text:
# The QCD heavy-quark potential to order 𝑣²: one loop matching conditions

## I Introduction

For processes involving a non-relativistic heavy quark and antiquark, it is useful to combine the $`\alpha _s`$ expansion of QCD with an expansion in powers of the relative velocity $`v`$. The scattering of a heavy quark and antiquark, $`Q(𝐩)+\overline{Q}(𝐩)Q(𝐩^{})+\overline{Q}(𝐩^{})`$, can be described using a potential $`V`$, which has an expansion in powers of the velocity $`v`$ and $`\alpha _s`$,

$`V(𝐩,𝐩^{})={\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}V^{(n)},V^{(n)}={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}V^{(n,j)},`$ (1)
$`\text{where}V^{(n)}v^n,V^{(n,j)}v^n\alpha _s^j.`$ (2)
An important complication of non-relativistic scattering is the presence of two low-energy scales, $`mv`$ and $`mv^2`$, which correspond to the momentum and energy of the heavy quark, respectively. In this paper, we will assume that $`mv^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, and ignore any non-perturbative effects.

The first term in Eq. (1), $`V^{(2,1)}`$, is the static Coulomb potential at tree-level,

$`V^{(2,1)}=C{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha _s}{\left|𝐩𝐩^{}\right|^2}},`$ (3)
where the color factor $`C`$ depends on the relative color state of the incident quark and antiquark. For $`j>1`$, $`V^{(2,j)}`$ are perturbative corrections to the Coulomb potential which are known to two loops .

The static potential for a color singlet $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair is often defined in terms of the expectation value of a rectangular Wilson loop of width $`R`$ and length $`T`$:

$`V^{(2)}(R)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{iT}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{Tr}P\mathrm{exp}\left(ig{\displaystyle 𝑑x_\mu A_a^\mu T^a}\right).`$ (4)
The Feynman diagrams corresponding to this expectation value build up the exponential of the static potential. As a result, in computing the static potential $`V^{(2,j)}`$ at order $`j`$, iterations of lower order terms in the potential, $`V^{(2,n)},n<j`$, are subtracted. At three loops Appelquist, Dine and Muzinich  have shown that infrared divergences are encountered in $`V^{(2,4)}(R)`$ which are not canceled by simply subtracting iterations of the lower order potentials. Thus, using the definition in Eq. (4) at higher orders in perturbation theory, or generalizing this approach to subleading terms in the $`v`$ expansion, becomes cumbersome as the set of subtractions become more complicated, and perturbative subtractions are insufficient to render the potential in Eq. (4) well-defined.

A convenient framework for investigating the expansion in Eq. (1) is the effective field theory for non-relativistic QCD (NRQCD), formulated with a power counting in $`v`$ . In the effective field theory, it is more convenient to define the potential as the Wilson coefficient of a four-quark operator

$`_p={\displaystyle \underset{𝐩,p^{}}{}}V_{\alpha \beta \lambda \tau }(𝐩,𝐩^{})\mu ^{2ϵ}\left[\psi _{𝐩^{}}^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}(x)\psi _{𝐩}^{}{}_{\beta }{}^{}(x)\chi _{𝐩^{}}^{}{}_{\lambda }{}^{}(x)\chi _𝐩{}_{\tau }{}^{}(x)\right].`$ (5)
In Eq. (14), the fields $`\psi _{}`$ and $`\chi _{}`$ annihilate a quark and an antiquark, respectively. The fields are labelled by a momentum $`𝐩`$, and a greek index for their color and spin. The operator in Eq. (5) is local on the scale $`x1/mv^2`$, but non-local on the scale $`𝐩mv`$. The potential $`V`$ is computed as a matching coefficient at the scale $`\mu =m`$ between QCD and an effective theory for non-relativistic QCD valid below the scale $`m`$. The effective theory is constructed to have the same infrared structure as perturbative QCD for the two heavy quark system. Therefore, defining the potential as a matching coefficient provides an infrared safe definition. For instance, Ref.  shows how the three-loop matching potential $`V`$ is infrared safe, despite the divergence in the QCD potential of Appelquist, Dine and Muzinich.

Although several different formulations of the effective theory for non-relativistic QCD are currently in use , certain universal features have emerged. The on-shell degrees of freedom in the effective theory include quarks with energy $`Emv^2`$ and momentum $`pmv`$, soft gluons with $`Epmv`$, and ultrasoft gluons with $`Epmv^2`$. The soft and ultrasoft modes are distinct, for instance a consistent power counting in $`v`$ demands that the ultrasoft gluon interactions are multipole expanded, while soft gluon interactions are not. The soft gluons are essential to correctly reproduce the beta function in the effective theory , and run between the scales $`m`$ and $`mv`$. Other massless on-shell fields, such as light quarks, will have ultrasoft and soft components too. There are also important off-shell field components, such as the exchange of gluons with $`Emv^2`$ and $`pmv`$ that build up the potential. Soft heavy quarks with $`Epmv`$ are also off-shell relative to the heavy quark states of interest. These off-shell field components can be integrated out of the Lagrangian in the effective theory. Doing this leaves a Lagrangian that is non-local at the scale $`mv`$, but local at $`mv^2`$. This procedure, which treats the potential components as four quark operators, was first seriously investigated in Ref. , and the resulting effective theory is referred to as pNRQCD. In Ref.  it was proposed that the matching onto effective theories should take place in two stages: at $`\mu =m`$ one matches QCD onto NRQCD as originally defined in Ref. , and then matches NRQCD onto pNRQCD at the scale $`\mu =mv`$.

The matching of four-quark operators at $`m`$ was considered in Ref. , following the proposal in Ref.  that the matching procedure should be similar to that in HQET. However, in general this procedure seems to be slightly problematic. First note that it is necessary to include the kinetic term for the potential quarks immediately below the scale $`m`$. For instance, this is necessary to reproduce the threshold value of the two-loop anomalous dimension for the heavy quark production current  in the effective theory . With the kinetic energy term included at leading order, the consistency of the $`v`$ power counting forces us to have both ultrasoft and soft modes right below $`m`$ (along with the multipole expansion etc.). If we note that the kinetic energy term is necessary to correctly reproduce the Coulombic infrared divergences in the effective theory, then it might seem obvious that it must be included in order to have the correct infrared structure. At one-loop, matching exactly at threshold in dimensional regularization seemed to provide a method of avoiding this , but this procedure fails at two-loops.

Since we must include the kinetic energy term for all $`\mu <m`$ it seems quite natural to immediately consider matching at $`\mu =m`$ onto an effective theory where the off-shell potential gluons and soft quarks have been integrated out. Such a formulation was proposed in Ref.  and will be considered in this paper. It will be referred to as vNRQCD. In this theory it is more appropriate to consider the running from $`m`$ to the scales $`mv`$ and $`mv^2`$ in a single step. This is accomplished by using the velocity renormalization group . Once the vNRQCD effective theory has been run down to the low scale the soft degrees of freedom have served their purpose and may be integrated out. In this final effective theory no additional running needs to be considered.

In this paper we compute the one-loop matching for the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ and $`QQ`$ potentials between QCD and vNRQCD up to corrections of order $`v^2`$. Ours results are compared to the matching calculation of Pineda and Soto  for the four-quark operators and to the threshold expansion . The main difference between the the non-relativistic theories in Refs.  and  is the way in which large logarithms of $`v`$ are summed in the effective theory. There is also some difference in the matching corrections; some contributions in vNRQCD that arise at the scale $`\mu =m`$ are instead computed at $`\mu =mv`$ in pNRQCD. We will discuss the differences between the two approaches in the text of the paper.

The full QCD calculation of the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ scattering to order $`\alpha _s^2v^0`$ in the non-relativistic expansion has been done before . In calculating the potentials, Ref.  performs an additional expansion, assuming

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(𝐩^{}+𝐩)^2}{(𝐩^{}𝐩)^2}}1.`$ (6)
In the usual $`v`$ power counting, $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐩^{}`$ are both of order $`v`$, so the ratio in Eq. (6) is of order unity, and cannot be treated as small. For this reason, in section II we redo the QCD calculation keeping the full dependence on this ratio for both the color singlet and octet channels. For the order $`v^0`$ spin-independent potential, terms proportional to $`(𝐩+𝐩^{})^2`$ which were dropped in previous calculations  are necessary to match infrared divergences between the full and effective theories.

In section III we discuss the order $`v^0`$ potential of the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(𝐩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝐩^2)^2}{m^2(𝐩^{}𝐩)^4}}.`$ (7)
For free quark states this potential vanishes on-shell by energy conservation, $`𝐩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=𝐩^2`$, and need not be included in the potential if one uses on-shell matching . The potential in Eq. (7) gives a non-zero contribution in loops or in matrix elements with external Coulomb states, and is often included in the quark potential. For instance, the usual Breit Hamiltonian includes a potential of the form in Eq. (7). A potential that is only non-zero off-shell can be gauge dependent, and including the potential of Eq. (7) induces gauge dependence in the coefficients of on-shell potentials. Using an off-shell potential gives correct results if all calculations are performed in the same gauge. We will use an on-shell basis for the potential where the term in Eq. (7) does not occur. The matching coefficients for the on-shell potential are gauge independent, since scattering amplitudes are measurable quantities. The difference between the on-shell matching potential and the Breit Hamiltonian is compensated for by a corresponding change in the $`1/|𝐩^{}𝐩|`$ potential, as discussed in more detail in section III (see also Refs. ).

In section IV we extend all of our results for the quark-antiquark potential to the quark-quark potential and in section V we give the QED limit of our results. Section VI gives our conclusions.

