Paper detail

Rapidity-Separation Dependence and the Large Next-to-Leading Corrections to the BFKL Equation

Recent concerns about the very large next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) corrections to the BFKL equation are addressed by the introduction of a physical rapidity-separation parameter $Δ$. At the leading logarithm (LL) this parameter enforces the constraint that successive emitted gluons have a minimum separation in rapidity, $y_{i+1}-y_i>Δ$. The most significant effect is to reduce the BFKL Pomeron intercept from the standard result as $Δ$ is increased from 0 (standard BFKL). At NLL this $Δ$-dependence is compensated by a modification of the BFKL kernel, such that the total dependence on $Δ$ is formally next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic. In this formulation, as long as $Δ\gtrsim2.2$ (for $α_{s}=0.15$): (i) the NLL BFKL pomeron intercept is stable with respect to variations of $Δ$, and (ii) the NLL correction is small compared to the LL result. Implications for the applicability of the BFKL resummation to phenomenology are considered.

preprint1999arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.