1: \documentclass[nobibnotes,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
2:
3: \usepackage{amssymb,amsmath}
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7: \title{Saturation QCD predictions with heavy quarks at HERA}
8: \author{G. Soyez\footnote{on leave from the PTF group of the
9: University of Li\`ege.}} \email{g.soyez@ulg.ac.be}
10: \affiliation{Physics Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory,
11: Upton, NY 11973, USA}
12:
13: \begin{abstract}
14: The measurement of the proton structure function at HERA is often
15: seen as a hint for the observation of saturation in high-energy QCD
16: {\em e.g.} through the observation of geometric scaling.
17: Accordingly, the dipole picture provides a powerful framework in
18: which the QCD-based saturation models can be confronted to the data.
19: In this paper, we give a parametrisation of proton structure
20: function which is directly constrained by the dynamics of QCD in its
21: high-energy limit and fully includes the heavy quark effects. We
22: obtain a good agreement with the available data. Furthermore, to the
23: contrary of various models in the literature, we do not observe a
24: significant decrease of the saturation momentum due to the heavy
25: quark inclusion.
26: \end{abstract}
27:
28: \newcommand{\abar}{\bar\alpha}
29:
30: \maketitle
31:
32: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
33:
34: The study of the high-energy limit of perturbative QCD has lead to
35: strong predictions for the scattering amplitudes. One of the most
36: important result is the property of {\em geometric scaling} which is a
37: consequence of saturation \cite{iil,mt,t,mp} which extends into the
38: dilute regime where the amplitude is far from the unitarity limit. We
39: shall recall later in this paper how this general property can be
40: proven in perturbative QCD from the Balitsky-Kovchegov (BK) equation
41: \cite{bk} or from the Colour Glass Condensate (CGC) formalism \cite{cgc}.
42:
43: At small $x$, the confrontation of those predictions with the
44: experimental measurements of the proton structure function at HERA can
45: be achieved within the framework of the dipole model. In the dipole
46: frame, the virtual photon fluctuates into a $q\bar q$ pair of flavour
47: $f$ and size $r$
48: which then interacts with the proton:
49: \begin{equation}\label{eq:sigma}
50: \sigma_{L,T}^{\gamma^*p}(Q^2,x) = \sum_f \int d^2r\,\int_0^1 dz\,
51: |\Psi_{L,T}^{(f)}(r,z;Q^2)|^2\,\sigma_{\text{dip}}(r,x).
52: \end{equation}
53: The photon wavefunction can safely be computed in QED and is found to be
54: \begin{eqnarray*}
55: |\Psi_{L,T}^{(f)}(r,z;Q^2)|^2
56: & = & e_f^2 \frac{\alpha_e N_c}{2\pi^2}\, 4 Q^2 z^2(1-z)^2 K_0^2(r\bar Q_f),\\
57: |\Psi_{L,T}^{(f)}(r,z;Q^2)|^2
58: & = & e_f^2 \frac{\alpha_e N_c}{2\pi^2}\left\{
59: [z^2+(1-z)^2]\bar Q_f^2 K_1^2(r\bar Q_f)
60: + m_f^2K_0^2(r\bar Q_f) \right\},
61: \end{eqnarray*}
62: where $\bar Q_f^2 = z(1-z)Q^2+m_f^2$. The proton structure function,
63: obtained through
64: \[
65: F_2(Q^2,x) = \frac{Q^2}{4\pi^2\alpha_e}
66: \left[\sigma_L^{\gamma^*p}(Q^2,x)+\sigma_T^{\gamma^*p}(Q^2,x)\right],
67: \]
68: is thus expressed in terms of the dipole-target cross-section
69: $\sigma_{\text{dip}}=2\pi R_p^2 T(r,x)$ where $T$ is the dipole-target
70: scattering amplitude as entering the QCD evolution equations. $R_p$ is
71: often referred to as the radius of the proton and is to be taken as a
72: free normalisation parameter of our model. We are therefore left with
73: the parametrisation of $T(r;Y)$, with $Y=\log(1/x)$ called the
74: rapidity.
75:
76: This kind of approach is not new in itself. Different approaches to
77: parametrise the dipole-proton scattering amplitude has already been
78: proven successful. One can cite {\em e.g.} the pioneering work of
79: Golec-Biernat and Wusthoff \cite{gbw} which can be improved by adding
80: the collinear DGLAP effects \cite{bgk,dfgs}. Those approaches, directly
81: based on the gluon distribution function $xg(x,Q^2)$, give good
82: description of the data, even including the contributions from heavy
83: quarks \cite{sapeta}. From a different point of view, some other
84: successful approaches \cite{fs} use Regge parametrisations for the
85: dipole-proton scattering amplitude.
