text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The extended (soliton-like) objects quantisation problem considered in this paper have more than twenty years old history, see the review papers . But absence of progress in this field evokes anxiety, noting a number of unsolved by this reason important physical problems.

One of possible solutions of this problem was offered in . The aim of this article is to show that the approach described in this paper leads to the strong coupling perturbation theory over inverse interaction constant $`1/g`$.

Our approach is based on the idea  that the measure $`DM`$ of the functional integral representation for

$$\rho (E)=𝑑u_1𝑑u_2|<u_2;E|u_1;E>|^2$$
(1.1)
is $`\delta `$-like (Diracian):

$$DM(u)=\underset{x,t}{}du(x,t)\delta \left(\frac{\delta S(u)}{\delta u(x,t)}j(x,t)\right),$$
(1.2)
where $`j(x,t)`$ is the random force of quantum excitations. We will consider the symplest one particle quantum problem and the states in (1.1) are described by the boundary values of coordinate $`u_i`$ and energy $`E`$. In Sec.2.1 the physical basis of (1.2) will be discussed and full derivation will be given in Sec.2.2.

The $`\delta `$-function of (1.2) means that the strict space-time local equality:

$$\frac{\delta S(u)}{\delta u(x,t)}=j(x,t)$$
(1.3)
defines the complete set of necessary contributions. The general properties of theory defined on the $`\delta `$-like measure is listed in Sec.2.3. Note, (1.3) is not the consequence of Hamiltonian variational principle and (1.2) will be derived in Sec.2.2, proceeding from the conservation of total probability (unitarity condition) .

Eq.(1.3) shows that a transformation of kinetic part of Lagrangian without fail induce the tangent transformation of quantum source $`j(x,t)`$ . We will use this possibility to describe the quantum dynamics in useful terms. Namely, we will apply the canonical transformation of (1.2) to the collective coordinates. They will have a meaning of (action, angle)-type variables and will form the cotangent foliation $`T^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to the incident phase space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. So, used in this paper transformation is the ordinary momentum mapping of classical mechanics :

$$J:(u,p)(\xi ,\eta ),$$
(1.4)
where $`p`$ is the conjugate to $`u`$ momentum, see Secs.4.1 and 4.2. The Hamiltonian description will be useful by this reason.

In this paper we restrict ourselves by one dimensional quantum mechanics assuming that

$$v(u;g)=\frac{1}{g}v(g^{1/2}u;1)\frac{1}{g}v(g^{1/2}u),$$
(1.5)
where, for simplicity, $`v(u)`$ is the potential hole with one minimum at $`u=0`$ and $`g`$ is the interaction constant. Then the nontrivial solution $`u_c`$ of eq.(1.3) would be singular at $`g=0`$:

$$u_c=O(g^{1/2}).$$
(1.6)
in the lowest order over $`j`$.

We will find that the transformed perturbation theory presents the expansion over $`1/g`$ and the expansion coefficients are simply calculable iff $`T^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the homogeneous and isotropic space

This result cardinally distinguished from the week coupling perturbation theory developed in . We will derive in Sec.3 this ordinary perturbation series over $`g`$ using the measure (1.3) to show exactly where we turn from habitual way to formulate new perturbation theory. Strictly speaking, there is not any connections among both perturbation theories and they are dual to each other, see Sec.5.

The paper is organised as follows. In Sec.2 we will find the integral representation for $`\rho `$ with measure (1.2). In Sec.3 we will describe the week-coupling perturbation theory. In Sec.4 the mapping (1.4) for the quantum system is described to show the decomposition over $`1/g`$ and the rule of calculation of corresponding coefficient will be given. In concluding Sec.5 we will offer the dynamical interpretation of new perturbation theory.

## 2 Unitary definition of the functional measure

Starting this section we will try to explain the role of unitarity in definition of functional measure, Sec.2.1. Then we will show as the d’Alembert’s variational principle may be $`derived`$ for quantum systems (Sec.2.2) and, at the end, the general properties of theory on the $`\delta `$-like measure will be offered.

### 2.1 Formulation of method

To calculate the bound state energies $`E_n`$ it is enough to consider the trace:

$$R(E)=\underset{n}{}𝑑u\frac{\psi _n(u)\psi _n^{}(u)}{EE_ni\epsilon }=\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{EE_ni\epsilon }=\mathrm{Sp}\frac{1}{E𝐇i\epsilon },$$
(2.1)
where $`𝐇`$ is the Hamiltonian operator and $`\epsilon +0`$ and the wave functions $`\psi _n`$ ortho-normalizability was used.

The semiclassical approximation leads to

$$R(E)\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{ik(S_1(u_c)\pi )}=\frac{1}{1+e^{iS_1(u_c)}},$$
(2.2)
where $`S_1(u_c)`$ is the action on the elementary (one period) closed path trajectory $`u_c=u_c(E)`$ . The position of poles in (2.2) defines the value of $`E_n`$.

Note now that

$$\frac{1}{EE_ni\epsilon }=\mathrm{P}\frac{1}{EE_n}+i\pi \delta (EE_n)\mathrm{at}\epsilon =0,$$

i.e. it is not necessary to calculate the real part since it did not contain the masurable value of energy $`E_n`$:

$$\mathrm{P}\frac{1}{EE_n}=0E=E_n.$$

By this reason, following to , we will calculate much more simple quantity

$`\epsilon \rho (E)=\epsilon {\displaystyle \underset{n_1,n_2}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1𝑑x_2\frac{\psi _{n_1}(x_1)\psi _{n_1}^{}(x_2)}{EE_{n_1}i\epsilon }\frac{\psi _{n_2}^{}(x_1)\psi _{n_2}(x_2)}{EE_{n_2}+i\epsilon }}=`$
$`=\epsilon {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{EE_ni\epsilon }}\right|^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{EE_ni\epsilon }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{EE_n+i\epsilon }}\right\}=`$
$`=\pi {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\delta (EE_n)=\pi \mathrm{Sp}\delta (E𝐇)=\mathrm{Im}R(E).`$ (2.3)
Therefore, we wish exclude from consideration the unnecessary contributions222‘Unnecessary’ means for us the unmeasurable quantity in given experiment. with $`EE_n`$. It should be noted that we exclude continuum of contributions contained in $`\mathrm{Re}\{1/EE_ni\epsilon \}`$ and leave the set of point-like contributions $`\mathrm{Im}\{1/EE_ni\epsilon \}`$, but with infitite amplitudes.

We can find  that

$$\rho (E)\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}e^{ik(S_1(u_c)\pi )}=2\pi \underset{n}{}\delta (S_1(u_c)(2n+1)\pi )$$
(2.4)
So, as in (2.2), the aim of quantum perturbation theory is to define the corrections to the phase $`S_1(u_c)`$

In terms of integrals the cancellation phenomena, shown in (2.3), looks as follows:

$$\rho (E)=\underset{n}{}\left|\frac{1}{EE_ni\epsilon }\right|^2=\underset{n}{}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑T_+𝑑T_{}e^{\epsilon (T_++T_{})+i(EE_n)(T_+T_{})}$$
(2.5)
To see the effect of cancellation let us introduce new time variables $`T`$ and $`\tau `$:

$$T_\pm =T\pm \tau .$$
(2.6)
The Jacobian of transformation gives: $`0T\mathrm{}`$ and $`T\tau T`$. But in the integral (2.5) $`T(1/\epsilon )\mathrm{}`$ are essential at $`\epsilon 0`$. By this reason we can put $`|\tau |\mathrm{}`$. In result,

$$\epsilon \rho (E)=2\pi \epsilon _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑Te^{2\epsilon T}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{d\tau }{\pi }e^{2i(EE_n)\tau }$$
(2.7)
In the last integral all contributions, except for the case $`E=E_n`$, are cancelled.

Described cancellation is not accidental, or approximate, being the consequence of optical theorem, i.e. is the consequence of unitarity condition. The $`\delta `$-likeness of measure (1.2) has the same nature as the $`\delta `$-function in the r.h.s. of (2.3), i.e. the $`\delta `$-like measure will arise when the absorption part of amplitudes is calculated.

Note, we start from claculation of modulo squire of amplitudes since we know the path integral reprisantation for them. Then, using the unitarity condition we find the correct measure for imaginary part of the amplitude.

### 2.2 Functional $`\delta `$-like measure

We will use following path-integral representation for amplitude

$$a(u_1,u_2;E)=i_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑Te^{iET}_{u(0)=u_1}^{u(T)=u_2}Due^{iS_{C_+(T)}(u)},Du=\underset{tC_+(T)}{}\frac{du(t)}{\sqrt{2\pi }},$$
(2.8)
to calculate

$$\rho (E)=𝑑u_1𝑑u_2\left|a(u_1,u_2;E)\right|^2.$$
(2.9)
The action $`S_{C_+(T)}(u)`$ is defined on the Mills complex time contour :

$$C_\pm (T):tt\pm i\epsilon ,\epsilon +0,0tT$$
(2.10)
Inserting $`a(u_1,u_2;E)`$ into (2.9) we find:

$$\rho (E)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑T_+𝑑T_{}e^{iE(T_+T_{})}_{u_+(0)=u_{}(0)}^{u_+(T_+)=u_{}(T_{})}Du_+Du_{}e^{iS_{C_+(T_+)}(u_+)iS_{C_{}(T_{})}(u_{})}$$
(2.11)
Note crucial for us the ‘closed-path’ boundary conditions:

$$u_+(0)=u_{}(0),u_+(T_+)=u_{}(T_{}).$$
(2.12)
We will introduce new variables $`T`$ and $`\tau `$, see (2.6). The integral over $`\tau `$ will be calculated perturbatively. In zero order over $`\tau `$ we would have from (2.12):

$$u_+(0)=u_{}(0),u_+(T)=u_{}(T).$$
(2.13)
It should be underlined that this is unique solution of the boundary condition (2.12) which did not contradict to the quantum uncertainty principle (other solutions of (2.12) would involve constraints for time derivatives of coordinate).

If we introduce now new coordinates $`u`$ and $`x`$:

$$u_\pm (t)=u(t)\pm x(t),$$
(2.14)
then (2.13) gives:

$$x(0)=x(T)=0$$
(2.15)
and $`u(0)`$ and $`u(T)`$ are arbitrary. We will see that this ‘minimal’ boundary condition is sufficient to define the integrals over $`\tau `$ and $`u`$.

Let us expand the closed path action

$$S_{cl}(u\pm x;T\pm \tau )(S_{C_+(T+\tau )}(u+x)S_{C_{}(T\tau )}(ux))$$

over $`\tau `$:

$$S_{cl}(u\pm x;T\pm \tau )=S_{cl}(u\pm x;T)2\tau H_T(u)2\stackrel{~}{H}_T(u;\tau ),$$
(2.16)
where the Hamiltonian at the time moment $`T`$

$$H_T(u)=\frac{}{T}S_{C_+(T)}(u).$$
(2.17)
is $`x`$ independent because of (2.15). The remainder term $`\stackrel{~}{H}_T(u;\tau )`$ contains higher powers over $`\tau `$:

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_T(u;\tau )=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\tau ^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}\frac{d^{2n}}{dT^{2n}}H_T(u).$$

Therefore, the conditions (2.15) factorize $`\tau `$ and $`x(t)`$ dependence: the $`x`$ dependence is contained in the $`\tau `$ independent quantity $`S_{cl}(u\pm x;T)`$ only. So, we may construct the perturbation theory over $`\tau `$ and $`x`$ independently.

Let us consider now expansion over $`x`$:

$$S_{cl}(u\pm x;T)=S_{P(T)}(u)2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}_{C_+(T)}𝑑tx(t)\frac{\delta S_{C_+}(u)}{\delta u(t)}2\stackrel{~}{V}_T(u,x),$$
(2.18)
where the first term in this decomposition is:

$$S_{P(T)}(u)=(S_{C_+(T)}(u)S_{C_{}(T)}(u)).$$
(2.19)
If the motion is periodic then $`S_{P(T)}(u)`$ is not equal to zero even on the real time axis . In semiclassical approximation

$$S_P(T)(u_c)=kS_1(u_c),k=0,1,\mathrm{},$$

and is $`T`$ independent. The reason of this conclusion is explained in Sec.3.3. As usual,

$$2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}_{C_+}𝑑t=_{C_+}𝑑t+_C_{}𝑑t$$
(2.20)
since for arbitrary analytic function $`f(tC_+)=f^{}(tC_{})`$.

Following formal trick will be useful. We can write:

$$e^{2i\stackrel{~}{H}_T(u;\tau )}=\underset{n}{}\frac{\tau ^n}{n!}K_n(u;T),$$

where

$$K_n(u;T)=\frac{d^n}{d\tau _1^n}e^{2iH_T(u;\tau _1)}|_{\tau _1=0}\widehat{\tau }_1^ne^{2i\stackrel{~}{H}_T(u;\tau _1)}.$$

On other hand,

$$(2i\tau )^n=\frac{d^n}{d\epsilon ^n}e^{2i\epsilon \tau }|_{\epsilon =0}\widehat{\epsilon }^ne^{2i\epsilon \tau }.$$

Therefore,

$$e^{2i\stackrel{~}{H}_T(u;\tau )}=\underset{n}{}\frac{(\widehat{\tau }_1\widehat{\epsilon }/2i)^n}{n!}e^{2i\epsilon \tau }e^{2i\stackrel{~}{H}_T(u;\tau _1)}=e^{i\widehat{\tau }_1\widehat{\epsilon }/2}e^{2i\epsilon \tau }e^{2i\stackrel{~}{H}_T(u;\tau _1)}.$$
(2.21)
The expansion of the operator $`e^{i\widehat{\tau }_1\widehat{\epsilon }/2}`$ will generate corresponding perturbation series.

