1: 

2: % The last update:  May  15,  2008

3: 

4: \documentstyle[epsfig,12pt]{article}

5: 

6: \newcommand{\mc}{\multicolumn}

7: \newcommand{\bce}{\begin{center}} 

8: \newcommand{\ece}{\end{center}}

9: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

10: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

11: \newcommand{\bea}{\vspace{0.25cm}\begin{eqnarray}}

12: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

13: \newcommand{\cont}{\nonumber\end{eqnarray}\begin{eqnarray}}

14: \newcommand{\ab}{{\alpha\beta}}

15: \newcommand{\cd}{{\gamma\delta}}

16: \newcommand{\dc}{{\delta\gamma}}

17: \newcommand{\ac}{{\alpha\gamma}}

18: \newcommand{\bd}{{\beta\delta}}

19: \newcommand{\abc}{{\alpha\beta\gamma}}

20: \newcommand{\eps}{{\epsilon}}

21: \newcommand{\lam}{{\lambda}}

22: \newcommand{\mn}{{\mu\nu}}

23: \newcommand{\mpnp}{{\mu'\nu'}}

24: \newcommand{\Amuu}{{A_{\mu}}}

25: \newcommand{\Amuo}{{A^{\mu}}}

26: \newcommand{\Vmuu}{{V_{\mu}}}

27: \newcommand{\Vmuo}{{V^{\mu}}}

28: \newcommand{\Anuu}{{A_{\nu}}}

29: \newcommand{\Anuo}{{A^{\nu}}}

30: \newcommand{\Vnuu}{{V_{\nu}}}

31: \newcommand{\Vnuo}{{V^{\nu}}}

32: \newcommand{\Fmnu}{{F_{\mu\nu}}}

33: \newcommand{\Fmno}{{F^{\mu\nu}}}

34: \newcommand{\abcd}{{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}}

35: \newcommand{\bsigma}{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}

36: \newcommand{\btau}{\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}}

37: \newcommand{\brho}{\mbox{\boldmath $\rho$}}

38: \newcommand{\bpipi}{\mbox{\boldmath $\pi\pi$}}

39: \newcommand{\bss}{\bsigma\!\cdot\!\bsigma}

40: \newcommand{\btt}{\btau\!\cdot\!\btau}

41: \newcommand{\bnab}{\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}}

42: %\newcommand{\b0}{\mbox{\boldmath $0$}}

43: %\newcommand{\b1}{\mbox{\boldmath $1$}}

44: \newcommand{\bA}{{\bf A}}

45: \newcommand{\be}{{\bf e}}

46: \newcommand{\bj}{{\bf j}}

47: \newcommand{\bk}{{\bf k}}

48: \newcommand{\bl}{{\bf l}}

49: \newcommand{\bL}{{\bf L}}

50: \newcommand{\bM}{{\bf M}}

51: \newcommand{\bp}{{\bf p}}

52: \newcommand{\bq}{{\bf q}}

53: \newcommand{\br}{{\bf r}}

54: \newcommand{\bR}{{\bf R}}

55: \newcommand{\bs}{{\bf s}}

56: \newcommand{\bS}{{\bf S}}

57: \newcommand{\bT}{{\bf T}}

58: \newcommand{\bv}{{\bf v}}

59: \newcommand{\bV}{{\bf V}}

60: \newcommand{\bx}{{\bf x}}

61: \newcommand{\fph}{${\cal F}$}

62: \newcommand{\aph}{${\cal A}$}

63: \newcommand{\dph}{${\cal D}$}

64: \newcommand{\bm}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}

65: \newcommand{\fpi}{f_\pi}

66: \newcommand{\mpi}{m_\pi}

67: \newcommand{\Tr}{{\mbox{\rm Tr}}}

68: \newcommand{\delu}{\partial_{\mu}}

69: \newcommand{\delo}{\partial^{\mu}}

70: \newcommand{\up}{\!\uparrow}

71: \newcommand{\do}{\!\downarrow}

72: \newcommand{\upup}{\uparrow\uparrow}

73: \newcommand{\updo}{\uparrow\downarrow}

74: \newcommand{\uu}{$\uparrow\uparrow$}

75: \newcommand{\ud}{$\uparrow\downarrow$}

76: \newcommand{\auu}{$a^{\uparrow\uparrow}$}

77: \newcommand{\aud}{$a^{\uparrow\downarrow}$}

78: \newcommand{\pu}{p\!\uparrow}

79: %\newcommand{\half}{{1\over 2}}

80: %\newcommand{\quart}{{1\over 4}}

81: \newcommand{\cl}[1]{\begin{center} {#1} \end{center}}

82: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}

83: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}

84: \newcommand{\bpi}{\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}}

85: \newcommand{\bphi}{\mbox{\boldmath $\phi$}}

86: \newcommand{\bthet}{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}

87: \newcommand{\qp}{quasiparticle}

88: \newcommand{\sa}{scattering amplitude}

89: \newcommand{\ph}{particle-hole}

90: \newcommand{\qcd}{{\it QCD}}

91: \newcommand{\integ}{\int\!d}

92: \newcommand{\ie}{{\sl i.e.~}}

93: \newcommand{\etal}{{\sl et al.~}}