86:
87: Beside those various approaches, perturbative QCD provides definite
88: predictions for $T$, including its approach to saturation. This is
89: perfectly suited for this kind of problem. Indeed, the factorisation
90: formula (\ref{eq:sigma}) underlying the dipole picture is valid only
91: in the high-energy (small-$x$) limit. Hence, using prediction from QCD
92: at high energy to parametrise the dipole-proton scattering amplitude
93: appears as a natural way to proceed. Those predictions that we shall
94: recall in is paper have been successfully gathered into a
95: parametrisation for $\sigma_{\text{dip}}(r,x)$ and tested against the
96: HERA data \cite{iim}, so far including the contributions from light
97: quarks only. All those approach suggest a {\em saturation scale}
98: $Q_s$, the energy-dependent momentum scale below which the amplitude
99: is saturated, of order 1 GeV$^2$ for $x\sim 10^{-4}-10^{-5}$ at HERA.
100:
101: However, it is rather well-known that, once including the heavy quarks
102: (mainly the charm), all approaches observe a decrease of the
103: saturation scale. Given those {\em a priori} important effects of the
104: heavy quarks on the saturation, it appears important to reconsider the
105: predictions of the QCD at high energy to include those contributions.
106: In this paper, we will obtain two results: first that it is possible
107: to accommodate the predictions from \cite{iim} with heavy-quark
108: contributions and, second, that this does not lead to a decrease of
109: the saturation scale.
110:
111: In the next section, we shall recall how to build the dipole-target
112: scattering amplitude $T$ from the equations of QCD at saturation. We
113: also discuss the idea allowing for the inclusion of heavy quarks. We
114: shall then present the fit to the $F_2$ HERA data in itself, including
115: data selection and parameter adjustment. As a conclusion, we shall
116: finally discuss our results w.r.t. other models as well as with
117: predictions from NLO BFKL \cite{bfkl,nlo_bfkl,css_s}.
118:
119: \section{QCD predictions for the amplitude and heavy quarks}\label{sec:qcd}
120:
121: Since our approach is mainly based on the QCD fit introduced by Iancu,
122: Itakura and Munier (IIM) \cite{iim}, we start by a presentation of
123: that model. The formula we use to parametrise the dipole-proton
124: scattering amplitude is obtained from our knowledge of the solutions
125: of the BK equation which captures the main ingredients of the
126: high-energy physics with saturation effects. The exact solution to
127: that equation is not known but its asymptotic behaviours, for large
128: and small dipole sizes has been studied in details.
129:
130: In the last years, it has been shown \cite{mp} that the BK equation
131: lies in the same class of universality than the
132: Fisher--Kolmogorov-Petrovsky-Piscunov (F-KPP) equation. The latter has
133: been extensively studied in statistical physics over the past seventy
134: years and it is well-known that its solutions can be written in terms
135: of {\em travelling waves}. In the language of the QCD variables we
136: have used so far this means that if one looks at the rapidity
137: evolution of the amplitude $T(r;Y)$ (seen here as a function of $r$),
138: the amplitude ``front'' moves towards smaller values of $r$ without
139: changing its shape. The ``position'' of the wavefront is then
140: naturally associated with $Q_s^{-1}$, the inverse of the saturation
141: scale. At asymptotic rapidities, the amplitude $T$, initially a
142: function of $r$ and $Y$ independently becomes a function of the single
143: variable $rQ_s(Y)$. This very important consequence of saturation is
144: the {\em geometric scaling} \cite{geomscaling,geomdiffr,geomsyst}
145: property which physically means that the physics remains unchanged
146: when one moves parallel to the saturation line.
147:
148: This travelling-wave analysis provides two fundamental pieces of
149: information: first, the saturation scale increases exponentially with
150: the rapidity\footnote{Within that formalism, it is also possible to
151: compute the next two subdominant terms but those are beyond the
152: scope of the present paper.}: $Q_s^2(Y) \propto \exp(\lambda Y)$.
153: Then, the amplitude is known in the small-$r$ region:
154: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Tsmallr}
155: T(r;Y) \propto
156: \exp\left[-\gamma_c(\rho-\rho_s)
157: -\frac{(\rho-\rho_s)^2}{2\abar\chi''_c Y} \right]
158: \end{equation}
159: with $\rho = \log(4/r^2)$ and $\rho_s = \log(Q_s^2)$. The critical
160: slope $\gamma_c$ as well as the parameter $\lambda=\abar\chi'_c$ and
161: $\chi''_c$ are determined from the linear BFKL kernel only. This is an
162: important property: though the scattering amplitude fully satisfies
163: the unitarity constraints and is sensitive to saturation effects, the
164: parameters which describes it do not depend upon the details of how
165: saturation is encoded. We will discuss the value for those parameters
166: later in this section. The fact that they do not depend on the details
167: of the saturation mechanism is another interesting feature of this
168: approach. As a related comment, one can also obtain \cite{iil,mt} the
169: result (\ref{eq:Tsmallr}) by looking at the BFKL equation with a
170: boundary condition at the saturation line: performing a saddle-point
171: approximation gives (\ref{eq:Tsmallr}) as well as the exponential
172: behaviour of the saturation momentum. Note finally that the Gaussian
173: part of the exponential in (\ref{eq:Tsmallr}) violates geometric
174: scaling as it introduces an explicit dependence in $Y$. This term
175: however becomes less and less important as rapidity increases. It
176: controls how geometric scaling is approached and allows to deduce that
177: geometric scaling is valid within a window $\rho-\rho_s \lesssim
178: \sqrt{2\abar \chi''_c Y}$. This is an important point that saturation
179: effects are relevant up to large scales above the saturation momentum
180: {\em i.e.} in the dilute domain.
