in high - energy scattering , strong interaction plays a significant role both in the high - energy region and in the low - energy region .
the scattering of energetic quarks and gluons with radiative corrections occur in the high - energy regime , in which perturbative qcd can describe the effects of the strong interaction . on the other hand ,
strong interaction is also responsible for pulling the quarks and gluons out of the initial hadrons through the parton distribution functions , and for the hadronization of the energetic scattered partons through the fragmentation functions .
these are nonperturbative aspects of the strong interaction in the low - energy regime .
furthermore the strong interaction affects all these processes at different energy scales at the same time , therefore the effects of the strong interaction are entangled in a complicated way all through the scattering process from beginning to end .
it is important to disentangle the short- and the long - distance effects of the strong interaction to have theoretical predictive power .
this is achieved by the factorization theorem in which the scattering cross section is factorized into the hard , collinear and soft parts . the factorization proof in various hard scattering processes has been a long - standing problem in qcd @xcite .
recently the advent of the soft - collinear effective theory ( scet ) @xcite facilitates the proof in a straightforward way .
scet is formulated such that the collinear and the soft modes are decoupled at the lagrangian level , and the factorization of the scattering cross section into the hard , collinear and soft parts is intuitively transparent .    in high - energy processes ,
final - state hadrons are typically clustered in collimated beams , which are called jets .
jets are important tools to exploit information on standard model or beyond .
there are many jet definitions depending on the kinematics , or the detector design , etc . @xcite . in this paper
we will confine ourselves to the study of the various jet definitions used in @xmath4 annihilation , but it can be extended to @xmath5 scattering or to @xmath6 scattering .
the jet definitions are realized by providing the jet algorithms which give rules on how to combine particles in forming a jet .
the jet algorithms include the sterman - weinberg algorithm @xcite , the cone - type algorithm @xcite , the jade algorithm @xcite , the @xmath1 algorithm @xcite , the anti-@xmath1 algorithm @xcite , the cambridge / aachen algorithm @xcite to name a few .
the basic issue in jet algorithms is how to combine adjacent final - state particles into a jet without ambiguity .
the important ingredients of appropriate jet algorithms are such that they should yield infrared safety , and they can be employed conveniently both in theory and experiment . however , the implementation of a convenient jet algorithm in experiment is not always convenient in theory , or vice versa .
the factorized form of the dijet cross section in @xmath4 annihilation can be obtained in the framework of scet .
the cross section is factorized into the hard , collinear and soft parts .
however , the factorization does not hold for any arbitrary jet algorithm if we require that each factorized part be infrared finite .
if any factorized part contains infrared divergence for a certain jet algorithm , though the partial sum of the factorized parts is infrared safe , the factorization approach loses its physical meaning .    in order to approach the problem about which jet algorithms respect the factorization theorem
, we devise a general jet algorithm , motivated by the @xmath1 jet algorithm , in which we introduce a parameter @xmath7 .
the original exclusive @xmath1 algorithm is given by @xmath8 where @xmath9 is the center - of - mass energy .
for a given pair of partons @xmath10 and @xmath11 , with the energy @xmath12 and @xmath13 respectively , the parameter @xmath14 is constructed with the relative angle @xmath15 .
physically this jet algorithm requires that the relative transverse momentum of every pair of final - state partons @xmath10 and @xmath11 be measured .
if the smallest value of @xmath14 for a given pair of partons is less than a resolution parameter @xmath16 , they are combined into a jet .
this process is repeated until all pairs have @xmath17 .
if the relative transverse momentum is replaced by the invariant mass , the jet algorithm becomes the jade algorithm .
here we employ the generalized exclusive jet algorithm , which is defined as @xmath18 where the power of the energy in eq .
( [ yij ] ) is replaced by @xmath7 , and the resolution parameter @xmath16 remains dimensionless .
as @xmath7 varies , the general jet algorithm includes all the jet algorithms mentioned above for specific values of @xmath7 .
for example , the @xmath1 algorithm is obtained for @xmath3 .
the jade algorithm is similar to the case @xmath19 .
the cambridge / aachen algorithm corresponds to @xmath20 , and the anti-@xmath1 algorithm algorithm in ref .
@xcite is proposed for the inclusive jet algorithm .
we refer to the exclusive jet algorithm with @xmath21 in eq .
( [ genkt ] ) as the anti-@xmath1 algorithm .
] is given by @xmath21 .
we probe all the possible values of @xmath7 and compute the jet and the soft functions to see if they are well defined and free of infrared divergence . the phase space available for the collinear and the soft functions differs for different values of @xmath7 , so does the structure of divergence .
the next - to - leading - order contribution of each factorized part will be computed accordingly , in which there are at most two particles in a jet .
we compute each contribution using the dimensional regularization with the spacetime dimension @xmath22 regulating both the ultraviolet ( uv ) and the infrared ( ir ) divergences .
also the @xmath23 scheme is employed with @xmath24 .
the separation of the uv and ir divergences is important to see whether each factorized part is ir finite .
so far , it has been proven that the ir divergence cancels in many processes . and , in fact , any physical quantity should be ir safe . in this case , the remaining divergence is of the uv origin .
technically , we can put all the scaleless integrals to be zero , and also put all the poles in @xmath25 as the uv poles in @xmath26 .
but this is possible only after it is verified that each factorized part is ir finite .
we intend to verify which types of the jet algorithms guarantee the ir finiteness of each factorized part , and which do not , using the generalized jet algorithm .
as it turns out , the jet algorithm for @xmath2 indeed yields ir - finite jet and soft functions , hence can safely put all the poles as the uv poles .
however , for @xmath27 each jet and soft function contains ir divergence , and we can not naively put all the poles as the uv poles , though the jet cross section is ir finite .
this verification is possible only when we distinguish the uv and ir divergences , which we explicitly show here at next - to - leading order .
the existence of the ir divergence in the factorized part , or the breakdown of the factorization theorem was also considered in ref .
@xcite in a different context .    in full qcd ,
only the jet cross section has been computed and the divergence is regarded as the uv divergence .
this is justified since the cross section is a physical quantity free of ir divergence . however , the factorization property in high - energy scattering of the jet cross section or any other physical observables such as thrust is important to disentangle the strong interaction and to compute high - order corrections for better accuracy .
then it is crucial to see if the factorization works or breaks depending on the jet algorithms .
we address this problem by considering the ir finiteness of the jet and the soft functions in various jet algorithms and point out which jet algorithms allow the factorization theorem in the jet cross section .
the structure of the paper is as follows : in section  [ factor ] , the factorization of the dijet cross section with the jet algorithm is briefly described in the framework of scet . in section  [ jetalgo ] , the phase space for the naive collinear , the zero - bin and the soft contributions is analyzed using the generalized jet algorithm .
the structure of the phase space shows different behavior for different values of @xmath7 , and we classify them according to the possible divergence structure .    in section  [ posalp ] ,
the collinear and soft contributions for @xmath28 are computed .
these contributions are considered for various values of @xmath7 , corresponding to the different phase spaces .
we verify that the collinear and soft functions are infrared finite for @xmath29 , while they contain infrared divergence for @xmath27 .
the case @xmath3 , corresponding to the original @xmath1 algorithm is not well defined in dimensional regularization though it can be inferred that each contribution contains the ir divergence from the consideration of the phase space . in section  [ negalp ] , the collinear and soft contributions are computed for negative @xmath7 . in this case
, there should be a jet veto needed in calculating the soft function .
