# DESY 98-200 hep-ph/9812359 QCD-Instantons at HERA – An IntroductionPlenary talk at the 3rd UK Phenomenology Workshop on HERA Physics, Sep 20-25, 1998, Durham/UK.

## 1 Instantons

Non-abelian gauge theories like QCD are known to exhibit a rich vacuum structure. The latter includes topologically non-trivial fluctuations of the gauge fields, carrying an integer topological charge $`Q`$. The simplest building blocks of topological structure are instantons ($`Q=+1`$) and anti-instantons ($`Q=1`$) which are well-known explicit solutions of the euclidean field equations in four dimensions .

Instantons ($`I`$) are widely believed to play an important rôle in various long-distance aspects  of QCD:

First of all, they may provide a solution of the famous $`U_A(1)`$ problem  ($`m_\eta ^{}m_\eta `$), with the corresponding pseudoscalar mass splitting related to the topological susceptibility in the pure gauge theory by the well-known Witten-Veneziano formula . Moreover, a number of authors have attributed a strong connection of instantons with chiral symmetry breaking  as well as the hadron and glueball spectrum.

However, there are also very important short-distance implications  of QCD instantons to which the present report is devoted:

Instantons are known to induce certain processes which violate chirality in accord with the general axial-anomaly relation  and which are forbidden in conventional perturbation theory. Of particular interest in this context is the deep inelastic scattering (DIS) regime. Here, hard instanton-induced processes may both be calculated  within instanton-perturbation theory and possibly be detected experimentally . As a key feature it has recently been shown , that in deep-inelastic scattering (DIS) the generic hard scale $`𝒬`$ cuts off instantons with large size $`\rho 𝒬^1`$, over which one has no control theoretically.

Our finalized results  for inclusive instanton-induced DIS cross-sections are summarized in sections 2 and 4. Their weak residual renormalization-scale dependence is quite remarkable.

As a second main point of this review (section 3), constraints from recent lattice simulations will be exploited  and translated into a “fiducial” kinematical region for our predictions of the instanton-induced DIS cross-section based on instanton-perturbation theory. In section 5 we discuss the expected event signature and search strategies based on our Monte Carlo generator  QCDINS 1.60. Finally (section 6), we briefly address an interesting class of “fireball” events, observed in photoproduction, in the context of instantons and put forward a promising proposal  on extending our theoretical predictions beyond the regime of strict instanton perturbation theory.

## 2 DIS cross-sections in instanton-perturbation theory

In $`I`$-perturbation theory one expands the relevant Green’s functions about the known, classical instanton solution $`A_\mu =A_\mu ^{(I)}+\mathrm{}`$ instead of the usual (trivial) field configuration $`A_\mu ^{(0)}=0`$ and obtains a corresponding set of modified Feynman rules. Like in conventional pQCD, the gauge coupling $`\alpha _s`$ has to be small.

The leading instanton-induced process in the DIS regime of $`e^\pm P`$ scattering for large photon virtuality $`Q^2`$ is illustrated in figure 1. The dashed box emphasizes the so-called

instanton-subprocess with its own Bjorken variables,

$$Q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}0;x^{}=\frac{Q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{2pq^{}}1.$$
(1)   
It induces a total chirality violation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{chirality}=2n_f`$, in accord with the corresponding axial anomaly . In the Bjorken limit of $`I`$-perturbation theory, the dominant $`I`$-induced contribution to the inclusive HERA cross-section may be shown to take the form 

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{HERA}}^{(I)}}{\mathrm{d}x^{}\mathrm{d}Q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}_{qg}^{(I)}}{\mathrm{d}x^{}\mathrm{d}Q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}\sigma _{qg}^{(I)}(Q^{},x^{}).$$
(2)   
The differential luminosity, $`\mathrm{d}_{qg}^{(I)}`$, accounting for the number of $`qg`$ collisions per $`eP`$ collision, has a convolution-like structure. It involves integrations over the gluon density, the $`\gamma `$-flux $`\mathrm{P}_\gamma `$ and the known $`q`$-flux $`\mathrm{P}_q^{(I)}`$ in the $`I`$-background (c. f. figure 1). The crucial instanton-dynamics resides in the $`I`$-subprocess total cross-section $`\sigma _{qg}^{(I)}(Q^{},x^{})`$, on which we focus our attention next .