181:
182: The amplitude in the saturated domain is also obtained from the BK
183: equation \cite{BKsat} (it can also be obtained from the Colour Glass
184: Condensate formalism \cite{CGCsat}). Putting it together with
185: equation (\ref{eq:Tsmallr}) we reach the final expression for our
186: dipole-proton scattering amplitude:
187: \begin{equation}\label{eq:T}
188: T(r;Y) =
189: \begin{cases}
190: T_0 \exp\left[-\gamma_c(\rho-\rho_s)
191: -\frac{(\rho-\rho_s)^2}{2\kappa\lambda Y} \right]
192: & \text{if }rQ_s \le 2,\\
193: 1-\exp\left[-a(\rho-\rho_s-b)^2\right] & \text{if }rQ_s > 2,
194: \end{cases}
195: \end{equation}
196: where the parameters $a$ and $b$ are fixed so as to ensure that $T$
197: and its derivative are continuous at $rQ_s=2$. Going from
198: (\ref{eq:Tsmallr}) to (\ref{eq:T}), we have used $\abar \chi''_c =
199: (\chi''_c/\chi'_c)\lambda Y = \kappa\lambda Y$ with
200: $\kappa=\chi''_c/\chi'_c$.
201:
202: Let us now discuss the parameters in this QCD-saturation-based
203: model. First, the saturation scale can be written
204: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Qs}
205: Q_s^2(Y) = \left(\frac{x_0}{x}\right)^\lambda\text{ GeV}^2.
206: \end{equation}
207: This leaves two free parameters: $x_0$ which is related to the value
208: of the saturation scale at zero rapidity and corresponds to the value
209: of $x$ at which $Q_s=1$ GeV, and $\lambda$ which controls the rapidity
210: evolution of the saturation momentum. While leading-order (LO) BFKL
211: predicts $\lambda=\abar\chi'_c\approx 0.9$, an analysis of the
212: next-to-leading order (NLO) BFKL \cite{t} gives $\lambda\sim 0.3$, a
213: value which is in much better agreement with the phenomenological
214: analysis.
215:
216: Concerning the parameters in the amplitude itself, we shall fix the
217: matching amplitude $T_0$. As in \cite{iim}, a default value of 0.7
218: gives good results and variations around that value leads only to
219: small differences, so we will adopt $T_0=0.7$. The value of $\kappa$
220: will be set from the LO BFKL kernel which gives $\kappa\approx
221: 9.9$. Note that the NLO BFKL predictions, though a little bit smaller,
222: remain of the same order.
223:
224: The value of the critical slope $\gamma_c$ is a fundamental issue of
225: this paper. In the original work \cite{iim}, where only the light
226: quarks were considered, the authors has fixed it to the value obtained
227: from the LO BFKL kernel ($\gamma_c\approx 0.6275$). However, as we
228: shall see in section \ref{sec:fit}, when including the heavy quarks,
229: keeping that value leads to a dramatic decrease of the saturation
230: momentum together as well as to a poor $\chi^2$ for the fit. A key
231: issue of the present work is to show that, allowing that parameter to
232: vary, we recover a similar saturation scale and a good fit. In
233: addition, we shall see that the value for $\gamma_c$ coming out of the
234: fit is rather close to what we expect from NLO BFKL ($\gamma_c \gtrsim
235: 0.7$).
236:
237: The last parameter entering the dipole-proton cross-section
238: $\sigma_{\text{dip}}(r,x)$ is the radius of the proton $R_p$ which
239: fixes the normalisation w.r.t. the dipole-proton amplitude $T(r,x)$.
240: We are thus left with 4 parameters: $R_p$, $x_0$ and $\lambda$ which
241: were already present in \cite{iim}, and the new one: $\gamma_c$. In
242: the massless case, it was found, for $T_0=0.7$, $\lambda=0.253$,
243: $x_0=2.67\,10^{-5}$ and $R_p=0.641$ fm for $\gamma_c$ fixed to 0.6275.
244:
245: Last but not least, we have to specify our heavy-quark prescriptions.