The same operator can be introduced for expansion over the local quantity $`x`$:

$$e^{2i\stackrel{~}{V}_T(u,x)}=e^{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{Re}_{C_+}𝑑t\widehat{j}(t)\widehat{x}_1(t)}e^{2i\mathrm{Re}_{C_+}𝑑tj(t)x(t)}e^{2i\stackrel{~}{V}_T(u,x_1)}.$$
(2.22)
Note, the eqs.(2.21), (2.22) linearise the arguments of corresponding exponents. Then, using (2.16), (2.18) and (2.21), (2.22) we find that

$$\rho (E)=2\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑Te^{i𝐊(\epsilon \tau ,\mathrm{𝐣𝐱})}DM(u)\delta (E+\epsilon H_T(u))e^{iS_{P(T)}(u)}e^{2i\stackrel{~}{H}_T(u;\tau )2i\stackrel{~}{V}_T(u,x)},$$
(2.23)
where expansion over the operator

$$𝐊=\frac{1}{2}\left(\widehat{\tau }\widehat{\epsilon }+\mathrm{Re}_{C_+}𝑑t\widehat{j}(t)\widehat{x}(t)\right)$$
(2.24)
gives the perturbation series. At the very end of calculations all auxiliary variables $`\tau ,\epsilon ,j`$ and $`x`$ should be taken equal to zero.

The measure in (2.23) is defined as follows:

$$DM(u)=\underset{t}{}du\delta \left(\frac{\delta S(u)}{\delta u}j\right)=\underset{t}{}du\delta (\ddot{u}+v^{}(u)j)$$
(2.25)
and the $`\delta `$-function is defined by the equality:

$$\underset{t}{}\delta (\ddot{u}+v^{}(u)j)=_{x(0)=0}^{x(T)=0}\underset{t}{}\frac{dx}{\pi }e^{2i\mathrm{Re}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑tx(\ddot{u}+v^{}(u)j)}}.$$
(2.26)
Argument of this $`\delta `$-function did not contain the boundary values $`u(0)`$ and $`u(T)`$. But this is not important since to solve the second order equation (2.28) two constant of integration is necessary.

The exponent in (2.26) is equal to the sum: $`\mathrm{Re}x\mathrm{Re}(\ddot{u}+v^{}(u)j)+\mathrm{Im}x\mathrm{Im}(\ddot{u}+v^{}(u)j)`$, being defined on the complex time contour. This means that

$$\underset{t}{}\delta (\ddot{u}+v^{}(u)j)=\underset{tC}{}\delta (\mathrm{Re}\{\ddot{u}+v^{}(u)j\})\delta (i\mathrm{Im}\{\ddot{u}+v^{}(u)j\}),$$
(2.27)
where $`C=C_++C_{}`$. So, the measure (2.25) defines both the real and imaginary part of contributions.

By definition, $`(\ddot{u}+v^{}(u)j)`$ is the total force, then the product $`(\ddot{u}+v^{}(u)j)x`$ is the virtual work. In classical mechanics this work should be equal to zero, since the classical motion is time reversible (d’Alembert). Then, noting that virtual deviation is arbitrary, one finds the local condition:

$$\ddot{u}+v^{}(u)j=0.$$
(2.28)
when the motion is time reversible.

In quantum case the virtual work is not equal to zero (quantum corrections shift the energy levels), but the integral over $`x(t)`$ gives the same result (2.28). We can conclude that the unitarity condition of quantum mechanics allows to $`derive`$ the d‘Alembert’s variational principle of classics mechanics , see also .

### 2.3 Properties of theory with $`\delta `$-like measure

The eq.(2.28) should be solved expanding over $`j(t)`$:

$$u_j(t)=u_c(t)+𝑑t^{}G(t,t^{};u_c)j(t^{})+(\mathrm{higher}\mathrm{powers}\mathrm{of}j)$$
(2.29)
where $`u_c`$ is the solution of homogeneous equation:

$$\ddot{u}+v^{}(u)=0$$
(2.30)
and $`G(t,t^{};u_c)`$ is the Green function:

$$(_t^2+v^{\prime \prime }(u_c))G(t,t^{};u_c)=\delta (tt^{}).$$
(2.31)
The eq.(2.30) have in our case the trivial constant solution

$$u_0:\dot{u}_0=0,v^{}(u_0)=0$$
(2.32)
and nontrivial one

$$u_c=u_c(t):\dot{u}_c(t)0,\ddot{u}_c+v^{}(u_c)0.$$
(2.33)
Because of definition of the $`\delta `$-function and since there is not any special restriction on the contributions both one should be taken into account:

$$\rho (E)=\rho _0(E)+\rho _c(E).$$
(2.34)
This means that one should sum over all possible topological classes of trajectory, if the single class is unable to cover all phase space. Each class of trajectories belongs to restricted domain of phase space: $`\mathrm{\Omega }=W^0\times W^c`$ in our case. Each sub-domain $`W^i`$ is restricted by the bifurcation lines . This means that $`\rho _0`$ can not be achieved by analytical continuation of $`\rho _c`$ (for instance, taking $`E=0`$ in $`\rho _c`$ for the semiclassical approximation).

It is evident, one should leave in the sum (2.34) the term with higher volume $`V_{W^i}`$, $`i=0,c`$. This is just the domain of $`u_cW^c`$ trajectory, and one can put out $`\rho _0`$ since the sub-domain of $`u_c^0W^0`$ is the point . Indeed, it will be shown that $`\rho _cV_{tr}=\mathrm{}`$, where $`V_{tr}`$ is the volume of time translations mode (zero frequency mode). At the same time, $`\rho _0O(1)`$. Therefore, iff the time translation invariance is unbroken, one can say that $`\rho _0`$ is realised on the measure $`O(1)/V_{tr}=0`$.

The ability to classify contributions by the trajectory topology classes becomes possible since there is not in (2.34) the $`u_c^0`$ and $`u_c`$ interference term. This is evident consequence of the orthogonality of corresponding Hilbert spaces. Therefore, the choice of solution means choice of corresponding vacuum.

## 3 WKB perturbation theory

It can be shown that (2.23) restores ordinary WKB expansion. The first step of this calculations is to find the solution of inhomogeneous equation (2.28), Sec.3.1. Then we may find that this perturbation theory counts positive powers of $`g`$, Sec.3.2. At the end the zero frequency modes problem will be discussed.

### 3.1 Tree decomposition

Let us consider the tree decomposition (2.29) more carefully for the potential

$$v(u;g)=\frac{1}{2}w_0^2u^2+\frac{1}{4}gu^4.$$
(3.1)
It is evident:

$$v(u;g)=\frac{1}{g}v(g^{1/2}u)$$
(3.2)
The decomposition (2.29) can be written in the form:

$$u_j(t)=u_c(t)+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left\{dt_ij(t_i)\right\}G_n(t,t_1,\mathrm{}.,t_n;u_c)$$
(3.3)
It easy to show that the $`n`$-point Green function

$$G_n=O(g^{(n1)/2}).$$
(3.4)
Indeed, inserting (3.3) into the equation:

$$\ddot{u}+\omega _0^2u+gu^3=j$$
(3.5)
we find:

$$(_t^2+\omega _0^2+3gu_c^2)G_1(t,t_1;u_c)=\delta (tt_1)$$
(3.6)
The operator $`(_t^2+\omega ^2+3gu_c^2)`$ is $`g`$ independent since $`u_c=O(1/g^{1/2})`$ and, therefore, $`G_1=O(g^0)`$.

Note also, the operator ($`_t^2+\omega ^2+3gu_c^2`$) is translationally noninvariant. By this reason considered perturbation theory is sufficiently complicated so that only first corrections has been computed till now.

The equation for $`G_2`$ have the form:

$$(_t^2+\omega ^2+3gu_c^2)G_2(t,t_1,t_2;u_c)+6gu_cG_1(t,t_1;u_c)G_1(t,t_2;u_c)=0.$$
(3.7)
Therefore, in accordance with (3.4), $`G_2=O(g^{1/2})`$. In result, the analysis of higher orders over $`j`$ would justify (3.4).

The interactions generating functional $`V_T`$ computed for the case (3.1) has the form:

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_T(u,x)=2g\mathrm{Re}_{C_+}𝑑tx^3(t)u(t)+O(\epsilon ),$$
(3.8)
where the $`O(\epsilon )`$ term is proportional to the imaginary part of $`S_{cl}`$.

The operator $`𝐊`$ is linear over $`\widehat{x}=\delta /\delta x`$. Therefore, action of $`\mathrm{exp}\{i𝐊\}`$ will give:

$$\rho _c:e^{2i\stackrel{~}{𝐕}_T(u,\widehat{j}/2i)}:e^{iS_{P(T)}(u)}e^{2i\stackrel{~}{H}_T(u;\tau )}\delta (E+\epsilon H_T(u_j)),$$
(3.9)
where the colons prescribe normal product, when the operator should stay to the left of all functions on which it may act, and the unimportant for present analyses integrations were not mentioned.. The expansion of the operator exponent gives the perturbation series:

$$\rho _c\underset{n}{}\frac{(2i)^n}{n!}:\stackrel{~}{𝐕}_T^n(u_j,\widehat{j}/2i):e^{iS_{P(T)}(u_j)}e^{2i\stackrel{~}{H}_T(u_j;\tau )}\delta (E+\epsilon H_T(u_j)).$$
(3.10)
Let us consider the self-interaction part for the beginning. This means that the shifting energy levels  renormalisation of $`S_P`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_T`$ is not considered. In other words, we omit the action of operators $`\widehat{j}(t_i)`$ on $`\mathrm{exp}\{iS_P(u_j)2i\stackrel{~}{H}_T(u_j;\tau )\}`$:

$$\rho _c\delta (E+\epsilon H_T(u_j))e^{iS_{P(T)}(u_c)}e^{2i\stackrel{~}{H}_T(u_c;\tau )}\underset{n}{}\frac{(21)^n}{n!}:\stackrel{~}{𝐕}_T^n(u_j,\widehat{j}/2i):.$$

Then the lowest order contribution is $`\stackrel{~}{𝐕}`$. So, in the first order we find:

$$\widehat{j}^3u_jG_3=O(g^2),$$
(3.11)
where the estimation (3.4) was used and the prescription that the auxiliary variable $`j`$ should be taken equal to zero was taken into account. In the second order $`\stackrel{~}{𝐕}_T^2=O(\widehat{j}^6)`$ contribution have following order over $`g`$:

$$g^2\widehat{j}^6u_j^2=O(g^4),$$
(3.12)
and so on.

In result, one can find that the $`n`$-th order in expansion of $`\mathrm{exp}\{i𝐊\}`$ gives $`O(g^{2n})`$ expansion if the self-interactions only are included in $`\rho (E)`$.

As follows from decomposition (3.3) and estimation (3.4) the action of operator $`\widehat{j}`$ on $`u_j`$ gives coefficient $`g^{1/2}`$. The renormalisation of $`S_P`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_T`$ start from $`1/g`$ terms, but higher orders would contain the positive powers of $`g`$ since they are produced by the actions of $`\widehat{j}(t_i)`$.

### 3.2 Connection with WKB expansion

One can show another argument that considered above perturbation theory is nothing new but is the ordinary expansion around $`u_c`$ developed in early publications . Let us use for this purpose the substitution:

$$u(t)u_c(t)+u(t)$$
(3.13)
Then

$`\rho _c(E)=2\pi {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dTe^{i𝐊(\epsilon \tau ,\mathrm{𝐣𝐱})}{\displaystyle }DM(u_c,u)\delta (E+\epsilon H_T(u_c+u))\times `$
$`\times e^{iS_{P(T)}(u_c+u)}e^{2i\stackrel{~}{H}_T(u_c+u;\tau )2i\stackrel{~}{V}_T(u_c+u,x)},`$ (3.14)
where

$$DM(u_c,u)=\underset{t}{}du\delta \left(\frac{\delta S(u_c+u)}{\delta u}+j\right)$$
(3.15)
We should take into account that $`u_c`$ depends on the integration constants $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$. Therefore, if $`(\xi ,\eta )`$ form the manifold $`W^c`$, as was mentioned in Sec.2.3, one should sum over all solutions $`u_cW^c`$, see Sec.3.3.