Being an observable, $`\sigma _{qg}^{(I)}(Q^{},x^{})`$ involves integrations over all $`I(\overline{I})`$-“collective coordinates”, including the $`I(\overline{I})`$-sizes $`\rho (\overline{\rho })`$ and the $`I\overline{I}`$-distance<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Both an instanton and an anti-instanton enter here, since cross sections result from taking the modulus squared of an amplitude in the single $`I`$ background. 4-vector $`R_\mu `$,

$$\sigma _{qg}^{(I)}=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\rho D(\rho )\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\overline{\rho }D(\overline{\rho })d^4R\{\mathrm{}\}\mathrm{e}^{Q^{}(\rho +\overline{\rho })}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(p+q^{})R}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{4\pi }{\alpha _s}\mathrm{\Omega }(\frac{R^2}{\rho \overline{\rho }},\frac{\overline{\rho }}{\rho })}.$$
(3)   
The $`\rho (\overline{\rho })`$-integrals in (3) involve as generic weight the $`I(\overline{I})`$-density $`D(\rho (\overline{\rho }))`$ ,

$`D(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{\rho ^5}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\alpha _s(\mu _r)}}\right)^{2N_c}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\alpha _s(\mu _r)}}\right)(\rho \mu _r)^{\beta _0+\frac{\alpha _s(\mu _r)}{4\pi }(\beta _14N_c\beta _0)}`$ (4)   
$`d`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{e}^{5/6}}{\pi ^2(N_c1)!(N_c2)!}}\mathrm{e}^{1.51137N_c+0.29175n_f}(\overline{\mathrm{MS}}\text{ scheme});`$   
$`\beta _0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}}N_c{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}n_f;\beta _1={\displaystyle \frac{34}{3}}N_c^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{13}{3}}N_c{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}\right)n_f,`$   
with renormalization scale $`\mu _r`$ and $`N_c=3`$.

The function $`\mathrm{\Omega }(R^2/(\rho \overline{\rho }),\mathrm{})`$ in equation (3), appearing in the exponent with a large numerical coefficient $`4\pi /\alpha _s`$, incorporates the effects of final-state gluons. Within strict $`I`$-perturbation theory, it is given in form of a perturbative expansion , while in the so-called $`I\overline{I}`$-valley approximation  $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is associated with an analytically known closed expression  for the interaction between $`I`$ and $`\overline{I}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }\alpha _s/(4\pi )S[A_\mu ^{I\overline{I}}]1`$. With both methods agreeing for larger values of $`R^2/(\rho \overline{\rho })`$, we have actually used the valley method in our quantitative evaluation.

Due to the nonvanishing virtuality $`Q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ in DIS, the “form factor” $`\mathrm{exp}[Q^{}(\rho +\overline{\rho })]`$ in (3), being associated with the off-shell quark (zero mode) $`q`$, suppresses large-size instantons . Hence, the integrals in (3) are finite. In fact, they are dominated by a unique saddle-point ,

$$\rho ^{}=\overline{\rho }^{}1/Q^{};R^21/(p+q^{})^2\frac{R^{}}{\rho ^{}}\sqrt{\frac{x^{}}{1x^{}}},$$
(5)   
from which it becomes apparent that the virtuality $`Q^{}`$ controls the effective $`I`$-size, while $`x^{}`$ determines the effective $`I\overline{I}`$-distance (in units of the size $`\rho `$).

In figure 2, the resulting $`I`$-subprocess cross-sections (3) is displayed  over a large range of $`\mu _r/Q^{}`$ for fixed $`x^{}=0.5`$ and $`Q^{}/\mathrm{\Lambda }=30,50,70`$.

Apparently, we have achieved great progress in stability and hence predictivity by using the improved expression (4) of the $`I`$-density $`D(\rho )`$, which is renormalization-group (RG) invariant at the 2-loop  level, i.e. $`D^1\mathrm{d}D/\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}(\mu _r)=𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$. The residual dependence on the renormalization scale $`\mu _r`$ is remarkably flat and turns out to be strongly reduced as compared to the 1-loop case! Throughout, we choose as the “best scale”, $`\mu _r=0.15Q^{}`$, for which $`\sigma _{qg}^{(I)}/\mu _r0`$ (c. f. figure 2). This choice agrees well with the intuitive expectation  $`\mu _r1/\rho Q^{}/\beta _0=𝒪(0.1)Q^{}`$.