246: While in \cite{iim} the sum in \eqref{eq:sigma} was restricted to the
247: three light flavours only, we now want to consider the effect of
248: massive charm and bottom quarks. Those are thus introduced in the sum
249: over all flavours. The quark masses, entering the photon wavefunction
250: are fixed to $m_{u,d,s} = 140$ MeV, $m_c = 1.4$ GeV and $m_b = 4.5$
251: GeV and we have used the modified Bjorken variable $x(1+4
252: m_f^2/Q^2)$ in the contribution of the heavy quarks. Note that the
253: contribution of the charm and bottom quark to \eqref{eq:sigma}
254: directly give the charm and bottom structure functions.
255:
256:
257: \section{Fit to the HERA data}\label{sec:fit}
258:
259: Now that we have fully described the saturation-based model we are
260: using to describe the DIS structure function, we will test its
261: validity by fitting its free parameters to the experimental
262: measurements of the proton structure function $F_2$. In this section
263: we present the details of the fit and discuss the results.
264:
265: We first have to specify which dataset we are working with. Following
266: the recent analysis, we shall use the last HERA data {\em i.e.} the
267: last ZEUS\cite{zeus} and H1\cite{h1} measurements of $F_2$. We include
268: a 5\% renormalisation uncertainty on the H1 data to account for a
269: normalisation discrepancy between ZEUS and H1. Note that the analysis
270: in \cite{iim} only takes into account the ZEUS data. We shall come
271: back on this point later, when we turn to the discussion of our
272: results.
273:
274: Our approach is focused on the high-energy behaviour of DIS: the
275: dipole-model factorisation \ref{eq:sigma} is only valid at
276: sufficiently small $x$ and, accordingly, the dipole-proton amplitude
277: is build from the high-energy QCD equations. Hence, we shall limit
278: ourselves to $x\le 0.01$, the usual cut in those approaches.
279: Furthermore, our approach, based on the QCD equations describing
280: saturation, does not takes into account the DGLAP corrections beyond
281: the double-logarithmic approximation. We shall restrict our analysis
282: to $Q^2\le 150$ GeV$^2$. Note that the former analysis with massless
283: quarks \cite{iim} is more conservative and uses $Q^2\le 45$
284: GeV$^2$. However, in order to check the validity of the results
285: discussed hereafter, we have tested both cuts and observed that the
286: $\chi^2$ and the parameters were not significantly changing when
287: increasing the $Q^2$ cut.
288:
289: We have fitted the free parameters of the model discussed in Section
290: \ref{sec:qcd} to the 281 data contained in our dataset. In order to
291: grasp the effect of the correct treatment of the heavy-quark masses,
292: we performed the fit with and without including the charm and bottom
293: contribution to $F_2$. In addition, for both cases we give the result
294: of the fit for the critical slope $\gamma_c$ fixed to its LO value or
295: considered as a free parameter. The resulting parameters and $\chi^2$
296: are presented in table \ref{tab:res} where we have also added the
297: initial parameters from \cite{iim} (with ZEUS data only and $Q^2\le
298: 45$ GeV$^2$) for better comparison.
299:
300: \begin{table}
301: \begin{tabular}{|l|l||c|c|c|c||c|}
302: \hline
303: & & $\gamma_c$ & $\lambda$ & $x_0$ ($10^{-4}$) & $R_p$ (GeV$^{-1}$) & $\chi^2/$n.o.p. \\
304: \hline\hline
305: light quarks only & \cite{iim} (ZEUS only) & 0.6275
306: & 0.253
307: & 0.267
308: & 3.25 & - \\
309: \cline{2-7}
310: & $\gamma_c$ fixed & 0.6275
311: & 0.2574 $\pm$ 0.0037
312: & 0.2750 $\pm$ 0.0240
313: & 3.241 $\pm$ 0.018 & 0.959 \\
314: \cline{2-7}
315: & $\gamma_c$ free & 0.6194 $\pm$ 0.0091
316: & 0.2545 $\pm$ 0.0051
317: & 0.2131 $\pm$ 0.0651
318: & 3.277 $\pm$ 0.044 & 0.956 \\
319: \hline\hline
320: light+heavy quarks & $\gamma_c$ fixed & 0.6275
321: & 0.1800 $\pm$ 0.0026
322: & 0.0028 $\pm$ 0.0003
323: & 3.819 $\pm$ 0.017 & 1.116\\
324: \cline{2-7}
325: & $\gamma_c$ free & $\mathbf{0.7376 \pm 0.0094}$
326: & $\mathbf{0.2197 \pm 0.0042}$
327: & $\mathbf{0.1632 \pm 0.0471}$
328: & $\mathbf{3.344 \pm 0.041 }$ &
329: $\mathbf{0.900}$ \\
330: \hline
331: \end{tabular}
332: \caption{The table gives the parameters and $\chi^2$ per point
333: obtained from the fit. The results are shown with or without the
334: heavy quark contribution and with $\gamma_c$ free or fixed. The last
335: line of this table is the main result of this paper.}\label{tab:res}
336: \end{table}
337:
338: \begin{figure}
339: \centerline{
340: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f2p_lowQ2.ps}
341: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f2p_highQ2.ps}
342: }
343: \caption{Result of our fit to the proton structure function. The left
344: plot shows the low $Q^2$ bins ($Q^2<1$ GeV$^2$) while larger $Q^2$
345: are given on the right plot. The $Q^2$ value corresponding to each
346: curve is given (in GeV$^2$). For clarity, successive curves, from
347: bottom to top, have been rescaled by powers of 1.5.}\label{fig:f2p}
348: \end{figure}
349:
350: Those results deserve some comments:
351: \begin{itemize}
352: \item Concerning the re-analysis of the fit without heavy quarks
353: (second line of table \ref{tab:res}), we see that with the addition
354: of the H1 data and the extension of the $Q^2$ domain, the parameters
355: remain similar and the $\chi^2$ is good.
