A2TcTbTe)Td(A1TgTa+A2TaTg)]\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}^{(q\bar{q})}}(-if_{dae})(if_{cbg}){\rm Tr}\left[\left(A_{1}T^{c}T^{e}T^{b}+A_{2}T^{c}T^{b}T^{e}\right)T^{d}\left(A_{1}^{*}T^{g}T^{a}+A_{2}^{*}T^{a}T^{g}\right)\right] (137)
=Nc2Ncolor(qq¯)(A12+2A1A2(Nc21)A22),\displaystyle=\frac{N_{c}}{2N_{\textrm{color}}^{(q\bar{q})}}\left(-A_{1}^{2}+2A_{1}A_{2}^{*}-(N_{c}^{2}-1)A_{2}^{2}\right)\ ,
k1μk2ν\displaystyle k_{1}^{\mu}k_{2}^{\nu} \displaystyle\Rightarrow 1Ncolor(qq¯)(ifcaf)(ifdfe)(ifcbg)Tr[(A1TeTb+A2TbTe)Td(A1TgTa+A2TaTg)]\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{\textrm{color}}^{(q\bar{q})}}(-if_{caf})(-if_{dfe})(if_{cbg}){\rm Tr}\left[\left(A_{1}T^{e}T^{b}+A_{2}T^{b}T^{e}\right)T^{d}\left(A_{1}^{*}T^{g}T^{a}+A_{2}^{*}T^{a}T^{g}\right)\right] (138)
=Nc2Ncolor(qq¯)(2A12+2A1A2Nc2A22).\displaystyle=\frac{N_{c}}{2N_{\textrm{color}}^{(q\bar{q})}}\left(2A_{1}^{2}+2A_{1}A_{2}^{*}-N_{c}^{2}A_{2}^{2}\right)\ .

Adding the three terms above, we find

CA0qq¯F1=CANcolor(qq¯)[(A1+A2)2Nc2A22].\displaystyle-C_{A}{\cal H}_{0q\bar{q}}^{F1}=\frac{C_{A}}{N_{\textrm{color}}^{(q\bar{q})}}\left[(A_{1}+A_{2})^{2}-N_{c}^{2}A_{2}^{2}\right]\ . (139)

The total contribution from the final state interaction with the gluon jet leads to

twist-3β(CF1)=0qq¯F1αs2π2qβ(q2)2[2CFlnQ2q2+CA(ln1R12+ln1R22)].\displaystyle{\cal H}_{\textrm{twist-3}}^{\beta(C_{F1})}={\cal H}_{0q\bar{q}}^{F1}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{-q_{\perp}^{\beta}}{(q_{\perp}^{2})^{2}}\left[2C_{F}\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{\perp}^{2}}+C_{A}\left(\ln\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}+\ln\frac{1}{R_{2}^{2}}\right)\right]\ . (140)

Again, from the symmetry under interchange of the final state particles, we can obtain the soft gluon radiation contribution for the final state interaction with the gluon line k2k_{2}. Adding all these contributions, we have the following result for the SSA at the leading logarithmic order,

twist-3β(qq¯gg)=Hqq¯ggSiversαs2π2qβ(q2)2[2CFlnQ2q2+CA(ln1R12+ln1R22)].\displaystyle{\cal H}_{\textrm{twist-3}}^{\beta}(q\bar{q}\to gg)=H_{q\bar{q}\to gg}^{\rm Sivers}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{-q_{\perp}^{\beta}}{(q_{\perp}^{2})^{2}}\left[2C_{F}\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{\perp}^{2}}+C_{A}\left(\ln\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}+\ln\frac{1}{R_{2}^{2}}\right)\right]\ . (141)

Adding the collinear gluon radiation contribution, we find the following result:

dΔσ(S)dΩd2q\displaystyle\frac{d\Delta\sigma(S_{\perp})}{d\Omega d^{2}q_{\perp}} =\displaystyle= Hqq¯ggSiversϵαβSααs2π2qβ(q2)2x1x2\displaystyle-H_{q\bar{q}\to gg}^{\rm Sivers}\epsilon^{\alpha\beta}S_{\perp}^{\alpha}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{q_{\perp}^{\beta}}{(q_{\perp}^{2})^{2}}x_{1}x_{2} (142)
×{fq¯(x1)𝒫qgqgT(<)TFq(x2,x2)+TFq(x2,x2)𝒫aq¯(<)fq¯(x1)\displaystyle\times\left\{f_{\bar{q}}(x_{1}){\cal P}_{qg\to qg}^{T(<)}\otimes T_{Fq}(x_{2},x_{2})+T_{Fq}(x_{2},x_{2}){\cal P}_{a\to\bar{q}}^{(<)}\otimes f_{\bar{q}}(x_{1})\right.
+fq¯(x1)TFq(x2,x2)[2CFlnQ2q2+CA(ln1R12+ln1R22)]},\displaystyle\left.+f_{\bar{q}}(x_{1})T_{Fq}(x_{2},x_{2})\left[2C_{F}\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{\perp}^{2}}+C_{A}\left(\ln\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}+\ln\frac{1}{R_{2}^{2}}\right)\right]\right\}\ ,

for the qq¯ggq\bar{q}\to gg channel. Taking again the Fourier transform to bb_{\perp}-space should lead to the following one-loop result:

Wqq¯ggTβ(1)\displaystyle W_{q\bar{q}\to gg}^{T\beta(1)} =\displaystyle= Hqq¯ggSiversibβ2αs2πx1x2{lnμ2b2b02[fq¯(x1,μ)𝒫qgqgTTFq(x2,x2,μ)\displaystyle H_{q\bar{q}\to gg}^{\rm Sivers}\frac{ib_{\perp}^{\beta}}{2}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi}x_{1}x_{2}\left\{-\ln\frac{\mu^{2}b_{\perp}^{2}}{b_{0}^{2}}\Big{[}f_{\bar{q}}(x_{1},\mu){\cal P}_{qg\to qg}^{T}\otimes T_{Fq}(x_{2},x_{2},\mu)\right. (143)
+\displaystyle+ TFq(x2,x2,μ)𝒫aq¯fa(x1,μ)]\displaystyle T_{Fq}(x_{2},x_{2},\mu){\cal P}_{a\to\bar{q}}\otimes f_{a}(x_{1},\mu)\Big{]}
+\displaystyle+ fq¯(x1,μ)TFq(x2,x2,μ)[CFln2(Q2b2b02)\displaystyle f_{\bar{q}}(x_{1},\mu)T_{Fq}(x_{2},x_{2},\mu)\left[C_{F}\ln^{2}\left(\frac{Q^{2}b_{\perp}^{2}}{b_{0}^{2}}\right)\right.
\displaystyle- (32CFCA(ln1R12+ln1R22))lnQ2b2b02]}.\displaystyle\left.\left.\left(\frac{3}{2}C_{F}-C_{A}\left(\ln\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}+\ln\frac{1}{R_{2}^{2}}\right)\right)\ln\frac{Q^{2}b_{\perp}^{2}}{b_{0}^{2}}\right]\right\}\ .

III.3 Factorization and Resummation at LLA\rm LLA^{\prime}

Our above results for the soft gluon radiation contribution at one-loop order are very instructive for developing a factorization argument according to which one can perform the resummation of logarithms in q/PTq_{\perp}/P_{T}. Three important types of contributions are incorporated and explicitly presented in our calculations: (1) collinear gluon radiation from the incoming hadrons, (2) collinear gluon radiation from the final state jets, and (3) the leading double logarithms from soft gluon radiation.

Refer to caption
Figure 11: Summary of the one-loop calculations of the soft gluon radiation contributions to the SSA in dijet production.

We argue that these contributions to the LLA\rm LLA^{\prime} will continue to factorize at higher orders. As illustrated in Fig. 11, we can summarize the above calculations of the one-loop soft gluon radiations in a factorization structure. First, the power counting analysis simplifies the kinematics. As shown in this figure, the initial/final state interactions needed to generate a phase for the SSA in this process can be factorized into a hard partonic scattering amplitude, in analogy to the leading order Born amplitude for the spin-averaged case. Additional soft gluon radiation only appears in association with the external lines. This not only simplifies the detailed derivations at this order, but also shows that the soft gluon radiation associated with the final state jets can be generalized to all orders.

In our example, we have chosen a physical polarization for the radiated gluon, such that the jet contribution comes only from the squared diagrams where the radiated gluon is attached to one particular jet, e.g. either k1k_{1} or k2k_{2}. These emissions always result in a leading contribution proportional to 1/q2ln(1/R2)1/q_{\perp}^{2}\ln(1/R^{2}). An evolution equation can be derived to resum higher order emissions and the final result can be written in terms of the Sudakov resummation form factor of Eq. (8).

Similar arguments can be made for the collinear gluon radiation associated with the incoming hadrons. These collinear gluon also contribute terms of order 1/q21/q_{\perp}^{2}, which will be multiplied by the splitting of the associated parton distribution and/or twist-three Qiu-Sterman matrix element. The all order resummation can be carried out by solving the relevant DGLAP equations. This can be achieved by evaluating the distributions at the scale μb=b0/b\mu_{b}=b_{0}/b_{\perp} and by including the associated anomalous dimensions in the Sudakov resummation form factor.

The leading double logarithms from soft gluon radiation are associated with kinematics overlapping with the collinear gluon radiation from the incoming partons. The resummation of these double logarithms can be carried out by solving the associated Collins-Soper evolution equations for the TMD parton distributions. The double logarithms from two TMD parton distributions give the leading double logarithms for the final differential cross section. This argument has been verified explicitly in the above derivation. We expect that this can be generalized to higher orders as well and an all order resummation can be obtained in the form of the Sudakov form factor in Eq. (8).

IV Factorization Breaking Effects at NLL

To exhibit factorization breaking effects beyond the LLA, we consider the channel qqqqqq^{\prime}\to qq^{\prime} as an example. From the derivation in the last section, we obtain the soft gluon radiation contribution to the transverse spin dependent differential cross section (see Eqs. (60)–(65),(73),(74))

twist-3β=αs2π2qβ(q2)2{HqiqjqiqjSivers[2CFlnQ2q2+CF(ln1R12+ln1R22)]+Γ~sn(qq)},\displaystyle{\cal H}_{\textrm{twist-3}}^{\beta}=\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{-q_{\perp}^{\beta}}{(q_{\perp}^{2})^{2}}\left\{H_{q_{i}q_{j}\to q_{i}q_{j}}^{\rm Sivers}\left[2C_{F}\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{\perp}^{2}}+C_{F}\left(\ln\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}+\ln\frac{1}{R_{2}^{2}}\right)\right]+\widetilde{\Gamma}_{sn}^{(qq^{\prime})}\right\}\ , (144)

where hqiqjqiqj(0)=αs2πs^22(s^2+u^2)t^2h_{q_{i}q_{j}\to q_{i}q_{j}}^{(0)}=\frac{\alpha_{s}^{2}\pi}{\hat{s}^{2}}\frac{2(\hat{s}^{2}+\hat{u}^{2})}{\hat{t}^{2}} and

Γ~sn(qq)=hqiqjqiqj(0)[1Nclns^2t^u^4lnt^u^].\widetilde{\Gamma}_{sn}^{(qq^{\prime})}=h_{q_{i}q_{j}\to q_{i}q_{j}}^{(0)}\left[-\frac{1}{N_{c}}\ln\frac{\hat{s}^{2}}{\hat{t}\hat{u}}-4\ln\frac{\hat{t}}{\hat{u}}\right]\ . (145)

Comparing to Eq. (66) of Ref. Sun:2015doa , we observe that this term is different from the analogous term in the unpolarized case, implying that it cannot be factorized into a spin independent soft factor for the qqqqqq^{\prime}\to qq^{\prime} process.

Even if we consider only initial state soft gluons for the transverse spin dependent differential cross section, we get a result different from the unpolarized one. Here we have

twist-3β(CI)=αs2π2qβ(q2)2{CIhqiqjqiqj(0)[2CFlnQ2q2+CF(ln1R12+ln1R22)]+Γ~sn(qq,CI)},\displaystyle{\cal H}_{\textrm{twist-3}}^{\beta(C_{I})}=\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{-q_{\perp}^{\beta}}{(q_{\perp}^{2})^{2}}\left\{C_{I}h_{q_{i}q_{j}\to q_{i}q_{j}}^{(0)}\left[2C_{F}\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{\perp}^{2}}+C_{F}\left(\ln\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}}+\ln\frac{1}{R_{2}^{2}}\right)\right]+\widetilde{\Gamma}_{sn}^{(qq^{\prime},C_{I})}\right\}\ , (146)

where

Γ~sn(qq,CI)=hqiqjqiqj(0)[2lns^2t^u^CFlnt^u^].\widetilde{\Gamma}_{sn}^{(qq^{\prime},C_{I})}=h_{q_{i}q_{j}\to q_{i}q_{j}}^{(0)}\left[2\ln\frac{\hat{s}^{2}}{\hat{t}\hat{u}}-C_{F}\ln\frac{\hat{t}}{\hat{u}}\right]\ . (147)

The same findings occur for the other two channels studied in the previous section, qgqgqg\to qg and qq¯ggq\bar{q}\to gg.

Refer to caption
Figure 12: Soft gluon radiation for the unpolarized case in dijet production. The soft factor can be constructed from the relevant color space configuration of ijklij\to kl, where ijij and klkl represent the color indices for incoming and outgoing partons in the partonic 222\to 2 process.

Let us recall the factorization argument for soft gluon radiation in dijet production. Following the analysis of the generic soft gluon radiation in this process, see, e.g., in Refs. Kidonakis:1998bk ; Kidonakis:1998nf ; Kidonakis:2000gi , one can derive the associated soft factor for the TMD factorization in matrix form of the relevant color spaces Sun:2014gfa ; Sun:2015doa . As shown in Fig. 12, the color configuration in the 222\to 2 partonic process can be written as ijklij\to kl, where ijij and klkl represent the color indices for the incoming and outgoing partons, respectively. The independent color space tensors carry these indices. The relevant amplitudes for soft gluon radiation and their complex conjugates are derived based on these configurations as well. In TMD factorization, the associated soft factors are formulated in terms of a matrix form on the basis of these color configurations as well, where the external lines will be replaced by the Wilson lines.

However, for the SSA in the dijet process, an additional gluon attachment from the polarized nucleon is needed to generate the phase required for the Sivers effect. Because of this, the color flow of the partonic process is totally different from that in the unpolarized case. As shown in Fig. 13, the single spin asymmetry comes from the interference between the amplitude with gluon attachment and that without gluon attachment. The attaching gluon carries color (with adjoint representation index aa in this diagram). The color flow for the amplitude shown in this plot can be written as ij(a)klij(a)\to kl for the left side and ijkli^{\prime}j\to kl for the right side, respectively. The final result for the SSA is derived by contracting ii and ii^{\prime} via the matrix TiiaT^{a}_{ii^{\prime}} representing the attaching gluon aa. Because of this additional color flow caused by the gluon attachment, the color space configurations differ from those in the unpolarized case. As a consequence, the soft factor changes, and the result for the spin-averaged case derived in Ref. Sun:2014gfa ; Sun:2015doa does not apply here. This is indeed precisely what our calculations demonstrate.

Refer to caption
Figure 13: Soft gluon radiation for the SSA contributions in the dijet process. The contributions arise as the interference between the amplitude for ij(a)klij(a)\to kl with an additional gluon attachment from the polarized nucleon and the amplitude without the gluon attachment ijkli^{\prime}j\to kl, where aa represents the color index of the attached gluon. The final result is derived by contracting color indices ii and ii^{\prime} with TiiaT^{a}_{ii^{\prime}}. Therefore, the color flow is totally different from that in Fig. 12 for the unpolarized case.

As just described, the difficulty to apply the standard soft factor factorization for the SSA comes from the fact that we need to generate a phase in order to obtain a nonzero SSA for this process. The phase comes from the imaginary part of the propagator (pole contribution), which may carry a different sign compared to the real part. For unpolarized scattering at this order, in a similar diagram like Fig. 13, the attached gluon can be incorporated into a relevant gauge link in the unpolarized quark distribution. This is only possible when there is no pole contribution from the propagators associated with the attached gluons. After this, the color index for the quark line entering the hard part from the left side will be the same as the on right side, i.e., iii\to i^{\prime}. As a consequence, we can derive the associated soft factor in TMD factorization as indicated in Fig. 12. Of course, as mentioned in the Introduction, at higher order 𝒪(αs3){\cal O}(\alpha_{s}^{3}) and beyond, the factorization for the unpolarized cross section also breaks down. The reason is the same: one can have two poles in the propagators associated with two gluon attachments, which can not be factorized into the relevant gauge link in the TMD quark distributions; see, examples given in Refs. Vogelsang:2007jk ; Collins:2007nk .

To summarize, the soft gluon radiation contribution to the SSA in the dijet production process in pppp collisions cannot be factorized into a spin independent soft factor because of the pole contributions, thus breaking standard TMD factorization. Since the soft factor carries a next-to-leading logarithmic contribution, the factorization for the SSA breaks down at NLL as explicitly shown by the above example of qqqqqq^{\prime}\to qq^{\prime} channel. At the leading logarithmic level, we can argue that the relevant soft gluon radiation belongs to the parton distributions and the final state jets. The associated large logarithms can be resummed through the evolution of these parton distributions and jet functions, and factorization is only broken beyond leading logarithmic accuracy. Therefore, the SSA for dijet production in polarized pppp collisions may provide a unique opportunity to explore factorization breaking effects. We will study the associated phenomenology in the following section.

We note that it is conceivable that the soft gluon radiation in Fig. 13 may be factorized into a “non-traditional” soft factor that is unique to the SSA. This might be achieved by setting up different color tensors on the left side and the right side of the diagram. On the right side of the diagram in Fig. 13 we have a standard 222\to 2 partonic channel with its simple and standard color flow. On the left side, we have a 323\to 2 partonic channel, for which recent developments on the soft gluon evolution in 232\to 3 processes Kyrieleis:2005dt ; Sjodahl:2008fz may become useful. The color-contraction of the two sides is expected to give rise to a non-square matrix problem. It appears likely that the structure of one-loop soft gluon radiation in the single-transverse spin cross section may be understood in this way; whether one can generalize this to higher orders in TMD factorization would be an open question. It is worthwhile to further pursue a study along this direction, which, however, is beyond the scope of the current paper. We hope to address this in a future publication.

V Phenomenological Study and Comparison to STAR Data

Within the improved leading logarithmic approximation, we can write the differential cross sections for the spin averaged and spin dependent cases in the correlation limit qPTq_{\perp}\ll P_{T} as follows:

d4σdΩd2q\displaystyle\frac{d^{4}\sigma}{d\Omega d^{2}q_{\perp}} =\displaystyle= abcdd2b(2π)2eiqbWabcduu(x1,x2,b),\displaystyle\sum_{abcd}\int\frac{d^{2}\vec{b}_{\perp}}{(2\pi)^{2}}e^{i\vec{q}_{\perp}\cdot\vec{b}_{\perp}}W_{ab\to cd}^{uu}(x_{1},x_{2},b_{\perp})\ , (148)
dΔσ(S)dΩd2q\displaystyle\frac{d\Delta\sigma(S_{\perp})}{d\Omega d^{2}\vec{q}_{\perp}} =\displaystyle= ϵαβSαabcdd2b(2π)2eiqbWabcdTβ(x1,x2,b).\displaystyle\epsilon^{\alpha\beta}S_{\perp}^{\alpha}\sum_{abcd}\int\frac{d^{2}\vec{b}_{\perp}}{(2\pi)^{2}}e^{i\vec{q}_{\perp}\cdot\vec{b}_{\perp}}W_{ab\to cd}^{T\beta}(x_{1},x_{2},b_{\perp})\ . (149)

Following our arguments on the improved leading logarithmic factorization, the resummation formulas for the above WuuW^{uu} and WTβW^{T\beta} can be written as

WabcdTβ|LLA\displaystyle W_{ab\to cd}^{T\beta}\big{|}_{\rm LLA^{\prime}} =\displaystyle= ibβ2x1fa(x1,μb)x2TFb(x2,μb)HabcdSivers(PT,x1,x2)eSSudT(Q2,b),\displaystyle\frac{ib_{\perp}^{\beta}}{2}x_{1}f_{a}(x_{1},\mu_{b})x_{2}T_{Fb}(x_{2},\mu_{b})H_{ab\to cd}^{\rm Sivers}(P_{T},x_{1},x_{2})e^{-S_{\rm Sud}^{T}(Q^{2},b_{\perp})}\ , (150)
Wabcduu|LLA\displaystyle W_{ab\to cd}^{uu}\big{|}_{\rm LLA^{\prime}} =\displaystyle= x1fa(x1,μb)x2fb(x2,μb)Habcduu(PT,x1,x2)eSSudT(Q2,b),\displaystyle x_{1}f_{a}(x_{1},\mu_{b})x_{2}f_{b}(x_{2},\mu_{b})H_{ab\to cd}^{uu}(P_{T},x_{1},x_{2})e^{-S_{\rm Sud}^{T}(Q^{2},b_{\perp})}\ , (151)

where μb=b0/b\mu_{b}=b_{0}/b_{\perp} and SSudT(Q2,b)S_{\rm Sud}^{T}(Q^{2},b_{\perp}) was defined in Eq. (8). For the unpolarized case, we could in principle also use a more advanced resummed result as derived in Ref. Sun:2015doa . For the following studies, we have decided to use the same resummation accuracy for both the polarized and unpolarized cross sections. We have checked numerically that this does not introduce any sizable effects for the unpolarized case as far as the spin asymmetries are concerned.

In order to compare to the experimental data, we have to make further approximations. This is because the phenomenology of the Sivers function (or the Qiu-Sterman matrix element) in the spin-dependent cross section is presently not sophisticated enough to warrant the inclusion of detailed evolution effects in our calculations. Therefore, we will apply estimates of the quark Sivers functions from known experiments without considering their scale dependence. We approximate the parton distributions in the above equations at a fixed lower scale, e.g., μbμ0=2GeV\mu_{b}\approx\mu_{0}=2\rm GeV, where the quark Sivers functions are extracted from SIDIS. We comment on the uncertainties of these extractions below.

With these modifications, the resummation formulas can be written as

WabcdTβ|MLLA\displaystyle W_{ab\to cd}^{T\beta}|_{\rm MLLA^{\prime}} =\displaystyle= ibβ2x1fa(x1,μ0)x2TFb(x2,μ0)HabcdSivers(PT,x1,x2)eSSudT(Q2,b),\displaystyle\frac{ib_{\perp}^{\beta}}{2}x_{1}f_{a}(x_{1},\mu_{0})x_{2}T_{Fb}(x_{2},\mu_{0})H_{ab\to cd}^{\rm Sivers}(P_{T},x_{1},x_{2})e^{-S_{\rm Sud}^{T}(Q^{2},b_{\perp})}\ , (152)
Wabcduu|MLLA\displaystyle W_{ab\to cd}^{uu}|_{\rm MLLA^{\prime}} =\displaystyle= x1fa(x1,μ0)x2fb(x2,μ0)Habcduu(PT,x1,x2)eSSudT(Q2,b),\displaystyle x_{1}f_{a}(x_{1},\mu_{0})x_{2}f_{b}(x_{2},\mu_{0})H_{ab\to cd}^{uu}(P_{T},x_{1},x_{2})e^{-S_{\rm Sud}^{T}(Q^{2},b_{\perp})}\ , (153)

where μ0\mu_{0} will be varied around 2GeV2~{}\rm GeV in our final results. In addition, these modifications also allow us to simplify the numerical calculations. Within the above approximation, the qq_{\perp}-dependence only comes from the Sudakov form factor (with the additional bβb_{\perp}^{\beta} for the Sivers effect) which also depends on Q2Q^{2}.

V.1 Preliminary results

According to the above results, the Sivers asymmetries depend on three ingredients: (1) the Sivers functions; (2) the associated hard factors for the different partonic channels; (3) the qq_{\perp} dependence from the Sudakov form factor and the related non-perturbative TMDs. In the following, we will briefly go through these three ingredients, and we then address the comparison to the STAR data Abelev:2007ii ; starpreliminary .

V.1.1 Sivers Functions

The quark Sivers functions have been mainly determined from single transverse spin asymmetries in semi-inclusive hadron production in the deep-inelastic scattering process. The latest global analyses can be found in Refs. Cammarota:2020qcw ; Bacchetta:2020gko (see also references therein). The associated Qiu-Sterman matrix elements TF(x,x)T_{F}(x,x) have also been extracted from the single spin asymmetry ANA_{N} for single inclusive hadron production in pppp collisions Kouvaris:2006zy . However, the latter process contains the Collins twist-three fragmentation contributions as well Kang:2010zzb ; Metz:2012ct ; Kanazawa:2014dca ; Kanazawa:2015ajw ; Gamberg:2017gle . Therefore, it may not be sufficient to constrain the Sivers functions from inclusive hadron ANA_{N} in pppp collisions alone. Recently a first attempt was made to perform a global analysis of SSA data from different processes including ANA_{N} in pppp collisions Cammarota:2020qcw .

Refer to caption
Figure 14: The Sivers functions used in our calculations. We use the extractions from Ref. Sun:2013hua which are obtained from Sivers SSAs in semi-inclusive hadron production in deep-inelastic scattering.

In the following calculations, we will use the Sivers functions constrained by SSA data in SIDIS. We would like to add a few comments concerning the precision of these extractions. First, the current experimental data on SSAs in SIDIS come from the relatively low Q2Q^{2} region, where TMD factorization may not be as rigorous as compared to high Q2Q^{2}. This situation will of course be improved by the future Electron-Ion Collider. Until then, we have to keep in mind the systematic uncertainties of the Sivers functions extracted from the existing SIDIS data. A crosscheck with other processes, such as Drell-Yan lepton pair production and WW/ZZ-boson production in pppp collisions will provide crucial information on the Sivers functions. Second, the quark Sivers functions determined from SIDIS have a particular feature – the up quark and down quark distributions have opposite signs. As a result, one often finds a strong cancelation between these two quark Sivers functions when they are used in a physical process, resulting in significant uncertainties of phenomenological extractions of the functions. All existing fits report at least 10%10\% uncertainty of the valence quark Sivers functions. In addition, the sea quark Sivers functions have even larger uncertainties. We hope that the future EIC will help to better constrain both valence and sea quark Sivers functions.

For our numerical results we will use the quark Sivers function from Ref. Sun:2013hua as a baseline, keeping in mind their significant uncertainty just described. The dijet asymmetries studied in this paper are precisely a case where the uu and dd quark Sivers functions are added (at least for the dominant qgqg channel) and cancel to a significant extent. This also increases the uncertainty of any predictions that can be made. Given the uncertainty of the u+du+d combination, and to obtain a conservative order of magnitude estimate, we assume the total u+du+d distribution to be ±0.2u\pm 0.2u, allowing the distribution to have either sign. We also neglect the sea quark Sivers function contributions in the numeric estimate. Because of the qgqgqg\to qg channel dominance, the individual difference between the uu and dd quark Sivers in our parameterization will not affect much the final results.

More recently, the STAR collaboration has developed a novel approach to study the SSA in dijet production at RHIC using quark flavor tagging by measuring the charge of jets starpreliminary . By tagging the total charge of the final state jet, one can separate uu-quark jets from dd-quark jets which potentially avoids the cancelation between the two distributions to some degree. The SSAs for the flavor tagged dijet production will be directly related to either the uu-quark Sivers function or the dd-quark Sivers function, depending on the charge of the triggered jet. We will comment on the comparison to these exciting new data at the end of this section. See also Ref. Field:1977fa for the original proposal of the jet charge by Feynman and Field, Refs. Krohn:2012fg ; Waalewijn:2012sv for recent theoretical studies and Refs. Aad:2015cua ; Sirunyan:2017tyr for experimental measurements by ATLAS and CMS.

V.1.2 Hard Factors

We expect that the quark-gluon channel will make the dominant contribution to the SSA in dijet production, especially at forward rapidity where one probes the valence region of the Sivers functions, which in fact is primarily constrained by the SIDIS experiments. It is instructive to examine the hard factor for this channel as an example to study the kinematic dependence of the SSA of our process.

Refer to caption
Figure 15: Ratio of the hard factors of the Sivers SSA and the spin-averaged cross section as a function of the leading jet’s rapidity y1y_{1} for typical kinematics of PT=6GeVP_{T}=6~{}\rm GeV and y2=0, 1, 2y_{2}=0,\,1,\,2, respectively.

In Fig. 15, we show the ratio of the spin-dependent hard factor and the spin-averaged hard factor for the qgqgqg\to qg channel for typical kinematics at RHIC. The leading jet transverse momentum is chosen as PT=6P_{T}=6\rm GeV and the rapidity interval we consider is 1<y1<2-1<y_{1}<2. From the figure, we can clearly see that the ratio increases with rapidity. In particular, the asymmetry will be larger in the forward region.

Another important feature of the hard factor is that it is positive for all kinematics. This means that the asymmetry is dominated by final state interaction effects. This is different from the inclusive hadron ANA_{N}, which is dominated by initial state interaction effects. The reason is that for dijet production, the final state interaction with the gluon line in the qgqgqg\to qg channel cancels the initial state interaction with the initial gluon line. On the other hand, for single inclusive hadron production, the final state interaction with the gluon line does not contribute to the quark fragmentation part in the qgqgqg\to qg channel which is the dominant source for hadron production in pppp collisions. Therefore, the dijet SSA will have an opposite sign compared to the single inclusive hadron SSA. This is a very interesting feature and will have significant phenomenological consequences for SSAs at RHIC.

V.1.3 Sudakov Effects

It has been known for some time that the Sudakov effects will suppress the single spin asymmetries Boer:2001he . This suppression factor was also included when the dijet SSA was proposed in Ref. Boer:2003tx . Here, we would like to follow up on this issue and discuss the effect on the dijet asymmetries using the updated results for the Sudakov form factor and non-perturbative TMDs. We will continue to focus on the qgqg process.

As mentioned at the beginning of this section, the qq_{\perp}-dependence is contained in the Sudakov form factor and the associated non-perturbative TMDs. For the discussion here and the numerical results, we separate the qq_{\perp}-dependence of the spin-dependent and spin-averaged differential cross sections as

(qg)(q)\displaystyle{\cal R}^{(qg)}(q_{\perp}) =\displaystyle= 12π𝑑b2J0(qb)eSpert(qg)(Q2,b)SNP(qg)(Q,b),\displaystyle\frac{1}{2\pi}\int db_{\perp}^{2}J_{0}(q_{\perp}b_{\perp})\,e^{-S_{\textrm{pert}}^{(qg)}(Q^{2},b_{*})-S_{\textrm{NP}}^{(qg)}(Q,b_{\perp})}\ , (154)
T(qg)(q)\displaystyle{\cal R}_{T}^{(qg)}(q_{\perp}) =\displaystyle= 14π𝑑b2J1(qb)eSpert(qg)(Q2,b)SNPT(qg)(Q,b),\displaystyle\frac{1}{4\pi}\int db_{\perp}^{2}J_{1}(q_{\perp}b_{\perp})\,e^{-S_{\textrm{pert}}^{(qg)}(Q^{2},b_{*})-S_{\textrm{NP}}^{T(qg)}(Q,b_{\perp})}\ , (155)

where J0,1J_{0,1} are Bessel functions and where we have applied the bb_{*}-prescription in the above equation: b=b/1b2/bmax2b_{*}=b_{\perp}/\sqrt{1-b_{\perp}^{2}/b_{{\textrm{max}}}^{2}} with bmax=2GeV2b_{{\textrm{max}}}=2~{}\rm GeV^{-2}. The perturbative part of the Sudakov form factor is the same for both cases Spert(qg)(Q2,b)=SSudT(qg)(Q2,b)S_{\textrm{pert}}^{(qg)}(Q^{2},b_{*})=S_{\textrm{Sud}}^{T(qg)}(Q^{2},b_{*}) which was given in Eq. (8). The non-perturbative parts are parametrized as Su:2014wpa

SNP(qg)(Q,b)\displaystyle S_{\textrm{NP}}^{(qg)}(Q,b_{\perp}) =\displaystyle= (CF+CA)[g12b2+g22lnQQ0lnbb],\displaystyle\left(C_{F}+C_{A}\right)\left[\frac{g_{1}}{2}b_{\perp}^{2}+\frac{g_{2}}{2}\ln\frac{Q}{Q_{0}}\ln\frac{b_{\perp}}{b_{*}}\right]\ , (156)
SNPT(qg)(Q,b)\displaystyle S_{\textrm{NP}}^{T(qg)}(Q,b_{\perp}) =\displaystyle= SNP(qg)(Q,b)gsb2,\displaystyle S_{\textrm{NP}}^{(qg)}(Q,b_{\perp})-g_{s}b^{2}\ , (157)

with g1=0.212g_{1}=0.212, g2=0.84g_{2}=0.84, gs=0.062g_{s}=0.062 and Q02=2.4Q_{0}^{2}=2.4 GeV2.

Refer to caption
Figure 16: The ratio of T(Q,q){\cal R}_{T}(Q,q_{\perp}) and (Q,q){\cal R}(Q,q_{\perp}) as a function of qq_{\perp} for typical QQ values to dijet production at RHIC.

As an example, we plot in Fig. 16 the ratio T/{\cal R}_{T}/{\cal R} as a function of qq_{\perp} for typical values of QQ relevant for RHIC kinematics. Clearly, the asymmetry increases with qq_{\perp}. Different from previous examples (SIDIS or Drell-Yan lepton pair production), the curves in the plot do not reach the maximum of the asymmetry in the qq_{\perp} region relevant for TMD physics. The reason is that for the qgqg channel, the Sudakov form factor leads to a strong qq_{\perp}-broadening effect. In particular, this is due to the the double logarithms associated with the incoming gluon distribution which push the peak of the asymmetry to higher values of qq_{\perp}, beyond the TMD domain.

V.2 Comparison to the STAR Data from 2007

As suggested in Ref. Boer:2003tx , the dijet spin asymmetry can be measured through the azimuthal angular distribution between the two jets. Because the Sivers asymmetry leads to a preferred direction of the total transverse momentum of the two final state jets, the angular distribution will be shifted toward that direction related to the Sivers asymmetry. The magnitude of the asymmetry will depend on the relative angle between the leading jet and the polarization vector S\vec{S}_{\perp}. In particular, as mentioned in Ref. Boer:2003tx , the SSA for dijet production is at its maximum value when the jet direction is parallel or anti-parallel to the spin vector S\vec{S}_{\perp} of the proton. However, the asymmetry will vanish if the leading jet is perpendicular to the spin S\vec{S}_{\perp}. It can be shown that this introduces an additional factor of |cos(ϕjϕS)||\cos(\phi_{j}-\phi_{S})| for the dijet SSA. Therefore, when we compare to the STAR data, we need to include an average of this factor over the azimuthal angle between the leading jet and the polarization vector: 1π0π𝑑ϕ|cos(ϕ)|=2π\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\pi}d\phi|\cos(\phi)|={2\over\pi}.

As mentioned above, for the dijet SSA we take the u+du+d Sivers distribution to be 20%20\% of the extracted uu-quark Sivers function. From the existing experimental data, we can determine neither the size nor the sign of the total contribution from the uu and dd-quark Sivers functions. Therefore, to estimate the total contributions to the dijet SSA, we will use both signs, in order to obtain an idea of the uncertainties associated with these determinations.

The jet kinematics of the data published by the STAR experiment in 2007 is PT>4GeVP_{T}>4~{}\rm GeV and rapidity in the range of 1<y1,2<2-1<y_{1,2}<2. In order to compare to the experimental data, we integrate out the leading jet momentum and the relative rapidity between the two jets, but we keep the total rapidity y=y1+y2y=y_{1}+y_{2}.

Refer to caption
Figure 17: The SSA in dijet production at RHIC as a function of the total rapidity y=y1+y2y=y_{1}+y_{2} of the two jets for the kinematics of the STAR measurement in 2007: PT>4P_{T}>4~{}GeV and 1<y1,2<2-1<y_{1,2}<2. The upper bound corresponds to TFu+TFdT_{Fu}+T_{Fd} with +20%+20\% of the fitted value of TFuT_{Fu} of Ref. Sun:2013hua , whereas the lower bound corresponds to 20%-20\%.

Using the differential cross sections for the spin-averaged and spin-dependent cases in the MLLA given above, we obtain the following expression for the single transverse spin asymmetry which can be compared to the STAR measurement:

AN(y)=2πacdb=u,dd2PT𝑑y1x1fa(x1,μ0)x2TFb(x2,μ0)HabcdSivers(PT,x1,x2)wT(Q)abcdd2PT𝑑y1x1fa(x1,μ0)x2fb(x2,μ0)Habcduu(PT,x1,x2)w(Q),\displaystyle A_{N}(y)=\frac{2}{\pi}\frac{\sum_{acd}\sum_{b=u,d}\int d^{2}P_{T}dy_{1}\,x_{1}f_{a}(x_{1},\mu_{0})\,x_{2}T_{Fb}(x_{2},\mu_{0})\,H_{ab\to cd}^{\rm Sivers}(P_{T},x_{1},x_{2})\,{w}_{T}(Q)}{\sum_{abcd}\int d^{2}P_{T}dy_{1}\,x_{1}f_{a}(x_{1},\mu_{0})\,x_{2}f_{b}(x_{2},\mu_{0})\,H_{ab\to cd}^{uu}(P_{T},x_{1},x_{2})\,{w}(Q)}\ ,\ \ \ \ (158)

where Q2=s^=x1x2SppQ^{2}=\hat{s}=x_{1}x_{2}S_{pp} and w(Q),wT(Q)w(Q),w_{T}(Q) are weights for the total transverse momentum integral,

wT(Q)\displaystyle w_{T}(Q) =\displaystyle= 0Q/6𝑑qqT(Q,q),\displaystyle\int_{0}^{Q/6}dq_{\perp}q_{\perp}{\cal R}_{T}(Q,q_{\perp})\ , (159)
w(Q)\displaystyle w(Q) =\displaystyle= 0Q/6𝑑qq(Q,q).\displaystyle\int_{0}^{Q/6}dq_{\perp}q_{\perp}{\cal R}(Q,q_{\perp})\ . (160)

The upper limits of the above integrals correspond to the TMD region where qPTq_{\perp}\ll P_{T}. Notice that Q2PTQ\geq 2P_{T} for all kinematics.

With our assumptions on the uu and dd Sivers functions, we calculate the SSA in Eq. (158), and find that the asymmetry is of order 10410^{-4} for the entire rapidity range shown, see, Fig. 17. We note that the central values of uu-quark and dd-quark Sivers functions from the fit of Ref. Sun:2013hua lead to smaller asymmetries shown in Fig. 17. Let us summarize the main differences with respect to the previous calculation in Ref. Bomhof:2007su : First, the Sivers functions determined from SIDIS are different. Second, we have included the relative suppression from Sudakov effects. If we integrate over the entire rapidity region, the asymmetry is about 1.7×1041.7\times 10^{-4}.

It is interesting to note that the STAR measurement in 2007 found that the SSA for dijet production is consistent with zero, and their uncertainties are of the order of 10210^{-2}. According to our calculation, a finite asymmetry could be observed if the uncertainty is reduced by more than one order of magnitude. Of course, this also depends on the size of the total up and down quark Sivers function. If they completely cancel, then the asymmetries will depend on the sea quark Sivers functions, which are known to be not as large as the valence ones.

V.3 The Flavor Tagged Dijet Asymmetry

In the last few years, the STAR collaboration has investigated a novel method to explore the SSA in dijet production. They considered the jet charge to tag the up or down quark flavor of the jet. An up (down) quark jet has positive (negative) jet charge, whereas a gluon jet leads to a neutral jet charge. From the preliminary analysis, the efficiency of this separation is reasonably good. A similar idea is also proposed in Kang:2020fka . This also suggests further improvements by using the jet flavor information in the jet charge definition.

Refer to caption
Figure 18: The SSA in dijet production for the qgqgqg\to qg channel only. We show the result separately for up and down quarks.

In order to compare to the experimental data, we take into account the uu and dd quark contributions separately, just for the qgqgqg\to qg channel. For up quarks, we have

AN(up)(y)=2πd2PT𝑑y1x1fg(x1,μ0)x2TFu(x2,μ0)HgqgqSivers(PT,x1,x2)wT(Q)d2PTdy1[x1fg(x1,μ0)x2fu(x2,μ0)Hgqgquu(PT,x1,x2)+(x1x2)]w(Q).\displaystyle A_{N}^{{\textrm{(up)}}}(y)=\frac{2}{\pi}\frac{\int d^{2}P_{T}dy_{1}\,x_{1}f_{g}(x_{1},\mu_{0})\,x_{2}T_{Fu}(x_{2},\mu_{0})\,H_{gq\to gq}^{\rm Sivers}(P_{T},x_{1},x_{2})\,{w}_{T}(Q)}{\int d^{2}P_{T}dy_{1}\left[x_{1}f_{g}(x_{1},\mu_{0})\,x_{2}f_{u}(x_{2},\mu_{0})\,H_{gq\to gq}^{uu}(P_{T},x_{1},x_{2})+(x_{1}\leftrightarrow x_{2})\right]{w}(Q)}\ .\ \ \ \ (161)

An analogous expression holds for the dd-quark Sivers contribution. In Fig. 18, we plot the two asymmetries as functions of y=y1+y2y=y_{1}+y_{2}. From this plot, we can see that the asymmetries are of the order of 10310^{-3}. If we integrate over the entire rapidity range, we obtain an asymmetry of 2.2×1032.2\times 10^{-3} and 3.7×103-3.7\times 10^{-3} for the ugugug\to ug and dgdgdg\to dg channels, respectively. Our results compare reasonably well to the preliminary STAR results 222An estimate from the preliminary STAR analysis in Ref. starpreliminary suggests that the observed asymmetry is around 1.5×1031.5\times 10^{-3} and 1.8×103-1.8\times 10^{-3} for positively and and negatively tagged charged jets, respectively. We hope that the spin asymmetry defined in Eq. (161) will be reported in the new analysis as well..

Compared to the results shown in Fig. 17, we find that the asymmetries are much larger for the flavor tagged case. This is not only due to the fact that for the flavor tagged case no cancelation between the uu and dd-quark Sivers functions occurs, but also because the denominator of the unpolarized cross section only contains the qgqgqg\to qg channel. By tagging the (quark) flavor of the final state jets, we exclude a major background contribution from gggggg\to gg, which only leads to charge neutral jets in the final state.

The asymmetries shown in Fig. 18 assume 100%100\% efficiency of the tagging in the jet sample. To compare to the STAR data properly, we need to consider a realistic tagging efficiency, which will suppress the asymmetries somewhat.

VI Summary and Discussion

We have investigated the single transverse spin asymmetry in dijet correlations in hadronic collisions. The total transverse momentum of the dijet in the final state is correlated with the incoming nucleon’s polarization vector. We have focused on the SSA contribution from the quark Sivers function of the polarized nucleon where initial and final state interaction effects play an important role. A detailed analysis at one-loop order has been carried out for the contribution from soft gluon emissions in order to understand the factorization properties. It was found that the associated TMD factorization is valid at the level of leading double logarithms and single logarithms from the TMD quark distribution and those collinear to the jet. However, additional soft gluon contributions to the single logarithms do not show the same pattern as in the unpolarized case investigated in Ref. Sun:2015doa and hence cannot be incorporated in the TMD factorization formula in terms of the same spin independent soft factor. This indicates that the standard TMD factorization is broken at the single logarithmic level for the SSA in dijet correlations in hadronic collisions. We believe that this issue will deserve further attention by investigating whether a consistent “non-traditional” soft factor for the single transverse spin asymmetry could be defined.

We have further presented phenomenological studies for the SSA in dijet production at RHIC based on the LLA approximation, for which one improves the standard LLA resummation formula by “universal” subleading logarithmic terms associated with the initial partons and the final state jets. Using the quark Sivers functions constrained by SSAs in SIDIS, we have found that the leading double logarithmic resummation effects suppress the asymmetry for the kinematics relevant for the measurements by the STAR collaboration at RHIC, making them broadly consistent with experimental results. We also presented results for the flavor (charge) tagged dijet case, where the asymmetries are much larger than when the jet flavor is not tagged. A detailed comparison with the experimental data will be helpful to understand factorization breaking effects.

We finally note that in our analysis we have only considered the perturbative part of the factorization breaking effects. The non-perturbative TMD quark distribution could also contribute to such effects. Our numerical results assume that this part is the same as for SIDIS. To address this issue, more detailed comparisons to experimental measurements and further theoretical efforts are necessary. In any case, a more refined phenomenology will be warranted once there is a better general understanding of factorization breaking effects, along with more detailed experimental information.

Acknowledgement

This work is partially supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics under contract number DE-AC02-05CH11231. This study was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) through the Research Unit FOR 2926 (project number 40824754).

Appendix A Soft Gluon Radiation Associated with the Jet

In this section, we derive the soft gluon radiation contribution associated with the final state jets. Following Ref. Liu:2018trl ; Liu:2020dct , we apply the following identity:

Sg(k1,p1)+Sg(k1,p2)\displaystyle S_{g}(k_{1},p_{1})+S_{g}(k_{1},p_{2}) =\displaystyle= 4kg2+4kg2k1kgk1kg,\displaystyle\frac{4}{k_{g\perp}^{2}}+\frac{4}{k_{g\perp}^{2}}\frac{\vec{k}_{1\perp}\cdot\vec{k}_{g\perp}}{k_{1}\cdot k_{g}}\ , (162)

where the first term contributes to the double logarithms and corresponds to the first term in the bracket of Eq. (63). To calculate the second term, we define

I(R1)=dξξdϕ2πk1kgk1kg,I(R_{1})=\int\frac{d\xi}{\xi}\frac{d\phi}{2\pi}\frac{\vec{k}_{1\perp}\cdot\vec{k}_{g\perp}}{k_{1}\cdot k_{g}}\ , (163)

where ξ\xi is the longitudinal momentum of kgk_{g} with respect to k1k_{1}, i.e. ξ=kgp1/k1p1\xi=k_{g}\cdot p_{1}/k_{1}\cdot p_{1} and ϕ\phi is the azimuthal angle between kgk_{g\perp} and k1k_{1\perp}. This integral was calculated in Refs. Liu:2018trl ; Liu:2020dct , and we find

I(R)=1ϵ[1R2ϵ]=ln1R2+ϵ12ln21R2.I(R)=-\frac{1}{\epsilon}\left[1-R^{-2\epsilon}\right]=\ln\frac{1}{R^{2}}+\epsilon\frac{1}{2}\ln^{2}\frac{1}{R^{2}}\ . (164)

Similarly, we find

Sg(k1,p1)Sg(k1,p2)\displaystyle S_{g}(k_{1},p_{1})-S_{g}(k_{1},p_{2}) =\displaystyle= 4kg2k1+kgk1kg+k1kg.\displaystyle\frac{4}{k_{g\perp}^{2}}\frac{k_{1}^{+}k_{g}^{-}-k_{1}^{-}k_{g}^{+}}{k_{1}\cdot k_{g}}\ . (165)

We notice that there is no divergence associated with the jet in the above term. After averaging over the azimuthal angle of the jet, we have

dξξ[Sg(k1,p1)Sg(k1,p2)]\displaystyle\int\frac{d\xi}{\xi}\left[S_{g}(k_{1},p_{1})-S_{g}(k_{1},p_{2})\right] =\displaystyle= 4kg2ξ0ξ1dξξkg2ξ2k12|kg2ξ2k12|\displaystyle\frac{4}{k_{g\perp}^{2}}\int_{\xi_{0}}^{\xi_{1}}\frac{d\xi}{\xi}\frac{k_{g\perp}^{2}-\xi^{2}k_{1\perp}^{2}}{|k_{g\perp}^{2}-\xi^{2}k_{1\perp}^{2}|} (166)
×[12ϵln2|kg2ξ2k12|kg2+ξ2k12+|kg2ξ2k12|],\displaystyle\times\left[1-2\epsilon\ln\frac{2|k_{g\perp}^{2}-\xi^{2}k_{1\perp}^{2}|}{k_{g\perp}^{2}+\xi^{2}k_{1\perp}^{2}+|k_{g\perp}^{2}-\xi^{2}k_{1\perp}^{2}|}\right]\ ,

where the boundary of the ξ\xi-integral is determined by the kinematic constraints: ξ0=kg2/(t^)\xi_{0}=k_{g\perp}^{2}/(-\hat{t}) and ξ1=(u^)/k12\xi_{1}=(-\hat{u})/k_{1\perp}^{2}. Since there is no divergence resulting from the ξ\xi-integral, we obtain the following final result

dξξ[Sg(k1,p1)Sg(k1,p2)]\displaystyle\int\frac{d\xi}{\xi}\left[S_{g}(k_{1},p_{1})-S_{g}(k_{1},p_{2})\right] =\displaystyle= 1kg2lnt^u^.\displaystyle\frac{1}{k_{g\perp}^{2}}\ln\frac{\hat{t}}{\hat{u}}\ . (167)

In particular, we note that the ϵ\epsilon-term vanishes after the integration. Combining the above equations, we obtain the result in Eqs. (23), (25). Similarly, we can derive the results in Eqs. (24), (26). The result for Sg(k1,k2)S_{g}(k_{1},k_{2}) is a little more involved. We notice that

Sg(k1,k2)=2k1k2k1kgk2kg=Sg(P,k1)+Sg(P,k2),\displaystyle S_{g}(k_{1},k_{2})=\frac{2k_{1}\cdot k_{2}}{k_{1}\cdot k_{g}k_{2}\cdot k_{g}}=S_{g}(P,k_{1})+S_{g}(P,k_{2})\ , (168)

where P=p1+p2=k1+k2P=p_{1}+p_{2}=k_{1}+k_{2}. We further subtract the divergence associated with the jet contribution,

Sg(P,k1)Sg(p1,k1)=4ξ2k12kg2kg2+x~2s^1(kgξk1)2,\displaystyle S_{g}(P,k_{1})-S_{g}(p_{1},k_{1})=4\frac{\xi^{2}k_{1\perp}^{2}-k_{g\perp}^{2}}{k_{g\perp}^{2}+\tilde{x}^{2}\hat{s}}\frac{1}{(k_{g\perp}-\xi k_{1\perp})^{2}}\ , (169)

where x~=kgp1/p1p2\tilde{x}=k_{g}\cdot p_{1}/p_{1}\cdot p_{2}. Clearly the collinear divergence associated with the jet is canceled between these two terms. Averaging over the azimuthal angle of the jet, we have

4ξ0ξ1dξξkg2ξ2k12|kg2ξ2k12|1kg2+x~2s^[12ϵln2|kg2ξ2k12|kg2+ξ2k12+|kg2ξ2k12|],\displaystyle 4\int_{\xi_{0}}^{\xi_{1}}\frac{d\xi}{\xi}\frac{k_{g\perp}^{2}-\xi^{2}k_{1\perp}^{2}}{|k_{g\perp}^{2}-\xi^{2}k_{1\perp}^{2}|}\frac{1}{k_{g\perp}^{2}+\tilde{x}^{2}\hat{s}}\left[1-2\epsilon\ln\frac{2|k_{g\perp}^{2}-\xi^{2}k_{1\perp}^{2}|}{k_{g\perp}^{2}+\xi^{2}k_{1\perp}^{2}+|k_{g\perp}^{2}-\xi^{2}k_{1\perp}^{2}|}\right]\ , (170)

where ξ0,1\xi_{0,1} are the same as above. Carrying out the integral, we find

12kg2[lns^kg2+lnt^2s^22ϵlns^t^lns^u^].\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2k_{g\perp}^{2}}\left[\ln\frac{\hat{s}}{k_{g\perp}^{2}}+\ln\frac{\hat{t}^{2}}{\hat{s}^{2}}-2\epsilon\ln\frac{\hat{s}}{-\hat{t}}\ln\frac{\hat{s}}{-\hat{u}}\right]\ . (171)

Together with the result for Sg(p1,k1)S_{g}(p_{1},k_{1}) we obtain the result for Sg(P,k1)S_{g}(P,k_{1}). A similar result can be obtained for Sg(P,k2)S_{g}(P,k_{2}), and we are able to derive the result for Sg(k1,k2)S_{g}(k_{1},k_{2}) in Eq. (27).

References

  • (1) V. M. Abazov et al. [D0], Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 221801 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.221801 [arXiv:hep-ex/0409040 [hep-ex]].
  • (2) B. I. Abelev et al. [STAR], Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 142003 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.142003 [arXiv:0705.4629 [hep-ex]].
  • (3) V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 122003 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.122003 [arXiv:1101.5029 [hep-ex]].
  • (4) G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 172002 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.172002 [arXiv:1102.2696 [hep-ex]].
  • (5) G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 252303 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.252303 [arXiv:1011.6182 [hep-ex]].
  • (6) S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS], Phys. Rev. C 84, 024906 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.84.024906 [arXiv:1102.1957 [nucl-ex]].
  • (7) L. Adamczyk et al. [STAR], Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, no.12, 122301 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.122301 [arXiv:1302.6184 [nucl-ex]].
  • (8) L. Adamczyk et al. [STAR], Phys. Rev. C 96, no.2, 024905 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.96.024905 [arXiv:1702.01108 [nucl-ex]].
  • (9) M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Rev. C 100, no.3, 034903 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.100.034903 [arXiv:1901.10440 [nucl-ex]].
  • (10) J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper and G. F. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B 250, 199-224 (1985) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90479-1
  • (11) A. Banfi and M. Dasgupta, JHEP 01, 027 (2004) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/01/027 [arXiv:hep-ph/0312108 [hep-ph]].
  • (12) A. Banfi, M. Dasgupta and Y. Delenda, Phys. Lett. B 665, 86-91 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.05.065 [arXiv:0804.3786 [hep-ph]].
  • (13) F. Hautmann and H. Jung, JHEP 10, 113 (2008) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/10/113 [arXiv:0805.1049 [hep-ph]].
  • (14) J. Y. Chiu, A. Jain, D. Neill and I. Z. Rothstein, JHEP 05, 084 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2012)084 [arXiv:1202.0814 [hep-ph]].
  • (15) A. H. Mueller, B. W. Xiao and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 88, no.11, 114010 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.114010 [arXiv:1308.2993 [hep-ph]].
  • (16) P. Sun, C. P. Yuan and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, no.23, 232001 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.232001 [arXiv:1405.1105 [hep-ph]].
  • (17) P. Sun, C. P. Yuan and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 92, no.9, 094007 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.094007 [arXiv:1506.06170 [hep-ph]].
  • (18) Y. T. Chien, R. Rahn, S. Schrijnder van Velzen, D. Y. Shao, W. J. Waalewijn and B. Wu, [arXiv:2005.12279 [hep-ph]].
  • (19) N. Kidonakis, G. Oderda and G. F. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B 525, 299-332 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00243-0 [arXiv:hep-ph/9801268 [hep-ph]].
  • (20) N. Kidonakis, G. Oderda and G. F. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B 531, 365-402 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00441-6 [arXiv:hep-ph/9803241 [hep-ph]].
  • (21) N. Kidonakis and J. F. Owens, Phys. Rev. D 63, 054019 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.054019 [arXiv:hep-ph/0007268 [hep-ph]].
  • (22) R. Kelley and M. D. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. D 83, 045022 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.045022 [arXiv:1008.2759 [hep-ph]].
  • (23) S. Catani, M. Grazzini and A. Torre, Nucl. Phys. B 874, 720-745 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2013.06.011 [arXiv:1305.3870 [hep-ph]].
  • (24) P. Hinderer, F. Ringer, G. F. Sterman and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D 91, no.1, 014016 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.014016 [arXiv:1411.3149 [hep-ph]].
  • (25) D. Boer and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D 69, 094025 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.094025 [arXiv:hep-ph/0312320 [hep-ph]].
  • (26) J. W. Qiu, W. Vogelsang and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 76, 074029 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.074029 [arXiv:0706.1196 [hep-ph]].
  • (27) J. Collins and J. W. Qiu, Phys. Rev. D 75, 114014 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.114014 [arXiv:0705.2141 [hep-ph]].
  • (28) T. C. Rogers and P. J. Mulders, Phys. Rev. D 81, 094006 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.094006 [arXiv:1001.2977 [hep-ph]].
  • (29) A. Bacchetta, C. J. Bomhof, P. J. Mulders and F. Pijlman, Phys. Rev. D 72, 034030 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.034030 [arXiv:hep-ph/0505268 [hep-ph]].
  • (30) W. Vogelsang and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 76, 094013 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.094013 [arXiv:0708.4398 [hep-ph]].
  • (31) C. J. Bomhof, P. J. Mulders, W. Vogelsang and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 75, 074019 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.074019 [arXiv:hep-ph/0701277 [hep-ph]].
  • (32) S. Catani, D. de Florian and G. Rodrigo, JHEP 07, 026 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2012)026 [arXiv:1112.4405 [hep-ph]].
  • (33) A. Mitov and G. Sterman, Phys. Rev. D 86, 114038 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.114038 [arXiv:1209.5798 [hep-ph]].
  • (34) M. D. Schwartz, K. Yan and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 96, no.5, 056005 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.056005 [arXiv:1703.08572 [hep-ph]].
  • (35) M. D. Schwartz, K. Yan and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.9, 096017 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.096017 [arXiv:1801.01138 [hep-ph]].
  • (36) M. Dasgupta and G. P. Salam, Phys. Lett. B 512, 323-330 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00725-0 [arXiv:hep-ph/0104277 [hep-ph]].
  • (37) M. Dasgupta and G. P. Salam, JHEP 03, 017 (2002) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/03/017 [arXiv:hep-ph/0203009 [hep-ph]].
  • (38) T. Becher and M. Neubert, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1665 (2011) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1665-7 [arXiv:1007.4005 [hep-ph]].
  • (39) I. Z. Rothstein and I. W. Stewart, JHEP 08, 025 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2016)025 [arXiv:1601.04695 [hep-ph]].
  • (40) D. W. Sivers, Phys. Rev. D 41, 83 (1990) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.41.83
  • (41) A. V. Efremov and O. V. Teryaev, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 36, 140 (1982) JINR-P2-81-485.
  • (42) A. V. Efremov and O. V. Teryaev, Phys. Lett. B 150, 383 (1985) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(85)90999-2
  • (43) J. w. Qiu and G. F. Sterman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 2264-2267 (1991) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.2264
  • (44) J. w. Qiu and G. F. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B 378, 52-78 (1992) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(92)90003-T
  • (45) J. w. Qiu and G. F. Sterman, Phys. Rev. D 59, 014004 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.014004 [arXiv:hep-ph/9806356 [hep-ph]].
  • (46) R. Fatemi, EINN Workshop, 2019; H. Liu, DNP 2019 and Jet workshop at BNL, July, 2020.
  • (47) F. Aversa, P. Chiappetta, M. Greco and J. P. Guillet, Nucl. Phys. B 327, 105 (1989) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(89)90288-5
  • (48) A. Mukherjee and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D 86, 094009 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.094009 [arXiv:1209.1785 [hep-ph]].
  • (49) X. Liu, F. Ringer, W. Vogelsang and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, no.19, 192003 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.192003 [arXiv:1812.08077 [hep-ph]].
  • (50) X. Liu, F. Ringer, W. Vogelsang and F. Yuan, [arXiv:2007.12866 [hep-ph]].
  • (51) X. Ji, J. W. Qiu, W. Vogelsang and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 082002 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.082002 [arXiv:hep-ph/0602239 [hep-ph]].
  • (52) X. Ji, J. w. Qiu, W. Vogelsang and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 73, 094017 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.094017 [arXiv:hep-ph/0604023 [hep-ph]].
  • (53) X. Ji, J. W. Qiu, W. Vogelsang and F. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B 638, 178-186 (2006) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.05.044 [arXiv:hep-ph/0604128 [hep-ph]].
  • (54) C. Kouvaris, J. W. Qiu, W. Vogelsang and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 74, 114013 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.114013 [arXiv:hep-ph/0609238 [hep-ph]].
  • (55) H. Eguchi, Y. Koike and K. Tanaka, Nucl. Phys. B 752, 1-17 (2006) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.05.036 [arXiv:hep-ph/0604003 [hep-ph]].
  • (56) H. Eguchi, Y. Koike and K. Tanaka, Nucl. Phys. B 763, 198-227 (2007) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.11.016 [arXiv:hep-ph/0610314 [hep-ph]].
  • (57) Y. Koike and K. Tanaka, Phys. Lett. B 646, 232-241 (2007) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.01.044 [arXiv:hep-ph/0612117 [hep-ph]].
  • (58) Y. Koike and K. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 76, 011502 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.011502 [arXiv:hep-ph/0703169 [hep-ph]].
  • (59) Y. Koike, W. Vogelsang and F. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B 659, 878-884 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.11.096 [arXiv:0711.0636 [hep-ph]].
  • (60) V. M. Braun, A. N. Manashov and B. Pirnay, Phys. Rev. D 80, 114002 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.114002 [arXiv:0909.3410 [hep-ph]].
  • (61) Z. B. Kang and J. W. Qiu, Phys. Rev. D 79, 016003 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.016003 [arXiv:0811.3101 [hep-ph]].
  • (62) W. Vogelsang and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 79, 094010 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.094010 [arXiv:0904.0410 [hep-ph]].
  • (63) J. Zhou, F. Yuan and Z. T. Liang, Phys. Rev. D 79, 114022 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.114022 [arXiv:0812.4484 [hep-ph]].
  • (64) A. Schafer and J. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D 85, 117501 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.117501 [arXiv:1203.5293 [hep-ph]].
  • (65) Z. B. Kang, B. W. Xiao and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 152002 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.152002 [arXiv:1106.0266 [hep-ph]].
  • (66) P. Sun and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 88, no.11, 114012 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.114012 [arXiv:1308.5003 [hep-ph]].
  • (67) I. Scimemi, A. Tarasov and A. Vladimirov, JHEP 05, 125 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2019)125 [arXiv:1901.04519 [hep-ph]].
  • (68) J. Collins, Camb. Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol. 32, 1-624 (2011)
  • (69) A. Kyrieleis and M. H. Seymour, JHEP 01, 085 (2006) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/01/085 [arXiv:hep-ph/0510089 [hep-ph]].
  • (70) M. Sjodahl, JHEP 12, 083 (2008) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/12/083 [arXiv:0807.0555 [hep-ph]].
  • (71) J. Cammarota, L. Gamberg, Z. B. Kang, J. A. Miller, D. Pitonyak, A. Prokudin, T. C. Rogers and N. Sato, [arXiv:2002.08384 [hep-ph]].
  • (72) A. Bacchetta, F. Delcarro, C. Pisano and M. Radici, [arXiv:2004.14278 [hep-ph]].
  • (73) Z. B. Kang, F. Yuan and J. Zhou, Phys. Lett. B 691, 243-248 (2010) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.07.003 [arXiv:1002.0399 [hep-ph]].
  • (74) A. Metz and D. Pitonyak, Phys. Lett. B 723, 365-370 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.05.043 [arXiv:1212.5037 [hep-ph]].
  • (75) K. Kanazawa, Y. Koike, A. Metz and D. Pitonyak, Phys. Rev. D 89, no.11, 111501 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.111501 [arXiv:1404.1033 [hep-ph]].
  • (76) K. Kanazawa, Y. Koike, A. Metz, D. Pitonyak and M. Schlegel, Phys. Rev. D 93, no.5, 054024 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.054024 [arXiv:1512.07233 [hep-ph]].
  • (77) L. Gamberg, Z. B. Kang, D. Pitonyak and A. Prokudin, Phys. Lett. B 770, 242-251 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.04.061 [arXiv:1701.09170 [hep-ph]].
  • (78) R. D. Field and R. P. Feynman, Nucl. Phys. B 136, 1 (1978) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(78)90015-9
  • (79) D. Krohn, M. D. Schwartz, T. Lin and W. J. Waalewijn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, no.21, 212001 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.212001 [arXiv:1209.2421 [hep-ph]].
  • (80) W. J. Waalewijn, Phys. Rev. D 86, 094030 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.094030 [arXiv:1209.3019 [hep-ph]].
  • (81) G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Rev. D 93, no.5, 052003 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.052003 [arXiv:1509.05190 [hep-ex]].
  • (82) A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS], JHEP 10, 131 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2017)131 [arXiv:1706.05868 [hep-ex]].
  • (83) D. Boer, Nucl. Phys. B 603, 195-217 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(01)00156-0 [arXiv:hep-ph/0102071 [hep-ph]].
  • (84) P. Sun, J. Isaacson, C. P. Yuan and F. Yuan, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33, no.11, 1841006 (2018) doi:10.1142/S0217751X18410063 [arXiv:1406.3073 [hep-ph]].
  • (85) Z. B. Kang, X. Liu, S. Mantry and D. Y. Shao, [arXiv:2008.00655 [hep-ph]].