## 3 “Fiducial” region from lattice simulations

There has been much recent activity in the lattice community to “measure” topological fluctuations in lattice simulations  of QCD. Being independent of perturbation theory, such simulations provide “snapshots” of the QCD vacuum including all possible non-perturbative features like instantons (figure 3). Let us discuss next, how these lattice results may be exploited to provide crucial support for the theoretical basis of our calculations in DIS:

To this end, we first perform a quantitative confrontation  of the predictions from $`I`$-perturbation theory with a recent high-quality lattice simulation  of QCD (without fermions, $`n_f=0`$). The striking agreement which we shall find over a range of $`I`$-collective coordinates is a very interesting result by itself.

Next, we recall (c. f. (3) and (5)) that the collective coordinate integrals in our DIS cross-section $`\sigma _{qg}^{(I)}(Q^{},x^{})`$ are dominated by a unique, calculable saddle-point ($`\rho ^{},R^{}/\rho ^{}`$), in one-to-one correspondence to the conjugate momentum variables ($`Q^{},x^{}`$). This fact then allows us to translate the extracted range of validity of $`I`$-perturbation theory and the dilute $`I`$-gas approximation, ($`\rho \rho _{\mathrm{max}},R/\rho (R/\rho )_{\mathrm{min}}`$), directly into a “fiducial” kinematical region ($`Q^{}Q_{\mathrm{min}}^{},x^{}x_{\mathrm{min}}^{}`$) in momentum space!

In lattice simulations 4d-Euclidean space-time is made discrete; specifically, the recent “data” from the UKQCD collaboration , which we shall use here, involve a lattice spacing $`a=0.0550.1`$ fm and a volume $`V=l_{\mathrm{space}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}l_{\mathrm{time}}=[16^34832^364]a^4`$. In principle, such a lattice allows to study the properties of an ensemble of $`I`$’s and $`\overline{I}`$’s with sizes $`a<\rho <V^{1/4}`$. However, in order to make instanton effects visible, a certain “cooling” procedure has to be applied first. It is designed to filter out (dominating) fluctuations of short wavelength $`𝒪(a)`$ (c. f. figure 3 (a)), while affecting the topological fluctuations of much longer wavelength $`\rho a`$ comparatively little. After “cooling”, $`I`$’s and $`\overline{I}`$’s can clearly be seen (and studied) as bumps in the lagrange density and the topological charge density (figure 3 (b), (c)). For a more detailed discussion of lattice-specific caveats, like possible lattice artefacts and the dependence of results on “cooling” etc., see Refs. .

Of course, one has to extrapolate the lattice observables to the continuum ($`a0`$), before a meaningful comparison with $`I`$-perturbation theory can be made. This is complicated by a strong dependence of the various distributions on the number $`n_{\mathrm{cools}}`$ of cooling sweeps for fixed $`\beta =6/g_{\mathrm{lat}}^2`$. In ref. , however, equivalent pairs ($`\beta ,n_{\mathrm{cools}}`$) were found, for which shape and normalization of the distributions essentially remain invariant. For instance, the continuum extrapolation of the data for the ($`I+\overline{I}`$)-density $`D_{I+\overline{I}}`$ at $`(\beta ,n_{\mathrm{cools}})=(6.0,23),(6.2,46),(6.4,80)`$, may thus be performed quite reliably , by simply rescaling the arguments $`\rho \overline{\rho (0)}/\overline{\rho (a)}\rho `$. Here, $`\overline{\rho (0)}`$ denotes the continuum limit of the weakly varying average $`\rho `$ values, $`\overline{\rho (a)}`$, of $`D_{I+\overline{I}}(\rho ,a)`$. A linear extrapolation in $`(a/r_0)^2`$ was employed. For consistency and minimization of uncertainties, one should use only a single dimensionful quantity to relate lattice units and physical units. Throughout our analysis, all dimensions are therefore expressed by the so-called Sommer scale  $`r_0`$, with $`2r_01`$ fm, which we prefer over the string tension . The resulting “continuum data” for $`D_{I+\overline{I}}(\rho )`$ are displayed in figure 4. They scale nicely.

We are now ready to perform a quantitative comparison with the predictions of $`I`$-perturbation theory . For reasons of space, let us concentrate here on the ($`I+\overline{I}`$)-density $`D_{I+\overline{I}}(\rho )`$. The prediction (4) of $`I`$-perturbation theory is a power law for small $`\rho `$, i. e. approximately $`D\rho ^6`$ for $`n_f=0`$. Due to its 2-loop RG-invariance the normalization of $`D_{I+\overline{I}}(\rho )`$ is practically independent of the renormalization scale $`\mu _r`$ over a wide range. It is strongly and exclusively dependent on $`r_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}n_f=0}`$, for which we take the most recent, accurate result by the ALPHA-collaboration , $`2r_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}n_f=0}=(238\pm 19)`$ MeV fm. In figure 4 (b) we display both this parameter-free prediction from (4) of $`I`$-perturbation theory and the continuum limit of the UKQCD data in a log-log plot, to clearly exhibit the expected power law in $`\rho `$. The agreement in shape and normalization for $`\rho \text{ }<\text{ }0.3(2r_0)0.3`$ fm is striking, indeed, notably in view of the often criticized “cooling” procedure and the strong sensitivity to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}n_f=0}`$.

By a similar analysis , we were able to infer from the “equivalent” UKQCD lattice data a range of validity $`R/\rho \text{ }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ of the valley expression for the $`I\overline{I}`$-interaction $`\mathrm{\Omega }(R^2/(\rho \overline{\rho }),\mathrm{})`$ in (3). Finally, we have confirmed  the approximate validity of the dilute-gas picture for sufficiently small instantons<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2Note that the full ($`I+\overline{I}`$)-ensemble without the size restriction is known not to be a dilute gas . with $`\rho \text{ }<\text{ }(0.30.5)`$ fm. The latter results are based on the “packing fraction”  being $`<1`$ and a test of the dilute-gas identity: $`Q^2=N_{\mathrm{tot}}`$. Here Q is the topological charge and $`N_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ the total number of charges. These results strongly support the reliability of our calculations in DIS.

By means of the discussed saddle-point correspondence (5), these lattice constraints may be converted into a “fiducial” region for our cross-section predictions in DIS ,

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\rho ^{}\hfill & & \rho _{\mathrm{max}}^{}& & 0.3\mathrm{fm};\hfill \\ \frac{R^{}}{\rho ^{}}\hfill & & \left(\frac{R^{}}{\rho ^{}}\right)_{\mathrm{min}}& & 1\hfill \end{array}\}\{\begin{array}{ccccc}Q^{}\hfill & & Q_{\mathrm{min}}^{}\hfill & & 8\mathrm{GeV};\hfill \\ x^{}\hfill & & x_{\mathrm{min}}^{}\hfill & & 0.35.\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)   
## 4 HERA cross-section

Figure 5 displays our finalized $`I`$-induced cross-section at HERA , as function of the cuts $`x_{\mathrm{min}}^{}`$ and $`Q_{\mathrm{min}}^{}`$.

For the minimal cuts (6) extracted from the UKQCD lattice simulation, we obtain a surprisingly large cross-section,

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{HERA}}^{(I)}(x^{}0.35,Q^{}8\mathrm{GeV})126\mathrm{pb};x_{\mathrm{Bj}}10^3;0.9y_{\mathrm{Bj}}0.1.$$
(7)   
Hence, with the total luminosity accumulated by experiments at HERA, $`=𝒪(80)`$ pb<sup>-1</sup>, one already expects $`𝒪(10^4)`$ $`I`$-induced events on tape from this kinematical region. Note also that the cross-section quoted in Eq. (7) corresponds to a fraction of $`I`$-induced to normal DIS (nDIS) events of

$$f^{(I)}=\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{HERA}}^{(I)}}{\sigma _{\mathrm{HERA}}^{(\mathrm{nDIS})}}=𝒪(1)\%;\mathrm{for}x_{\mathrm{Bj}}10^3;0.9y_{\mathrm{Bj}}0.1.$$
(8)   
This is remarkably close to the published upper limits on the fraction of $`I`$-induced events , which are also on the one percent level.

There are still a number of significant uncertainties in our result for the cross-section. For fixed $`Q^{}`$ and $`x^{}`$ cuts, one of the dominant uncertainties arises from the experimental uncertainty in the QCD scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In the 2-loop expression for $`\alpha _s`$ with $`n_f=3`$ (massless) flavours we used the value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(3)}=282`$ MeV, corresponding to the central value of the DIS average for $`n_f=4`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(4)}=234`$ MeV . If we change $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(3)}`$ within the allowed range, $`\pm 65`$ MeV, the cross-section (7) varies between 26 pb and 426 pb. Minor uncertainties are associated with the residual renormalization-scale dependence (c.f. figure 2) and the choice of the factorization scale. Upon varying the latter by an order of magnitude, the changes are in the $`𝒪(20)`$ % range only.

By far the dominant uncertainty in $`\sigma _{\mathrm{HERA}}^{(I)}`$ arises, however, from the uncertainty in placing the ($`x^{},Q^{}`$) cuts (c.f. figure 5). Hence, the constraints (6) from lattice simulations are extremely valuable for making concrete and reliable predictions of the $`I`$-induced rate at HERA.

## 5 Signatures and searches

An indispensable tool for investigating the structure of the $`I`$-induced final state and for developping optimized search strategies is our Monte-Carlo generator for $`I`$-induced DIS-events, QCDINS 1.60. Besides the matrix element for the $`I`$-induced hard subprocess, it provides leading-log parton showers and hadronization via its interface to HERWIG 5.9.

The characteristic features of the $`I`$-induced final state are illustrated in figure 6 (a) displaying the lego plot of a typical event from QCDINS 1.60 (c. f. also figure 1):

Besides a single (not very hard) current-quark jet, one expects an accompanying densely populated “hadronic band”. For $`x_{\mathrm{Bj}\mathrm{min}}10^3`$, say, it is centered around $`\overline{\eta }2`$ and has a width of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta \pm 1`$. The band directly reflects the isotropic production of an $`I`$-induced “fireball” of $`𝒪(10)`$ partons in the $`I`$-rest system. Both the total transverse energy $`E_T15`$ GeV and the charged particle multiplicity $`n_c13`$ in the band are far higher than in normal DIS events. Finally, each $`I`$-induced event has to contain strangeness (and possibly also charm) such that the number of $`K^0`$’s amounts to $`2.2`$/event.

Despite the high expected rate (7) of $`I`$-induced events at HERA, no single observable is known (yet) with sufficient nDIS rejection. Hence, a dedicated multi-observable analysis seems to be required. Neural network filters are being tried and exhibit a very good analyzing power if applied to $`\text{ }>𝒪(5)`$ observables . Strategies to produce “instanton-enriched” data samples and to reconstruct ($`Q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}},x^{}`$) are under study and look quite promising . Clearly, in all cases, a good understanding of the perturbative QCD background in the tails of the considered distributions is required.

## 6 Going beyond instanton-perturbation theory

A class of striking “fireball” events in photoproduction, with large total $`E_T`$ and large multiplicity, has been reported  at this meeting (see e. g. figure 6 (b)). While the quantitative analysis is still in an early stage, these events seem to exhibit all characteristics of $`I`$-induced events (c. f. figure 6 (a)). However, it appears that – unlike ordinary QCD perturbation theory – the hard photoproduction limit, $`Q^20,(E_T)_{\mathrm{jet}}`$ large, is not within the reach of strict $`I`$-perturbation theory. The reason is that in the $`Q^20`$ limit, we encounter a contribution to the photoproduction cross-section, which tends to diverge, if integrated over the $`I`$-size $`\rho `$. This IR divergence at large $`\rho `$ is independent of the $`E_T`$ of the (current quark) jet and directly associated with the “bad” large-$`\rho `$ behaviour of the perturbative expression (4) for the $`I`$-density, $`D(\rho )\rho ^{62/3n_f}`$. In contrast, the actual form of $`D(\rho )`$ (c. f. figure 4) is strongly peaked around $`\rho 0.5`$ fm, and appears to vanish exponentially fast for larger $`\rho `$. The above “fireball” events and more generally, the ongoing $`I`$-searches at HERA, provide plenty of motivation for trying to extend our calculational framework beyond strict $`I`$-perturbation theory. We are thus led to make the following promising proposal in this direction:

One may try and replace the most strongly varying entries in the perturbative calculations, the $`I`$-density $`D(\rho )`$ and the $`I\overline{I}`$-interaction $`\mathrm{\Omega }(R^2/(\rho \overline{\rho }),\mathrm{})`$, in (3), by their actual form as extracted from the recent non-perturbative lattice results .

The $`I`$-rates in photoproduction and the $`I`$-contributions to further interesting observables may then be calculated, and the ($`Q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}},x^{}`$) cuts in $`I`$-searches be considerably relaxed! Due to the strong peaking of $`D(\rho )`$, only the region around $`\rho 0.5`$ fm enters and the dilute-gas approximation may well continue to hold up to the peak (c. f. section 3).