356: \item If one allows $\gamma_c$ to freely vary in the massless case
357: (third line of table \ref{tab:res}), again, the fit naturally
358: converges to a minimum which is close to the initial one without
359: improving significantly the $\chi^2$. The LO choice
360: $\gamma_c=0.6275$ is even compatible with the error bars of what we
361: obtain when we fit it.
362: \item Once the heavy quarks are taken into account, the situation
363: changes drastically. If the critical slope is fixed to its LO value,
364: the situation becomes dramatic. Indeed, not only the quality of the
365: fit is getting worse, but also the saturation scale is going down by
366: two orders of magnitude (the exponent $\lambda$ is also decreasing
367: significantly).
368: \item If as anticipated in Section \ref{sec:qcd} we allow the critical
369: slope $\gamma_c$ to vary, the fit (last line of table \ref{tab:res})
370: converges back to a good description (even a better $\chi^2$ than
371: the corresponding massless fit). The parameters describing the
372: saturation scale are also rather close to those obtained in the
373: massless case.
374: \item The value of the critical slope we obtain from the fit seems
375: much larger than the LO result used previously. However, if one
376: extract that value from various renormalisation-group-improved NLO
377: BFKL kernels \cite{css_s} one get a value of $\gamma_c$ slightly
378: larger than 0.7. This is again in good agreement with the value to
379: which the new fit naturally converges.
380: \item To test the dependence upon the fixed parameters of our model,
381: we have performed various fits varying those parameters around their
382: default value. We have thus changed the $Q^2$ cut from 150
383: to 45 GeV$^2$, included only the heavy charm (without bottom),
384: varied the masses of the heavy quarks and varied the matching point
385: $T_0$. For all those variations, both the quality of the fit and the
386: values of the parameters remained similar, which enforces the
387: robustness of the present parametrisation.
388: \end{itemize}
389:
390: \begin{figure}
391: \centerline{
392: \includegraphics[scale=0.66]{qs.eps}
393: }
394: \caption{For both the fit in this paper (light+heavy flavours, solid
395: lines) and the fit of \cite{iim} (light flavours only, dashed
396: lines), we plot two information: the saturation scale $Q_s^2(x)$ and
397: the extension of the geometric scaling window $\log(Q^2/Q_s^2) \le
398: \sqrt{2\kappa\lambda Y}$. We see that the inclusion of the heavy
399: quarks does not lead to a strong decrease both those scales. The
400: points on the plot represent the $(x,Q^2)$ position of the HERA
401: measurements.}\label{fig:qs}
402: \end{figure}
403:
404: The last line of table \ref{tab:res}, giving a description of the
405: saturation effects in DIS including the heavy quark effects, has to be
406: considered as the main result of this paper. The corresponding
407: description of the proton structure function is plotted in figure
408: \ref{fig:f2p}.
409:
410: One of the most interesting point of this parametrisation is that the
411: saturation scale obtained with heavy quarks included is very similar
412: to the one obtained with light quarks only. This is better seen in
413: figure \ref{fig:qs} where we have plot the saturation scale (lower
414: curves) as well as the limit of the geometric scaling window both with
415: and without heavy quarks contributions. One clearly see that the
416: addition of the heavy quark contribution only slightly reduces the
417: effect of saturation. This is an important result as previous models
418: including heavy quark effects all report a decrease of the saturation
419: momentum by (roughly) a factor of 2 once those heavy quarks
420: contributions are included. From figure \ref{fig:qs} it also appears
421: that a large number of data (all data from small $Q^2$ up to the limit
422: of the geometric scaling window) are sensitive to saturation effects.