## II Matching the potential to $`𝒪`$$`(v^2)`$

The vNRQCD effective Lagrangian has the form

$`=_u+_s+_p.`$ (8)
The ultrasoft Lagrangian $`_u`$ involves the fields $`\psi _𝐩`$ which annihilate a quark, $`\chi _𝐩`$ which annihilate an antiquark, and $`A^\mu `$ which annihilate and create ultrasoft gluons. The potential Lagrangian $`_p`$ contains operators with four or more quark fields including the quark-antiquark potential. Finally the soft Lagrangian $`_s`$ contains all terms that involve soft fields which have energy and momenta of order $`mv`$. Heavy quarks with soft energy and momenta are off-shell and are therefore integrated out, so they do not appear explicitly in $`_s`$. The terms we need in the ultrasoft Lagrangian are

$`_u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩}{}}\psi _𝐩^{}\left\{iD^0{\displaystyle \frac{\left(𝐩i𝐃\right)^2}{2m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩^4}{8m^3}}\right\}\psi _𝐩`$ (10)
$`+\chi _𝐩^{}\left\{iD^0{\displaystyle \frac{\left(𝐩i𝐃\right)^2}{2m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩^4}{8m^3}}\right\}\chi _𝐩.`$
The covariant derivative on $`\psi _𝐩`$ and $`\chi _𝐩`$ contain the color matrices $`T^A`$ and $`\overline{T}^A`$ for the $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ representations, respectively. Here $`D^\mu `$ involves only the ultrasoft gluon fields: $`D^\mu =^\mu +ig\mu _U^ϵA^\mu =(D^0,𝐃)`$, so $`D^0=^0+ig\mu _U^ϵA^0`$, $`𝐃=ig\mu _U^ϵ𝐀`$. The factors of the ultrasoft scale parameter $`\mu _U^ϵ`$ are included to make $`g=g(\mu _U)`$ dimensionless in $`d=42ϵ`$ dimensions. The ultrasoft gluon field $`A^\mu `$ is order $`v^2`$ and has dimension $`1ϵ`$, so $`A^\mu (mv^2)^{1ϵ}`$. Consistency of the $`v`$ power counting for the covariant derivative in $`d`$ dimensions then requires $`\mu _U=m\nu ^2`$ where $`\nu v`$. This reproduces the dependence of $`\mu _U`$ on the subtraction velocity $`\nu `$ given in Ref. . The terms we need in the soft Lagrangian are

$`_s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\left\{\left|q^\mu A_q^\nu q^\nu A_q^\mu \right|^2+\overline{\phi }_qq/\phi _q+\overline{c}_qq^2c_q\right\}`$ (13)
$`g^2\mu _S^{2ϵ}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩,p^{},q,q^{}}{}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{𝐩^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}[A_q^{}^\mu ,A_q^\nu ]U_{\mu \nu }^{(\sigma )}\psi _𝐩+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{𝐩^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\{A_q^{}^\mu ,A_q^\nu \}W_{\mu \nu }^{(\sigma )}\psi _𝐩`$
$`+\psi _{𝐩^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}[\overline{c}_q^{},c_q]Y^{(\sigma )}\psi _𝐩+(\psi _{𝐩^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}T^BZ_\mu ^{(\sigma )}\psi _𝐩)(\overline{\phi }_q^{}\gamma ^\mu T^B\phi _q)\}+(\psi \chi ,T\overline{T}),`$
where $`A_q`$, $`c_q`$, and $`\phi _q`$ are soft gluons, ghosts, and massless quarks. The functions $`U`$, $`W`$, $`Y`$, and $`Z`$ are given in Appendix A. After integrating out the soft quarks the Lagrangian $`_s`$ is no longer manifestly gauge invariant with respect to gauge transformations at the scale $`mv`$. Therefore, determining the dependence of the soft scale parameter $`\mu _S`$ on $`\nu `$ may seem more difficult than the ultrasoft case. However, prior to integrating out the soft quarks the combination $`g\mu _S^ϵA_q`$ is from a covariant derivative, and $`A_q(mv)^{1ϵ}`$, yielding $`\mu _Sm\nu `$ in agreement with Ref. . In Eq. (13), $`g=g(\mu _S)`$. In general it is important to realize that the $`v`$ scaling of $`\mu _U`$ and $`\mu _S`$ are different. If the matching calculation is performed at the scaleIt is not necessary to match exactly at $`m`$. If the matching scale is $`\mu =\mu _hm`$, then one still sets $`\mu _U=\mu _S=\mu _h`$ and $`\nu =1`$, and factors of $`\mathrm{ln}(\mu _h/m)`$ appear in the matching coefficients. For convenience we choose $`\mu _h=m`$ in this paper. $`m`$, then for this computation $`\mu =\mu _S=\mu _U=m`$ and $`\nu =1`$ (where the usual QCD scale parameter is denoted by $`\mu `$). Therefore, for the matching at $`m`$ it is not essential to distinguish between $`\mu _S`$ and $`\mu _U`$.

The potential interaction relevant for our calculation is

$`_p={\displaystyle \underset{𝐩,p^{}}{}}V_{\alpha \beta \lambda \tau }(𝐩,𝐩^{})\mu _S^{2ϵ}\psi _{𝐩^{}}^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\psi _{𝐩}^{}{}_{\beta }{}^{}\chi _{𝐩^{}}^{}{}_{\lambda }{}^{}\chi _𝐩{}_{\tau }{}^{}.`$ (14)
The factor of $`\mu _S^{2ϵ}`$ is included so that in $`d=42ϵ`$ dimensions the potential $`V`$ has dimension $`2`$. $`\alpha ,\beta ,\lambda ,\tau `$ denote color and spin indices. We will use the basis in which the potential is written as a linear combination of $`11`$ and $`T^a\overline{T}^a`$ in color space. One can convert to the color singlet and octet potential using the linear transformation

$`\left[\begin{array}{c}V_{\mathrm{singlet}}\\ V_{\mathrm{octet}}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& & C_F\\ 1& & \frac{1}{2}C_AC_F\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}V_{11}\\ V_{T\overline{T}}\end{array}\right],`$ (21)
where $`C_F=(N_c^21)/(2N_c)`$ and $`C_A=N_c`$. We will also need the invariants $`C_1=(N_c^21)/(4N_c^2)`$ and $`C_d=N_c4/N_c`$. These arise in the identities

$`T^AT^B\overline{T}^A\overline{T}^B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(C_A+C_d)T^A\overline{T}^A+C_111,`$ (22)
$`T^AT^B\overline{T}^B\overline{T}^A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(C_AC_d)T^A\overline{T}^A+C_111.`$ (23)
Written as a matrix, the order $`v^2`$ Coulomb potential is

$`V^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`(T^A\overline{T}^A){\displaystyle \frac{𝒱_c^{(T)}}{𝐤^2}}+(11){\displaystyle \frac{𝒱_c^{(1)}}{𝐤^2}},`$ (24)
where $`𝐤=𝐩^{}𝐩`$, and the coefficients $`𝒱_c^{(T)}`$ and $`𝒱_c^{(1)}`$ have an expansion in $`\alpha _s`$.

The order $`v^0`$ potential includes

$`V^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`(T^A\overline{T}^A)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱_2^{(T)}}{m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱_r^{(T)}(𝐩^2+p^2)}{2m^2𝐤^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱_s^{(T)}}{m^2}}𝐒^2+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(T)}}{m^2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐩^{},p)+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱_t^{(T)}}{m^2}}𝐓(𝐤)\right]`$ (26)
$`+(11)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱_2^{(1)}}{m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱_s^{(1)}}{m^2}}𝐒^2\right],`$
where

$`𝐒`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝝈_1+𝝈_2}{2}},\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐩^{},p)=i{\displaystyle \frac{𝐒(p^{}\times p)}{𝐤^2}},𝐓(𝐤)=𝝈_1𝝈_2{\displaystyle \frac{3𝐤𝝈_1𝐤𝝈_2}{𝐤^2}},`$ (27)
and $`𝝈_1/2`$ and $`𝝈_2/2`$ are the spin-operators on the quark and anti-quark. Note that on-shell $`𝐩^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}=𝐩^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, but we have written $`𝐩^2+p^2`$ in Eq. (26) so that the Lagrangian $`_p`$ is hermitian.

The tree level diagram in Fig. 1a generates terms of $`𝒪(v^{2k}\alpha _s),k1`$, in the QCD potential. Matching at $`\mu =m`$, $`\nu =1`$ gives

$`𝒱_c^{(T)}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \alpha _s(m),𝒱_c^{(1)}=0,𝒱_r^{(T)}=4\pi \alpha _s(m),`$ (28)
$`𝒱_s^{(T)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha _s(m)}{3}},𝒱_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(T)}=6\pi \alpha _s(m),𝒱_t^{(T)}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha _s(m)}{3}},`$ (29)
$`𝒱_s^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`0,𝒱_2^{(T)}=0,𝒱_2^{(1)}=0.`$ (30)
The annihilation diagram in Fig. 1b generates terms of order $`\alpha _sv^{2k},k0`$ in the potential. Using Fierz identities and charge conjugation, these operators can be transformed into the basis in Eq. (26) and give additional contributions to the matching. Only $`𝒱_s^{(T,1)}`$ receive non-zero annihilation contributions at tree level:

$`𝒱_{s,a}^{(T)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}\pi \alpha _s(m),𝒱_{s,a}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{(N_c^21)}{2N_c^2}}\pi \alpha _s(m).`$ (31)
The complete tree level matching is given by adding the terms in Eqs. (28) and (31). We have found it convenient to distinguish the annihilation contributions by including an additional subscript $`a`$ on the coefficients they generate. The leading-log values of the order $`v^0`$ potentials in Eq. (26) were calculated in Refs. , but are not needed here. Nonzero values for $`𝒱_2^{(T,1)}`$ are generated in the renormalization group flow below the scale $`m`$ , as well as by the one-loop matching as we will see below.

At one-loop the matching onto QCD gives order $`1/v`$ terms of the form

$`V^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{m|𝐤|}}\left[𝒱_k^{(T)}(T^A\overline{T}^A)+𝒱_k^{(1)}(11)\right],`$ (32)
where the coefficients $`𝒱_k^{(T,1)}`$ are dimensionless. In $`d=42ϵ`$ dimensions the one-loop matching produces a potential with the dependence $`\mu ^{2ϵ}/|𝐤|^{1+2ϵ}`$. We have chosen to define $`V^{(1)}`$ by taking the $`d4`$ limit, which differs from the definition of this operator used in Ref. .

### A The QCD Calculation

To perform the potential matching calculation, we consider the on-shell $`Q\overline{Q}`$ scattering amplitude in QCD and in vNRQCD to order $`\alpha _s^2v^0`$. We will use Feynman gauge, regulate infrared divergences with a finite gluon mass§§§Using a finite gluon mass is dangerous in the presence of diagrams with the non-abelian gluon vertices. All such diagrams we require here are IR finite in Feynman gauge. $`\lambda `$, and renormalize ultraviolet divergences with dimensional regularization and the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme. Since the calculation is performed on-shell the resulting matching coefficients will be gauge independent.

We begin by considering the QCD diagrams. The most complicated diagram is the QCD box diagram  which includes contributions of order $`1/v^3`$, $`1/v^2`$, $`1/v`$ and $`v^0`$, as well as higher order terms which we do not need in this paper.