each contribution is ir finite for any negative @xmath7 , and the generalized jet algorithm with @xmath30 shows similar behavior compared to the cone - type and the sterman - weinberg jet algorithms @xcite . in section  [ psdiv ] , we discuss the structure of divergence for various values of @xmath7 .
the identification of the uv and ir divergences can be inferred from the structure of the corresponding phase space . it is explained in detail what kind of divergence there will be _ a priori _ by examining the structure of the phase space . in section  [ alpha2 ] , we discuss peculiar characteristics of the @xmath1 algorithm with @xmath3 . in dimensional regularization ,
it is impossible to extract the poles in the jet and the soft functions .
furthermore they contain poles in @xmath31 .
the behavior of the collinear and soft parts for @xmath3 is explained in detail .    in section  [ xsec ] , all the contributions are added to compute the dijet cross section . the jet algorithm with @xmath32 yields finite collinear and soft functions . for @xmath33 ,
the factorization breaks down , that is , each function contains ir divergence
. however , if we add all the contributions , the ir divergence and the singularity in @xmath31 cancel and the resultant dijet cross section is ir finite .
we also present the resummed results at next - to - leading logarithmic accuracy for the dijet cross sections with their theoretical uncertainty , and compare with the fixed - order results . in section  [ conc ] ,
we summarize the characteristics of the jet and the soft functions in the generalized jet algorithm and give conclusions . in appendix , we collect all the ingredients for the numerical analysis .
the factorization theorem of the dijet cross section has been presented in ref .
@xcite , and we briefly review the result instead of rederiving it .
the factorized dijet cross section is given by @xmath34 here @xmath35 is the invariant - mass squared of the @xmath0 system , and @xmath36 is the born cross section for a given flavor @xmath37 of the quark - antiquark pair with the electric charge @xmath38 , given by @xmath39 @xmath40 is the hard function which is obtained from the matching of the electromagnetic current between the full qcd and scet at leading order as @xmath41 and @xmath42 . to one loop
, it is given by @xcite @xmath43 and @xmath44 is a gauge - invariant collinear quark with a collinear wilson line @xmath45 , and @xmath46 is the soft wilson line @xcite @xmath47_,\ ] ] where ` p ' denotes the path ordering .    after redefining the collinear fields ,
the soft interaction is decoupled from the collinear interaction @xcite , and the factorized jet cross section in eq .
( [ facjet ] ) is obtained .
the integrated jet function @xmath48 is defined with the jet algorithm as @xmath49 where @xmath50 is the invariant mass squared of the collinear jet .
the unintegrated jet function @xmath51 is defined as @xmath52 where @xmath53 specifies the jet algorithm .
the soft function @xmath54 with the jet algorithm is given by @xmath55 the jet function @xmath56 and the soft function @xmath54 are normalized to 1 at tree level , and we compute them at next - to - leading order with various values of @xmath7 in the generalized @xmath1 algorithm .
we now consider the constraints imposed on the phase space by the jet algorithm in eq .
( [ genkt ] ) . at next - to - leading order ( nlo ) ,
there are at most two particles in a jet .
the dominant contribution for the dijet in @xmath0 annihilation is the quark - antiquark pair forming a back - to - back jet and a gluon is emitted .
we choose the jet in the lightlike @xmath57 direction , or in the @xmath58 direction with @xmath59 , @xmath60 and @xmath61 .    in applying the jet algorithm , the virtual correction and the real gluon emission
are included .
these can be obtained by cutting the diagram in fig .
[ conf ] , which is part of the matrix elements squared for the jet cross section .
if we cut a single line , it corresponds to the virtual correction . when we cut the loop , there are two particles in the final state with momenta @xmath62 ( for a gluon ) and @xmath63 ( for a quark ) in the @xmath57 direction .
the following nontrivial consideration of the phase space using the jet algorithm applies to this case with a real gluon emission .
, width=188 ]    the total momentum @xmath64 of the final state scales as @xmath65 where @xmath66 is the small parameter in scet .
we choose the @xmath57 direction as the direction of @xmath67 such that @xmath68 , and @xmath69 .
the collinear gluon momentum @xmath70 scales as @xmath71 with this power counting , the collinear momenta of the quark and the gluon can be written as @xmath72 with their energies @xmath73 and the invariant - mass squared @xmath50 is given by @xmath74    the phase space constraint from eq .
( [ genkt ] ) for the jet function changes with the sign of @xmath7 . in terms of the gluon momentum @xmath62 and @xmath9 , the jet algorithm for @xmath75
is given as @xmath76 the nontrivial jet algorithm appears when the resolution parameter @xmath16 is of order @xmath77 in scet .
hence we choose @xmath78 from now on .
algorithm with @xmath28 .
the first column shows the @xmath79 phase space , while the second column shows the @xmath80 space .
( a ) @xmath81 , ( b ) @xmath19 , ( c ) @xmath82 , ( d ) @xmath83 , and ( e ) @xmath27 . the functions @xmath84 and @xmath85 describe the boundaries of the phase space for @xmath86 and @xmath87 respectively , as defined in eq .
( [ f12]).[phplus],width=604 ]    by letting @xmath88 , @xmath89 , the phase space is constrained by , or infinity . for the momentum reaching infinity , the dimensionful coefficient is the renormalization scale @xmath90 which is to be combined with the integral in applying the dimensional regularization .
see the zero - bin contribution or the soft function below . ]
@xmath91 solving for @xmath92 , it becomes @xmath93 where the boundaries are defined in terms of @xmath94 and @xmath95 respectively .
the shape of the phase space in the @xmath96 space with @xmath28 changes drastically for the following five cases : ( i ) @xmath97 , ( ii ) @xmath19 , ( iii ) @xmath82 , ( iv ) @xmath3 , ( v ) @xmath27 . the corresponding phase spaces are shown in fig .
[ phplus ] .
the figures in the first column are the phase spaces in the @xmath79 space , and those in the second column are those in the @xmath80 space . the structure of the divergence can be inferred from the phase space in the @xmath79 space .
but when it becomes ambiguous , the phase space in the @xmath80 space plays a complementary role in deducing the origin of the divergence @xcite .
this point will be discussed in detail in section  [ psdiv ] after the explicit result is presented .    for @xmath97 ,
@xmath98 approaches zero at the endpoints @xmath99 and @xmath9 . at @xmath19
, @xmath98 becomes a nonzero constant at @xmath100 , while it approaches zero at @xmath101 . for @xmath102 , @xmath98 diverges as @xmath103 approaches zero , while it becomes zero at @xmath104 . for @xmath3
, @xmath98 diverges at @xmath100 , while remains finite at @xmath104 . for @xmath105
, @xmath98 diverges at both endpoints @xmath100 and @xmath9 .
the different behavior of the phase space near the endpoints gives a clue to whether the naive contribution to the jet function contains uv or ir divergence .    in the first column of fig .
[ phplus ] , fig .
[ phplus ] ( a ) and ( b ) corresponding to @xmath106 , @xmath103 and @xmath98 never reach infinity , and we expect that the naive collinear contribution has ir divergence only . in fig .  [ phplus ] ( c ) , ( d ) and ( e ) corresponding to @xmath107 , @xmath98 can reach infinity and we can expect that there may be uv divergence as well as ir divergence when the integration over @xmath103 and @xmath98 is performed . however , this is not exactly true .    in most cases the uv and ir divergences can be expected by looking at the @xmath79 phase space alone .
but there are some occasions where it is ambiguous
. then we turn to the @xmath80 phase space .
for example , if we consider the final form of the integral in computing the collinear part with respect to @xmath103 and @xmath108 , the second figure in fig .