423:
424: Finally, we can compare the predictions of our parametrisation with
425: the HERA measurements \cite{h1c,zeusc} of the charm and bottom
426: structure functions. Those are naturally obtained from our formalism
427: by taking the charm or bottom contribution to the photon-proton
428: cross-section (\ref{eq:sigma}). The prediction for our model are
429: plotted in figures \ref{fig:f2c} and \ref{fig:f2b} for the charm and
430: bottom structure functions respectively. In both cases, we observe a
431: good agreement with the data. Similarly, by taking the contribution
432: coming from the longitudinal part of the wavefunction in
433: (\ref{eq:sigma}), we can obtain predictions for the longitudinal
434: structure function. Our result is shown in figure \ref{fig:fl}
435: together with the H1 measurements \cite{h1}. Again, the present
436: parametrisation gives a good description of the data.
437:
438: \begin{figure}
439: \centerline{\includegraphics{f2c.ps}}
440: \caption{Predictions of our fit for the charm structure
441: function.}\label{fig:f2c}
442: \end{figure}
443:
444: \begin{figure}
445: \centerline{\includegraphics{f2b.ps}}
446: \caption{Predictions of our fit for the bottom structure
447: function.}\label{fig:f2b}
448: \end{figure}
449:
450: \begin{figure}
451: \centerline{\includegraphics{fl.ps}}
452: \caption{Predictions of our fit for the longitudinal structure
453: function.}\label{fig:fl}
454: \end{figure}
455:
456: \section{Discussion and conclusions}\label{sec:ccl}
457:
458: In this paper, we have shown that it was possible to accommodate the
459: saturation model introduced by Iancu, Itakura and Munier \cite{iim} to
460: take into account the heavy quark contribution to the proton structure
461: function. The resulting fit provides a very good description of the
462: HERA measurements of $F_2^p$ and the predictions for the heavy-quark
463: structure functions as well as for the longitudinal structure function
464: are in good agreement with the existing data.
465:
466: The present work, using the dipole picture formalism, has two
467: important features that distinguish it from previous studies in the
468: literature: firstly, following the idea in \cite{iim}, we have
469: directly use the predictions from high-energy QCD to parametrise the
470: dipole-proton amplitude. The saturation properties, {\em e.g.}
471: geometric scaling and its window of validity, are thus parametrised as
472: they are predicted from perturbative QCD. Secondly, the saturation
473: scale that result from our fit is not significantly reduced compared
474: to the saturation scale obtained with light quarks only. This
475: contrasts with previous studies in the literature which report a
476: decrease of the saturation momentum. In the present approach
477: saturation effects cannot be neglected. This new analysis gives an
478: additional argument in favour of saturation.
479:
480: We also stress a recent analysis \cite{momentum} also including
481: heavy-quark effects and based on the high-energy QCD properties, where
482: the amplitude is parametrised in momentum space rather than in
483: coordinate space. Compared to that study, the parameters for the
484: saturation scale and geometric scaling window extension, both slightly
485: too small in the momentum-space parametrisation, are more reasonable
486: in the present approach. The analysis in momentum space was however
487: carried with fixed $\gamma_c$ and further studies are requested to
488: check whether a higher critical slope also improves the model.
489:
490: A last comment concerns the relation between the parameters obtained
491: in our fit and the predictions from the NLO BFKL kernel with a
492: saturation boundary. Indeed, though a bit smaller, the exponent of the
493: saturation scale remains close to the predictions from the NLO BFKL
494: \cite{t}. In addition, we have seen that the critical slope $\gamma_c$
495: kept fixed to its leading-order value in the massless case, is no
496: longer in agreement with that value once the heavy quarks are taken
497: into account. The value we obtain in that case is rather in agreement
498: with the slope one would obtain from the
499: renormalisation-group-improved BFKL kernels at NLO. This finding is
500: another welcome outcome of our parametrisation.
501:
502: The last point naturally suggests to directly compare the predictions
503: of NLO BFKL with saturation effects to the proton structure function.
504: However, to rigorously address that question, one probably also needs
505: to correctly introduce the running-coupling corrections to the present
506: formalism. Though they are not expected to lead to significant
507: modifications, they come with a few changes that we leave for future
508: work.
509:
510: Finally, now that the coordinate-space dipole-proton scattering
511: amplitude is available as directly predicted from the QCD saturation
512: framework, applications to other observables are to be done. This
513: includes the diffractive structure function often considered as an
514: excellent candidate for the observation of saturation and
515: well-described in the dipole picture \cite{gbw,sapeta,fs,bpr,fs2}. In
516: addition, extending to non-zero momentum transfer (also predicted by
517: high-energy QCD \cite{bkfull}) or parametrising the impact-parameter
518: dependence, it can also be tested against the diffractive vector-meson
519: production and DVCS cross-sections \cite{kmw,fs3,vm}. Those
520: complementary analysis are also left for future work.
521:
522: \begin{acknowledgments}
523: I gratefully thank Edmond Iancu, Cyrille Marquet and Robi Peschanski
524: for useful discussions and careful reading of the manuscript. G.S.