We want to show now that (3.14) may be reduced to the product of two path integrals. Indeed, using (2.26) and (2.16), (2.18) we find from (3.14) that

$`\rho _c(E)=2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dT{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}d\tau ^{}e^{i𝐊}{\displaystyle }DuDx^{}e^{2i(E+\epsilon H_T(u_c+u))\tau ^{}}e^{2iH_T(u_c+u)\tau }\times `$
$`\times e^{S_{cl}(u_c+u\pm x^{};T\pm \tau ^{})}e^{2i\mathrm{Re}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑tx(S(u_c+u)/u)}}e^{2i\mathrm{Re}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑tx\{(S(u_c+u)/u)+j\}}}.`$ (3.16)
The action of operator $`\mathrm{exp}\{i𝐊\}`$ leads to substitutions: $`xx^{},\tau \tau ^{}`$ and $`\epsilon 0,j0.`$ Taking this into account we find:

$$\rho _c(E)=\left|_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑Te^{iET}Due^{iS_{C_+}(u_c+u)}\right|^2,$$
(3.17)
where the functional integral should be calculated perturbatively over $`u`$. Note, calculation of amplitudes is useful since eliminates the doubling of degrees of freedom.

### 3.3 Zero modes

The defined by eq.(3.17) $`\rho _c(E)`$ stay undefined till the procedure of summation over all $`u_cW`$ is not formulated. Following to the equality:

$$\underset{\{u_c\}}{}=_W𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta \sigma (u;\xi ,\eta )$$

we should define the density $`\sigma (u;\xi ,\eta )`$ of states in the domain $`(\xi ,\xi +d\xi ;\eta ,\eta +d\eta )`$. The Faddeev-Popov $`ansatz`$ is used for this purpose .

By definition, $`(\xi ,\eta )`$ are the constants of integration and they may be chosen arbitrarily. For example, wee may take $`(\xi ,\eta )`$ as the initial coordinate and momentum of particle on the trajectory $`u_c`$.

But the ‘field-theoretical’ definitions would be much more useful for us, see Sec.4. One may note that the dependence on $`(\xi ,\eta )`$ indicates the symmetry breaking. Then $`\eta `$ may be taken as the generator $`J`$ of broken symmetry and $`\xi `$ as the canonically conjugate to it coordinate $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. It will be important for us that $`(\xi ,\eta )`$ define the solution $`u_c`$ unambiguously. In other words, we will use the ordinary mechanical statement  that $`(\xi ,\eta )`$ form a manifold $`W^c`$ and $`u_c`$ belongs to it $`completely`$. So, we would assume that the equations:

$$\xi =\mathrm{\Theta }(u_c,\dot{u_c}),\eta =J(u_c,\dot{u_c})$$
(3.18)
define the integration constants of $`u_c`$ unambiguously.

Then, to define the density $`\sigma `$, we may insert into the initial representation (2.23) the unite (Faddeev-Popov $`ansatz`$):

$$1=_W\underset{t}{}d\xi d\eta \delta (\xi \mathrm{\Theta }(u,\dot{u}))\delta (\eta J(u,\dot{u})$$
(3.19)
Note, by definition $`\eta `$ should coincide with conserved generator. But nevertheless we consider $`\eta =\eta (t)`$ and the same for $`\xi `$. This assumption is necessary since the quantum case is considered.

We can change order of integration and integrate firstly over $`u`$ using the $`\delta `$-function of the measure $`DM`$. Lagrange equation (2.30) should be solved taking into account the constraints (3.18):

$$\rho _c(E)=2\pi _W𝑑\xi (0)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑Te^{i𝐊(\epsilon \tau ,\mathrm{𝐣𝐱})}DM_c(u)\delta (E+\epsilon H_T(u))e^{iS_{P(T)}(u)}e^{2i\stackrel{~}{H}_T(u;\tau )2i\stackrel{~}{V}_T(u,x)},$$
(3.20)
where $`\xi (0)`$ is the initial phase and the constraint measure

$$DM_c(u)=\underset{t}{}du\delta \left(\frac{\delta S(u)}{\delta u}+j\right)\delta \left(\xi _0\mathrm{\Theta }(u,\dot{u})\right)$$
(3.21)
was introduced. In our problem the value of $`J`$ is restricted by $`\delta (E+\epsilon H_T(u))`$. It was used in (3.20) that $`DM_c`$ is $`\xi `$ independent since Lagrange equation is invariant against $`\xi `$ variations and $`j=j(t)`$ is the auxiliary variable. This means that $`\rho _c(E)`$ defined in (3.20) is proportional to the volume

$$V_{tr}=𝑑\xi (0)$$

of the time translation mode.

It is important here to trace on the following question. One can note that (3.20) gives $`\rho _cV_{tr}^1`$. On other hand, as follows from (3.17), one may expect $`\rho _cV_{tr}^2`$. It is evident that this discrepancy is the consequence of loaded into formalism condition of the orthogonality of Hilbert spaces, see Sec.2.3.

Remembering definition of $`\rho `$ as the squire of amplitudes, we may insert the Faddeev-Popov’s unite defined on the whole time contour $`C=C_++C_{}`$, see (2.27), to take into account the input condition that the trajectories $`u_+(tC_+)`$ and $`u_{}(tC_{})`$ are absolutely independent. This means that, generally speaking, the boundary conditions for this trajectories should not coincide and, therefore, if we introduce $`\xi (tC_\pm )|_{t=0}\xi _\pm `$, one should have in mind that, generally speaking, $`\xi _+\xi _{}`$. Then integration over $`\xi _+`$ and $`\xi _{}`$ should be performed independently.

But we have considered the closed-path contributions, see (2.13). This gives restriction for the $`u_\pm `$ boundary properties. Taking into account (2.15), we can find, considering the periodic orbits, that

$$\xi _+=\xi _{}\pm kP_1(E),k=0,1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(3.22)
where $`P_1(E)`$ is the elementary period. Just this solution leads to $`S_P0`$ and the necessary summation over $`k`$ gives the energy levels quantisation condition (2.4), see also .

## 4 Mapping on the cotangent manifold

The necessity to search a new form of the perturbation theory is caused by extremal complexity of the WKB perturbation theory described above.

The quantum nature of collective variables $`(\xi ,\eta )`$ was mentioned previously by many authors . We would like continue this idea considering them as a new quantum variables. For this purpose we will use the $`\delta `$-like definition of measure, the definition of the interactions generating functional $`\stackrel{~}{V}_T`$ and the perturbations generating functional $`\mathrm{exp}\{𝐊\}`$, to count the possible excitations of the field $`u_cW^c`$, see Sec.4.1. In Sec.4.2 we will show the structure of new perturbation theory.

### 4.1 Procedure of mapping

Let us return to the Faddeev-Popov unite

$$1=D\xi D\eta \underset{t}{}\delta (\xi \mathrm{\Phi }(u,\dot{u}))\delta (\eta J(u,\dot{u}))$$
(4.1)
It is assumed, as was offered in Sec.3.3,

$$\underset{t}{}\underset{tC=C_++C_{}}{}.$$

The first order formalism will be useful for us . Corresponding measure

$$DM(u,p)=\underset{t}{}dudp\delta \left(\dot{u}\frac{H_j(u,p)}{p}\right)\delta \left(\dot{p}+\frac{H_j(u,p)}{u}\right),$$
(4.2)
where the total Hamiltonian

$$H_j(u,p)=\frac{1}{2}p^2+v(u)ju$$
(4.3)
includes the energy of quantum excitations $`ju`$. It is evident that the integration over $`p`$ gives incident measure (2.25).

Inserting (4.1) into the functional integral with measure (4.2) we find that we have four equations for $`u`$ and $`p`$:

$$\dot{u}=\frac{H_j(u,p)}{p},\dot{p}=\frac{H_j(u,p)}{u}$$
(4.4)
and

$$\xi (t)=\mathrm{\Phi }(u,\dot{u}),\eta (t)=J(u,\dot{u}).$$
(4.5)
In previous section the first pare of equations (4.4) was used to calculate the functional integral.

But now we would like use second one (4.5). It is possible iff $`u_c`$ belongs to the space $`W^c`$ completely and $`W^c`$ is a manifold. This condition means that the eqs.(4.5) have unique solution $`(u_c,p_c)`$ and this solution transform (4.4) into identity at least at $`j=0`$. Let $`u_c(\xi ,\eta )`$ and $`p_c(\xi ,\eta )`$ are the solutions of (4.5). One can recognise in our description the ordinary canonical transformation (1.4), i.e. it defines the cotangent foliation $`W^c=T^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. But eqs.(4.4) and (4.5) should be solved simultaneously. So, inserting $`u_c,p_c`$ into (4.4) we should use the ‘excited’ by $`j`$ solutions $`\xi _j(t)`$ and $`\eta _j(t)`$.

So, we wish to adopt the statement that the random (Gaussian) walk, induced by the same operator $`\mathrm{exp}\{i𝐊\}`$, covers both $`W^c=(\xi ,\eta )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(u,p)`$ spaces densely. By this reason one may choose one of them arbitrarily.

The corresponding Jacobian of transformation $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is $`\delta `$-like:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\underset{t}{}\delta (\dot{u}_c\frac{H_j(u_c,p_c)}{p_c})\delta (\dot{p}_c\frac{H_j(u_c,p_c)}{u_c}),$$
(4.6)
and

$$det^1(u_c,p_c)=\underset{t}{}dudp\delta (\xi \mathrm{\Phi }(u,\dot{u}))\delta (\eta J(u,\dot{u}))=1$$
(4.7)
since the transformation is canonical. This allows to diagonalise $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and mapping into the $`W^c`$ space leads to following path integral representation:

$$\rho _c(E)=2\pi 𝑑Te^{i𝐊}DM(\xi ,\eta )\delta (E+\epsilon h(\xi ,\eta ;T))e^{iS_{P(T)}(u_c)}e^{2i\stackrel{~}{h}(u_c;\tau ,T)2i\stackrel{~}{V}_T(u_c,x)},$$
(4.8)
where the measure

$$DM(\xi ,\eta )=\underset{t}{}d\xi d\eta \delta \left(\dot{\xi }\frac{h_j(\xi ,\eta )}{\eta }\right)\delta \left(\dot{\eta }+\frac{h_j(\xi ,\eta )}{\xi }\right)$$
(4.9)
and $`h_j`$ is the transformed Hamiltonian:

$$h_j(\xi ,\eta )=h(\eta )ju_c(\xi ,\eta ).$$
(4.10)
In result of mapping the problem of calculation of functional integral was reduced to solution of equations:

$$\dot{\xi }=\frac{h_j(\xi ,\eta )}{\eta }=\omega (\eta )j\frac{u_c(\xi ,\eta )}{\eta },\dot{\eta }=\frac{h_j(\xi ,\eta )}{\xi }=j\frac{u_c(\xi ,\eta )}{\xi },$$
(4.11)
where one can choose, for example,

$$\omega (\eta )=\frac{h(\eta )}{\eta }=1.$$
(4.12)
This means that in this case

$$\eta =H(u,p),\xi =^u\frac{dy}{\sqrt{2(Hv(y))}}.$$
(4.13)
It is evident that the solution of this equations gives $`u_c(\xi ,\eta )`$ and $`p_c(\xi ,\eta )`$ unambiguously.

### 4.2 Structure of transformed perturbation theory

We want to show now that $`\rho (E)`$, defined in (4.8), has the strong coupling expansion. Let us start for this purpose from the ‘tree decomposition’ of the equations (4.11):

$$\dot{\xi }=\frac{h_j(\xi ,\eta )}{\eta }=1j\frac{u_c(\xi ,\eta )}{\eta },\dot{\eta }=\frac{h_j(\xi ,\eta )}{\xi }=j\frac{u_c(\xi ,\eta )}{\xi }.$$
(4.14)
We will consider following decomposition of the solutions $`\xi _j`$ and $`\eta _j`$:

$`\xi _j(t)=\xi _0(t)+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}{\displaystyle \{dt_ij(t_i)\}\xi _n(t;t_1,\mathrm{},t_n)},`$
$`\eta _j(t)=\eta _0(t)+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}{\displaystyle \{dt_ij(t_i)\}\eta _n(t;t_1,\mathrm{},t_n)}.`$ (4.15)
Inserting (4.15) into the (4.14) we find equation for the $`n`$-point Green functions $`\xi _n(t;t_1,\mathrm{},t_n)`$ and $`\eta _n(t;t_1,\mathrm{},t_n)`$. It can be shown:

$$\xi _n=O(g^{n/2}),\eta _n=O(g^{n/2}).$$
(4.16)
Indeed, in zero order over $`j`$ we have:

$$\xi _0=\xi (0)+t,\eta _0=\eta (0)$$
(4.17)
since $`W^c`$ is the homogeneous and isotropic manifold. Then, in the first order over $`j`$:

$$\dot{\xi }_1(t;t_1)=\delta (tt_1)\frac{u_c(\xi _0(t),\eta _0)}{\eta _0}=O(g^{1/2}),\dot{\eta }_1(t;t_1)=\delta (tt_1)\frac{u_c(\xi _0(t),\eta _0)}{\xi _0}=O(g^{1/2})$$
(4.18)
since the derivatives of $`u_c`$ are unable to change the $`g`$ dependence. In second order we have the equations:

$`\dot{\xi }_2(t;t_1,t_2)=\delta (tt_1)\left\{\xi _1(t;t_2){\displaystyle \frac{u_c(\xi _0(t),\eta _0)}{\eta _0\xi _0}}+\eta _1(t;t_2){\displaystyle \frac{u_c(\xi _0(t),\eta _0)}{\eta _0\eta _0}}\right\}=O(g^1),`$
$`\dot{\xi }_2(t;t_1,t_2)=\delta (tt_1)\left\{\xi _1(t;t_2){\displaystyle \frac{u_c(\xi _0(t),\eta _0)}{\xi _0\xi _0}}+\eta _1(t;t_2){\displaystyle \frac{u_c(\xi _0(t),\eta _0)}{\xi _0\eta _0}}\right\}=O(g^1)`$ (4.19)
And so on. So, each power of $`\widehat{j}`$ adds $`g^{1/2}`$. This proves the estimation (4.16). It is important to note that eqs.(4.19) are trivially integrable. Therefore, we can calculate $`(\xi _n,\eta _n)`$ for arbitrary $`n`$.

The operator $`𝐊`$ is linear over $`\widehat{x}`$. So, the result of its action gives the normal ordered structure:

$$:e^{2i\stackrel{~}{𝐕}_T(u_c,\widehat{j}/2i)}:e^{iS_{P(T)}(u_c)}e^{2i\stackrel{~}{H}_T(u_c;\tau )}\delta (E+\epsilon h(\xi _j,\eta _j;T)),$$
(4.20)
and at the very end of calculations one should take the auxiliary variables $`x`$ equal to zero.

Let us consider once more the $`gu^4`$ theory. Then,

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_T(u_c,\widehat{j}/2i)=O(\widehat{j}^3),$$

Therefore, leaving the self-interaction parts only, in the lowest order we would have the contribution

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_T(u_c,\widehat{j}/2i)g\widehat{j}^3u_c=O(1/g)$$
(4.21)
where (4.16) was used. So, the lowest order of new perturbation theory is $`1/g`$. In result, the $`n`$-th order is $`\stackrel{~}{V}_T(u_c,\widehat{j}/2i)^n1/g^n`$.

The action of $`\stackrel{~}{V}_T^n(u_c,\widehat{j}/2i)`$ on $`e^{iS_{P(T)}(u_c)}e^{2i\stackrel{~}{H}_T(u_c;\tau )}\delta (E+\epsilon h(\xi _j,\eta _j;T))`$ did not alter this conclusion since the derivative of $`u_c`$ can not change the $`g`$ dependence.

## 5 Conclusion

We conclude this paper by notation that it is impossible the transformed theory reduce to amplitude representation. Indeed, let us return to (4.8) and use the Fourier definition of the $`\delta `$-functions:

$`\rho _c(E)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dT{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}d\tau ^{}e^{i𝐊}{\displaystyle }D\xi D\eta Dx_\xi Dx_\eta e^{2i(E+\epsilon h(\eta ;T))\tau ^{}}\times `$
$`\times e^{2i\mathrm{Re}_{C_+}𝑑tx_\xi \{\dot{\xi }h_j(\xi ,\eta )/\eta \}}e^{2i\mathrm{Re}_{C_+}𝑑tx_\eta \{\dot{\eta }+h_j(\xi ,\eta )/\xi \}}e^{iS_{P(T)}(u_c)}e^{2i\stackrel{~}{h}(u_c;\tau ,T)2i\stackrel{~}{V}_T(u_c,x)},`$ (5.1)
where, see (2.16),

$$2\stackrel{~}{h}(u_c;\tau ,T)=S_{cl}(u_c\pm x;T\pm \tau )S_{cl}(u_c\pm x;T)+2\tau h(\eta ).$$
(5.2)
Using this definition, and remembering that the action of operator $`\mathrm{exp}\{i\widehat{e}\widehat{\tau }/2\}`$ gives $`\tau =\tau ^{}`$ and $`\epsilon =0`$, we find:

$`\rho _c(E)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dT{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}d\tau e^{2iE\tau }e^{i\mathrm{Re}_{C_+}𝑑t\widehat{j}\widehat{x}/2}{\displaystyle }D\xi D\eta Dx_\xi Dx_\eta e^{iS_{cl}(u_c\pm x;T\pm \tau )iS_{cl}(u_c\pm x;T)}\times `$
$`\times e^{2i\mathrm{Re}_{C_+}𝑑tx_\xi \delta S(u_c)/\delta \eta }e^{2i\mathrm{Re}_{C_+}𝑑tx_\eta \delta S(u_c)/\delta \xi }e^{iS_{P(T)}(u_c)}e^{2i\stackrel{~}{V}_T(u_c,x)},`$ (5.3)
if the transformed action

$$S(u_c)=𝑑t\{\eta \dot{\xi }h(\eta )\}.$$

Action of the perturbation generating operator gives:

$`\rho _c(E)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dT{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}d\tau e^{2iE\tau }{\displaystyle }D\xi D\eta Dx_\xi Dx_\eta e^{iS_{cl}(u_c\pm x_c;T\pm \tau )}\times `$
$`\times e^{2i\mathrm{Re}_{C_+}𝑑t\{x_\xi (\delta S(u_c)/\delta \eta )x_\eta (\delta S(u_c)/\delta \xi )\}}e^{2i\mathrm{Re}_{C_+}𝑑tx_c(\delta S(u_c)/\delta u_c)},`$ (5.4)
if (2.18) is used and, using the local coordinates of the $`W`$ space,

$$x_c=x_\xi \frac{u_c}{\eta }x_\eta \frac{u_c}{\xi }=\delta u_c\delta p_c$$
(5.5)
Now, if

$$\frac{\delta S(u_c)}{\delta \xi }=\frac{u_c}{\xi }\frac{\delta S(u_c)}{\delta u_c},\frac{\delta S(u_c)}{\delta \eta }=\frac{u_c}{\eta }\frac{\delta S(u_c)}{\delta u_c},$$
(5.6)
then we can write:

$$\rho _c(E)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑T_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\tau e^{2iE\tau }D\xi D\eta Dx_\xi Dx_\eta e^{iS_{cl}(u_c\pm x_c;T\pm \tau )}.$$
(5.7)
The quantities $`(x_\xi ,x_\eta )`$ and $`(\xi ,\eta )`$ have different meaning. First ones are the virtual variation of the ‘field’ $`u`$ along the corresponding axis of $`W^c`$ space, and the integrals over them should be calculated perturbatively, but last ones are the axis of the $`W^c=T^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ phase space. The closed path action

$$S_{cl}(u_c\pm x_c;T\pm \tau )=S_{C_+(T+\tau )}(u_c(\xi ,\eta )+x_c(\xi ,\eta ;x_\xi ,x_\eta ))S_{C_{}(T\tau )}(u_c(\xi ,\eta )x_c(\xi ,\eta ;x_\xi ,x_\eta )).$$
(5.8)
It is evident from (5.7) the transformed representation can not be written in the factorized form of product of two amplitudes.

We interpret this conclusion as impossibility of the canonical transformations in the path integrals (2.8) since on the cotangent manifolds the quantum excitations induce the phase space flows in which all degrees of freedom are mixed.

In traditional terms this means the problem of time ordering of nonlinear operators. Our success is based on the observation that the unitarity condition unambiguously defines the perturbation theory in the (‘linear’) representation, where we may disentangle all time orderings. Fixing this procedure in the structure of $`DM`$, $`\beta K`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_T`$ one can do arbitrary transformations. But, the payment for this success is necessity to work in terms of less habitual absorption part of amplitude and, by this reason, one should be careful interpreting our perturbation theory as a general, see .

But, in conclusion, quantising the nonlinear waves our strong coupling perturbation theory seems much more attractive since we can perform the calculation in this theory up to the end, choosing $`W^c`$ as the homogeneous and isotropic space.

Acknowledgement
We would like to thank V.Kadyshevsky for interest to described perturbation theory.


format: text

text:
# DESY 00–039 ISSN 0418–9833 MZ-TH/00–06 TTP00–02 hep–ph/0003082 March 2000 Photon Plus Jet Cross Sections in Deep Inelastic 𝑒𝑝 Collisions at Order 𝑂(𝛼²𝛼_𝑠)

## 1 Introduction

In the past, measurements of prompt photon production at both fixed-target facilities and hadron-hadron colliders, have extensively been used to constrain the gluon distribution of the proton . Only recently the first data on prompt photon production in high-energy $`ep`$ collisions have been reported . Due to the presently still limited statistics the measurements are confined to prompt photons produced in photoproduction reactions, i.e. to $`ep`$ collisions with almost real exchanged photons ($`Q^20`$). As is well-known, photoproduction processes at high energies proceed by two distinct mechanisms. The incoming photon can couple either in a point-like manner to the incoming quark or antiquark (direct process) or hadronically as a source of quarks and gluons which in turn take part in the subsequent hard scattering process (resolved process). Therefore an important advantage of photoproduction measurements is to provide additional constraints on the quark and gluon content of the photon as suggested many years ago by Aurenche et al. .

By contrast, prompt photon production in deep inelastic scattering with large $`Q^2`$, $`Q^2\mathrm{\Gamma }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}`$ GeV2, is fully determined by the direct process and does not need any non-perturbative input for the parton content of the photon111At intermediate $`Q^2<10`$ GeV2 there might be a significant resolved contribution which depends on the quark and gluon distribution of the virtual photon. as in photoproduction. Therefore this process is sensitive only to the parton distribution functions (PDF’s) of the proton. The possible information on the proton PDF’s would be complementary to the $`F_2`$ measurement from inclusive deep inelastic scattering, since up\- and down-type quarks contribute with different weights. Of course, the cross sections for $`epe\gamma X`$ at large $`Q^2`$ are smaller than the corresponding cross sections for almost real photons; but with the larger luminosities planned at HERA rather accurate measurements of various differential cross sections for $`Q^2>10`$ GeV2 seem feasible.

In addition to the perturbative direct production, photons are also produced through the “fragmentation” of a hadronic jet into a single photon carrying a large fraction of the jet energy . This long-distance process is described in terms of the quark-to-photon and gluon-to-photon fragmentation functions (FF’s).

In order to unambiguously identify the prompt photon signal from the hadronic background it is necessary to apply isolation cuts in the experiment. This has the effect of reducing the cross section due to a suppression of the photon fragmentation contributions. On the other hand, it has the advantage of eliminating to a large extent the dependence on the photon fragmentation function, which is a non-perturbative input and must come from other experiments designed to measure them.

To obtain reliable predictions it is necessary to calculate the $`epe\gamma X`$ cross section in next-to-leading order (NLO) of the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ as has been done for $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions , $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation , as well as photoproduction . The corresponding NLO calculation of cross sections for prompt photon production in $`ep`$ scattering with large $`Q^2`$ has not yet been done previously, neither for the technically simpler case of inclusive cross sections, i.e. without any photon isolation cut, nor for the case with isolation cuts. Applicability of perturbative QCD requires that the scattering process is characterized by a large transverse momentum, provided either by the momentum transfer $`Q^2`$ or a large transverse momentum of the hadronic final state. We consider only the case where both $`Q^2`$ is large and the hadronic final state is characterized by a large $`p_T`$. One specific possibility is to consider the case where in addition to the photon also one or more jets are observed in the final state. The detection of an additional jet may also help to identify the prompt photon events in the actual experiment. In leading order (LO) the photon is produced by the Compton process $`\gamma ^{}+q\gamma +q`$, where $`\gamma ^{}`$ is a photon of high virtuality emitted by the incoming electron. This partonic photon production process contributes to the $`\gamma +(1+1)`$-jet final state in $`ep`$ scattering (the proton remnant jet being counted as “$`+1`$” jet as usual). In NLO the final states are $`\gamma +(1+1)`$\- and $`\gamma +(2+1)`$-jets.

The first NLO calculations for this case were done by two of us and D. Michelsen . This calculation was restricted to the case of not too large $`Q^2`$ where it is possible to neglect the exchange of a $`Z`$ boson. Moreover, in this previous work the fragmentation contribution was not taken into account. Therefore, photon-quark collinear singularities could not be absorbed into the fragmentation functions. Instead, these singularities had been removed by explicit parton-level cutoffs. As a consequence, the result depended strongly on these parton-photon cutoffs, in particular for subprocesses with an incoming gluon. These cutoffs are difficult to control experimentally, where hadrons combined into jets are observed and not the partons needed to define the cutoffs. In subsequent work  we included the fragmentation contribution thereby avoiding the need to use parton-level cutoffs. The isolation criteria, which limit the hadronic energy in the jet containing the photon, are thus physical, i.e. correspond to selection criteria in the experimental analysis. In a later paper  we studied the sum of the $`\gamma +(1+1)`$-jet and $`\gamma +(2+1)`$-jet cross sections as a function of the momentum fraction carried by a photon inside a jet. We observed that this special cross section is sensitive to the fragmentation contribution, in particular to the quark-to-photon FF.

In , only a few observables have been calculated, as for example distributions with respect to the transverse momentum, $`p_T`$, and the rapidity, $`\eta `$, of the photon or the most energetic jet for one particular choice of the photon isolation cut. In this paper we take up the topic of this earlier work. Besides several other observables which are of interest for analyzing upcoming experimental data from HERA we shall present results for $`p_T`$ and $`\eta `$ distributions already considered in  for different isolation cuts. We also study possible scale dependencies to estimate the reliability of our predictions. As in  we use the $`\gamma ^{}p`$ center-of-mass system to define the kinematic variables. For most of the cross section calculations a particular cone algorithm is applied to define the parton jets and to isolate the photon signal. For a few cases we shall also make use of the $`k_T`$ cluster algorithm.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In section 2 a brief outline of the theoretical background to the cross section calculations as well as the technique of the calculation are given. The results for the various observables are presented and discussed in section 3. Section 4 contains a summary and some concluding remarks.

## 2 Subprocesses Through Next-to-Leading Order

### 2.1 Leading-Order Subprocesses

In leading order, the production of photons in deep inelastic electron scattering is described by the quark (antiquark) subprocess (see Fig. 1)

$$e(p_1)+q(p_3)e(p_2)+q(p_4)+\gamma (p_5)$$
(1)
where the particle momenta are given in parentheses. The momentum of the incoming quark is a fraction $`\xi `$ of the proton momentum $`P`$, $`p_3=\xi P`$. The proton remnant $`r`$ has the momentum $`p_r=(1\xi )P`$. It hadronizes into the remnant jet so that the process (1) gives rise to $`\gamma +(1+1)`$-jet final states. In the virtual photon-proton center-of-mass system the hard photon recoils against the hard jet back-to-back. In a leading-logarithmic calculation, the effects of higher-order processes show up only via the use of the scale-violating parton distributions of the proton. The PDF’s are calculated using collinear kinematics so that the event structure is the same as given by the lowest-order subprocesses, which are of order $`O(\alpha ^2)`$ 222Here and in the following we do not count the extra factor $`\alpha `$ from the $`ee\gamma ^{}`$ vertex..

To remove photon production by incoming photons with small virtuality and to restrict to the case where the scattered electron $`e(p_2)`$ is observed, one applies cuts on the usual deep inelastic scattering variables $`x`$, $`y`$, $`Q^2`$ as measured from the momentum of the scattered lepton. In particular we restrict the calculation to values of $`Q^210`$ GeV2; however, since very large $`Q^2`$ values are not relevant at HERA we can neglect contributions from $`Z`$ boson exchange. In addition, to have photons $`\gamma (p_5)`$ of sufficiently large energy we require an explicit cut on their transverse momentum. Finally, a cut on the invariant mass of the hadronic final state is also applied.

Both leptons and quarks emit photons. The subset of diagrams where the photon is emitted from the initial or final state lepton (leptonic radiation) is explicitly gauge invariant and can be considered separately. Similarly, the contribution from diagrams with a photon emitted from quark lines is called quarkonic radiation. In addition, there are also contributions from the interference of these two mechanisms. The emission of photons from leptons is described by pure QED and can be predicted with high reliability. Therefore, the contributions from leptonic radiation will be suppressed by cuts on the photon emission angle . In our numerical evaluation we include the remaining background from leptonic radiation as well as the interference contribution.

At lowest order, each parton is identified with a jet and the photon is automatically isolated from the quark jet by requiring a non-zero transverse momentum of the photon or jet in the $`\gamma ^{}p`$ center-of-mass frame. Therefore the photon fragmentation is absent in this order.

### 2.2 Subprocesses to Next-to-Leading Order

At next-to-leading order, processes with an additional gluon, either emitted into the final state or as incoming parton, have to be taken into account:

$$e(p_1)+q(p_3)e(p_2)+q(p_4)+\gamma (p_5)+g(p_6),$$
(2)
$$e(p_1)+g(p_3)e(p_2)+q(p_4)+\gamma (p_5)+\overline{q}(p_6),$$
(3)
where the momenta of the particles are again given in parentheses. Examples of diagrams for $`\gamma ^{}qq\gamma g`$ and $`\gamma ^{}gq\gamma \overline{q}`$ are shown in Fig. 2. In addition, virtual corrections (one-loop diagrams at $`O(\alpha _s)`$) to the LO processes (1) have to be included. The complete matrix elements for the processes (2) and (3) are given in . The processes (2) and (3) contribute both to the $`\gamma +(1+1)`$-jet cross section, as well as to the cross section for $`\gamma +(2+1)`$-jets in the final state. In the latter case each parton in the final state builds a jet on its own, whereas for $`\gamma +(1+1)`$-jets a pair of final state partons is experimentally unresolved. The criteria for combining two partons into one jet will be introduced later. The contributions (2) and (3) as well as the virtual corrections to (1) are of order $`O(\alpha ^2\alpha _s)`$.

### 2.3 Fragmentation Contributions

In addition to the direct production described in the last two subsections, photons can also be produced through the fragmentation of a hadronic jet into a single photon carrying a large fraction of the jet energy . This long-distance process is described in terms of quark-to-photon and gluon-to-photon fragmentation functions which absorb collinear singularities present in the NLO direct contributions of section 2.2. The corresponding fragmentation processes (see Fig. 3) are

$$e(p_1)+q(p_3)e(p_2)+q(p_4)+g(p_6),$$
(4)
$$e(p_1)+g(p_3)e(p_2)+q(p_4)+\overline{q}(p_6).$$
(5)
These processes are of order $`\alpha \alpha _s`$ whereas the photon FF is formally of order $`\alpha `$, so that the LO fragmentation contribution is formally of order $`O(\alpha ^2\alpha _s)`$, i.e. of the same order as the NLO direct contribution. The fragmentation photons, sometimes also called bremsstrahlung photons, are emitted predominantly along the direction of motion of the parent quark or gluon. Because of the pointlike nature of the photon-quark interaction, it is possible to calculate the leading-logarithmic behaviour of the photon FF, including the corrections due to additional gluon emissions. The resulting FF’s are in fact of order $`O(\alpha /\alpha _s)`$ since they possess a logarithmic growth coming from the integration over the momenta of unobserved partons. Therefore in the leading-logarithmic approximation the fragmentation contribution is obtained from $`O(\alpha /\alpha _s)`$ FF’s convoluted with corresponding $`O(\alpha \alpha _s)`$ cross sections for the two-body subprocesses (4) and (5). The resulting contribution is thus of order $`O(\alpha ^2)`$, i.e. of the same order as the LO non-fragmentation process (1). For this reason it is sometimes argued that the fragmentation contribution should be combined with the LO direct process to provide the full LO physical cross section. Consequently, the calculation of the full cross section up to NLO would then also require the computation of the NLO corrections to the fragmentation contributions. On the other hand, it is well-known, that the fragmentation contribution in LO depends strongly on the factorization scale $`\mu _F`$ which, however, is cancelled to a large extent by the $`\mu _F`$-dependence of the NLO contribution to the non-fragmentation part. For this reason and also since for an isolated photon the fragmentation contribution is small we shall take it into account only in LO in the same way as in our previous work .

The signature of the fragmentation contribution in LO is a photon balanced by a jet on the opposite side of the event and accompanied by nearly collinear hadrons on the same side of the event. This means that this contribution has a similar event structure as the LO direct contribution.

### 2.4 Calculational Details

The calculation of the NLO corrections was performed with the help of the phase space slicing method using a slicing parameter defined in terms of invariant masses. With this method it is straightforward to introduce the photon isolation requirement as well as to implement a jet definition which separates $`\gamma +(1+1)`$-jet from $`\gamma +(2+1)`$-jet final states. Phase space slicing based on invariant masses is also used to separate the photon-quark collinearly singular regions, however, using another independent cutoff parameter. The technical steps to apply the phase space slicing method in the present case are described in the following.

In the calculation of the contribution to the $`\gamma +(1+1)`$-jet cross section we encounter the well-known infrared singularities. They appear in those phase space regions where two partons are degenerate to one parton, i.e. when the gluon becomes soft or two partons become collinear to each other. The singularities are assigned either to the initial state (ISR) or to the final state (FSR). Contributions involving the product of an ISR and a FSR factor are separated by partial fractioning. The FSR singularities cancel against singularities from virtual corrections to the LO process (1). For the ISR singularities, the cancellation is incomplete and the remaining singular contributions have to be factorized and absorbed into the renormalized PDF’s of the proton.

To carry out these steps, the singularities are isolated in an analytic calculation using dimensional regularization. Since the corresponding calculations are too difficult for the exact cross sections of the processes (2) and (3) an approximate solution is required. To achieve this, the phase space slicing  is used first to separate the singular regions in the 4-particle phase space. Then, in these regions the matrix elements are approximated by their most singular contributions. Only for these approximate expressions and only in the singular regions the calculation is performed analytically. The separation of singular regions is obtained by applying a slicing cut $`y_0^J`$ to the scaled invariant masses $`y_{ij}`$, where $`y_{ij}=(p_i+p_j)^2/W_{\mathrm{had}}^2`$ and the mass of the hadronic final state $`W_{\mathrm{had}}`$ is defined by $`W_{\mathrm{had}}^2=(P+qp_5)^2`$. The cut $`y_0^J`$ must be chosen small enough so that terms of order $`O(y_0^J)`$ which are neglected in the singular approximation are so small that an accuracy of a few per cent is achievable for the final result. Outside the singular regions the integrations are done numerically without any approximation and with 4 space-time dimensions. Physical cross sections, as defined in the next section, are obtained by adding the contributions from singular and non-singular regions as well as the virtual contributions and subtracting the remaining ISR collinear singularities. In the final results, the dependence on the slicing parameter $`y_0^J`$ cancels. This means the cut-off $`y_0^J`$ is purely technical. The independence on the slicing cut $`y_0^J`$ has been checked by explicit calculation for some special photon plus jet cross sections in . Further details and the derivation of the two-body matrix elements in the singular region together with the cancellation of the soft and collinear poles can be found in .

In addition, the squared matrix elements for the processes (2) and (3) have photonic infrared and collinear singularities, i.e. singularities due to soft or collinear photons. Since we require the photon to be observed in the detector the infrared singularity can not occur. In the numerical analysis we will introduce this condition by requiring a minimum on the transverse momentum of the photon. This cut removes also all collinear singularities due to initial state radiation.

Final state collinear singularities due to photons are present and are treated again with the help of the phase space slicing method in a similar way as the quark-gluon collinear contributions. The phase space slicing parameter used to treat the photonic singularities can be chosen independently and is denoted by $`y_0^\gamma `$. As before, it has to be chosen very small so that the matrix element can be approximated by its singular part. For the subprocess (2), the phase space slicing is described by the squared invariant masses $`y_{45}=(p_4+p_5)^2/W_{\mathrm{had}}^2`$ . In the gluon-initiated process (3) one has two singular regions which are controlled by the variables $`y_{45}`$ and $`y_{56}`$, respectively. In the regions $`y_{45}`$, $`y_{56}>y_0^\gamma `$ the cross section is evaluated numerically in the same way as in  where these cuts were introduced as physical isolation cuts on the photon with sufficiently large isolation parameter $`y_0^\gamma `$. In this work the cuts on $`y_{45}`$ and $`y_{56}`$ are only technical since we include the contribution to the matrix element also in the regions $`y_{45}<y_0^\gamma `$ and $`y_{56}<y_0^\gamma `$. In these regions the matrix elements are collinearly divergent. The singularities are regulated by dimensional regularization, allowing us to absorb their divergent parts into the bare photon FF to yield the renormalized photon FF denoted by $`D_{q\gamma }`$. For the process (2) this procedure results in a contribution of the following form:

$$|M|_{\gamma ^{}q\gamma qg}^2=|M|_{\gamma ^{}qqg}^2D_{q\gamma }(z).$$
(6)
The matrix element $`|M|^2`$ on the right-hand side of (6) is the matrix element for the process $`\gamma ^{}qqg`$ whose Feynman diagram is shown in Fig. 3a. There exists a similar expression for the subprocess $`\gamma ^{}g\gamma q\overline{q}`$ (Fig. 3b). The photon FF $`D_{q\gamma }(z)`$ in (6) is given by

$$D_{q\gamma }(z)=D_{q\gamma }(z,\mu _F^2)+\frac{\alpha e_q^2}{2\pi }\left(P_{q\gamma }^{(0)}(z)\mathrm{ln}\frac{z(1z)y_0^\gamma W^2}{\mu _F^2}+z\right).$$
(7)
$`D_{q\gamma }(z,\mu _F^2)`$ in (7) stands for the non-perturbative FF describing the transition $`q\gamma `$ at the factorization scale $`\mu _F`$. This function will be specified in the next section. The second term in (7), if substituted in (6), is the finite part due to the collinear photon-quark (-antiquark) contribution to the matrix element $`|M|_{\gamma ^{}q\gamma qg}^2`$ integrated in the region $`y_{45}<y_0^\gamma `$ after absorption of the divergent part into the non-perturbative FF.

Again the parameter $`y_0^\gamma `$ is only a parameter used in intermediate steps of the calculation, introduced to separate divergent from finite contributions; the $`y_0^\gamma `$-dependence in (7) is canceled by the dependence of the numerically computed $`\gamma +(1+1)`$-jet cross section restricted to the region $`y_{45}>y_0^\gamma `$. Since the corresponding contributions to the matrix element in (6) are calculated in the collinear approximation, the result is valid only up to terms of order $`O(y_0^\gamma )`$. This requires to choose a very small value for $`y_0^\gamma `$. In Ref.  it has been explicitly shown that the sum of all terms for the photon plus jet cross section becomes independent of $`y_0^\gamma `$ when $`y_0^\gamma `$ is chosen small enough.

In (7), $`P_{q\gamma }^{(0)}`$ is the LO quark-to-photon splitting function

$$P_{q\gamma }^{(0)}(z)=\frac{1+(1z)^2}{z}$$
(8)
and $`e_q`$ is the electric charge of quark $`q`$. The variable $`z`$ denotes the fraction of the quark momentum carried away by the photon. If the photon is emitted from the final state quark with 4-momentum $`p_4^{}=p_4+p_5`$, then $`z`$ can be related to the invariants $`y_{35}`$ and $`y_{34}`$:

$$z=\frac{y_{35}}{y_{34^{}}}=\frac{y_{35}}{y_{34}+y_{35}}.$$
(9)
The fragmentation contribution is proportional to the cross section for $`\gamma ^{}qqg`$ which is $`O(\alpha \alpha _s)`$ and is well-known. It must be convoluted with the function in (7) to obtain the contribution to the cross section for $`\gamma ^{}qq\gamma g`$ at $`O(\alpha ^2\alpha _s)`$. Equivalent formulas are used to calculate the fragmentation contributions to the channel (3) and in the case where the quarks in the initial and final state are replaced by an antiquark in (2).

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Kinematical Selection Cuts and Other Input

The results for the cross sections which will be presented in the following subsections are obtained for energies and kinematical cuts appropriate for HERA experiments. The energies of the incoming electron (positron) and proton are $`E_e=27.5`$ GeV and $`E_P=820`$ GeV, respectively. The cuts on the DIS variables are chosen as in our previous works :

$$\begin{array}{cc}Q^210\mathrm{GeV}^2,\hfill & W_{\mathrm{had}}10\mathrm{GeV},\hfill \\ 10^4x0.5,\hfill & 0.05y0.95\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`Q^2=q^2`$ and $`q`$ is the electron momentum transfer, $`q=p_1p_2`$ as usual.

To reduce the background from leptonic radiation  we require

$$90^{}\theta _\gamma 173^{},\theta _{\gamma e}10^{}$$
(10)
where $`\theta _\gamma `$ is the emission angle of the photon measured with respect to the momentum of the incoming electron in the HERA laboratory frame. The cut on $`\theta _{\gamma e}(=\theta _{25})`$, the angle between the momenta of the photon and the scattered electron, suppresses radiation from the final state electron. In the case of photon plus jet cross sections, the photon and the hadron jets $`J`$ are required to have minimal transverse momenta in the $`\gamma ^{}p`$ center-of-mass system (i.e. in the rest system of $`p_1p_2+P`$ where the remnant has $`p_{T,r}=0`$),

$$p_{T,\gamma }5\mathrm{GeV},p_{T,J}6\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(11)
Note that an event is rejected if we do not find at least one jet with $`p_{T,J}`$ above the cut in (11). If there are two partons with $`p_{T,J}6`$ GeV, the event has a chance to be treated as a $`\gamma +(2+1)`$-jet event. If, after trying to recombine partons into jets (see below), only one jet has $`p_{T,J}6`$ GeV, the event contributes to the $`\gamma +(1+1)`$-jet class. In the latter case, it may happen that there is an additional parton not combined into a jet with $`p_{T,i}<6`$ GeV (in a JADE-like jet algorithm applied in the HERA laboratory frame, such a low-$`p_T`$ parton would be recombined with the remnant jet in most cases).

Different values of minimal $`p_T`$’s for the photon and the jet have to be chosen in order to avoid the otherwise present infrared sensitivity of the NLO predictions . This point will be studied in detail later. For inclusive photon cross sections, i.e. in the case where we do not perform a jet analysis of the hadronic final state, we replace the second of the conditions in (11) by a cut on the sum of transverse energies of all final state partons

$$E_T=\underset{i=q,\overline{q},g}{}\left|p_{T,i}\right|6\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(12)
The PDF’s of the proton are taken from  (MRST). Recent updates of available PDF parametrizations  (MRS99, CTEQ5) do not lead to markedly different results (roughly a 2 % (4 %) increase of the total cross section for MRS99 (CTEQ5) with respect to MRST; a version with enhanced $`d/u`$ ratio of MRS99 does not lead to observable differences in the range of $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ considered here). $`\alpha _s`$ is calculated from the two-loop formula with the same $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-value ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}(n_f=4)=300`$ MeV) as used in the MRST parametrization of the proton PDF. The scale in $`\alpha _s`$ and the factorization scale are set equal to each other and fixed to the largest $`p_{T,J}`$, except when we present results with other scale choices. For completeness, we also mention that the slicing cuts have been fixed at $`y_0^J=10^4`$ and $`y_0^\gamma =10^5`$.

The dependence of the $`\gamma +`$jet cross sections on the choice of the photon FF has been studied earlier . In the present work we choose the FF of Bourhis et al.  (BFG). This FF has been compared to the ALEPH $`e^+e^{}\gamma +1`$-jet cross section  and also to the inclusive photon cross section measured by OPAL . Both data sets agreed well with predictions based on the BFG parametrization . In  we studied the cross section differential with respect to the fraction of momentum $`z_\gamma `$ carried by a photon inside a jet for several other photon FF’s besides the BFG parametrization.

Photon isolation is implemented with the help of the cone isolation method similar to the one used in the ZEUS experiment for photon production with almost real photons . This method restricts the hadronic energy allowed in a cone around the jet axis of the jet containing the photon. The same method is used also to define jets emerging in the event sample of $`\gamma +2`$-parton-level jets when two partons are combined. In the $`\gamma ^{}p`$ center-of-mass frame, two partons $`i`$ and $`j`$ are combined into a jet $`J`$, when they obey the cone constraints $`R_{i,J}<R`$ and $`R_{j,J}<R`$, where

$$R_{i,J}=\sqrt{(\eta _i\eta _J)^2+(\varphi _i\varphi _J)^2}.$$
(13)
$`\eta _J`$ ($`=\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{tan}(\theta _J/2)`$) and $`\varphi _J`$ are the rapidity (polar angle $`\theta _J`$) and azimuthal angle of the recombined jet which are obtained from the formulae

$$\begin{array}{c}p_{T,J}=p_{T,i}+p_{T,j},\hfill \\ \eta _J=\frac{\eta _ip_{T,i}+\eta _jp_{T,j}}{p_{T,i}+p_{T,j}},\hfill \\ \varphi _J=\frac{\varphi _ip_{T,i}+\varphi _jp_{T,j}}{p_{T,i}+p_{T,j}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
For most of the results we choose $`R=1`$. If not, we shall state the value of $`R`$ explicitly. The azimuthal angle is defined with respect to the scattering plane given by the momentum of the beam and the momentum of the scattered electron. The rapidity is always defined positive in the direction of the proton remnant. The photon is treated like any other parton in the recombination process, i.e. when in (13) $`i`$ or $`j`$ is the photon, then $`J`$ is called the photon-jet. To qualify a jet as a photon-jet, we restrict the hadronic energy in the jet by

$$z_\gamma =\frac{p_{T,\gamma }}{p_{T,\gamma }+p_{T,\mathrm{had}}}=1ϵ_{\mathrm{had}}1ϵ_{\mathrm{had}}^0=z_{\mathrm{cut}}.$$
(15)
$`p_{T,\gamma }`$ and $`p_{T,\mathrm{had}}`$ denote the transverse momenta of the photon and the parton producing hadrons in this jet. Defining $`p_{T,\gamma \mathrm{jet}}=p_{T,\gamma }+p_{T,\mathrm{had}}`$, (15) is equivalent to the requirement

$$p_{T,\mathrm{had}}ϵ_{\mathrm{had}}^0p_{T,\gamma \mathrm{jet}},$$
(16)
i.e. the ratio of the total $`p_T`$ due to other particles (partons) than the photon is required not to exceed $`ϵ_{\mathrm{had}}^0`$. For our predictions we shall choose different values for $`ϵ_{\mathrm{had}}^0=(1z_{\mathrm{cut}})`$. In  this parameter was set equal to $`ϵ_{\mathrm{had}}^0=0.11`$.

It is known that the cone algorithm is ambiguous for final states with more than three particles or partons . Since we have maximally three partons in the final state this problem is not relevant in our case. However, in some cases it may happen that two partons $`i`$ and $`j`$ qualify both as two individual jets $`i`$ and $`j`$, or as a combined jet $`J`$. In these exceptional cases we count only the combined jet $`J`$ to avoid double counting.

The cone algorithm is problematic in experimental analyses due to its seed-finding mechanism and due to overlapping cones. These problems are avoided with the $`k_T`$ jet finding algorithm . In our theoretical calculations, the $`k_T`$ algorithm can be incorporated quite easily: partons $`i`$ and $`j`$ (where one of them may be the photon) are combined if they fulfill the condition

$$R_{ij}<R\mathrm{with}R_{ij}=\sqrt{(\eta _i\eta _j)^2+(\varphi _i\varphi _j)^2}.$$
(17)
The resulting kinematic variables of the combined jet are calculated with the same formulae (14) as in the cone algorithm. The recombination condition (13) is equivalent to

$$R_{ij}<Rp_{ij}\mathrm{with}p_{ij}=\frac{p_{T,i}+p_{T,j}}{\mathrm{max}(p_{T,i},p_{T,j})}.$$
(18)
Therefore, choosing the same value for $`R`$, jets obtained with the cone algorithm (18) are slightly wider than those constructed with the $`k_T`$ algorithm (17). In order to demonstrate that our numerical routines work also with the $`k_T`$ algorithm we have calculated some representative cross sections with this jet definition as well.

### 3.2 Photon plus Jet Cross Sections

Now we shall present our numerical results. We start with various cross sections for the $`\gamma +(n+1)`$-jet final state since we think that these cross sections, although smaller than the fully inclusive photon cross section, will be measured first due to reduced background problems. It is clear that in NLO the final state may consist of two or three jets where one jet is always a photon jet. The remnant jet is not counted since it is produced with zero transverse momentum. The three-jet sample, equivalent to $`\gamma +(2+1)`$-jets in the notation of the previous sections, consists of all $`\gamma +(2+1)`$-parton-level jets which do not fulfill the cone constraint $`R_{i,J}<R`$ with $`R_{i,J}`$ given in (13). The $`\gamma +(1+1)`$-jet sample contains events where two partons (possibly a photon) are recombined into one jet or one parton does not obey the cut on transverse momenta (11). In the following we shall sum over the two samples with $`n=1`$ and $`n=2`$ jets. If there are two jets in an event, we order them according to their transverse momenta and call the one with larger $`p_T`$ “jet 1” and the one with smaller $`p_T`$ accordingly “jet 2”. Also, from now on we will use a simplified notation and denote kinematic variables of the jet containing the photon simply by $`p_{T,\gamma }`$, $`\eta _\gamma `$ and $`\varphi _\gamma `$.

In Figs. 4 and 5 we show results for the $`p_T`$ and $`\eta `$ dependence of the cross sections $`d\sigma /dp_T`$ and $`d\sigma /d\eta `$ for the photon jet and the jet with the largest $`p_T`$. In each of the four figures we have plotted three curves for three choices of $`z_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ defined in (15), $`z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.5`$, 0.7 and 0.9. Together with the cone radius $`R`$, $`z_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ controls the amount of photon isolation. As to be expected the cross section decreases with the degree of photon isolation, i.e. with increasing $`z_{\mathrm{cut}}`$. Specifically in Fig. 4a we present $`d\sigma /dp_{T,\gamma }`$ as a function of $`p_{T,\gamma }`$ for the three $`z_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ values and for $`p_{T,\gamma }5`$ GeV. All other variables, in particular $`\eta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$, $`\eta _\gamma `$ and $`p_{T,\mathrm{jet}}`$ are integrated over the kinematically allowed ranges. We see that all three cross sections have a similar shape. In Fig. 5a $`d\sigma /dp_{T,\mathrm{jet1}}`$ as a function of $`p_{T,\mathrm{jet1}}`$ is shown. The qualitative behaviour of the cross sections for the different $`z_{\mathrm{cut}}`$’s is similar as in Fig. 4a.

For the $`\eta `$ distributions, shown in Figs. 4b, 5b for the photon jet and the most energetic jet, we have integrated over $`p_{T,\gamma }5`$ GeV and $`p_{T,\mathrm{jet1}}6`$ GeV. The shapes of the three curves for the different $`z_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ values are similar for both the cross section $`d\sigma /d\eta _\gamma `$ in Fig. 4b and the cross section $`d\sigma /d\eta _{\mathrm{jet1}}`$ in Fig. 5b. We note that the $`\eta _{\mathrm{jet1}}`$ distribution peaks at somewhat smaller rapidities than $`d\sigma /d\eta _\gamma `$.

Distributions with respect to $`p_T`$ and $`\eta `$ of the second jet in $`\gamma +(2+1)`$-jet events do not depend on the isolation cut since in this case each parton (photon) constitutes a jet by its own. Therefore we show corresponding figures in the next subsection when we will discuss the influence of the cone size $`R`$ on the cross sections.

In addition to predicting distributions in the transverse momenta and the rapidities of the photon and the hadron jets we also have calculated distributions for variables which characterize the correlation of two jets. One of these variables is

$$z_{\gamma 1}=\frac{\stackrel{}{p}_{T,\gamma }\stackrel{}{p}_{T,\mathrm{jet1}}}{p_{T,\mathrm{jet1}}^2}.$$
(19)
Note that $`z_{\gamma 1}`$ is defined with the help of the transverse momentum of the photon jet, i.e. $`p_{T,\gamma }`$ may include a contribution from accompanying hadronic energy. The dependence of the cross section on $`z_{\gamma 1}`$ characterizes the imbalance in transverse momentum of the photon and the most energetic jet. Similar variables have been used before for studies in the case of photon plus charm jet final states in $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions  and of two-jet production in $`ep`$ scattering . The result for $`d\sigma /dz_{\gamma 1}`$ is shown in Fig. 6a for three photon isolation cuts $`z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.5`$, 0.7 and 0.9. The cuts on transverse momenta and the cone parameters are as defined before.

For two-body processes such as the LO Compton subprocess $`\gamma ^{}q\gamma q`$, the final photon and the jet have balancing transverse momenta and the distribution is a $`\delta `$-function in $`(1z_{\gamma 1})`$. Also the fragmentation process contributes only to $`z_{\gamma 1}=1`$ since in this case the transverse momentum of accompanying hadronic energy is collinear with the photon, resulting in $`p_{T,\gamma }=p_{T,\mathrm{bare}\gamma }+p_{T,\mathrm{had}}=p_{T,\mathrm{jet1}}`$. Contributions with $`z_{\gamma 1}1`$ are due to the higher-order three-body contributions. Events with $`z_{\gamma 1}<1`$ typically result from configurations where a single photon is opposite in transverse momentum to a jet consisting of two partons. Since according to the recombination prescription (14) the scalar sum of transverse momenta is ascribed to the jet, not the vectorial sum, one finds always $`p_{T,\gamma }<p_{T,\mathrm{jet1}}`$ and thus $`z_{\gamma 1}<1`$ in this case. Moreover, the photon is never accompanied by a hadronic parton in this case and events with $`z_{\gamma 1}<1`$ are consequently not affected by the isolation cut. On the other hand, events with $`z_{\gamma 1}>1`$ are predominantly due to configurations with a photon-jet consisting of a photon and a quark or gluon opposite to a jet consisting of a single parton. In this case, a variation of the photon isolation cut $`z_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ has a strong effect on the differential cross section.

These features are clearly visible in Fig. 6a. The cross section increases when lowering $`z_{\mathrm{cut}}`$, i.e. when larger fragmentation contributions are included. We notice that the $`z_{\gamma 1}`$ distribution is not symmetric around $`z_{\gamma 1}=1`$. The cross section for $`z_{\gamma 1}<1`$ is larger than for $`z_{\gamma 1}>1`$, becoming more and more symmetric for less restrictive isolation cuts on $`z_\gamma `$. The residual asymmetric behaviour of this distribution for vanishing isolation cut is a dynamical property of the underlying cross section.

In the region of $`z_{\gamma 1}`$ near unity, one of the two final state partons of three-body contributions (not the photon) becomes soft and thus this region is sensitive to soft-gluon effects. In our calculation with an invariant mass cut slicing parameter $`y_0^J`$ these soft-gluon corrections are considered as two-body contributions. Their contribution depends on the slicing parameter $`y_0^J`$. To remove this dependence, i.e. to remove the infrared sensitivity, we must include a sufficiently large fraction of the three-body contribution from outside $`z_{\gamma 1}=1`$. Therefore we averaged the $`z_{\gamma 1}`$ distribution over sufficiently large bins and studied the sum of the $`\gamma +(1+1)`$\- and $`\gamma +(2+1)`$-jet cross sections $`d\sigma /dz_{\gamma 1}`$. We have chosen a bin width of $`\mathrm{\Delta }z_{\gamma 1}=0.2`$ around $`z_{\gamma 1}=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }z_{\gamma 1}=0.1`$ elsewhere.

It is clear that the cross section outside the bin at $`z_{\gamma 1}=1`$ has a stronger scale dependence than inside this bin since only three-parton terms contribute. The cross section inside the bin at $`z_{\gamma 1}=1`$ is a genuine NLO prediction with expected reduced scale dependence. The scale dependence will be studied later for some other distributions. The $`\delta `$-function behaviour at LO is of course in reality modified not only by NLO corrections, but also by non-perturbative effects originating from hadronization and a possible intrinsic transverse momentum of the initial parton. Our calculation does not include these latter effects.

In Fig. 6b we show the cross section $`d\sigma /dz_{12}`$ where the variable

$$z_{12}=\frac{\stackrel{}{p}_{T,\mathrm{jet1}}\stackrel{}{p}_{T,\mathrm{jet2}}}{p_{T,\mathrm{jet1}}^2}$$
(20)
with $`p_{T,\mathrm{jet1}}>p_{T,\mathrm{jet2}}`$ measures the correlation between the two jets in $`\gamma +(2+1)`$-jet events. This cross section peaks at $`z_{12}=0`$ as to be expected and decreases away from $`z_{12}=0`$. The point $`z_{12}=0`$ is the point with no second jet, i.e. the pure $`\gamma +(1+1)`$-jet region. This region is again infrared sensitive. Therefore we integrated here over the bin $`0.05<z_{12}<0.05`$. Outside this region we chose a bin size of $`\mathrm{\Delta }z_{12}=0.05`$. Note that the distribution shown in Fig. 6b includes the contribution from low-$`p_T`$ partons with $`p_T`$ below the cut in (11). We have also calculated the $`z_{12}`$-distribution restricting to $`\gamma +(2+1)`$-jet events where both jets have $`p_T6`$ GeV. In this case, the distribution would extend to larger values of $`z_{12}`$ with a maximum at $`z_{12}0.6`$. The asymmetric behaviour of the curve visible in Fig. 6b, i.e. the tail at large $`z_{12}`$, is due to the contribution from these $`\gamma +(2+1)`$-jet events.

Another interesting variable might be the azimuthal angle $`\varphi _\gamma `$ of the emitted photon. We define $`\varphi _\gamma `$ with respect to the plane spanned by the momenta of the beam and of the scattered lepton. In Fig. 7 we show the dependence of the cross section on $`\varphi _\gamma `$, again for the three $`z_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ values 0.5, 0.7 and 0.9. As is seen in this figure, the photon is emitted dominantly at $`\varphi _\gamma =0`$. We note that the distribution becomes flatter with decreasing $`z_{\mathrm{cut}}`$. It is symmetric within the statistical accuracy of the calculation. We do not present here a similar plot for $`d\sigma /d\varphi _{\mathrm{jet1}}`$, the cross section with respect of the azimuthal angle of the most energetic jet. It would show a distribution which peaks at $`\varphi _{\mathrm{jet1}}=\pi `$, since the dominant contribution to the cross section comes from configurations in which the photon and the jet with the largest $`p_T`$ are emitted back-to-back. For jet 2 there is no such correlation. The cross section $`d\sigma /d\varphi _{\mathrm{jet2}}`$ is independent of $`\varphi _{\mathrm{jet2}}`$ and, in NLO, does not change with $`z_{\mathrm{cut}}`$. In a similar way one can discuss the cross section as a function of $`\varphi _{\gamma 1}=\varphi _\gamma \varphi _{\mathrm{jet1}}`$ or $`\varphi _{\gamma 2}=\varphi _\gamma \varphi _{\mathrm{jet2}}`$. $`d\sigma /d\varphi _{\gamma 1}`$ is strongly peaking at $`\varphi _{\gamma 1}=\pi `$. Here it is again necessary to calculate $`d\sigma /d\varphi _{\gamma 1}`$ with a sufficiently large bin size around $`\varphi _{\gamma 1}=\pi `$ in order to avoid any infrared sensitivity. On the other hand, the distribution $`d\sigma /d\varphi _{\gamma 2}`$ is flat around $`\varphi _{\gamma 2}=0`$ and decreases towards $`\varphi _{\gamma 2}=\pi `$.

### 3.3 Cone Size Dependence of Jet Cross Sections

So far we presented results only for the cone jet algorithm with the cone radius fixed to $`R=1`$ for both the photon jet and purely hadronic jets. Sometimes it is advantageous to use smaller cone radii to suppress background processes. On the other hand the dependence of the cross sections on the cone radius is a genuine NLO effect since LO cross sections do not depend on the jet definition. To present an overview of the cone radius dependence we have recalculated some of the cross sections shown so far for $`R=1`$ for two smaller radii $`R=0.5`$ and 0.7. For the photon isolation parameter we fix now $`z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.9`$.

In Figs. 8a, b we show the results for $`d\sigma /dp_{T,\gamma }`$ and $`d\sigma /d\eta _\gamma `$ with $`R=0.5`$, 0.7, and 1.0. All other cuts are chosen as before. The case with $`R=1`$ and $`z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.9`$ was shown in Figs. 4a, b already. The distributions for the jet with largest $`p_T`$ are exhibited in Figs. 9a and b. $`d\sigma /dp_{T,\gamma }`$, $`d\sigma /d\eta _\gamma `$, $`d\sigma /dp_{T,\mathrm{jet1}}`$ and $`d\sigma /d\eta _{\mathrm{jet1}}`$ show very little dependence on the cone size $`R`$. For a less restrictive isolation cut of $`z_\gamma 0.5`$ these distributions would decrease with decreasing cone radius $`R`$ as it is known from other jet calculations.

In our previous work  we studied the equivalent cross sections also for the two event classes with $`\gamma +(1+1)`$-jets and $`\gamma +(2+1)`$-jets separately. It turned out that the contribution for $`\gamma +(1+1)`$-jets is the dominant one. This is expected, since the contribution with $`\gamma +(2+1)`$-jets is an $`O(\alpha _S)`$ effect. Here we present now also results for the $`p_T`$ and $`\eta `$ distributions of jet 2 in this latter process. The results are shown in Fig. 10a ($`d\sigma /dp_{T,\mathrm{jet2}}`$) and Fig. 10b ($`d\sigma /d\eta _{\mathrm{jet2}}`$). For $`p_{T,\mathrm{jet2}}6`$ GeV the cross section is very much reduced as compared to the cross section in Fig. 9a. In fact, the dominating event configuration is with a photon and one jet balancing each other in $`p_T`$; a third jet with comparable $`p_T`$ is found in only a small portion of the events. The rapidity distribution $`d\sigma /d\eta _{\mathrm{jet2}}`$ plotted in Fig. 10b has a larger tail extending to larger rapidities as compared to the cross sections $`d\sigma /d\eta _\gamma `$ and $`d\sigma /d\eta _{\mathrm{jet1}}`$. The second energetic jet originates dominantly from the incoming quark and therefore is in many cases closer to the proton remnant, i.e. at positive rapidities, than the harder jet.

The cross sections $`d\sigma /dp_{T,\mathrm{jet2}}`$ and $`d\sigma /d\eta _{\mathrm{jet2}}`$ increase with decreasing $`R`$. This is the behaviour expected for cross sections which are of leading order in $`\alpha _s`$.

In our previous work  we studied $`d\sigma /dz_\gamma `$ as a function of the fraction $`z_\gamma `$ of the momentum of the photon inside the photon jet. This cross section is expected to contain information on the photon fragmentation functions. The results presented in  were obtained for the case $`R=1`$ only. To see how results change with $`R`$, we show in Fig. 11 $`d\sigma /z_\gamma `$ for the particular photon fragmentation function of Bourhis et al.  for $`R=0.5`$, 0.7 and 1.0. As is seen, $`d\sigma /dz_\gamma `$ decreases with decreasing $`R`$ since this cross section is a superposition of leading and next-to-leading order contributions.

The $`R`$ dependence of the other cross sections considered above follows the same pattern. In cases where we have a superposition of LO and NLO contributions we encounter a decreasing cross section with decreasing $`R`$. In regions where the cross section receives contribution from $`O(\alpha _s)`$ only with no additional NLO corrections included, the cross section increases with decreasing $`R`$. Thus for example $`d\sigma /dz_{\gamma 1}`$ (cf. Fig. 6a) is decreasing with $`R`$ in the bin at $`z_{\gamma 1}=1`$ and increasing with $`R`$ outside this bin, i.e. for $`z_{\gamma 1}<0.9`$ and $`z_{\gamma 1}>1.1`$. The $`R`$ dependence of $`d\sigma /dz_{12}`$ (cf. Fig. 6b) is similar: inside the bin around $`z_{12}=0`$ the cross section decreases with decreasing $`R`$ and outside $`z_{12}=0`$ it increases with decreasing $`R`$.

### 3.4 Jet Algorithm Dependence

Measurements of cross sections for the production of a photon plus jets, as for example in $`\gamma p`$ collisions , have been performed with the help of the cone algorithm used to define jets and the photon isolation. However, the $`k_T`$ algorithm has definite advantages, in particular in the experimental analysis . Therefore we present a few distributions based on the $`k_T`$ algorithm as well. This algorithm is used for the recombination of two partons into a jet as explained in sect. 3.1 as well as for the definition of the photon jet. In Figs. 12a, 13a we show $`d\sigma /dp_{T,\gamma }`$ and $`d\sigma /dp_{T,\mathrm{jet1}}`$ calculated with the $`k_T`$ algorithm for $`R=0.5`$, 0.7 and 1. These two groups of curves have to be compared to the results with the cone algorithm in Figs. 8a, 9a. The qualitative behaviour of the two cross sections is similar; but there are quantitative differences. We note that the dependence on the parameter $`R`$, which controls the size of the jets, is now even more reduced as compared to the corresponding cross sections with the cone algorithm. The cross sections $`d\sigma /d\eta _\gamma `$ and $`d\sigma /d\eta _{\mathrm{jet1}}`$ for the $`k_T`$ algorithm are displayed in Figs. 12b, 13b. They can be compared with the corresponding cross section for the cone algorithm in Figs. 8b, 9b. Similar to the $`p_T`$ distributions the qualitative behaviour did not change. Again the $`R`$ dependence seems to be reduced for the $`k_T`$ algorithm. This is even more the case for the cross sections $`d\sigma /dp_{T,\mathrm{jet2}}`$ and $`d\sigma /d\eta _{\mathrm{jet2}}`$, shown in Figs. 14a, b which should be compared to the corresponding results in Figs. 10a, b. It is clear that the cross sections in Figs. 14a, b increase with decreasing $`R`$ in the same way as the cross sections for the cone algorithm in Figs. 10a, b.

A direct comparison of cross sections calculated with either the cone algorithm or the $`k_T`$ algorithm is shown in Fig. 15 (dashed and dotted curves). Here we have chosen $`R=1`$ and $`z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.9`$. In Figs. 15a, b the cross sections $`d\sigma /dp_{T,\gamma }`$ and $`d\sigma /d\eta _\gamma `$ are plotted, respectively. As we can see, these cross sections hardly change when the cone algorithm is replaced by the $`k_T`$ algorithm. Only where $`d\sigma /d\eta _\gamma `$ is maximal, i.e. near $`\eta _\gamma =1.5`$, the cross section with the $`k_T`$ algorithm is approximately 5 % larger than with the cone algorithm.

It is expected that the requirement to observe additional jets reduces the cross section for the production of a high-$`p_T`$ photon. To study this reduction we have calculated also $`d\sigma /dp_{T,\gamma }`$ and $`d\sigma /d\eta _\gamma `$ for the inclusive case, i.e. without additional jets required in the final state and the same photon isolation constraint in terms of an isolation cone around the photon and the cut $`z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.9`$. The results for these inclusive cross sections are shown in Figs. 15a, b as full curves. The total cross section without jet algorithm applied is increased by about 35 %. This is reflected in the inclusive cross section $`d\sigma /d\eta _\gamma `$ which is always larger than the corresponding distribution for final states which are required to contain at least one jet, over the full range of $`\eta _\gamma `$. In $`d\sigma /dp_{T,\gamma }`$ only the first two $`p_T`$-bins contain an appreciably larger cross section due to the removal of the jet requirement. This can be traced back to the different prescriptions used to remove events with small transverse momentum: for the analyses based on the cone or the $`k_T`$ jet algorithms, we used the $`p_T`$ cuts (11) which are applied to individual jets, whereas in the case without jet algorithm we applied the cut (12) to the sum of transverse momenta of all hadronic particles in the final state. As a consequence, an event with two low-$`p_T`$ partons, each with $`p_T<6`$ GeV will be rejected in the first case if these two partons are not recombined into one jet, while the event will be accepted in the second case if the sum of the transverse momenta of the two partons is larger than the cut of 6 GeV. This clearly affects only the bins with lowest $`p_T`$.

### 3.5 Scale Dependence of Jet Cross Sections

All results presented so far have been obtained for a renormalization and factorization scale $`\mu `$ fixed at $`\mu =p_{T,\mathrm{jet1}}`$ ($`\mu =E_T`$ of (12) for inclusive cross sections). In LO cross sections, the scale dependence is exclusively due to variations of $`\mu `$ in the parton distribution functions. At NLO we expect that additional terms containing an explicit $`\mu `$-dependence will reduce the scale dependence. Instead of studying the scale dependence of all the differential cross sections discussed so far separately, we have investigated the scale dependence of some components of the total cross section, i.e. integrated over the phase space allowed by the transverse momentum cuts (11). We define the scale in the form $`\mu ^2=f^2p_{T,\mathrm{jet1}}^2`$ and vary $`f`$ between $`f=1/4`$ and 4.

In Fig. 16a we have plotted the $`f`$ dependence of the $`\gamma +(1+1)`$-jet cross section in LO and NLO (denoted $`O(\alpha _s)`$) and of the $`\gamma +(2+1)`$-jet cross section. The LO cross section (denoted “Born” in Fig. 16) increases with $`f`$ by approximately 10 % in the range $`0.25<f<4`$. The cross section including corrections of $`O(\alpha _s)`$ is almost independent of $`f`$, i.e. no scale dependence inside the considered range of scales is visible. Here the decrease of the cross section due to the decrease of $`\alpha _s`$ with increasing $`f`$ is compensated by the increase originating from the scale dependence of the proton PDF’s. The cross section for the $`\gamma +(2+1)`$-jet final state, being of order $`O(\alpha _s)`$, decreases with increasing $`f`$ by approximately 25 %. This is a combined effect of the dependence of $`\alpha _s`$ and of the $`f`$ dependence of the parton distribution functions. The $`f`$ dependence of separate components (“real”, “sing” and “frag”) of the $`\gamma +(1+1)`$-jet cross section including $`O(\alpha _s)`$ terms is plotted in Fig. 16b and again compared with the LO cross section. “real” stands for the tree graph contributions in $`O(\alpha _s)`$, calculated with the slicing parameter as described in section 2.4. Since it is a tree-graph term it decreases with increasing $`f`$ due to the decrease of $`\alpha _s`$. The singular term “sing”, which includes virtual corrections and singular contributions below the slicing cut, is negative and decreases in absolute value by the same amount as “real”. The fragmentation contribution “frag” which includes both terms of the right-hand side of (7) is also negative and almost independent of $`f`$ as expected, since the factorization scale dependence ($`\mu _F`$ in (7)) cancels in first approximation.

### 3.6 Dependence on Low-$`p_T`$ Cuts

The choice of two different cuts for the transverse momentum of the photon and the jet is needed to avoid the otherwise present infrared sensitivity of the NLO predictions. This sensitivity is known from similar calculations of dijet cross sections in $`ep`$ collisions  and must be avoided. The same problem was encountered in the calculation of inclusive two-jet cross sections in $`\gamma p`$ collisions , for the production of a prompt photon plus a charm quark in $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions  and much earlier in NLO calculations of the inclusive cross section for photon-hadron  and for two-photon production .

Above we have chosen the difference between the two $`p_{T,\mathrm{min}}`$ cuts for the photon and the jet, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=p_{T,J}^{\mathrm{min}}p_{T,\gamma }^{\mathrm{min}}`$, equal to 1 GeV (see (11)). $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ should not be too small since then we would encounter the infrared sensitive region where the prediction of the cross section becomes unreliable. In order to obtain some information about possible choices for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ we have studied the $`\gamma +(n+1)`$-jet cross section $`d\sigma /dp_{T,J}`$ integrated over $`p_{T,J}p_{T,J}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ as a function of $`p_{T,J}^{\mathrm{min}}`$. The transverse momentum of the photon was always integrated over the range $`p_{T,\gamma }p_{T,\gamma }^{\mathrm{min}}=5`$ GeV. The results for $`\sigma (p_{T,J}^{\mathrm{min}})`$ are plotted in Fig. 17a. Starting at $`p_{T,J}^{\mathrm{min}}=6`$ GeV this cross section increases with decreasing $`p_{T,J}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ with almost constant slope. At about $`p_{T,J}^{\mathrm{min}}=5.5`$ GeV the slope decreases and approaches zero and even changes sign so that $`\sigma (p_{T,J}^{\mathrm{min}})`$ develops a maximum below $`p_{T,J}^{\mathrm{min}}=5.5`$ GeV. This change of slope is due to the infrared sensitivity in the point $`p_{T,J}^{\mathrm{min}}=p_{T,\gamma }^{\mathrm{min}}`$. To avoid this region one must choose $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$. From the plot we observe that $`\mathrm{\Delta }0.5`$ GeV would be sufficient. Thus, in principle, we could have used a smaller value for this difference than was chosen in (11).

The cross section in the vicinity of $`p_{T,J}^{\mathrm{min}}=p_{T,\gamma }^{\mathrm{min}}`$ cannot be predicted reliably. It depends on the technical cut $`y_0^J`$ as soon as one approaches the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. In fact, the infrared sensitive region is very much influenced by non-perturbative effects which are not included in our calculation. In any case it would be interesting to measure $`\sigma (p_T^{\mathrm{min}})`$ in order to investigate this non-perturbative region.

In Fig. 17a we present $`\sigma (p_{T,J}^{\mathrm{min}})`$ also for $`p_{T,J}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ below 5 GeV, i.e. for $`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$. If $`p_{T,J}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ is increased starting from $`p_{T,J}^{\mathrm{min}}=4`$ GeV, the slope of $`\sigma (p_{T,J}^{\mathrm{min}})`$ changes at about $`p_{T,J}^{\mathrm{min}}=4.5`$ GeV and $`\sigma (p_{T,J}^{\mathrm{min}})`$ becomes smaller towards $`p_{T,J}^{\mathrm{min}}=5`$ GeV compared to the behaviour with constant slope. This stronger decrease of $`\sigma (p_{T,J}^{\mathrm{min}})`$ above $`p_{T,J}^{\mathrm{min}}=4.5`$ has its origin again in the infrared sensitivity of this region. For $`p_{T,J}^{\mathrm{min}}5`$ GeV, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$ the cross section approaches the same value as we have obtained for $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ in the region $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$. This means, $`\sigma (p_{T,J}^{\mathrm{min}})`$ is not singular at $`p_{T,J}^{\mathrm{min}}=5`$ GeV, nor has it a discontinuity.

The observed behaviour is of course not only visible at the specific value of $`p_T^{\mathrm{min}}=5`$ GeV which we have chosen. A similar dip is seen for larger and smaller values as well. It becomes more pronounced for smaller values and gets washed out for larger $`p_T^{\mathrm{min}}`$.

For completeness we show in Fig. 17b also the cross section with the roles of $`p_{T,J}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`p_{T,\gamma }^{\mathrm{min}}`$ interchanged, i.e. we fix $`p_{T,J}^{\mathrm{min}}=5`$ GeV and study the dependence on the cut for the photon transverse momentum $`p_{T,\gamma }^{\mathrm{min}}`$. The behaviour of the cross section in Fig. 17b is very similar to the first case and shows the same infrared sensitive region. Inside the region $`0.5`$ GeV $`<\mathrm{\Delta }<0.5`$ GeV the cross sections agree inside numerical errors. Only for larger $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|`$ the dependences on the minimal transverse momenta of the jet and the photon become different. The cross sections shown in Fig. 17 have been calculated with the cone algorithm using $`R=1`$ and $`z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.9`$.

## 4 Summary and Concluding Remarks

We have presented results of a next-to-leading order calculation of isolated photon production in large-$`Q^2`$ $`ep`$ scattering. Contributions from quark-to-photon fragmentation are explicitly taken into account. We have discussed numerical results for $`\gamma +(1+1)`$-jet and $`\gamma +(2+1)`$-jet cross sections as functions of transverse momenta, rapidity and other observables derived from photon and/or jet kinematic variables. Infrared sensitive regions, as for example the region of equal photon and jet $`p_T`$, are studied in detail.

We investigated several of these cross sections with respect to their photon isolation, jet cone size, scale and jet algorithm dependences. It was found that these dependences are rather weak. In particular, the scale dependence of the integrated cross section is very small, giving quite some confidence in the reliability of our predictions. Also the results depended very little on the choice of modern parton distribution functions for the proton.

We expect that the measurement of photon plus jet cross sections at HERA will contribute to testing perturbative QCD in the process $`\gamma ^{}p\gamma X`$, in an area which has not been studied yet. The calculation covers the range of large $`Q^2`$ where the results do not depend on parton distribution functions of the virtual photon. At even larger $`Q^2`$ additional contributions from $`Z`$ boson exchange become important, which have been neglected in the present calculation. It is no major problem to incorporate these missing parts. They are non-negligible and must be considered when experimental data become available at very large $`Q^2`$.