$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha _s^2}{k^2}}(T^AT^B\overline{T}^A\overline{T}^B)[{\displaystyle \frac{2im\pi }{p}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\lambda ^2}}\right)4\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\lambda ^2}}\right)`$ (33)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2k}{mp(2p+k)}}\left\{6p^2+{\displaystyle \frac{5pk}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{4}}3k^2\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(pk+{\displaystyle \frac{5k^2}{6}}\right)𝐒^2{\displaystyle \frac{k^2𝐓}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{k𝐑}{4(2p+k)}}\right\}`$ (34)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6i\pi k^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{mp(4p^2k^2)}}\left\{k^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2p}{\lambda }}\right)4p^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{\lambda }}\right)\right\}`$ (35)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi k^2𝐒^2}{3mp(4p^2k^2)}}\left\{k^24p^2+(5k^212p^2)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2p}{\lambda }}\right)(4p^2+k^2)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{\lambda }}\right)\right\}`$ (36)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi k^2𝐓}{6mp(4p^2k^2)}}\left\{4p^2k^2+k^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2p}{\lambda }}\right)+(8p^2+k^2)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{\lambda }}\right)\right\}`$ (37)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi k^2𝐑}{2mp(4p^2k^2)^2}}\left\{k^24p^2+(4p^2+k^2)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2p}{k}}\right)\right\}`$ (38)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2mp(4p^2k^2)}}\{4p^2k^2k^4k^2(4p^2+k^2)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2p}{\lambda }}\right)`$ (39)
$`+`$ $`(80p^416p^2k^2+k^4)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{\lambda }}\right)\}{\displaystyle \frac{6k^2}{m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8k^2𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}}{3m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2𝐓}{3m^2}}`$ (40)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{k}}\right)\{{\displaystyle \frac{56p^2}{3m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{12k^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8k^2𝐒^2}{3m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2k^2𝐓}{3m^2}}\}+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{m}}\right)\{{\displaystyle \frac{4k^2}{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2k^2𝐒^2}{m^2}}\}],`$ (41)
where $`k=|𝐤|`$, $`p=|𝐩|=|𝐩^{}|`$ and

$$𝐑=(𝐩+p^{})𝝈_1(𝐩+p^{})𝝈_2.$$
(42)
The real part of the order $`1/v`$ amplitude agrees with Ref.  in the limit $`pk/2`$. We have kept the full $`p`$ dependence since taking this limit is not justified by the power counting. We have also kept imaginary terms generated by the cut amplitude to emphasize how these terms are correctly reproduced in the effective theory. The real part of the spin dependent order $`v^0`$ amplitude agree with the result in Ref. . The real part of the spin independent order $`v^0`$ amplitude agrees with Ref. , except for the order $`v^0`$ $`\mathrm{ln}(k)`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}(\lambda )`$ dependence. The difference is due to the condition $`|𝐩^{}+𝐩|k`$ which was imposed in Refs. , but which violates the $`v`$ power counting. (For the crossed box given below in Eq. (42a), the order $`v^0`$ $`\mathrm{ln}(\lambda )`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}(k)`$ also differs from Ref. .) The remaining direct scattering diagrams are less complicated since they have no cuts:

$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha _s^2}{k^2}}(T^AT^B\overline{T}^B\overline{T}^A)[4\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\lambda ^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2k}{m}}`$ (46)
$`+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{k}}\right)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{8k^2}{3m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{56p^2}{3m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{12k^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8k^2𝐒^2}{3m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2k^2𝐓}{3m^2}}\right\}`$
$`+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{m}}\right)\{{\displaystyle \frac{6k^2}{m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2k^2𝐒^2}{m^2}}\}+{\displaystyle \frac{2k^2}{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2k^2𝐒^2}{3m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2𝐓}{3m^2}}],`$
$`\text{}+\text{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha _s^2}{k^2}}C_A(T^A\overline{T}^A)[3\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}}\right)+4+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2k}{2m}}`$ (50)
$`+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{m}}\right)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{4k^2}{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4k^2𝐒^2}{3m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2𝐓}{3m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4k^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m^2}}\right\}`$
$`+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m}}\right)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{6p^2}{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{9k^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2k^2𝐒^2}{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2𝐓}{2m^2}}\right\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4p^2}{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8k^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2k^2𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}}{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2𝐓}{2m^2}}],`$
$`\text{}+\text{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha _s^2}{k^2}}(2C_FC_A)(T^A\overline{T}^A)[\{2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{m^2}}\right)+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}}\right)+4\}M^0`$ (52)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2k^2𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}}{3m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2𝐓}{6m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2k^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4k^2}{3m^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{m}}\right)],`$
$`\text{}+\text{perms}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha _s^2}{k^2}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}C_F(T^A\overline{T}^A)\left\{2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{m^2}}\right)+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}}\right)+4\right\}M^0,`$ (53)
$`\text{}+\text{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha _s^2}{k^2}}C_A(T^A\overline{T}^A)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{k^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{31}{9}}\right\}M^0,`$ (54)
and the light quark loops for $`n_f`$ flavors gives:
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha _s^2}{k^2}}n_fT_F(T^A\overline{T}^A)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{k^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{20}{9}}\right\}M^0,`$ (57)
while the heavy quark fermion loop gives:
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha _s^2}{k^2}}T_F(T^A\overline{T}^A)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}}\right)M^0{\displaystyle \frac{4k^2}{15m^2}}\right\}.`$ (60)
In Eq. (42) the matrix element

$`M^0=1+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2𝐒^2}{3m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3k^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2𝐓}{12m^2}}.`$ (61)
Note that we disagree with Ref.  on the order $`v^0`$ spin independent part of Eq. (42b). Ref.  has an additional non-logarithmic $`1/m^2`$ term. The difference arises because we find a different value for the order $`k^2`$ term in the non-Abelian $`F_1`$ form-factor. Eqs. (42c) through (42g) agree with Ref. .

The diagrams in Eq. (33) and (42) have contributions from several different scales. In particular, in the language of the threshold expansion, the hard regime gives $`\mathrm{ln}(\mu /m)`$’s, the soft regime gives $`\mathrm{ln}(\mu /k)`$’s, and the ultrasoft regime gives $`\mathrm{ln}(\mu /\lambda )`$’s. There are also $`i\mathrm{ln}(\lambda /p)`$ and $`i\mathrm{ln}(\lambda /k)`$ terms from the Coulomb divergence in the potential regime. In addition to logarithms, all regimes can give constant factors. In the effective theory, terms from the hard regime are absorbed into matching coefficients such as the four-quark potential operators and the remaining terms correspond to graphs involving modes in the effective theory. These graphs are discussed in more detail below.

Next consider the one-loop annihilation diagrams in QCD. Since the intermediate gluons are hard we expect these graphs to include a factor of $`1/m^2`$, thus giving hard order $`v^0`$ contributions to the potential. However, the graph in Eq. (II Ac) also has terms enhanced by a factor of $`m/p`$, which are order $`1/v`$ contributions.

$`\text{}+\text{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha _s^2}{m^2}}[\{({\displaystyle \frac{C_1}{N_c}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_d(N_c^21)}{8N_c^2}})(11)+({\displaystyle \frac{C_d}{4N_c}}2C_1)(T^A\overline{T}^A)\}`$ (63)
$`\times `$ $`(𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}2)(i\pi +22\mathrm{ln}2)C_A\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{(N_c^21)}{2N_c^2}}(11)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}(T^A\overline{T}^A)\right\}`$ (64)
$`\times `$ $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}\{{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{12}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{6}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{m}}\right)\}],`$ (65)
$`\text{}+\text{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha _s^2}{m^2}}C_A\left\{(T^A\overline{T}^A){\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}+(11){\displaystyle \frac{(N_c^21)}{2N_c}}\right\}`$ (66)
$`\times `$ $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{ln}2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{3}}\right\},`$ (67)
$`\text{}+\text{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha _s^2}{4m^2}}(2C_FC_A)\left\{(T^A\overline{T}^A){\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}+(11){\displaystyle \frac{(N_c^21)}{2N_c}}\right\}`$ (68)
$`\times `$ $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2m}{p}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2i\pi m}{p}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2p}{\lambda }}\right)4+2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m}}\right)+4\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{m}}\right)\right\},`$ (69)
$`\text{}+\text{perms}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha _s^2}{m^2}}C_F\left\{(T^A\overline{T}^A){\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}+(11){\displaystyle \frac{(N_c^21)}{2N_c}}\right\}`$ (70)
$`\times `$ $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{m^2}}\right)+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m}}\right)+2\right\},`$ (71)
$`\text{}+\text{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha _s^2}{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{5C_A}{12}}\left\{(T^A\overline{T}^A){\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}+(11){\displaystyle \frac{(N_c^21)}{2N_c}}\right\}`$ (72)
$`\times `$ $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}}\right)2\mathrm{ln}2+{\displaystyle \frac{31}{15}}+i\pi \right\},`$ (73)
and the light quark loop for $`n_f`$ flavors gives:
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha _s^2}{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_fT_F}{3}}\left\{(T^A\overline{T}^A){\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}+(11){\displaystyle \frac{(N_c^21)}{2N_c}}\right\}`$ (75)
$`\times `$ $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}}\right)2\mathrm{ln}2+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}+i\pi \right\},`$ (76)
while the heavy quark loop gives:
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha _s^2}{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_F}{3}}\left\{(T^A\overline{T}^A){\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}+(11){\displaystyle \frac{(N_c^21)}{2N_c}}\right\}`$ (78)
$`\times `$ $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\right\}.`$ (79)
In the limit $`pk/2`$, the results in Eq. (II A) agree with Ref. , except for Fig. (II Ac) and differences that can be accounted for by the fact that we are using $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ rather than an on-shell subtraction scheme. For Fig. (II Ac), Ref.  has a $`\pi ^2/k`$ term which for us is $`\pi ^2/(2p)`$. This sign for the $`\pi ^2/p`$ term is in agreement with Ref. . The imaginary parts of these one-loop annihilation amplitudes also agree with Ref. . Note that in Eqs. (33), (42), and (II A), $`\alpha _s=\alpha _s(\mu )`$.

### B The Effective Theory Calculation

The effective theory contains potential, soft and ultrasoft loops. We have organized the terms by their order in the velocity expansion. The order in $`v`$ can be determined using the $`v`$ power counting formulaHere the power of $`v`$ is given for the amputated diagram, so unlike Eq. (40) in Ref.  the factors of $`v`$ associated with external lines are not included. in Eq. (40) of Ref. . A loop graph with two insertions of the Coulomb potential contributes to a $`1/v^3`$ potential, and with an insertion of one Coulomb and one $`V^{(0)}`$ potential contributes to a $`1/v`$ potential. A soft loop with two vertices of order $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$ contributes to the $`v^{\sigma +\sigma ^{}2}`$ potential. Graphs involving the exchange of an ultrasoft gluon begin to contribute to the potential at order $`v^0`$, etc.

#### 1 Order $`1/v^3`$

In the effective theory taking two insertions of the tree level Coulomb potential in a loop gives the only diagram that is order $`\alpha _s^2/v^3`$:

$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{[𝒱_c^{(T)}]^2}{16\pi ^2}}(T^AT^B\overline{T}^A\overline{T}^B){\displaystyle \frac{2im\pi }{k^2p}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\lambda ^2}}\right).`$ (80)
Taking $`\mu =m`$ and $`\nu =1`$ and using the tree level value of $`V_c^{(T)}`$, this graph exactly reproduces the order $`\alpha _s^2/v^3`$ “Coulomb singularity” term in the QCD box diagram in Eq. (33). Thus, there is no matching correction at this order.