525: is funded by the National Funds for Scientific Research (FNRS,
526: Belgium)
527: \end{acknowledgments}
528:
529: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
530:
531: \bibitem{iil}
532: E.~Iancu, K.~Itakura and L.~McLerran,
533: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 708} (2002) 327 [arXiv:hep-ph/0203137].
534: %% CITATION = NUPHA,A708,327;%%
535:
536: \bibitem{mt}
537: A.~H.~Mueller and D.~N.~Triantafyllopoulos,
538: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 640} (2002) 331 [arXiv:hep-ph/0205167].
539: %% CITATION = NUPHA,B640,331;%%
540:
541: \bibitem{t}
542: D.~N.~Triantafyllopoulos,
543: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 648} (2003) 293 [arXiv:hep-ph/0209121].
544: %% CITATION = NUPHA,B648,293;%%
545:
546: \bibitem{mp}
547: S.~Munier and R.~Peschanski,
548: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 91}, 232001 (2003)
549: [arXiv:hep-ph/0309177];
550: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309177;%%
551: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D69}, 034008 (2004)
552: [arXiv:hep-ph/0310357];
553: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309177;%%
554: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D70}, 077503 (2004)
555: [arXiv:hep-ph/0310357].
556:
557: \bibitem{bk}
558: I.~I.~Balitsky,
559: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B463}, 99 (1996) [arXiv:hep-ph/9509348];
560: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9509348;%%
561: Y.~V. Kovchegov,
562: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D60}, 034008 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9901281];
563: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9901281;%%
564: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D61}, 074018 (2000), [arXiv:hep-ph/9905214].
565: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905214;%%
566:
567: \bibitem{cgc}
568: E.~Iancu and R.~Venugopalan,
569: arXiv:hep-ph/0303204.
570: %% CITATION = HEP-PH/0303204;%%
571:
572: \bibitem{gbw}
573: K.~Golec-Biernat and M.~Wusthoff,
574: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 014017 [arXiv:hep-ph/9807513];
575: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D59,014017;%%
576: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 114023 [arXiv:hep-ph/9903358].
577: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D60,114023;%%
578:
579: \bibitem{bgk}
580: J.~Bartels, K.~Golec-Biernat and H.~Kowalski,
581: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 014001 [arXiv:hep-ph/0203258].
582: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D66,014001;%%
583:
584: \bibitem{dfgs}
585: M.~McDermott, L.~Frankfurt, V.~Guzey and M.~Strikman,
586: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 16} (2000) 641 [arXiv:hep-ph/9912547].
587: %% CITATION = EPHJA,C16,641;%%
588:
589: \bibitem{sapeta}
590: K.~Golec-Biernat and S.~Sapeta,
591: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74} (2006) 054032 [arXiv:hep-ph/0607276].
592: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D74,054032;%%
593:
594: \bibitem{fs}
595: J.~R.~Forshaw, G.~Kerley and G.~Shaw,
596: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 074012 [arXiv:hep-ph/9903341].
597: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D60,074012;%%
598: J.~R.~Forshaw and G.~Shaw,
599: JHEP {\bf 0412} (2004) 052 [arXiv:hep-ph/0411337].
600: %% CITATION = JHEPA,0412,052;%%
601:
602: \bibitem{iim}
603: E.~Iancu, K.~Itakura and S.~Munier,
604: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 590} (2004) 199 [arXiv:hep-ph/0310338].
605: %% CITATION = PHLTA,B590,199;%%
606:
607: \bibitem{bfkl}
608: L. N. Lipatov, {\it Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 23}, (1976) 338;
609: E. A. Kuraev, L. N. Lipatov and V. S. Fadin,
610: {\it Sov. Phys. JETP} {\bf 45}, (1977) 199;
611: I. I. Balitsky and L. N. Lipatov,
612: {\it Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 28}, (1978) 822.
613:
614: \bibitem{nlo_bfkl}
615: V.~S. Fadin and L.~N. Lipatov,
616: Phys. Lett. {\bf B429}, 127 (1998);
617: M.~Ciafaloni and G.~Camici,
618: Phys. Lett. {\bf B430}, 349 (1998).
619: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803389;%%
620:
621: \bibitem{css_s}
622: G.~P. Salam,
623: JHEP {\bf 07}, 019 (1998);
624: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806482;%%
625: M.~Ciafaloni, D.~Colferai, and G.~P. Salam,
626: Phys. Rev. {\bf D60}, 114036 (1999).
627: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905566;%%
628:
629: \bibitem{fkpp}
630: R.~A. Fisher,
631: \newblock Ann. Eugenics {\bf 7}, 355 (1937);
632: \newblock A.~Kolmogorov, I.~Petrovsky, and N.~Piscounov,
633: \newblock Moscou Univ. Bull. Math. {\bf A1}, 1 (1937).
634:
635: \bibitem{geomscaling}
636: A.~M. Sta\'sto, K.~Golec-Biernat, and J.~Kwiecinski,
637: \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 596 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0007192].