[ phplus ] ( c ) shows that @xmath108 never reaches infinity , hence there should be only ir divergence for @xmath82 . for @xmath27 , both figures in fig .
[ phplus ] ( e ) indicate that there are both ir and uv divergences . in the second figure in fig .
[ phplus ] ( d ) , we expect that there is only ir divergence , but the collinear and the soft functions are not well - defined for @xmath3 , and it needs more explanation , as we will see below .     in the same format as fig .
[ phplus ] .
( a ) @xmath81 , ( b ) @xmath19 , ( c ) @xmath82 , ( d ) @xmath83 , and ( e ) @xmath27 .
[ zeroplus],width=415 ]    in order to avoid double counting , we subtract the soft limit from the naive collinear contribution , which is referred to as the zero - bin subtraction @xcite .
for the zero - bin contribution , we take the soft limit of the gluon @xmath109 and rewrite the first equation in eq .
( [ f12 ] ) .
then the phase space for the zero - bin contribution is given as @xmath110 which can be written , by putting @xmath111 , @xmath112 , as @xmath113 the phase space for the zero - bin contribution corresponding to each case in fig .
[ phplus ] is shown in fig .
[ zeroplus ] . as can be seen clearly in fig .
[ zeroplus ] , the zero - bin contribution contains both uv and ir divergences .
however , the ir divergence is cancelled in the sum of the naive collinear contribution and the zero - bin contribution for @xmath32 , while the cancellation is incomplete and contains ir divergence for @xmath27 .    for the soft function
, @xmath14 satisfies the following relations with the appropriate power counting .
@xmath114 by replacing @xmath111 , @xmath89 , the boundary from the @xmath58 jet is given by @xmath115 where @xmath116 is a dimensionless parameter given as @xmath117 the boundary from the @xmath57 jet is given by @xmath118 .
the phase space for the soft function is shown in fig .
[ softplus ] . as can be seen in fig .
[ softplus ] , since the region near the origin is totally covered , no jet veto is necessary for @xmath75 .
however , the jet veto is needed for @xmath119 , as in the sterman - weinberg jet algorithm @xcite .
corresponding to fig .
[ phplus ] .
the jet veto is not necessary for @xmath28 , and @xmath120 , ( a ) @xmath81 , ( b ) @xmath19 , ( c ) @xmath82 , ( d ) @xmath83 , and ( e ) @xmath27 . [ softplus],width=415 ]    for @xmath119 , the minimum in eq .
( [ genkt ] ) is switched compared to the case @xmath28 .
it means that the boundary functions are also reversed .
that is , the constraint of the phase space for the jet function is given by @xmath121 the phase space for the zero - bin contribution is given by @xmath122 and that for the soft function is given by @xmath123 in contrast to the case with @xmath28 , the jet veto is needed here since the phase space near the origin is not completely covered by the jet algorithm alone .
and we take @xmath124 for definite power counting .    the phase space for the naive collinear part , the zero - bin contribution , and the soft function for @xmath30 is shown in fig .
[ cominus ] .
the shapes of the phase spaces are similar to the sterman - weinberg algorithm or the cone - type algorithm @xcite .
and we expect that the jet and the soft functions are ir finite for all negative values of @xmath7 .
algorithm with @xmath30 .
( a ) naive collinear contribution ( b ) the zero - bin contribution ( c ) the soft function.[cominus],width=604 ]
the feynman diagrams for the jet function in the @xmath57 direction , are shown in fig .
[ intjet ] .
the dashed line is the cut , therefore fig .
[ intjet ] ( a ) is the virtual correction , while fig .
[ intjet ] ( b ) and ( c ) are the real contributions .
the mirror images of ( a ) and ( b ) are omitted in fig .
[ intjet ] , but they are included in the computation .
each diagram is accompanied by the corresponding zero - bin contribution , which should be subtracted to obtain the collinear jet function .    ,
width=604 ]    the dimensional regularization states that @xmath125 where @xmath62 is a momentum variable .
the integral vanishes identically if we do not distinguish the uv and ir poles since the integral is a scaleless integral .
however , we distinguish the uv and ir poles since we are interested in identifying the sources of the divergence .    the virtual correction in fig .
[ intjet ] ( a ) is independent of the jet algorithms and the net collinear contribution @xmath126 is given by the naive collinear contribution @xmath127 , subtracted by the zero - bin contribution @xmath128 : @xmath129      the naive collinear contribution for @xmath81 in fig .
[ intjet ] ( b ) is given as @xmath131\nonumber \\ & = & \frac{\alpha_s c_f}{2\pi }   \bigl [ \frac{1}{\alpha-2}\bigl ( -\frac{1}{{\epsilon_{\mathrm{ir}}}^2 } -\frac{1}{{\epsilon_{\mathrm{ir } } } } \ln \frac{\mu^2}{2^{\alpha-2 } y_c q^2 }   - \frac{1}{2}\ln^2 \frac{\mu^2}{2^{\alpha-2 } y_c q^2 } + \frac{\pi^2}{12}\bigr ) \nonumber \\ & & + \frac{1}{{\epsilon_{\mathrm{ir } } } }   +   \ln \frac{\mu^2}{2^{\alpha-2 } y_c q^2 } + ( 4-\alpha ) \bigl(1-\frac{\pi^2}{12}\bigr ) -\alpha \ln 2 \bigr].\end{aligned}\ ] ] this explicit calculation supports the expectation from the phase space in fig .
[ phplus ] ( a ) that the poles are of the ir origin .
this can be also seen by the fact that the integral of @xmath132 in eq .
( [ naimb ] ) exists only when @xmath133 .
the corresponding zero - bin contribution is given by @xmath134 where @xmath135 is the zero - bin limit of @xmath94 and is given in eq .
( [ f10 ] ) . from fig .
[ zeroplus ] , since @xmath103 , @xmath98 can both approach zero and infinity , the zero - bin contribution contains both uv and ir divergences . in order to separate the uv and ir contributions , the integral
is decomposed to be written as @xmath136 \nonumber \\ & = & \frac{\alpha_s c_f}{2\pi } \bigl(\frac{1}{{\epsilon_{\mathrm{uv } } } } -\frac{1}{{\epsilon_{\mathrm{ir}}}}\bigr ) \bigl [ \frac{1}{\alpha-2 } \bigl (   \frac{1}{{\epsilon_{\mathrm{uv } } } } + \frac{1}{{\epsilon_{\mathrm{ir } } } } + \ln \frac{\mu^2}{2^{\alpha-2 } y_c q^2 } \bigr )   + \frac{1}{{\epsilon_{\mathrm{uv } } } }   + \ln \frac{\mu}{q } \bigr],\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath137 is a small positive number to separate the ir and uv regions .
the final result is independent of @xmath137 .
this decomposition looks complicated , but it is arranged in such a way that the pole from the integral including the infinity ( zero ) is of the uv ( ir ) origin with @xmath138 ( @xmath133 ) @xcite .    and the net collinear contribution from fig .
[ intjet ] ( b ) is given by @xmath139 .
\nonumber \end{aligned}\ ] ]    the naive collinear contribution from fig .
[ intjet ] ( c ) is given by @xmath140 \nonumber \\ & = & \frac{\alpha_s c_f}{2\pi } \bigl ( -\frac{1}{2{\epsilon_{\mathrm{ir } } } } -\frac{1}{2 } \ln \frac{\mu^2}{2^{\alpha-2 } y_c q^2 } + \frac{\alpha-3}{2 }    + \frac{\alpha}{2}\ln 2   \bigr),\end{aligned}\ ] ] while the zero - bin contribution is subleading and suppressed . adding all the terms with the wavefunction renormalization and the residue at one loop @xmath141 the collinear contribution for @xmath130 at order @xmath142 is ir finite and is given as @xmath143 .
\end{aligned}\ ] ] by removing the uv poles , the jet function for @xmath81 at order @xmath142 is given by @xmath144.\end{aligned}\ ] ]      note that the phase space for @xmath19 ( naive and zero - bin ) allows the same method of integration with the same specification of the poles as in the case @xmath97 .
the only difference is that @xmath98 approaches a nonzero , finite value as @xmath103 approaches zero in the phase space for the naive collinear contribution , hence the case @xmath145 can be included in eq .
( [ mb1 ] ) .
the case @xmath19 is very similar to the jade jet algorithm as far as the phase space is concerned .    in the jade algorithm
, the invariant mass @xmath146 of every pair of the final - state partons @xmath10 and @xmath147 should be less than @xmath148 , where @xmath11 is some fraction ( of order @xmath77 in the context of scet ) to form a jet . at next - to - leading order , the jade algorithm is written as @xmath149    if we compare this phase space with that of fig .
[ phplus ] ( b ) , [ zeroplus ] ( b ) and [ softplus ] ( b ) for @xmath19 , the basic structure near the endpoints of the phase space is the same , and the only difference lies in the middle region of fig .
[ phplus ] ( b ) .
therefore we expect that the divergence structure for the case @xmath19 and the jade algorithm is the same except the finite part in the dijet cross section .
in fact , performing the calculation using the jade algorithm , the collinear part is given as @xmath150,\ ] ] which is consistent with the result in ref .
@xcite . and the corresponding collinear part for @xmath145 from eq .
( [ mb1 ] ) is given by @xmath151.\ ] ] if we put @xmath152 , all the uv divergence and the logarithmic terms are reproduced except the finite terms , which is why we say that the generalized jet algorithm with @xmath19 is basically identical to the jade algorithm .    from eqs .
( [ jadejet ] ) and ( [ jetalpha1 ] ) , the jet functions in the jade algorithm and in the case with @xmath19 are given as @xmath153      by looking at the phase space for the naive collinear contribution in fig .
[ phplus ] ( c ) in the @xmath79 space , one might naively expect that there could be a mixed uv and ir divergence since @xmath98 reaches infinity as @xmath103 approaches zero .
however it becomes clear when we look at the phase space in the @xmath80 space .
it means that , when we perform the integral over @xmath62 , the @xmath98 is first performed and the remaining integral is to be performed with respect to @xmath103 and @xmath108 @xcite .
then the divergent behavior is determined by @xmath155 .
if the divergence occurs when @xmath156 , it is the uv divergence . on the other hand ,
if the divergence occurs when @xmath157 , it is the ir divergence .
the constraint for @xmath108 from the jet algorithm is given by @xmath158 which approaches zero ( @xmath82 ) as @xmath159 .
it can be also seen in fig .
[ phplus ] ( c ) with the plot in the @xmath160 space , @xmath108 never approaches infinity .
therefore the poles should be of the ir origin .
the collinear contributions computed for the case @xmath161 can be exactly performed with the same prescription on the signs of @xmath25 , hence giving the same result for @xmath82 .
it also turns out that @xmath162 therefore eq .  ( [ mb1 ] ) can be extended to the case @xmath154 , and it is continuous at @xmath19 .
the situation is completely different for @xmath27 . in the naive collinear and the zero - bin contributions
, the phase space shows that @xmath108 can reach zero or infinity .
therefore we expect that the collinear contributions contain both uv and ir poles , which makes the factorization obsolete because the jet function and the soft function are not ir finite .
however , as will be seen later , the sum of the jet functions and the soft function is ir finite .    in the real gluon emission ,
the expression for @xmath132 is given by @xmath163 .
\end{aligned}\ ] ] but the function @xmath164 describing the boundary of the phase space for @xmath86 diverges as @xmath103 approaches zero by noting that the function @xmath94 is proportional to @xmath165 .
it requires the modification of the first integral in eq .
( [ nmb2 ] ) as @xmath166 this manipulation is necessary since the remaining integral converges for @xmath138 , hence the integral over @xmath92 should produce @xmath26 .
the boundary of the phase space , @xmath167 for @xmath168 is proportional to @xmath169 , and it also diverges as @xmath103 approaches @xmath9 ( @xmath170 ) . however , the integrand is proportional to @xmath171 , and there is no uv divergence involved .
the naive collinear contribution is given as @xmath172.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    in the zero - bin contribution , a similar modification of the integral is necessary .
it is given as @xmath173 \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{\alpha_s c_f}{2\pi } \bigl [ \frac{-1}{\alpha-2 } \bigl ( \frac{1}{{\epsilon_{\mathrm{uv } } } } -\frac{1}{{\epsilon_{\mathrm{ir}}}}\bigr )   \bigl(\frac{1}{{\epsilon_{\mathrm{uv } } } } + \frac{1}{{\epsilon_{\mathrm{ir } } } }   + \ln \frac{\mu^2}{2^{\alpha-2 } y_c q^2 } \bigr ) + \frac{1}{{\epsilon_{\mathrm{ir}}}^2 } -\frac{1}{{\epsilon_{\mathrm{uv}}}{\epsilon_{\mathrm{ir } } } } \nonumber \\ & &   - \bigl ( \frac{1}{{\epsilon_{\mathrm{uv } } } } -\frac{1}{{\epsilon_{\mathrm{ir}}}}\bigr ) \ln \frac{\mu}{q }    \bigr].\end{aligned}\ ] ] the net collinear contribution is given by @xmath174 .
\end{aligned}\ ] ]    fig .
[ intjet ] ( c ) yields the same results as in the case @xmath175 . summing all the contributions ,
the net collinear part is given as @xmath176.\end{aligned}\ ] ] in this case , the collinear part is both uv and ir divergent .
therefore it does not have any physical meaning for @xmath177 .
compared with the collinear part for @xmath175 given in eq .
( [ mb1 ] ) , if we put @xmath178 , the result is the same .
however , we stress that this is misleading because the collinear part for @xmath179 is ir finite and there are only uv poles , while that for @xmath27 contains both uv and ir divergences . in this case , simply putting @xmath178 ruins the physical implication on the divergences .
but , as we will see later , the sum of the ir divergent collinear part and the soft part , which is also ir divergent , is ir finite
. therefore the combined collinear and soft part is physically well - defined , but the factorization is not realized in a strict sense .
the jet algorithm with @xmath3 corresponds to the exclusive @xmath1 algorithm .
a serious trouble in this case is that the jet function has a pole at @xmath3 and is not well - defined .
this is to be contrasted with the case @xmath19 . for @xmath19 ,
the structure of the phase space remains continuous for @xmath81 and @xmath102 , hence the same divergence structure follows . however , for @xmath3 , the shape of the phase space abruptly changes from @xmath81 to @xmath27 .
the structure of the divergence also abruptly changes accordingly .
there is only ir divergence for @xmath81 , while there are uv , ir divergences for @xmath27 .
therefore the jet function for @xmath3 can not be obtained by taking the limiting case as @xmath180 from either side .
this is manifested by the existence of the pole in @xmath31 .    however , as we will see later , the dijet cross section in the @xmath1 algorithm is finite , but we emphasize that the factorization breaks down for @xmath3 . since the behavior of the jet function , as well as the soft function , is peculiar , it is worth mentioning what happens at @xmath3 in detail later .    , width=604 ]      the feynman diagrams for the soft function at one loop
is shown in fig .
[ feynsoft ] , in which the hermitian conjugate is omitted . the phase space for the soft function
is shown in fig .
[ softplus ] .
the prescription for the uv and ir divergences is the same as in the case of the jet function according to the possible values @xmath108 .    the virtual correction in fig .
[ feynsoft ] ( a ) is given as @xmath181 which is independent of the jet algorithm .
we compute the real gluon emission from fig .
[ feynsoft ] ( b ) for various values of @xmath28 .
the structure of the phase space for the soft function is shown in fig .
[ softplus ] ( a ) , and it is apparent that both the uv and ir divergences may exist .
the contribution of the real gluon emission is given by @xmath182,\ ] ] where @xmath183 is the point where two boundaries meet , and @xmath184 describes the boundary for the @xmath58 jet , and is given in eq .
( [ softb ] ) .
we divide the phase space symmetrically with respect to the line @xmath185 , and compute only the upper half , hence the factor 2 is multiplied . by carefully separating the uv and ir divergences ,
the amplitude for the soft function , including the hermitian conjuagates , is given by @xmath186 , \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath187 .
the soft function at one loop for @xmath188 is given as @xmath189.\ ] ]    the ir divergence from the virtual correction is cancelled by that in the real gluon emission , and there remains only uv divergence .
this fact can be seen transparently from the argument of the phase space @xcite .
the virtual contribution corresponds to the same integral as for the real gluon emission , but the integration region covers all the phase space , with a minus sign
. therefore the total soft contribution is given by the integral over the unshaded phase space in fig .
[ softplus ] with a minus sign .
since the unshaded region never touches the ir region , the soft contribution contains only uv divergence .
the calculation procedure is the same for @xmath19 , hence the result can be extended to the case @xmath19 .
the soft part at @xmath19 is given as @xmath190 while the soft part in the jade algorithm is given by @xmath191 which is identical to the soft part with @xmath19 by replacing @xmath152 .
this should be true because the jet algorithm for @xmath19 in the soft part is identical to the jade algorithm with @xmath152 .
the soft functions in these two algorithms at next - to - leading order are given as @xmath192      the contribution from the real gluon emission is given as @xmath193 it turns out that the result is the same as that in the case with @xmath161 .
the left - hand - side plot in fig .
[ softplus ] ( e ) , @xmath98 approaches infinity as @xmath103 goes to zero .
therefore we may expect that there are both uv and ir divergences .
however , the plot of @xmath108 with respect to @xmath103 in the right - hand side shows that @xmath108 can never reach infinity , hence the real gluon emission involves only the ir divergence . in order to handle the divergence correctly , we write @xmath194 as @xmath195 \nonumber \\ & = & \frac{\alpha_s c_f}{2\pi } \bigl [ \frac{1}{\alpha-2 } \bigl ( \frac{2}{{\epsilon_{\mathrm{ir}}}^2 } -\frac{2}{{\epsilon_{\mathrm{ir } } } } \ln a +   \ln^2 a -\frac{\pi^2}{6}\bigr ) + \frac{1}{{\epsilon_{\mathrm{ir}}}^2 } -\frac{1}{\alpha}\ln^2 a + \frac{\pi^2}{2 } \bigl ( \frac{1}{3\alpha } -\frac{1}{2}\bigr ) \bigr].\end{aligned}\ ] ] the amplitude for the soft function is given by @xmath196 .
\end{aligned}\ ] ]    note the difference of the soft amplitudes between the cases with @xmath102 and @xmath27 .
if we naively put @xmath178 , the result is the same .
however , if we distinguish the uv and ir divergences , the meaning of the results is totally different .
the case with @xmath102 contains only the uv poles , while the case with @xmath27 is not ir finite .
therefore , when @xmath27 , the soft function is not physically meaningful .
however , if we add the soft amplitude with the corresponding collinear amplitude , eq .
( [ co2l ] ) , the ir divergence cancels out .
it means that the dijet cross section can be computed with ir finiteness , but the factorization breaks down for @xmath27 .
one more comment is that the results are also divergent at @xmath3 .
the soft function for @xmath3 is not well defined in dimensional regularization . however
, if we add the soft amplitude with the corresponding collinear amplitude , the divergent term in @xmath7 , proportional to @xmath31 also cancels out .
this will be discussed in detail in section  [ alpha2 ] .
the generalized @xmath1 algorithm for @xmath197 is similar to the generic cone type jet algorithm or the sterman - weinberg jet algorithm as far as the shape of the phase space is concerned @xcite .
the phase space for the naive collinear contribution , the zero - bin contribution and the soft function is shown in fig .
[ cominus ] .
we can extend the jet algorithm to @xmath20 since the phase space for @xmath20 is obtained by taking the limit @xmath198 from the case with @xmath119 because a jet veto is needed . the jet algorithm with @xmath20
is known as the cambridge / aachen jet algorithm .      the naive collinear contribution from fig .
[ intjet ] ( b ) is given as @xmath199   \nonumber \\ & = & \frac{\alpha_s c_f}{2\pi } \bigl [ \frac{1}{2{\epsilon_{\mathrm{ir}}}^2 } + \frac{1}{{\epsilon_{\mathrm{ir } } } } \bigl ( 1 + \frac{1}{2 }   \ln   \frac{\mu^2}{2^{\alpha -2 } y_c q^2 } \bigr ) +   \ln \frac{\mu^2}{2^{\alpha -2 } y_c q^2 }   + \frac{1}{4 }   \ln^2 \frac{\mu^2}{2^{\alpha -2 } y_c q^2 } \nonumber \\ & & + 2 + 2\ln 2 -\frac{5\pi^2}{24 } + ( \alpha-2 ) \bigl(-1+\ln 2 + \frac{\pi^2}{12}\bigr)\bigr].\end{aligned}\ ] ]    for the zero - bin contribution , the boundary for the phase space is obtained by taking the zero - bin limit of @xmath167 , which is given by @xmath200 the zero - bin contribution is given as @xmath201 \nonumber \\ & = & \frac{\alpha_s c_f}{2\pi }   \bigl [ \frac{1}{2}\bigl ( \frac{1}{{\epsilon_{\mathrm{uv } } } } -\frac{1}{{\epsilon_{\mathrm{ir}}}}\bigr)^2 + \frac{1}{2 }   \bigl ( \frac{1}{{\epsilon_{\mathrm{uv } } } } -\frac{1}{{\epsilon_{\mathrm{ir}}}}\bigr ) \ln 2^{\alpha-2 } y_c\bigr].\end{aligned}\ ] ]    from the real gluon emission in fig .
[ intjet ] ( c ) , the naive collinear contribution is given by @xmath202\nonumber \\ & = & \frac{\alpha_s c_f}{2\pi}\bigl ( -\frac{1}{2{\epsilon_{\mathrm{ir } } } } -\frac{1}{2 } \ln \frac{\mu^2}{2^{\alpha-2 } y_c q^2}+\frac{\alpha -3}{2 }   -\frac{\alpha}{2}\ln 2\bigr).\end{aligned}\ ] ] compared to the corresponding calculation for @xmath28 in eq .
( [ mcal+ ] ) , the only difference is in the coefficient of @xmath203 .    combining the wave function renormalization and the residue , the collinear amplitude for @xmath197 is given as @xmath204.\end{aligned}\ ] ] and the jet function at one loop for @xmath197
is given as @xmath205.\end{aligned}\ ] ]      the contribution from the real gluon emission is given by @xmath206.\end{aligned}\ ] ] with the virtual correction , the amplitude for the soft function is written as @xmath207 and the soft function at one loop for @xmath197 is given by @xmath208 in the limit @xmath209 , which corresponds to the cambridge / aachen jet algorithm , the soft function is given as @xmath210 note that the limit @xmath198 should be taken from @xmath119 .
for @xmath28 , there is a pole in @xmath211 , and it may be dangerous to take the limit @xmath209 . however , when the limit @xmath209 is taken , it coincides with the phase space for @xmath119 and the jet veto is needed . therefore the soft function at @xmath20 should be taken from the soft part with @xmath30 .
the structure of divergence can be inferred from the phase space argument @xcite .
since the phase spaces for different @xmath7 yield different shapes of the phase space , we will discuss and compare the cases for various values of @xmath7 .
let us first consider the phase space for the naive collinear contribution in fig .
[ phplus ] . in the first column ,
the phase space is plotted in @xmath79 space , and the second column in @xmath80 space .
when we compute the naive collinear contribution , there is an integration with respect to the gluon momentum @xmath62 .
if we first integrate over @xmath212 , which takes care of the delta function in the integrand , the remaining integral is to be performed with respect to @xmath103 and @xmath98 , where the phase space in the first column is relevant .
if we first integrate over @xmath98 , the remaining integral is to be performed with respect to @xmath103 and @xmath212 , where the phase space in the second column is appropriate .    in @xmath79 space ,
the uv ( ir ) divergence comes from the region where @xmath103 and @xmath98 approaches infinity ( zero ) . if one of them approaches infinity , while the other approaches zero , it is possible that there is a mixed uv - ir divergence .
we can infer the structure of divergence in @xmath79 space from the first column of fig .
[ phplus ] . for @xmath106 ,
it is clear that , if there is divergence , it should be of the ir origin from fig .
[ phplus ] ( a ) and ( b ) since @xmath103 and @xmath98 can never reach infinity .
it is explicitly verified in eqs .
( [ naimb ] ) , ( [ mcal+ ] ) .
this is also evident from the second column of the corresponding phase spaces since @xmath103 and @xmath108 never reach infinity . with the same argument , when @xmath27 in fig .
[ phplus ] ( e ) , both plots imply that there are uv , ir and mixed divergences .    however , the two plots lead to seemingly inconsistent results in fig .
[ phplus ] ( c ) , which corresponds to @xmath213 . in @xmath79 space , @xmath98 can reach infinity while @xmath103 can not .
therefore we naively expect that there might be ir and mixed divergences . on the other hand , in @xmath80 space , @xmath108 never reaches infinity and there should be only ir divergence . in this case , we have to rely on the phase space in @xmath80 space because there is an additional relation @xmath214 for the real gluon emission .    from the phase space constraint in eq .
( [ cocon ] ) , it reads for @xmath215 @xmath216 and indeed @xmath98 can approach infinity as @xmath103 approaches zero for @xmath102 .
however , @xmath108 is bounded by @xmath217 which can not reach infinity as @xmath103 approaches zero . since the divergence behavior is determined by the behavior in @xmath108 in @xmath218 dimensions , and @xmath219 ,
the inference on the divergence behavior is more reliable in @xmath80 space rather than in @xmath79 space .
this can also be confirmed in ref .
@xcite , in which the jet function has been computed with the transverse momentum fixed . since the transverse momentum is fixed at a finite value , there is no uv divergence , but ir divergence .
the computation was performed for the inclusive jet function with the transverse momentum fixed , hence there is no constraint on the phase space as in the jet algorithm .
however , the result supports that there is only ir divergence when @xmath108 never reaches infinity . as can be seen in fig .
[ phplus ] ( a ) to ( c ) , the phase spaces for @xmath102 in @xmath80 space shows similar shapes and there is only ir divergence .    for the phase space of the zero - bin contribution in fig .
[ zeroplus ] , all the plots show that the zero - bin contribution should contain both uv and ir divergences . for the soft contribution shown in fig .
[ softplus ] , we can conclude that there are both uv and ir divergences for @xmath175 , while there is only ir divergence for @xmath33 , as can be seen in eq .
( [ sbg2 ] ) .
however , we can apply the phase space method as in ref .
the virtual correction for the soft part has the same integral as in the real gluon emission except the minus sign , and it covers the entire phase space .
therefore the soft part is obtained by integrating the matrix element over the unshaded phase space in fig .
[ softplus ] with a minus sign .
then the soft part for @xmath179 has only uv divergence since the unshaded region never reaches zero .
it means that the cancellation of the ir divergence occurs between the virtual and real contributions . on the other hand , for @xmath33
, we expect that there is not only uv divergence , but also ir divergence , which breaks the factorization .
the case with @xmath3 ( the @xmath1 algorithm ) is tricky because it contains the pole in @xmath31 , and it can not be computed in dimensional regularization .
however , from the phase space diagrams , we expect that the naive collinear contribution contains only ir divergence , while the soft contribution contains both uv and ir divergences .
this will be discussed in detail in the next section .
we have considered the jet and the soft functions in the generalized jet algorithm by varying @xmath7 .
it turns out that the jet algorithm for @xmath2 respects the factorization , that is , the jet and the soft functions are ir finite , and it breaks the factorization for @xmath33 since each part contains ir divergence .
the case with @xmath3 shows a peculiar behavior and it is worth mentioning a few characteristics .    at @xmath3 , in the @xmath1 algorithm
, there is an uncontrollable integral of the form @xmath220 in the naive collinear , the zero - bin and the soft contributions , even though the spacetime dimension is extended to @xmath221 .
it is also noted in ref .
@xcite .
if we use the offshellness to regulate the ir divergence in the soft wilson line by replacing the propagator , the soft part at @xmath3 is given by @xmath222 where @xmath223 represent the offshellness of the quark and the antiquark . and this is consistent with the result in ref .
the result clearly shows that the soft part contains the uv and ir divergences .
if we look at the plots for the phase space in figs .
[ phplus ] ( d ) , [ zeroplus ] ( d ) and [ softplus ] ( d ) , it can be inferred that the naive collinear contribution contains only ir divergence , the zero - bin and the soft contribution have both uv and ir divergences .    in spite of the possible argument on the existence of the uv and ir divergence in the jet and the soft functions for @xmath3
, we interpret the result differently in the sense that they are not well defined for @xmath3 .
if we consider the jet and soft functions as a function of @xmath7 in the generalized @xmath1 algorithm , they are not continuous at @xmath3 in the sense that @xmath224 when we look at the plots for the phase space , for example , fig .
[ phplus ] , the phase space allows finite @xmath108 only for @xmath32 , but @xmath108 can reach infinity for @xmath27
. therefore the divergence structure abruptly changes at @xmath3 .
this discontinuity appears as a pole in @xmath225 in our treatment of the generalized jet algorithm as a function of @xmath7 . in contrast , the behavior of the jet function and the soft function near @xmath19 is smooth .
the shape of the phase space in the @xmath79 space changes near @xmath19 , that is , @xmath98 approaches a finite value instead of zero near @xmath100 .
however , in the @xmath160 space , there is no abrupt change in shape .
therefore the jet algorithm is continuous at @xmath19 , hence the factorization works in the jade algorithm , too .
interestingly enough , the pole in @xmath225 as well as the ir divergence cancels in the sum of the collinear part and the soft part to yield the jet cross section .
therefore the jet cross section is ir finite even at @xmath83 .
we may conclude that the @xmath1 algorithm works fine , but it is misleading .
the main point is that the factorization , which lies behind the jet algorithm , breaks down for @xmath33 including the @xmath1 algorithm .
however , note that the claim that the @xmath1 algorithm breaks factorization may be too strong because the separation of the uv and ir divergence is spoiled by the existence of the pole in @xmath225 . in dimensional regularization , the extraction of the divergence is impossible at @xmath3 , but there may be other ways to obtain the divergence unambiguously .
for example , in ref .
@xcite , the authors have tried to regulate this integral with the rapidity renormalization technique .
it may turn out to be useful , but we will not pursue in this direction here , and our claim stands as it is as far as we use the dimensional regularization to extract uv and ir divergences .
let us collect all the results for the resummation of the large logarithms of the form @xmath226 with @xmath227 through the renormalization group behavior . at one loop , the hard function
is given by @xmath228 the jet function and the soft function for @xmath179 at one loop are given as @xmath229 , \nonumber \\
\mathcal{s}^{(1 ) } ( q , y_c,\mu )   & = & \frac{\alpha_s c_f}{2\pi } \bigl[\frac{4}{\alpha(\alpha-2 ) }    \ln^2   2^{\alpha-2 } y_c \bigl(\frac{q}{\mu}\bigr)^{\alpha }       -\pi^2 \bigl ( \frac{2}{3\alpha(\alpha-2 ) } + \frac{1}{2 } \bigr ) \bigr ] . \end{aligned}\ ] ] the jet function @xmath230 in the @xmath58 direction is the same as @xmath231 .
the dijet cross section in eq .
( [ facjet ] ) at next - to - leading order ( nlo ) for @xmath29 is written as @xmath232.\ ] ] for example , the dijet cross section for @xmath19 , which is close to the jade algorithm , is given by @xmath233 while the cross section exactly in the jade algorithm is given by @xmath234 this agrees with the full qcd calculation @xcite .    for @xmath119 ,
the jet function and the soft function at one loop are given as @xmath235 , \nonumber \\
\mathcal{s}^{(1 ) } ( q , y_c , \beta , \mu ) & = & \frac{\alpha_s c_f}{2\pi }   \bigl (   4\ln \frac{\mu}{2\beta q } \ln ( 2^{\alpha-2 } y_c )   - \ln^2 ( 2^{\alpha-2 } y_c ) -\frac{\pi^2}{3}\bigr).\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the dijet cross section at nlo for @xmath197 is given as @xmath236.\ ] ] an interesting case is the result of the anti-@xmath1 jet algorithm with @xmath21 .
the dijet cross section in the anti-@xmath1 algorithm at order @xmath142 is explicitly given by @xmath237.\ ] ] also the cambridge / aachen jet algorithm corresponds to the case @xmath20 , and the dijet cross section in this jet algorithm is given as @xmath238.\ ] ]    for @xmath239 , the factorization breaks down since the jet and the soft functions contain ir divergence .
however , when the jet function and the soft function are added , these divergent terms cancel and the finite dijet cross section is obtained .
the sum of the collinear and the soft parts is given as @xmath240.\end{aligned}\ ] ] note that only this combination is free of ir divergence as well as of the pole in @xmath241 .
therefore the dijet cross section has a finite limit as @xmath180 .
the dijet cross section for @xmath242 is given as @xmath243.\end{aligned}\ ] ] note that the dijet cross section is the same for @xmath32 and @xmath27 , and it is continuous at @xmath3 .
therefore , for the @xmath1 algorithm , the dijet cross section at order @xmath142 is given as @xmath244    the fixed - order dijet cross sections for various values of @xmath7 are independent of the renormalization scale @xmath90 .
however , they contain logarithms of @xmath16 .
when @xmath245 becomes small , the fixed - order results are not to be trusted and the resummation of the large logarithms should be performed .
this is achieved by solving the renormalization group ( rg ) equations for the hard , jet and soft functions .
we present the solution of the rg equation and show the numerical results of the resummation effect with the theoretical uncertainties at next - to - leading logarithm ( nll ) order .    the rg equation for the hard , jet and soft functions is of the form @xmath246 f_i(\omega_i,\mu),\ ] ] where @xmath247 is the corresponding function and @xmath248 respectively for @xmath249 .
the solution of the rg equation can be expressed in terms of the following quantities which are defined as @xcite @xmath250 then @xmath247 is written as @xmath251 \bigl(\frac{\omega_i^2}{\mu_i^2}\bigr)^{-a_i(\mu_i , \mu ) }   f_i ( \omega_i,\mu_i),\ ] ] where the scales @xmath252 for @xmath249 are the hard , jet and soft scales respectively    the @xmath253 function and the anomalous dimensions can be expanded as a series in @xmath142 as @xmath254 , \nonumber \\ a_i ( \alpha_s ) & = & a_i^0   \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi } + a_i^1 \bigl(\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\bigr)^2 + \cdots ,   \ \
b_i ( \alpha_s ) = b_i^0   \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi } + b_i^1 \bigl(\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\bigr)^2 + \cdots,\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the anomalous dimension for the hard coefficient at order @xmath142 is given by @xmath255 the anomalous dimensions of the jet and the soft functions for @xmath256 at order @xmath142 are given as @xmath257 where the jet scale @xmath258 and the soft scale @xmath259 are defined as @xmath260 for @xmath197 , they are given as @xmath261 it can be explicitly verified that @xmath262 for @xmath2 , and the dijet cross section is independent of the renormalization scale .
however , the anomalous dimensions for the jet and the soft functions for @xmath33 are not defined since the corresponding amplitudes include ir divergence . in this case
the anomalous dimension of the combined collinear and soft parts is given by @xmath263 which exactly cancels that of the hard function @xmath264 .
the anomalous dimensions for @xmath175 can be cast into the form @xmath265 and for @xmath266 , @xmath267 where @xmath268 is the cusp anomalous dimension of the hard function @xmath269 .
this form is obtained since @xmath262 , and since the cusp anomalous dimensions are independent of @xmath7 , that is , the jet algorithm .
to nll order with large logarithms , we need the cusp anomalous dimension to two - loop order , the remaining anomalous dimensions to one loop order and the hard , jet and soft functions at tree level @xcite .
the details for the numerical analysis are provided in appendix .
the hard , jet and soft scales can be inferred by requiring that the logarithmic terms in the fixed - order results are not significant .
the hard scale is set by @xmath270 , and it is varied from @xmath271 to @xmath272 to evaluate the theoretical uncertainty .
the jet scale is given by @xmath273 for @xmath2 , and is also varied from @xmath274 to @xmath275 .
( b ) @xmath276 ( c ) @xmath21 .
we set @xmath277 gev , and @xmath278 , and for the soft function @xmath279 .
[ csecscale],width=604 ]    the choice of the soft scale is more delicate . for @xmath179 , from the argument of the logarithm in the soft function in eq .
( [ js+ ] ) , the soft scale is set as @xmath259 . from the power counting , we require that @xmath280 and @xmath281 , where @xmath66 is a small parameter in scet . for @xmath30 , the soft scale is set by @xmath282 . as discussed in the jet algorithm , @xmath253 is also of order @xmath77 .
since @xmath77 is set by the jet scale as @xmath283 , we require that @xmath284 in the numerical analysis .
we also vary the soft scale from @xmath285 to @xmath286 to evaluate the theoretical uncertainty .
[ csecscale ] shows the theoretical uncertainty of the jet cross sections for three values of @xmath7 at nll as we vary the jet and soft scales .
the cross sections are normalized by dividing the jet cross section by the total cross section at order @xmath142 , which is given by @xmath287 therefore the ratio @xmath288 represents the fraction for the two jets .
the values of @xmath9 and @xmath16 are chosen as 1000 gev , and 0.1 respectively for illustrative purposes .
the hard scale is fixed at @xmath9 . and
the cases with @xmath19 , 0 and @xmath289 are shown , which correspond to the jade , the cambrige / aachen , and the anti-@xmath1 algorithms respectively .
the upper plots show the dependence on the jet scale @xmath290 as it varies from @xmath274 to @xmath275 while the soft scale @xmath291 is fixed at @xmath259 .
the lower plots show the dependence on the soft scale @xmath291 as it varies from @xmath285 to @xmath286 while the jet scale @xmath290 is fixed at @xmath258 .
as can be seen in the plots , the dependence on the jet scale is mild , but the cross section is rather sensitive to the choice of the soft scale for @xmath20 and @xmath289 .
( b ) @xmath20 ( c ) @xmath21 corresponding to fig .  [ csecscale ] .
the bands show the theoretical uncertainties .
the solid line represents the resummed cross section with @xmath292 , @xmath293 , @xmath294 .
the dashed line is the fixed - order cross section with @xmath295 .
[ csec],width=604 ]    fig .
[ csec ] shows the theoretical uncertainty of the resummed and the fixed - order dijet cross sections . in resummed results , the hard , jet and soft scales
are varied as @xmath296 , @xmath297 and @xmath298 respectively . in the fixed - order result , we set @xmath299 and @xmath300 is varied from @xmath301 to @xmath302 .
the small parameter @xmath66 corresponds to @xmath283 , and the @xmath16 values on the horizontal axis indicate that we set @xmath303 .
the fixed - order results diverge as @xmath16 approaches zero , but the resummed results are suppressed for small @xmath16 and converge to zero .
the theoretical uncertainty at nll order is not significantly reduced compared to the nlo fixed - order results .
we expect that the uncertainty will be reduced at higher orders .
in addition to the suppression of the resummed result for small @xmath16 , the fixed - order results tend to be more negative as @xmath7 decreases , while the jet cross sections have meaning only when they are positive .
as figure  [ csec ] shows , the nlo result and the nll result are consistent except for small values of @xmath16 for @xmath145 . as @xmath7 decreases
, the fixed - order result is not reliable .
only after the resummation is performed , the jet cross sections become positive , including the behavior for small @xmath16 .
it turns out that the cone - type algorithm , which is equivalent to the inclusive @xmath1 algorithm at nlo , and the sterman - weinberg algorithm show similar shapes for the phase spaces @xcite , therefore we expect that the dijet cross section should be resummed in the cone - type algorithm to yield a meaningful answer .
since the dijet cross section is ir finite in spite of the fact that both the jet and soft functions are ir divergent , one might expect that the resummed result for the @xmath1 algorithm ( @xmath3 ) can be obtained by taking the limit @xmath180 from the result with @xmath175 .
indeed we can obtain the resummed result and verify that the cross section approaches zero for small @xmath16 .
however , the theoretical uncertainties blow up in this limit due to the large uncertainties in the jet and soft functions as @xmath180 , and there is no predictive power in the resummed result for @xmath3 .
the generalized jet algorithm enables us to see the rich structure of the jet algorithm from the viewpoint of the factorization .
it includes familiar jet algorithms with specific values of @xmath7 .
the advantage of the generalized jet algorithm is to see the divergence structure of the jet and soft functions in a unified way .
we can see systematically how the structure of the divergence changes as @xmath7 varies .
the structure of the divergence can be inferred from the observation of the phase spaces in @xmath79 space . when it is ambiguous for @xmath213 , the phase space in @xmath80 space is helpful in identifying the divergence . in explicit computation
, we have verified that the expectation from the phase space is correct .
to summarize , the jet algorithm for @xmath2 renders the jet and soft functions ir finite , thus guarantees the factorization of the dijet cross section . among the known jet algorithms , this includes the jade algorithm ( corresponding to @xmath19 ) , the cambridge / aachen algorithm ( @xmath20 ) and the sterman - weinberg and the cone - type algorithm ( @xmath30 ) and the anti-@xmath1 algorithm ( @xmath21 ) . on the other hand ,
the factorization breaks down with the jet algorithms with @xmath33 because the jet and soft functions contain infrared divergence .
though the ir divergence is cancelled in the dijet cross section and gives a finite result , it breaks the factorization and the @xmath1 algorithm belongs to this category .
the main point of the paper is that the structure of divergence in the collinear and soft parts depends on how the jets are defined .
the important criterion is that each factorized part should be ir finite in order to respect the factorization .
and according to our analysis of the generalized jet algorithm , only the jet algorithm with @xmath32 factorizes the dijet cross section in a strict sense .
note that we have considered the so - called exclusive generalized @xmath1 algorithms @xcite , which is based on the @xmath0 annihilation .
the scet version is presented in ref .
the inclusive recombination algorithm @xcite is more suitable in hadronic collisions .
but it turns out that the inclusive jet algorithm reduces to the cone - type algorithm @xcite at next - to - leading order in which there are three final - state particles .
in contrast to @xmath0 annihilation , the partonic center of energy is boosted along the beam direction compared to the hadron - hadron center of energy in hadronic collisions . therefore the physical observables in hadron - hadron scattering , as in lhc , should be described in terms of the boost - invariant quantities such as the transverse momentum , the rapidity and the azimuthal angle .
it will be interesting to probe the jet properties arising from the jet algorithms in other types of scattering . and
the analysis of the divergence structure in various jet algorithms , which we have probed here , can be extended to deep inelastic scattering and hadron - hadron collisions with the boost invariance along the beam direction to see if the structure of the divergence is sustained or if the kinematics of the scattering changes it using the exclusive or inclusive generalized @xmath1 algorithm .
j. chay and i. kim are supported by basic science research program through the national research foundation of korea ( nrf ) funded by the ministry of education(grant no .
nrf-2014r1a1a2058142 ) . c.  kim is supported by basic science research program through nrf funded by the ministry of science , ict and future planning with grants no .
nrf-2012r1a1a1003015 , no . nrf-2014r1a2a1a11052687 .
the qcd @xmath253 function and the cusp anomlous dimension in the @xmath23 scheme are given as @xmath254 , \nonumber \\
\gamma_{\mathrm{cusp } } ( \alpha_s ) & = & \gamma_0 \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi } + \gamma_1 \bigl(\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\bigr)^2+\cdots , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where the expansion coefficients for the qcd @xmath253 function to two - loop order are @xmath304 and the cusp anomalous dimension to two loop order are given as @xcite @xmath305.\ ] ]    the coefficients of the anomalous dimensions in the hard function are given by @xmath306 for the jet and the soft functions with @xmath175 , the coefficients are given a @xmath307 and with @xmath197 , they are given as @xmath308    at nll order , the quantities in eq .
( [ rgf ] ) are written as @xmath309 , \nonumber \\
a_i ( \mu_i,\mu ) & = & \frac{a_i^0}{2\beta_0 } \bigl [ \ln \frac{\alpha_s ( \mu)}{\alpha_s ( \mu_i ) } + \bigl ( \frac{a_i^1}{a_i^0 }   -\frac{\beta_1}{\beta_0 } \bigr ) \frac{\alpha_s ( \mu ) -\alpha_s ( \mu_i)}{4\pi } \bigr],\end{aligned}\ ] ] and @xmath310 is obtained from @xmath311 when @xmath312 are replaced by @xmath313 .                                                        g.  p.  korchemsky and a.  v.  radyushkin , renormalization of the wilson loops beyond the leading order , nucl .
b * 283 * , 342 ( 1987 ) .
i.  a.  korchemskaya and g.  p.  korchemsky , on lightlike wilson loops , phys .
b * 287 * , 169 ( 1992 ) .