#### 2 Order $`1/v^2`$

At order $`\alpha _s^2/v^2`$ in the effective theory, the only non-zero diagram involves the exchange of soft gluons, ghosts and quarks:

$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha _s^2(\mu _S)}{k^2}}(T^A\overline{T}^A)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4T_Fn_f11C_A}{3}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{ϵ}}}+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _S^2}{k^2}}\right)\right\}+{\displaystyle \frac{20T_Fn_f31C_A}{9}}\right],`$ (81)
where $`1/\widehat{ϵ}=1/ϵ\gamma +\mathrm{ln}(4\pi )`$ is the combination subtracted in $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$. The divergence in this graph is responsible for the one-loop running of $`𝒱_c^{(T)}`$. At one-loop, to order $`v^0`$ the effective theory counterterms (and running of the potential) were computed in Ref.  and from now on the $`1/\widehat{ϵ}`$ dependence will be dropped. The sum of order $`\alpha _s^2/v^2`$ terms from the QCD diagrams in Eqs. (33) and (42) is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha _s^2(\mu )}{k^2}}(T^A\overline{T}^A)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4T_F}{3}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{4T_Fn_f11C_A}{3}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{k^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{20T_Fn_f31C_A}{9}}\right].`$ (82)
At the scale $`\mu =\mu _S=m`$ the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ values of Eq. (81) and Eq. (82) are identical, so there is no one-loop matching correction to $`𝒱_c`$. The difference in $`\mathrm{ln}(\mu )`$’s in Eqs. (82) and (81) is the change in $`\beta `$-function from $`n_f+1`$ to $`n_f`$ flavors. We would expect a new contribution to $`𝒱_c`$ only if the QCD graphs have a contribution from the hard regime where energy and momenta are order $`m`$. In Eqs. (42b), (42c), and (42d), the factors of $`3\mathrm{ln}(m^2)+4`$ are from the hard regime, but they sum to zero. For the $`\mathrm{ln}(m)`$ terms this is a consequence of the Ward identity derived in Ref. . The constant factor $`(20T_Fn_f31C_A)/9`$ vanishes in the matching condition at $`m`$, and is carried to scales below $`m`$ by the soft modes.

Note that if at the scale $`\nu =v_kk/m`$ we integrate out the soft modes, then the Coulomb potential for the theory below this scale, $`\overline{𝒱}_c`$, will obtain an additional contribution from this second stage of matching: $`\overline{𝒱}_c^{(T)}(v_k)=𝒱_c^{(T)}(v_k)(20T_Fn_f31C_A)\alpha _s^2(mv_k)/9`$. In this expression $`𝒱_c^{(T)}(v_k)`$ is the value of $`𝒱_c^{(T)}`$ obtained from running this coefficient from $`\nu =1`$ to $`\nu =v_k`$ using its two-loop anomalous dimension. This reproduces the constant factor that is typically associated with the Coulomb potential at next-to-leading order (see for instance, Ref. ). Similarly, one can obtain the additional terms from the matching contributions for the $`v^0`$ potentials at $`mv`$ from the value of the soft loops given in Eq. (102).

#### 3 Order $`1/v`$

The possible order $`\alpha _s^2/v`$ diagrams with soft gluons vanish explicitly, so the only order $`\alpha _s^2/v`$ diagrams in the effective theory involve two iterations of the potential. There are two diagrams with insertions of $`𝒱_c^{(T)}`$:

$`\text{}+\mathrm{\Delta }E\text{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i[𝒱_c^{(T)}]^2}{4m}}T^AT^B\overline{T}^A\overline{T}^B\left(I_F+2p^2I_0\right),`$ (83)
where the integrals $`I_0`$ and $`I_F`$ are given in Appendix B. The dependence on $`𝒱_c^{(1)}`$ is not needed since tree level matching gives $`𝒱_c^{(1)}=0`$. In the first diagram in Eq. (83), the cross denotes an insertion of the $`𝐩^4/m^3`$ operator from Eq. (10). The second diagram is nominally order $`\alpha _s^2/v^3`$; however it depends on the heavy quark energy $`E=𝐩^2/(2m)𝐩^4/(8m^3)+\mathrm{}`$. When the energy is expanded in terms of momenta, the graph includes a contribution of order $`\alpha _s^2/v`$ which we indicate by the pre-factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ in Eq. (83). Each of the diagrams in Eq. (83) has an IR divergence that is not regulated by $`\lambda `$, but the IR divergence in the sum of the integrands for the two diagrams is regulated.

Additional $`\alpha _s^2/v`$ diagrams are generated by including one insertion of the Coulomb potential and one order $`v^0`$ potential:

$`\text{}+\text{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i𝒱_c^{(T)}𝒱_r^{(T)}}{m}}T^AT^B\overline{T}^A\overline{T}^B\left(I_F+2p^2I_0\right),`$ (85)
$`\text{}+\text{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i𝒱_c^{(T)}𝒱_s^{(T)}}{m}}T^AT^B\overline{T}^A\overline{T}^B\left(2I_P𝐒^2\right),`$ (86)
$`\text{}+\text{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i𝒱_c^{(T)}𝒱_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(T)}}{m}}T^AT^B\overline{T}^A\overline{T}^B\left(2k^2\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐩^{},𝐩)I_A\right),`$ (87)
$`\text{}+\text{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i𝒱_c^{(T)}𝒱_t^{(T)}}{2m}}T^AT^B\overline{T}^A\overline{T}^B[𝐤\sigma _1k\sigma _2(12I_C+3I_0)`$ (88)
$`4`$ $`\sigma _1\sigma _2(I_P3I_B)+𝐑(12I_D12I_A+3I_0)],`$ (89)
$`\text{}+\text{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i𝒱_c^{(T)}𝒱_{s,a}^{(T)}}{m}}T^AT^B\overline{T}^A\overline{T}^B\left(𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}2I_P\right)`$ (91)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i𝒱_c^{(T)}𝒱_{s,a}^{(1)}}{m}}T^A\overline{T}^A\left(𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}2I_P\right).`$
The last two diagrams involve insertions of terms in the potential generated by the tree level annihilation diagram. In Eqs. (83) and (II B 3) the dependence on $`11`$ potentials whose coefficients vanish at tree level are not shown. Thus, both the $`11`$ and $`T\overline{T}`$ contributions are only shown in Eq. (II B 3e). The new integrals $`I_P`$, $`I_A`$, $`I_B`$, $`I_C`$, and $`I_D`$ that appear in Eq. (II B 3) are given in Appendix B, and $`𝐑`$ is defined in Eq. (42).

The infrared divergences in the $`1/v`$ amplitude are due to the Coulomb singularity. The divergences in the full theory are reproduced by the potential loops in Eqs. (83) and (II B 3). The imaginary terms in the amplitude from the QCD box graph exactly agree with those in the effective theory, and do not contribute in the matching coefficients, as expected. Subtracting the effective theory graphs in Eqs. (83) and (II B 3) from the order $`\alpha _s^2/v`$ terms in Eq. (33), (42)a,b and (II A)c gives the matching result for the $`V^{(1)}`$ potential at $`\mu =m`$, $`\nu =1`$:

$`𝒱_k^{(T)}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _s^2(m)\left({\displaystyle \frac{7C_A}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_d}{8}}\right),𝒱_k^{(1)}=\alpha _s^2(m){\displaystyle \frac{C_1}{2}}.`$ (92)
For the color singlet channel this gives the matching coefficient $`𝒱_k^{(s)}=\alpha _s^2(m)(C_F^2/2C_FC_A)`$ in agreement with Ref. . Note that the real part of the $`1/v`$ amplitudes in the full and effective theory have a complicated dependence on $`p`$ and $`k`$, but the momentum dependence of the matching for the direct potentials in Eq. (92) is only of the form $`1/\left|𝐤\right|`$. For the annihilation graphs the $`1/p`$ terms cancel between the full and effective theories. There would have been a $`1/p`$ matching coefficient for the annihilation graphs if the results of Ref.  had been used for the full theory graph.

The matching coefficients in Eq. (92) correspond to a contribution to the $`1/v`$ potential at the scale $`\mu =m`$, which does not come from the hard part of any graph. This is in apparent contradiction with the threshold expansion. It also appears to disagree with Refs.  and , where the $`1/|𝐤|`$ four-quark potential operator is said to only arise at the scale $`mv`$. However, in Refs.  and  a formulation of NRQCD is being used in which off-shell potential field components have not been integrated out for scales $`mv<\mu <m`$, but instead are considered to be dynamical fields in the Lagrangain (see Refs. ). In the full theory the $`1/|𝐤|`$ terms come from three types of graphs, shown in Eq. (33) and Eqs. (42a,b). At the scale $`m`$ there are now effective theory graphs analogous to those in Eq. (42b) but with two $`A^0`$ potential gluons and one $`𝐀^i`$ potential gluon, which reproduce the $`1/|𝐤|`$ term. For the box and crossed box in Feynman gauge the $`1/|𝐤|`$ terms are reproduced by contributions that can be associated with the potential momentum regime. Thus, in Refs.  and  the $`1/|𝐤|`$ potential in Eq. (92) effectively exists at the scale $`m`$. In our approach off-shell potential gluons and soft quarks are integrated out, so the matching for the $`1/|𝐤|`$ potential is not simply given by the hard part of the QCD diagrams.

#### 4 Order $`v^0`$

For the order $`\alpha _s^2v^0`$ matching we will consider the direct and annihilation diagrams separately. The sum of the order $`\alpha _s^2v^0`$ terms in the direct scattering QCD diagrams in Eqs. (33) and (42) is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha _s^2(\mu )}{m^2}}`$ $`(11)C_1\left[42𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}+2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{m}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{k}}\right)\right]`$ (93)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha _s^2(\mu )}{m^2}}`$ $`(T^A\overline{T}^A)[{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{k^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{31C_A}{9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16C_A}{3}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\mu }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{38C_A}{3}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{k}}\right)\}`$ (101)
$`+\{2C_F3C_AC_d+({\displaystyle \frac{8C_F}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2C_d}{3}}2C_A)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\mu }}\right)`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{7C_d}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{43C_A}{6}})\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{k}}\right)+({\displaystyle \frac{8C_F}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{31C_A}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_d}{2}})\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m}}\right)\}`$
$`+\mathrm{\Lambda }\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{31C_A}{6}}4C_F7C_A\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{k}}\right)4C_A\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m}}\right)\right\}`$
$`+𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{C_d}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{17C_A}{54}}{\displaystyle \frac{4C_F}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{9}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{k}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{7C_A}{3}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m}}\right)\right\}`$
$`+𝐓\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{49C_A}{108}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{5C_A}{18}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{k}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{3}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m}}\right)\right\}`$
$`n_fT_F\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{k^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{20}{9}}\right\}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{k^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐒^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐓}{12}}\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4T_F}{3}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}}\right)\{{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{k^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐒^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐓}{12}}\}+{\displaystyle \frac{4T_F}{15}}].`$
The effective theory contribution from order $`\alpha _s^2v^0`$ diagrams with soft gluons, ghosts or quarks is:

$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha _s^2(\mu _S)}{m^2}}(11)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{14C_1}{3}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _S}{k}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{C_1}{3}}\right]`$ (102)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha _s^2(\mu _S)}{m^2}}(T^A\overline{T}^A)[C_A\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _S}{k}}\right)\{{\displaystyle \frac{43}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{38p^2}{3k^2}}+7\mathrm{\Lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐒^2}{9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5𝐓}{18}}\}`$ (105)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{7C_d}{6}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _S}{k}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{C_d}{12}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7C_A}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{31C_Ap^2}{9k^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7C_A\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{14C_A𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}}{27}}+{\displaystyle \frac{13C_A𝐓}{108}}`$
$`+n_fT_F\{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _S^2}{k^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{20}{9}}\}\{{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{k^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐒^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐓}{12}}\}].`$
There are also non-zero order $`\alpha _s^2v^0`$ diagrams with an ultrasoft gluon and one insertion of the Coulomb potential. These diagrams were calculated in Ref. :

$`\text{}+\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8i}{3m^2}}\alpha _s(\mu _S)\alpha _s(\mu _U)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _U}{\lambda }}\right)[C_1(11)`$ (107)
$`+(T\overline{T})\{C_F+{\displaystyle \frac{C_d}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{3C_A}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2p^2C_A}{k^2}}\}].`$
In Eq. (107) the ellipses denote all possible diagrams that are generated by attaching the ultrasoft gluon to two fermion legs. Subtracting the sum of Eq. (102) and (107) from Eq. (93) and setting $`\mu =\mu _S=\mu _U=m`$ gives the one-loop matching contribution for the order $`v^0`$ direct potentials. At order $`v^0`$ we find that all the infrared divergences in QCD are matched by infrared divergences from the effective theory graphs with ultrasoft gluons. All $`\mathrm{ln}(k)`$’s in the full theory are matched by $`\mathrm{ln}(k)`$’s in Eq. (102). The contributions to the matching coefficients at one-loop are:

(113)
The total order $`\alpha _s^2v^0`$ matching coefficients are given by adding the tree level values in Eq. (28) to the results in Eq. (113), and are summarized in Table I at the end of the paper.

Next consider the matching of the order $`\alpha _s^2v^0`$ annihilation contributions. Since there are no corresponding diagrams in the effective theory, the sum of the $`\alpha _s^2v^0`$ terms in Eq. (II A) directly give the matching coefficients. This sum is infrared finite. Matching at $`\mu =m`$, $`\nu =1`$ we find that the one-loop annihilation contributions to the potential coefficients are:

$`𝒱_{s,a}^{(T)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{C_d}{4N_c}}2C_1\right)(i\pi +22\mathrm{ln}2)\alpha _s^2(m)`$ (115)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{109C_A}{36}}4C_F+{\displaystyle \frac{n_fT_F}{3}}\left(2\mathrm{ln}2{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}i\pi \right){\displaystyle \frac{8T_F}{9}}\right\}\alpha _s^2(m),`$
$`𝒱_{s,a}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{C_1}{N_c}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_d(N_c^21)}{8N_c^2}}\right\}(i\pi +22\mathrm{ln}2)\alpha _s^2(m)`$ (117)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(N_c^21)}{2N_c^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{109C_A}{36}}4C_F+{\displaystyle \frac{n_fT_F}{3}}\left(2\mathrm{ln}2{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}i\pi \right){\displaystyle \frac{8T_F}{9}}\right\}\alpha _s^2(m),`$
$`𝒱_{2,a}^{(T)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{C_d}{4N_c}}2C_1\right)(i\pi +22\mathrm{ln}2)\alpha _s^2(m),`$ (118)
$`𝒱_{2,a}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{C_1}{N_c}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_d(N_c^21)}{8N_c^2}}\right\}(i\pi +22\mathrm{ln}2)\alpha _s^2(m).`$ (119)
The imaginary terms in these potentials contribute to the cross section for annihilation of a color octet heavy quark and anti-quark into light hadrons, and agree with the results of Ref. . The total annihilation contribution to the order $`\alpha _s^2v^0`$ matching coefficients are given by adding the tree level results in Eq. (31) to the results in Eq. (115), and are summarized in Table I.

If a different matching scale, $`\mu _h`$, had been used then the coefficients in Eqs. (113) and (115) would also depend on $`\mathrm{ln}(\mu _h/m)`$. Since the prediction for observables is independent of $`\mu _h`$ the most convenient choice, $`\mu _h=m`$, has been adopted.

In the threshold expansion, the full QCD diagram is the sum of hard, soft, ultrasoft and potential graphs. The soft, ultrasoft and potential graphs are the graphs in the effective theory up to renormalization effects such as the dependence on the scales $`\mu _S`$ and $`\mu _U`$. The matching conditions in Eq. (113) and (115) can also be computed from the hard part of the full theory graphs, and we have verified that this gives the same result as in Eqs. (113) and (115). The matching onto four-quark operators was first considered by Pineda and Soto in the context of pNRQCD . In their approach, the hard parts of the vertex correction and wavefunction renormalization are included in matching coefficients in the single heavy quark sector of the Lagrangian. The direct matching for four-quark operators is given by the hard part of the box and crossed-box. The hard part of our box and crossed-box agree with Ref. , except for the finite part of the $`\sigma _1\sigma _2`$ terms, which causes our $`𝒱_2^{(T)}`$ and $`𝒱_s^{(T)}`$ to disagree with theirs. This is related to the treatment of epsilon tensors and the non-relativistic reduction of matrix elements of spin operators in $`d`$ dimensions. We have chosen to take the lowest order term in the matrix element of $`\gamma ^{[\alpha }\gamma ^\sigma \gamma ^{\beta ]}\gamma _{[\alpha }\gamma _\tau \gamma _{\beta ]}`$ to be $`ϵ^{\alpha \beta \sigma k}ϵ_{\alpha \beta \tau k^{}}\sigma _1^k\sigma _2^k^{}`$, and have used the ’t Hooft-Veltmann scheme for the epsilon tensors so that $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ and $`ϵ^{ijk}`$ are only non-zero when the indices are in four and three dimensions respectively. This convention was used in both the soft loop integrals as well as when cross checking our result by computing the hard part of the box diagrams using the threshold expansion. This scheme dependence is related to the issue of evanescent operators . The annihilation results in Eq. (115) agree completely with Ref. .

Note that in a leading-log expansion the two-loop anomalous dimension is needed at the same time as the one-loop matching results. In the color-singlet channel the $`1/v^2`$ two-loop anomalous dimensions is known , since the running of the Coulomb potential is still given by the QCD $`\beta `$-function at this order. The result for the two-loop anomalous dimension for $`V^{(1)}`$ will be presented in another publication.

## III Terms in the potential which vanish on-shell.

For the scattering $`Q(p_1^0,𝐩)+\overline{Q}(p_2^0,𝐩)Q(p_3^0,𝐩^{})+\overline{Q}(p_4^0,𝐩^{})`$ consider adding

$`V^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[𝒱_{\mathrm{\Delta }1}^{(T)}(T^A\overline{T}^A)+𝒱_{\mathrm{\Delta }1}^{(1)}(11)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{(p_3^0p_1^0)^2}{𝐤^4}}`$ (120)
$`+`$ $`\left[𝒱_{\mathrm{\Delta }2}^{(T)}(T^A\overline{T}^A)+𝒱_{\mathrm{\Delta }2}^{(1)}(11)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{(𝐩^2p^2)^2}{4m^2𝐤^4}}`$ (121)
to the potential in Eq. (26). Here $`𝐤=𝐩^{}𝐩`$ and by energy conservation $`p_3^0p_1^0=p_2^0p_4^0`$. On-shell the potentials in Eq. (120) vanish, since $`p_1^0=p_3^0`$, $`p_4^0=p_2^0`$, and $`𝐩^\mathrm{𝟐}=𝐩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$. However, if we work off-shell, they are valid terms and in fact show up in many calculations that make use of time-ordered perturbation theory.

Matching to the tree level diagrams in Fig. 1 with $`p_1^0p_3^0`$ gives a contribution to the potentials in Eq. (120). In Feynman gauge one finds

$`𝒱_{\mathrm{\Delta }1}^{(T)}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \alpha _s(m),𝒱_{\mathrm{\Delta }1}^{(1)}=0,𝒱_{\mathrm{\Delta }2}^{(T)}=0,𝒱_{\mathrm{\Delta }2}^{(1)}=0,`$ (122)
while in Coulomb gauge one gets a different answer

$`𝒱_{\mathrm{\Delta }1}^{(T)}=0,𝒱_{\mathrm{\Delta }1}^{(1)}=0,𝒱_{\mathrm{\Delta }2}^{(T)}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \alpha _s(m),𝒱_{\mathrm{\Delta }2}^{(1)}=0.`$ (123)
Unlike the on-shell potentials discussed in the previous section, the matching conditions for off-shell potentials are gauge dependent. Using the expressions for the soft vertices in Feynman gauge in Appendix A, the one loop anomalous dimensions are

$`\nu {\displaystyle \frac{}{\nu }}𝒱_{\mathrm{\Delta }2}^{(T)}=2\beta _0\alpha _s(m\nu )^2,\nu {\displaystyle \frac{}{\nu }}𝒱_{\mathrm{\Delta }1}^{(T)}=\nu {\displaystyle \frac{}{\nu }}𝒱_{\mathrm{\Delta }1}^{(1)}=\nu {\displaystyle \frac{}{\nu }}𝒱_{\mathrm{\Delta }2}^{(1)}=0.`$ (124)
Including the potential in Eq. (120) modifies the matching condition for the $`1/|𝐤|`$ potentials and also makes this matching gauge dependent. This is because in the effective theory there are now two new order $`\alpha _s^2/v`$ diagrams:

(125)
$`\text{}+\text{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i𝒱_c^{(T)}𝒱_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(T)}}{32mk}}T^AT^B\overline{T}^A\overline{T}^B+{\displaystyle \frac{i𝒱_c^{(T)}𝒱_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}}{32mk}}T^A\overline{T}^A+\mathrm{}.`$ (126)
In Eq. (125) the box labeled by $`𝒱_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ denotes an insertion of both operators in Eq. (120), the ellipses denote operators that vanish by the equations of motion (proportional to $`p_1^0𝐩^\mathrm{𝟐}/2m`$, $`p_3^0𝐩^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}/2m`$ etc.), and we have defined

$`𝒱_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(T)}=𝒱_{\mathrm{\Delta }1}^{(T)}+𝒱_{\mathrm{\Delta }2}^{(T)},𝒱_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}=𝒱_{\mathrm{\Delta }1}^{(1)}+𝒱_{\mathrm{\Delta }2}^{(1)}.`$ (128)
In Feynman gauge the matching conditions in Eq. (92) now become

$`𝒱_{kF}^{(T)}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _s^2(m)\left({\displaystyle \frac{3C_A}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_d}{4}}\right),𝒱_{kF}^{(1)}=\alpha _s^2(m)C_1,`$ (129)
while in Coulomb gauge

$`𝒱_{kC}^{(T)}`$ $`=`$ $`C_A\alpha _s^2(m),𝒱_{kC}^{(1)}=0.`$ (130)
The $`1/|𝐤|`$ potential is often referred to as the non-abelian potential. From Eqs. (129) and (130), we see that the $`1/|𝐤|`$ potential only vanishes in QED if the potential is taken to include off-shell components and Coulomb gauge is used.

The result in Eq. (125) shows that in the off-shell matching potential one can make the replacements

$`V_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(T)}`$ $``$ $`V_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(T)}+\zeta ^{(T)},`$ (131)
$`V_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}`$ $``$ $`V_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}+\zeta ^{(1)},`$ (132)
$`V_k^{(T)}`$ $``$ $`V_k^{(T)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}V_c^{(T)}\left[\zeta ^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(C_A+C_d)\zeta ^{(T)}\right],`$ (133)
$`V_k^{(1)}`$ $``$ $`V_k^{(1)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}V_c^{(T)}C_1\zeta ^{(T)},`$ (134)
for arbitrary $`\zeta ^{(T,1)}`$. For instance, at the matching scale taking $`\zeta ^{(1)}=0`$, $`\zeta ^{(T)}=8\pi \alpha _s(m)`$ effectively transforms the Feynman gauge result in Eqs. (122) and (129) into the Coulomb gauge result in Eqs. (123) and (130). Furthermore, taking $`\zeta ^{(1)}=0`$ and $`\zeta ^{(T)}=4\pi \alpha _s(m)`$ transforms the off-shell Coulomb gauge result into the on-shell result in section II. These transformations convert terms in the potential that are order $`\alpha _sv^0`$ to order $`\alpha _s^2/v`$. Similar transformations for the position space color singlet potentials have been pointed out previously in Refs. .

## IV The Quark-Quark Potential

The quark-quark potentials in the effective theory can be defined in the same way as the quark-antiquark potentials. The only difference is that the $`V^{(T)}`$ terms are now the coefficient of the $`T^AT^A`$ tensor, rather than the $`T^A\overline{T}^A`$ tensor. The computation of the quark-quark potential is almost identical to that of the quark-antiquark potential. The result can be obtained from the quark-antiquark potential by omitting the annihilation terms, and making the substitutions $`C_dC_d`$ and $`\overline{T}^AT^A`$. The change in sign of $`C_d`$ arises from the identities in Eq. (22). Replacing $`\overline{T}`$ by $`T`$ in these equations changes the sign of the $`C_d`$ terms.

The potential in the symmetric and antisymmetric $`QQ`$ color channels (the $`\mathrm{𝟔}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ for $`SU(3)`$) are given by

$`\left[\begin{array}{c}V_{\mathrm{symmetric}}\\ V_{\mathrm{antisymmetric}}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& & \frac{N_c1}{2N_c}\\ 1& & \frac{N_c+1}{2N_c}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}V_{11}\\ V_{TT}\end{array}\right].`$ (141)
The spin-$`1`$ $`QQ`$ combination is spin-symmetric and the spin-$`0`$ $`QQ`$ combination is spin-antisymmetric. For identical fermions in the initial state, for the symmetric spin-color states we must antisymmetrize the potential in the momenta, $`V=V(𝐩,𝐩^{})V(𝐩,𝐩^{})`$, and for the antisymmetric spin-color states we must symmetrize the potential in the momenta, $`V=V(𝐩,𝐩^{})+V(𝐩,𝐩^{})`$. This corresponds to including the crossed diagrams in the computation of the potentials.

## V QED

It is straightforward to obtain the QED potential from our results. For oppositely charged particles of charge $`\pm Q`$, the QED direct potential is given by $`Q^2(V_{11}V_{T\overline{T}})`$, where $`V_{11}`$ and $`V_{T\overline{T}}`$ are given by our QCD results with $`C_1=C_F=T_F=1`$, $`C_A=C_d=0`$, and $`\alpha _s\alpha `$. The on-shell $`1/|𝐤|`$ potential does not vanish in this limit. In the results for the annihilation potentials at the scale $`m`$ in Eqs. (31) and (115), explicit factors of $`N_c`$ were included in the Fierz transformation, so it is simplest to just separately list the QED limit of these results:

$`𝒱_{s,a}^{(T)}`$ $`=`$ $`(i\pi +22\mathrm{ln}2)\alpha ^2(m)Q^2,`$ (142)
$`𝒱_{s,a}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi \alpha (m)+\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{44}{9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n_f}{3}}\left(2\mathrm{ln}2{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}i\pi \right)\right\}\alpha ^2(m)Q^2,`$ (143)
$`𝒱_{2,a}^{(T)}`$ $`=`$ $`2(i\pi +22\mathrm{ln}2)\alpha ^2(m)Q^2,`$ (144)
$`𝒱_{2,a}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (145)
For $`e^+e^{}`$ we have $`n_f=0`$ and the terms in our $`v^0`$ potentials agree with Ref. .

For identical particles with charge $`Q`$, there is only the direct potential contribution, which is given by $`Q^2(V_{11}+V_{TT})`$, with $`C_1=C_F=T_F=1`$, $`C_A=C_d=0`$, and $`\alpha _s\alpha `$ as above. As discussed in Section IV, including the crossed diagrams gives a final potential that is symmetric or antisymmetric in the momenta depending on the symmetry of the spin state.

## VI Conclusion

We have computed the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ and $`QQ`$ scattering amplitudes in QCD to order $`v^2`$, and compared our results with previous calculations. We have also computed the scattering graphs in vNRQCD, and computed the matching condition at $`\mu =m`$ between the two theories. The matching potential was computed using on-shell matching, omitting terms which vanish by the equations of motion. The result was compared with approaches that include terms in the potential that vanish on-shell. The one-loop matching coefficients are summarized in Table I, and can be combined with the two-loop running to give the potential at next to leading log order. The computation of the heavy quark production current at next to leading logarithmic order uses these results and will be discussed in a subsequent publication .

We would like to thank A. Hoang and J. Soto for discussions. This work was supported in part by the Department of Energy under grant DOE-FG03-97ER40546.

## A Coefficients for the soft Lagrangian

The coefficient functions for the soft Lagrangian in Eq. (13) in Feynman gauge are:

$`U_{00}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^0}},U_{0i}^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{(2p^{}2pq)^i}{(𝐩^{}𝐩)^2}},U_{i0}^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{(pp^{}q)^i}{(𝐩^{}𝐩)^2}},U_{ij}^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{2q^0\delta ^{ij}}{(𝐩^{}𝐩)^2}},`$ (A1)
$`U_{00}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(p^{}+p)q}{2m(q^0)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(p^{}+p)q}{m(𝐩^{}𝐩)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{ic_F𝝈[𝐪\times (pp^{})]}{m(𝐩^{}𝐩)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(𝐩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝐩^2)}{2m(𝐩^{}𝐩)^2}},`$ (A2)
$`U_{0i}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(p+p^{})^i}{2mq^0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ic_F(𝐪\times 𝝈)^i}{2mq^0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{q^0(p+p^{})^i}{2m(𝐩^{}𝐩)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ic_Fq^0[(pp^{})\times 𝝈]^i}{2m(𝐩^{}𝐩)^2}},`$ (A3)
$`U_{i0}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(p+p^{})^i}{2mq^0}}{\displaystyle \frac{ic_F[(pp^{}+q)\times 𝝈]^i}{2mq^0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{q^0(p+p^{})^i}{2m(𝐩^{}𝐩)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ic_Fq^0[(pp^{})\times 𝝈]^i}{2m(𝐩^{}𝐩)^2}},`$ (A4)
$`U_{ij}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ic_Fϵ^{ijk}𝝈^k}{2m}}+[2\delta ^{ij}𝐪^m+\delta ^{im}(2p^{}2pq)^j+\delta ^{jm}(pp^{}q)^i]`$ (A6)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{(p+p^{})^m+ic_Fϵ^{mkl}(pp^{})^k𝝈^l}{2m(𝐩^{}p)^2}}\right],`$
$`U_{00}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_D(𝐩^{}𝐩)^2}{8m^2q^0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{c_Si𝝈(𝐩^{}\times p)}{4m^2q^0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(𝐩𝐪)^2+(𝐩^{}𝐪)^2}{2m^2(q^0)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(2c_D)(pp^{})q}{4m^2q^0}}`$ (A8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(1c_D)𝐪^2}{4m^2q^0}},`$
$`U_{0i}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[𝐩q(2p+q)^i+𝐩^{}q(2p^{}q)^i]}{4m^2(q^0)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ic_F[𝐪\times 𝝈]^i(p+p^{})q}{4m^2(q^0)^2}}`$ (A11)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(c_D1)(𝐩p^{}+q)^i}{4m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(2p^{}2pq)^i}{4m^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{c_D}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_Si𝝈(𝐩^{}\times p)}{(𝐩^{}𝐩)^2}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(𝐩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝐩^2)}{4m^2(𝐩^{}𝐩)^2}}\left[(𝐩+𝐩^{})^i+c_Fi𝝈(𝐩^{}\times p)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{(2p^{}2pq)^i(𝐩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝐩^2)^2}{4m^2(𝐩^{}𝐩)^4}},`$
$`U_{i0}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[𝐩q(p+p^{}+q)^i+𝐩^{}q(p+p^{}q)^i]}{4m^2(q^0)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{ic_F[(pp^{}+q)\times 𝝈]^i(p+p^{})q}{4m^2(q^0)^2}}`$ (A14)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(c_D1)𝐪^i}{4m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(pp^{}q)^i}{4m^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{c_D}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_Si𝝈(𝐩^{}\times p)}{(𝐩^{}𝐩)^2}}\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(𝐩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝐩^2)}{2m^2(𝐩^{}𝐩)^2}}\left[(𝐩+𝐩^{})^i+c_Fi𝝈(𝐩^{}\times p)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{(pp^{}q)^i(𝐩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝐩^2)^2}{4m^2(𝐩^{}𝐩)^4}},`$
$`U_{ij}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(p+p^{})^i(p+p^{})^j}{4m^2q^0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{c_F^2(pp^{})q\delta ^{ij}}{4m^2q^0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ic_F(p+p^{})^j[(pp^{})\times 𝝈]^i}{4m^2q^0}}`$ (A17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{ic_Fϵ^{ijk}𝐪^k𝝈(p+p^{})}{4m^2q^0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ic_Fϵ^{ijk}𝝈^k(p+p^{})q}{4m^2q^0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1c_F^2)𝐪^i(𝐩p^{}+q)^j}{4m^2q^0}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{c_F^2𝐪^2\delta ^{ij}}{4m^2q^0}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\delta ^{ij}q^0c_Si𝝈(𝐩^{}\times p)}{2m^2(𝐩^{}𝐩)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2q^0\delta ^{ij}(𝐩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝐩^2)^2}{4m^2(𝐩^{}𝐩)^4}},`$
$`W_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (A18)
$`W_{00}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(pp^{})q}{2m(q^0)^2}},W_{0i}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{(pp^{}+q)^i}{2mq^0}},W_{i0}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{𝐪^i}{2mq^0}},W_{ij}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{ij}}{2m}},`$ (A19)
$`Y^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^0}{(𝐩^{}𝐩)^2}},Y^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{𝐪(p+p^{})+ic_F𝝈[q\times (pp^{})]}{2m(𝐩^{}𝐩)^2}},`$ (A20)
$`Y^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_Dq^0}{8m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_Si𝝈(𝐩^{}\times p)q^0}{4m^2(𝐩^{}𝐩)^2}},`$ (A21)
$`Z_0^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(𝐩^{}𝐩)^2}},Z_i^{(0)}=0,Z_0^{(1)}=0,Z_i^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{(𝐩+p^{})^iic_F[(𝐩p^{})\times 𝝈]^i}{2m(𝐩^{}𝐩)^2}},`$ (A22)
$`Z_0^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{c_D}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_Si𝝈(𝐩^{}\times p)}{(𝐩^{}𝐩)^2}}\right],Z_i^{(2)}=0.`$ (A23)
These expressions differ from those in Ref.  by terms proportional to $`𝐩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝐩^2`$, and the values in Eq. (A1) are the complete on-shell expressions. The $`𝐩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝐩^2`$ terms were not needed in calculating the one-loop running of the on-shell order $`v^0`$ potentials in Ref. . In section III, these terms were used to compute the running of the off-shell potential in Eq. (124), and this result depends on the fact that we used the on-shell soft Lagrangian. The coefficients in Eq. (A1) can be written in a manifestly Hermitian form, however we have instead used $`𝐪^{}=𝐪+𝐩𝐩^{}`$ and $`q^{}{}_{}{}^{0}=q^0+p^0p^{}^0`$ to eliminate $`q^{}`$ since this form is more convenient for calculations. Reparameterization invariance  can be used to eliminate $`c_S`$ by the relation $`c_S=2c_F1`$. The running of $`c_D`$ and $`c_F`$ are given in Refs. .

## B Integrals

The effective theory integrals that appear in Eqs. (83) and (II B 3) are

$`I_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3q\frac{1}{[(𝐪p)^2+\lambda ^2][(𝐪p^{})^2+\lambda ^2][𝐪^\mathrm{𝟐}𝐩^2iϵ]}}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{8\pi |𝐩|𝐤^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{𝐤^2}}\right),`$ (B1)
$`I_F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3q\frac{1}{(𝐪p)^2(𝐪p^{})^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8|𝐤|}},`$ (B2)
$`I_P`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3q\frac{1}{[(𝐪p^{})^2+\lambda ^2][𝐪^\mathrm{𝟐}𝐩^2iϵ]}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16|𝐩|}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8\pi |𝐩|}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2|𝐩|}{\lambda }}\right),`$ (B3)
and

$`{\displaystyle d^3q\frac{𝐪^i}{[(𝐪p)^2+\lambda ^2][(𝐪p^{})^2+\lambda ^2][𝐪^\mathrm{𝟐}𝐩^2iϵ]}}=(𝐩^{}+𝐩)^iI_A,`$ (B4)
$`{\displaystyle d^3q\frac{𝐪^i𝐪^j}{[(𝐪p)^2+\lambda ^2][(𝐪p^{})^2+\lambda ^2][𝐪^\mathrm{𝟐}𝐩^2iϵ]}}=\delta ^{ij}I_B+(𝐩^{}𝐩)^i(𝐩^{}𝐩)^jI_C`$ (B5)
$`+(𝐩^{}+𝐩)^i(𝐩^{}+𝐩)^jI_D,`$ (B6)
where $`𝐤=𝐩^{}𝐩`$ and

$`I_A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2|𝐩||𝐤|𝐤^2)\pi 2i𝐤^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2|𝐩|}{\lambda }\right)4i𝐩^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\lambda ^2}{𝐤^2}\right)}{16\pi |𝐩|𝐤^2(4𝐩^2𝐤^2)}},`$ (B7)
$`I_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2|𝐩||𝐤|)\pi +2i|𝐩|\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{4𝐩^2}{𝐤^2}\right)}{16\pi (4𝐩^2𝐤^2)}},`$ (B8)
$`I_C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2|𝐩||𝐤|𝐤^2)\pi 2i(4𝐩^2𝐤^2)2i𝐤^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2|𝐩|}{\lambda }\right)4i𝐩^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\lambda ^2}{𝐤^2}\right)}{32\pi |𝐩|𝐤^2(4𝐩^2𝐤^2)}},`$ (B9)
$`I_D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi |𝐩|𝐤^2(4𝐩^2𝐤^2)^2}}[(2|𝐩||𝐤|)^2(4|𝐩|+|𝐤|)|𝐤|\pi +2i𝐤^2(4𝐩^2𝐤^2)`$ (B11)
$`2i𝐤^2(12𝐩^2𝐤^2)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2|𝐩|}{\lambda }}\right)4i𝐩^2(4𝐩^2+𝐤^2)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{𝐤^2}}\right)].`$


format: text

text:
# Isospin dependence of isobaric ratio Y(3H)/Y(3He) and its relation to temperature

## Abstract

A dependence of the isobaric ratio Y(3H)/Y(3He) on the N/Z ratio of the reconstructed quasiprojectile for the reaction of 28Si beam with 112,124Sn targets at two different projectile energies of 30 and 50 MeV/nucleon is presented. We demonstrate a linear dependence of the observable ln(Y(3H)/Y(3He)) on the N/Z ratio of the quasiprojectile and show the dependence of the slope on the reconstructed excitation energy of the quasiprojectile. We relate this slope dependence at a given excitation energy to the temperature of the fragmenting system. Using the model assumptions of the statistical multifragmentation model, a method of temperature determination is proposed. A caloric curve is constructed and compared to the result of the double isotope ratio method for the same set of the data and to the results of other studies.

, , , , , , , and

thanks: Phone: (979)-845-1411, fax: (979)-845-1899, e-mail: veselsky@comp.tamu.eduthanks: On leave of absence from Institute of Physics of SASc, Bratislava, Slovakiathanks: Present address: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Brookhaven, New York, USAthanks: Present address: Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, St. Louis, Missouri, USAthanks: Present address: Microcal Software Inc, One Roundhouse Plaza, Northampton, MA 01060, USA

Multifragmentation of highly excited nuclei has been subject of significant interest for many years. Since the nuclei are two-component systems consisting of protons and neutrons, the influence of isospin on the disassembly of hot nuclei is a question of general interest. Experimental studies have demonstrated the influence of the isospin of projectile and target on the isotopic yields of fragments . Theoretical framework for fragmentation of asymmetric systems have been developed  and a possible phase transition into an isospin-symmetric liquid and an isospin-asymmetric gas phase have been suggested. In our recent work  we presented the characteristics of the quasiprojectiles with $`Z=1215`$, reconstructed from the fully isotopically resolved fragments with $`Z_f5`$, detected in the forward angles using the FAUST multidetector array  at Cyclotron Institute of Texas A&M University. The distributions of the quasiprojectile velocity, mass, charge and excitation energy were obtained in the reaction of a 28Si beam with 112,124Sn targets at projectile energies 30 and 50 MeV/nucleon. We demonstrated that these experimental observables of the quasiprojectile can be reproduced satisfactorily by hybrid simulations, using a code implementing the model of deep inelastic transfer  for a calculation of the properties of excited quasiprojectiles and the SMM code  for a description of multifragmentation of excited quasiprojectiles. Further details can be found in . The level of an agreement obtained implies that the influence of the non-statistical effects caused by violent collisions of the projectile and the target on the properties of detected quasiprojectiles can be practically excluded for the selected events. The obtained set of data allows further study of thermal quasiprojectile multifragmentation, especially the study of the influence of the quasiprojectile isospin on the properties of fragmenting system. This data is of specific interest because the isospin of the system which actually undergoes multifragmentation is known with good precision. The first part of the study was presented in our recent work  where multiplicities and N/Z ratios of light charged particles ( LCPs ) and intermediate mass fragments ( IMFs ) were studied. Different trends of multiplicities and an inhomogeneous distribution of isospin between light charged particles and intermediate mass fragments were observed. The multiplicity of LCPs increases rapidly with proton excess, while the multiplicity of IMFs increases slowly with increasing neutron number. For quasiprojectiles with large proton excess an inhomogeneous distribution of isospin into proton-rich LCPs and more symmetric IMFs occurs. Furthermore, dependences of the isobaric ratio Y(3H)/Y(3He) on the N/Z ratio ( as a variable closely connected to isospin ) and on the excitation energy of the reconstructed quasiprojectiles were presented in . In this work we will present a detailed study of the trends of the isobaric ratio Y(3H)/Y(3He). The relationship of Y(3H)/Y(3He) to thermodynamical observables will be discussed.

The dependences of the isobaric ratio Y(3H)/Y(3He) on the N/Z ratio of the quasiprojectile ( $`N/Z_{QP}`$ ) are shown in Fig. 1 for the reaction of a 28Si beam with 112,124Sn targets at projectile energies of 30 and 50 MeV/nucleon. The quasiprojectiles with $`Z`$ = 12 - 15, reconstructed from the fully isotopically resolved charged fragments with $`Z_f5`$, are selected ( for details of the experiment see  ). Various symbols represent the experimental data for different targets at each beam energy. The data within each set form nearly straight lines thus implying an exponential dependence of the isobaric ratio Y(3H)/Y(3He) on $`N/Z_{QP}`$. For a given projectile energy, the Y(3H)/Y(3He) dependence on $`N/Z_{QP}`$ is practically identical for the two different targets 112,124Sn. This shows that the isotopic trends are determined by the isospin of the excited system which fragments and the trends obtained by comparison of the data for different projectile-target systems describe only the overall trends. A detailed discussion of this issue is in our previous work . For the two different projectile energies 30 and 50 MeV/nucleon the Y(3H)/Y(3He) dependence exhibits a different slope. In the above mentioned work , the distributions of the apparent excitation energy ( $`E_{app}^{}`$ ) are practically identical for the different targets at a given projectile energy and shift to the increasing values of $`E_{app}^{}`$ with an increasing beam energy. The mean values of $`E_{app}^{}`$ are 101.2 and 102.3 MeV for 112Sn and 124Sn targets at the projectile energy 30 MeV/nucleon and 142.8 MeV for both targets at the projectile energy 50 MeV/nucleon. Such a similarity may imply that the slope of the dependence of isobaric ratio Y(3H)/Y(3He) on $`N/Z_{QP}`$ correlates with the mean excitation energy of the quasiprojectile. Preliminary indications of this dependence have been reported in ref. . This assumption may be examined by extracting the isobaric ratio Y(3H)/Y(3He) for different bins of the apparent excitation energy of the quasiprojectile.

Fig. 2 shows the dependences of the isobaric ratio Y(3H)/Y(3He) on $`N/Z_{QP}`$ for the nine bins of the apparent excitation energy per mass unit of the quasiprojectile ( $`ϵ_{app}`$ ). The data for both targets and projectile energies were combined to increase the statistics. This is possible because for a given excitation energy bin, the Y(3H)/Y(3He) dependences agree within the statistical deviations. The squares represent the experimental data and the lines are the fits obtained using the MINUIT minimization package . As one can see on Fig. 2, linearity is the overall feature of the logarithmic plots of the Y(3H)/Y(3He) ratio in all excitation energy bins and is especially significant in the excitation energy bins with a high statistics. The slopes are steepest at low excitation energies and become flatter with increasing excitation energy.

Since the experimental dependences of the isobaric ratio Y(3H)/Y(3He) on $`N/Z_{QP}`$ correlate with $`ϵ_{app}`$ and are linear on a logarithmic scale ( and thus depend exponentially on $`N/Z_{QP}`$ ), it would be of interest to relate the slope to the thermodynamical observables of the quasiprojectile multifragmentation. As a starting point we chose the statistical multifragmentation model ( SMM )  which was employed in the simulation successfully describing our data . In the macrocanonical approach, the SMM gives the mean number of the emitted fragments of a given $`N_k`$ and $`Z_k`$ as

$$<M_{N_kZ_k}>=g_{N_kZ_k}\frac{V_f}{\lambda _T^3}A^{3/2}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{F_{N_kZ_k}(T,V)\mu _nN_k\mu _pZ_k}{T})$$
(1)
where $`T`$ is the freeze-out temperature, $`V`$ is the freeze-out volume, $`g_{N_kZ_k}`$ is the degeneracy of the fragment ground state, $`V_f`$ is the free volume available for translational motion of the fragment, $`\lambda _T`$ is the thermal wavelength of the nucleon, $`F_{N_kZ_k}(T,V)`$ is the internal free energy of the fragment and $`\mu _n`$ and $`\mu _p`$ are the chemical potentials for neutrons and protons. The assumption of chemical equilibrium is not incorporated into SMM  and the chemical potentials $`\mu _n`$ and $`\mu _p`$ are used as a Lagrange multipliers ensuring the conservation of the mean neutron and proton number. When considering the isospin dependence of the experimental Y(3H)/Y(3He) ratio for a given excitation energy bin, the exponential dependence suggests a possibility to determine a single temperature for each bin as a simplest possible interpretation. The isobaric ratio Y(3H)/Y(3He) then can be determined as

$$\frac{Y(^3H)}{Y(^3He)}=\frac{<M_{21}>}{<M_{12}>}=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{F_{21}(T,V)F_{12}(T,V)\mu _n+\mu _p}{T})$$
(2)
where we used the fact that $`V_f`$ and $`\lambda _T`$ are the same for the whole partition and that the ground state spins of both fragments are equal.

We approximate the $`\mu _n\mu _p`$ by the difference in the neutron ( $`S_n`$ ) and proton ( $`S_p`$ ) ground state separation energy. According to the model of a nuclear Fermi gas at zero temperature, $`S_n`$ and $`S_p`$ can be identified with the chemical potentials for protons and neutrons in the ground state. When introducing finite temperature, the Fermi gas model predicts only a moderate change of the chemical potential for temperatures well below the Fermi energy. Thus the approximation of chemical potentials by separation energies can be still considered valid for highly excited thermally equilibrated nuclei and determines the correct chemical potentials prior to multifragmentation. During multifragmentation the system expands which creates two different trends. When considering the system as Fermi gas expanding to the freeze-out density ( typically 0.4$`\rho _0`$ for the present case according to the formula used in the SMM ), the values of the Fermi energy decrease by more than 40 %. The same behavior can be expected also for $`\mu _n\mu _p`$. On the other hand, chemical potentials of nucleons are influenced by the process of multifragmentation. As reported in our previous work , the IMFs are more isospin-symmetric than light charged particles. Within statistical multifragmentation model, the isobaric ratio Y(3H)/Y(3He) can be identified with the ratio of mean densities of free neutrons and protons for a given fragment partition ( as one can see after dividing equation 1 by freeze-out volume ). As follows from Figs. 1,2, such ratios differ dramatically from the starting values and one can expect also the values of $`\mu _n\mu _p`$ significantly higher than those of an expanded Fermi gas. When assuming that both effects have similar magnitude, the approximation used can be considered as a reasonable estimate of the actual values. For the full set of data used in Fig.2, $`\mu _n\mu _p`$ can be approximated as

$$\mu _n\mu _pS_pS_n=(43.44\pm 0.97)+(38.57\pm 0.94)N/Z_{QP}\text{ [MeV]. }$$
(3)
Experimental mass excesses  have been used for the evaluation. The dependence of $`S_nS_p`$ on the N/Z ratio of the quasiprojectile can be considered linear with good precision. The difference in the internal free energy of the fragments 3H and 3He, according to the evaluation formulas given in , is of the order of a few hundred keV on a broad range of $`N/Z_{QP}`$ and changes much more slowly than $`\mu _n\mu _p`$. In this paper we neglect its weak dependence on $`N/Z_{QP}`$ and treat it as a constant independent on $`N/Z_{QP}`$. Within our approximation, the resulting expression for the isobaric ratio Y(3H)/Y(3He) will be

$$\mathrm{ln}(Y(^3\text{H})/Y(^3\text{He}))=\mathrm{ln}(K(T))+(\mu _n\mu _p)/T$$
(4)
where $`K(T)`$ is a proportionality factor dependent on the temperature but independent of the N/Z ratio of the fragmenting system. According to the evaluation formulas for the free energy given in , one may expect the values of proportionality factor $`K(T)`$ to be close to unity.

Since both ln(Y(3H)/Y(3He)) and $`\mu _n\mu _p`$ depend linearly on $`N/Z_{QP}`$ ( as may be seen from Fig. 2 and equation 3 ) and since we choose the value of $`\mathrm{ln}(K(T))`$ to be a constant, independent of $`N/Z_{QP}`$, the expressions on both sides of equation 4 are in fact first order polynomials of $`N/Z_{QP}`$. Then the solution is obvious, constants and coefficients of first order ( slopes ) should be equal on both sides of the equation. This allows a determination not only of the temperature ( as a ratio of the slopes ) but also of ln($`K(T)`$) from the comparison of the zero order coefficients ( constants ) using the extracted temperature. The resulting values of $`T`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}(K(T))`$ are given in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 for the different quasiprojectile excitation energy bins. The numerical values of $`T`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}(K(T))`$ are given in the Table 1 along with the parameters of the linear fits of ln(Y(3H)/Y(3He)) given in Fig. 2. The dependence of the temperature on the excitation energy ( caloric curve ) given in Fig. 3 ( solid squares ) is compared to the experimental caloric curve obtained for the same set of the data by the double isotope ratio method  for the thermometer d,t/3He,4He ( the dashed line indicates the double isotope ratio temperature and the solid lines indicate the statistical errors ). The formula

$$T_{\mathrm{d},\mathrm{t}/^3\mathrm{He},^4\mathrm{He}}=14.31\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{ln}(1.59\frac{Y({}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{H})/Y({}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H})}{Y({}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He})/Y({}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He})})$$
(5)
was used for the calculations. The agreement between the two plots is reasonable. Both methods give the value of the temperature between 5 and 7 MeV for the apparent excitation energies above 5 MeV/nucleon. Similar values of the temperature are reported by other experimental studies . The values of the temperature predicted by the SMM  are also in the same range. The values of $`\mathrm{ln}(K(T))`$ are between 0 and 1 and suggest the values of $`K(T)`$ between 1 and 3, which are in good agreement with the values of the SMM. The dependence of $`\mathrm{ln}(K(T))`$ on the temperature is quite weak, which is also consistent with the expectations. Large relative errors of the $`\mathrm{ln}(K(T))`$ values are caused by the subtraction of numbers of similar magnitude. The agreement between temperatures determined by two different methods shows that the assumptions made for $`\mu _n\mu _p`$ reflect the physical trends which take place in the freeze-out configuration.

Since the neutron emission from the quasiprojectile is not included in the data presented here, we tried to estimate its influence. Using a backtracing procedure described in , we estimated the initial values of the excitation energy of a hot quasiprojectile at the stage where it also includes the neutrons that are later emitted. The mean value of the excitation energy taken away by a neutron emission ranges from 0.5 MeV/nucleon for the highest bin of $`ϵ_{app}`$ to 1.5 MeV/nucleon for the lowest bin. This applies to both methods of the temperature determination presented here and implies that the events represent a still broader range of the initial excitation energies of the quasiprojectile. Since the multiplicity of the charged fragments decreases with decreasing $`ϵ_{app}`$, the decrease of the determined temperatures in the lowest bins of $`ϵ_{app}`$ may be a signature of the onset of a low energy deexcitation mode where several neutrons and light charged particles are emitted prior to the breakup of the partially cooled residue into two massive fragments ( such a mass distribution is observed in the channels with 3 and 4 charged fragments ). The temperatures determined thus become mean values representing the range of temperatures at which hydrogen and helium isotopes are emitted during the deexcitation cascade. The use of 3He for the evaluation of the isobaric ratio Y(3H)/Y(3He) could be affected by the so-called 3He-puzzle ( see  ), nevertheless it appears that the 3He-anomaly is not relevant for peripheral collisions induced by light projectile nuclei.

We presented the dependence of the isobaric ratio Y(3H)/Y(3He) on $`N/Z_{QP}`$ for the reaction of a 28Si beam on 112,124Sn targets at two different projectile energies 30 and 50 MeV/nucleon. We demonstrated a linear dependence of ln(Y(3H)/Y(3He)) on $`N/Z_{QP}`$ and the dependence of the slope on the excitation energy of the quasiprojectile. Using the model assumptions of the statistical multifragmentation model, we demonstrated the possibility of relating the slope of the dependence of ln(Y(3H)/Y(3He)) on $`N/Z_{QP}`$ to the temperature at a given excitation energy. We constructed a caloric curve and demonstrated its equivalence to the results of the double isotope ratio method. Our results show that the temperatures extracted from the isospin dependence of Y(3H)/Y(3He) are consistent with the temperature of the freeze-out configuration where thermal equilibration occurs. The approximation used for the evaluation of the difference of neutron and proton chemical potentials is consistent with significant changes of densities of neutrons and protons during multifragmentation.

The authors wish to thank the Cyclotron Institute staff for the excellent beam quality. This work was supported in part by the NSF through grant No. PHY-9457376, the Robert A. Welch Foundation through grant No. A-1266, and the Department of Energy through grant No. DE-FG03-93ER40773. M. V. was partially supported through grant VEGA-2/5121/98.