638: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007192;%%
639:
640: \bibitem{geomdiffr}
641: C.~Marquet and L.~Schoeffel,
642: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 639} (2006) 471 [arXiv:hep-ph/0606079].
643: %% CITATION = PHLTA,B639,471;%%
644:
645: \bibitem{geomsyst}
646: F.~Gelis, R.~Peschanski, G.~Soyez and L.~Schoeffel,
647: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 647} (2007) 376 [arXiv:hep-ph/0610435].
648: %% CITATION = HEP-PH/0610435;%%
649:
650: \bibitem{BKsat}
651: E.~Levin and K.~Tuchin,
652: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 573} (2000) 833 [arXiv:hep-ph/9908317].
653: %% CITATION = NUPHA,B573,833;%%
654:
655: \bibitem{CGCsat}
656: E.~Iancu and L.~D.~McLerran,
657: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 510} (2001) 145 [arXiv:hep-ph/0103032];
658: %% CITATION = PHLTA,B510,145;%%
659: E.~Iancu and A.~H.~Mueller,
660: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 730} (2004) 460 [arXiv:hep-ph/0308315].
661: %% CITATION = NUPHA,A730,460;%%
662:
663: \bibitem{h1}
664: C.~Adloff {\it et al.} [H1 Collaboration],
665: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 21} (2001) 33 [arXiv:hep-ex/0012053].
666: %% CITATION = EPHJA,C21,33;%%
667:
668: \bibitem{zeus}
669: J.~Breitweg {\it et al.} [ZEUS Collaboration],
670: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 487} (2000) 273 [arXiv:hep-ex/0006013];
671: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0006013;%%
672: S.~Chekanov {\it et al.} [ZEUS Collaboration],
673: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 21} (2001) 443 [arXiv:hep-ex/0105090].
674: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0105090;%%
675:
676: \bibitem{h1c}
677: C.~Adloff {\it et al.} [H1 Collaboration],
678: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 528} (2002) 199 [arXiv:hep-ex/0108039];
679: %% CITATION = PHLTA,B528,199;%%
680: A.~Aktas {\it et al.} [H1 Collaboration],
681: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 45} (2006) 23 [arXiv:hep-ex/0507081].
682: %% CITATION = EPHJA,C45,23;%%
683:
684: \bibitem{zeusc}
685: S.~Chekanov {\it et al.} [ZEUS Collaboration],
686: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 012004 [arXiv:hep-ex/0308068].
687: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D69,012004;%%
688:
689: \bibitem{momentum}
690: J.~T.~de Santana Amaral, M.~B.~Gay Ducati, M.~A.~Betemps and G.~Soyez,
691: arXiv:hep-ph/0612091.
692: %% CITATION = HEP-PH/0612091;%%
693:
694: \bibitem{bpr}
695: A.~Bialas, R.~Peschanski and C.~Royon,
696: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57} (1998) 6899 [arXiv:hep-ph/9712216].
697: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D57,6899;%%
698:
699: \bibitem{fs2}
700: J.~R.~Forshaw, G.~R.~Kerley and G.~Shaw,
701: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 675} (2000) 80C [arXiv:hep-ph/9910251].
702: %% CITATION = NUPHA,A675,80C;%%
703: J.~R.~Forshaw, R.~Sandapen and G.~Shaw,
704: JHEP {\bf 0611} (2006) 025 [arXiv:hep-ph/0608161].
705: %% CITATION = JHEPA,0611,025;%%
706:
707: \bibitem{bkfull}
708: C.~Marquet, R.~Peschanski and G.~Soyez,
709: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 756} (2005) 399 [arXiv:hep-ph/0502020].
710: %% CITATION = NUPHA,A756,399;%%
711: C.~Marquet and G.~Soyez,
712: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 760} (2005) 208 [arXiv:hep-ph/0504080].
713: %% CITATION = NUPHA,A760,208;%%
714:
715: \bibitem{kmw}
716: H.~Kowalski and D.~Teaney,
717: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68} (2003) 114005 [arXiv:hep-ph/0304189].
718: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D68,114005;%%
719: H.~Kowalski, L.~Motyka and G.~Watt,
720: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74} (2006) 074016 [arXiv:hep-ph/0606272].
721: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D74,074016;%%
722:
723: \bibitem{fs3}
724: J.~R.~Forshaw, R.~Sandapen and G.~Shaw,
725: JHEP {\bf 0611} (2006) 025 [arXiv:hep-ph/0608161];
726: %% CITATION = JHEPA,0611,025;%%
727: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 094013 [arXiv:hep-ph/0312172].
728: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D69,094013;%%
729:
730: \bibitem{vm}
731: C.~Marquet, R.~Peschanski and G.~Soyez, arXiv:hep-ph/0702171.
732: %% CITATION = HEP-PH/0702171;%%
733:
734: \end{thebibliography}
735:
736: \end{document}
737: