4.3 Article

Manifestly soft gauge invariant formulation of vNRQCD

Journal

NUCLEAR PHYSICS B
Volume 939, Issue -, Pages 405-428

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2018.12.027

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-FG02-04ER41338, FG02-06ER41449]
  2. Office of Nuclear Physics [DE-SC0011090]
  3. Simons Foundation [327942]
  4. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-SC0011090] Funding Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Homogeneous power counting in Non-Relativistic QCD (NRQCD) implies the simultaneous existence of both soft and ultrasoft gluons. In the velocity renormalization group (vNRQCD) formalism we show that operators involving soft fields interacting with heavy potential quarks can be put in a manifestly gauge invariant form by utilizing gluon and quark building blocks which contain Wilson lines, and are analogous to those used in the soft collinear effective theory. This leads to several simplifications, in particular significantly reducing the size of the operator basis, which stream-lines matching and anomalous dimension calculations at subleading order in the velocity expansion. Also, soft ghosts no longer couple via potential like interactions to the heavy quark fields, and hence do not appear until two loops. Furthermore, the color structures that appear at each order in alpha(s) in the static potential are only those which should arise according to non-Abelian exponentiation. We also discuss how zero-bin subtractions clarify the role of i epsilon terms in the heavy quark propagator poles carrying soft momenta. Even though the choice of the direction of the soft Wilson lines in our building blocks does not matter, there is still a limited set of consistent choices, and the predicted form of the eikonal poles does influence results at two-loops and beyond. (C) 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available