94: \newcommand{\etc}{{\sl etc.~}}

95: \newcommand{\rhs}{{\sl rhs~}}

96: \newcommand{\lhs}{{\sl lhs~}}

97: \newcommand{\eg}{{\sl e.g.~}}

98: \newcommand{\ef}{\epsilon_F}

99: \newcommand{\sigt}{d^2\sigma/d\Omega dE}

100: \newcommand{\sige}{{d^2\sigma\over d\Omega dE}}

101: \newcommand{\rpaeq}{\beq

102: \left ( \begin{array}{cc}

103: A&B\\

104: -B^*&-A^*\end{array}\right )

105: \left ( \begin{array}{c}

106: X^{(\kappa})\\Y^{(\kappa)}\end{array}\right )=E_\kappa

107: \left ( \begin{array}{c}

108: X^{(\kappa})\\Y^{(\kappa)}\end{array}\right )

109: \eeq}

110: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{| {#1} \rangle}

111: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\langle {#1} |}

112: \newcommand{\ave}[1]{\langle {#1} \rangle}

113: %\newcounter{f1}

114: %\newcounter{f2}

115: %\renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesubsection.\arabic{equation}}

116: %\renewcommand{\thetable}{\thesection.\arabic{table}}

117: \newcommand{\singlespace}{

118:     \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\large\normalsize}

119: \newcommand{\doublespace}{

120:     \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.6}\large\normalsize}

121: \newcommand{\bftau}{\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}}

122: \newcommand{\bfalpha}{\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}

123: \newcommand{\bfgamma}{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}

124: \newcommand{\bfxi}{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}}

125: \newcommand{\bfbeta}{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}

126: \newcommand{\bfeta}{\mbox{\boldmath $\eta$}}

127: \newcommand{\bfpi}{\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}}

128: \newcommand{\bfphi}{\mbox{\boldmath $\phi$}}

129: \newcommand{\bfrho}{\mbox{\boldmath $\rho$}}

130: \newcommand{\bfR}{\mbox{\boldmath ${\cal R}$}}

131: \newcommand{\bfL}{\mbox{\boldmath ${\cal L}$}}

132: \newcommand{\bfM}{\mbox{\boldmath ${\cal M}$}}

133: \newcommand{\bkappa}{\mbox{\boldmath ${\kappa}$}}

134: \newcommand{\bPhi}{\mbox{\boldmath ${\Phi}$}}

135: \newcommand{\bDelta}{\mbox{\boldmath ${\Delta}$}}

136: \newcommand{\bb}{{\bf b}}

137: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}

138:     \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}}         %less than or approx. symbol

139: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}

140:     \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}         %greater than or approx. symbol

141: \def\dblint{\mathop{\rlap{\hbox{$\displaystyle\!\int\!\!\!\!\!\int$}}

142:     \hbox{$\bigcirc$}}}

143: \def\ut#1{$\underline{\smash{\vphantom{y}\hbox{#1}}}$}

144: \def\Pom{{\bf I\!P}}

145: \def\ni{\noindent}

146: \def\jp{$J/\Psi~$}

147: \def\z{$z~$}

148: \def\pt{$p_T^2~$}

149: \def\psip{$\psi^{\prime}~$}

150: \def\cbc{$c \bar{c}$}

151: 

152: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

153: \def\endeq{\end{equation}}

154: \def\arr{\begin{eqnarray}}

155: \def\endarr{\end{eqnarray}}

156: \makeindex

157: 

158: 

159: 

160: 

161: \textwidth              16.7cm

162: \oddsidemargin           2.5cm

163:   \advance\oddsidemargin  by -1in

164: \evensidemargin          0.0cm

165:   \advance\evensidemargin by -1in

166: \marginparwidth          1.9cm

167: \marginparsep            0.4cm

168: \marginparpush           0.4cm

169: \topmargin              -0.5cm

170:   \advance\topmargin      by -0.5in

171: \textheight             24.0cm

172: 

173: %--------------------------------------------------

174: 

175: \begin{document}

176: 

177: \vspace{2.0cm}

178: 

179: \begin{flushright}

180: % ITEP(Ph)-2005-08

181: \end{flushright}

182: 

183: \vspace{1.0cm}

184: 

185: 

186: \begin{center}

187: {\Large \bf 

188: Charm  of small $x$ neutrino DIS}.

189: 

190: \vspace{1.0cm}

191: 

192: {\large\bf R.~Fiore$^{1 \dagger}$ and V.R.~Zoller$^{2 \ddagger}$}

193: 

194: 

195: \vspace{1.0cm}

196: 

197: $^1${\it Dipartimento di Fisica,

198: Universit\`a     della Calabria\\

199: and\\

200:  Istituto Nazionale

201: di Fisica Nucleare, Gruppo collegato di Cosenza,\\

202: I-87036 Rende, Cosenza, Italy}\\

203: $^2${\it

204: ITEP, Moscow 117218, Russia\\}

205: \vspace{1.0cm}

206: { \bf Abstract }\\

207: \end{center}

208: Due to the weak current non-conservation 

209:  the diffractive  excitation of  charm and strangeness

210: dominates the longitudinal structure function $F_L(x,Q^2)$ of

211:  neutrino DIS at small Bjorken  $x$. Based on the color dipole BFKL approach

212:  we report quantitative 

213: predictions for this effect in the kinematical range of the 

214: CCFR/NuTeV experiment. We comment on the relevance of our findings to 

215: experimental tests of PCAC.

216: 

217: 

218: 

219: 

220: \doublespace

221: 

222: \vskip 0.5cm \vfill $\begin{array}{ll}

223: ^{\dagger}\mbox{{\it email address:}} & \mbox{fiore@cs.infn.it} \\

224: ^{\ddagger}\mbox{{\it email address:}} & \mbox{zoller@itep.ru} \\

225: \end{array}$

226: 

227: \pagebreak

228: 

229: %---------------------------------------------------

230: 

231: 

232: 

233: %-------------------------------------------

234: {\bf{1. Introduction.}} 

235: The neutrino deep inelastic scattering 

236: (DIS)

237: at small values of the  Bjorken variable  $x_{Bj}=Q^2/2m_N\nu$ 

238: provides  a useful tool for

239:  studies of 

240: fundamental

241:  properties of electro-weak (EW) interactions. In particular,  the analysis of 

242: neutrino-nucleon cross sections at vanishing four-momentum transfer 

243: squared, $Q^2$, can be used to test the hypothesis of  partial conservation 

244: of the  axial current (PCAC) in the kinematical region of high leptonic 

245: energy transfer, $\nu$, \cite{Jones,Fleming} 

246: (for theoretical introduction see \cite{KopMar}). 

247:  The partial conservation hypothesis \cite{Nambu}

248: connects  via Adler's theorem \cite{Adler}

249: the longitudinal structure function (LSF) at $Q^2\to 0$

250:  induced by the light-quark

251:  axial-vector current ($ud$-current)

252: with   the on-shell pion-nucleon total cross section,

253: \beq

254: F^{ud}_L(x,Q^2\to 0)= {f^2_\pi\over \pi}\sigma_\pi(\nu),

255: \label{eq:FLPCAC}

256: \eeq

257: where $f_{\pi}\simeq 130$ MeV is the pion decay

258: constant  (see

259:  \cite{FZAdler} for more discussion on the origin of Eq.(\ref{eq:FLPCAC})). 

260: To test the  Eq.(\ref{eq:FLPCAC})   the

261: structure function $F_2=F_L+F_T$ measured experimentally 

262:  is extrapolated down to $Q^2\to 0$ 

263: making use of  the fact

264: that the transverse structure function $F_T$ for $ud$-current 

265: vanishes  at $Q^2\to 0$. It is assumed that the contribution of the 

266:  charmed-strange (cs) current

267: can be neglected. However, in \cite{FZAdler} it has been pointed out that

268:  the  non-conservation of 

269: both   axial-vector and vector $cs$ currents 

270: leads to the abundant production  of  charm and strangeness at 

271: $Q^2\lsim m_c^2$

272: and for $\nu$ well  above the charm-strangeness mass  threshold.

273: 

274: In this communication  we  analyze the charged current (CC)  DIS

275:  in the color dipole (CD)  representation of the small-$x$ QCD \cite{NZ91,M} 

276: (for the review see \cite{HEBECKER})

277:   with particular emphasis on the role of charm and strangeness

278:  in the nucleon structure

279: probed by longitudinally polarized  electro-weak bosons. 

280: We quantify  the phenomenon of weak current non-conservation

281: in terms  of the 

282: light cone wave functions (LCWF) of $\ket{c\bar s}$ and $\ket{u\bar d}$  states

283:  in the Fock state

284: expansion for   the light cone EW boson. In Adler's regime of $Q^2\to 0$

285: the strong un-equality of masses of the charmed and strange quarks 

286: manifests its effects and the CD   analysis  reveals the

287:  ordering of dipole sizes

288: \bea  

289: m_c^{-2}< r^2 < m_s^{-2}

290: \label{eq:ORDER}

291: \eea 

292: typical of the DGLAP \cite{D,GL,AP} approximation. 

293:  The  multiplication of $\log$'s 

294: like 

295: \beq

296: \alpha_S\log(m_c^2/ m_s^2)\log(1/x)

297: \label{eq:LogLog} 

298: \eeq

299: to

300: higher orders 

301: of perturbative QCD

302: ensures the dominance of the charmed-strange component, $F_L^{cs}$, of the LSF

303: \beq

304: F_L=F_L^{ud}+F_L^{cs}

305: \label{eq:csud}

306: \eeq

307:  already at $x_{Bj}\lsim 0.01$, 

308: in the kinematical domain  covered by  the CCFR/NuTeV experiment \cite{FLCCFR}.

309: In presence  of charm and strangeness  the slope of $F_2$ at small $Q^2$

310:  changes dramatically

311:  thus complicating the  access to genuine PCAC component of $F_2$.

312: {\footnote{Different aspects of

313:  the CC inclusive and diffractive 

314: DIS have been discussed in 

315: \cite{Kolya92,KolyaNUDIS,BGNPZ2,MILTHOM}.}.  

316: 

317: {\bf 2. Dipole cross sections and  light-cone  density 

318: of $c\bar s$ states.}

319: When viewed in the laboratory frame the neutrino  DIS

320: at small $x_{Bj}$ derives from the absorption of the quark-antiquark,

321: ${u\bar d}$

322: and ${c\bar s}$, Fock components of  the light-cone $W^+$-boson.

323: We  focus on the vacuum exchange dominated leading $\log(1/x)$ region

324: of $x\lsim 0.01$ where

325: the contribution of excitation of open 

326: charm/strangeness to the absorption cross section for longitudinal 

327: ($\lambda=L$)

328: and transverse  ($\lambda=T$)

329: $W$-boson of virtuality $Q^2$,

330: is given by the color dipole

331: factorization formula 

332: \cite{ZKL,BBGG,NZ91}

333: \beq

334: \sigma_{\lambda}(x,Q^{2})

335: =\int dz d^{2}{\bf{r}}

336: |\Psi_{\lambda}(z,{\bf{r}})|^{2} 

337: \sigma(x,r)\,.

338: \label{eq:FACTOR}

339: \eeq

340: The interaction 

341: of the color dipole of size $\bf r$ with the target nucleon 

342: is described by the CD cross section $\sigma(x,r)$.

343: In the color dipole  approach the BFKL-$\log(1/x)$ evolution \cite{BFKL} 

344: of $\sigma(x,r)$

345: is described by the CD BFKL equation of Ref.\cite{NZZBFKL}. 

346: For qualitative estimates the  Double Leading Log Approximation (DLLA)

347: \cite{D,GL,AP} is suitable. Then,  for small dipoles  \cite{PHLA10}  

348: \bea

349: \sigma(x,r)\approx 

350: {\pi^2r^2\over N_c} \alpha_S(r^2)\int^{A/r^2}_{\mu_G^2} {dk^2\over k^2}

351: {\partial G(x,k^2)\over\partial\log{k^2}}\nonumber\\

352: \approx {\pi^2 r^2\over N_c}\alpha_S(r^2)

353: G(x,A/r^2),

354: \label{eq:SMALL}

355: \eea

356: where $G(x,k^2)=xg(x,k^2)$ is the 

357: gluon structure function  

358: and $A\simeq 10$ \cite{PHLA10}. We use the one-loop strong coupling

359: $\alpha_S(k^2)=4\pi/\beta_0\log(k^2/\Lambda^2)$ with $\Lambda=0.3$ GeV and

360: $\beta_0=11-2N_f/3$. In the numerical estimates we impose the infrared 

361: freezing, $\alpha_S(k^2)\leq \alpha_S^{fr}=0.8$.

362: For large dipoles, $r\gsim r_S$, $\sigma(x,r)$ saturates and 

363: the saturation scale, $r_S$, is as follows

364: \beq

365: r^2_S={A\over \mu_G^2},

366: \label{eq:Amug}

367: \eeq

368: where  $\mu_G=1/R_c$ is the inverse 

369: correlation radius of perturbative gluons.  

370:  From the lattice QCD  studies $R_c\simeq 0.2-0.3$ fm \cite{MEGGIO}.

371: Because $R_c$    

372: is small  compared to the typical range of strong interactions, the 

373: dipole

374:  cross section  evaluated with  the  decoupling of soft gluons gluons,

375: $k^2\lsim \mu_G^2$,

376:  would underestimate  the interaction strength for

377:  large color dipoles. In Ref.\cite{NPT,NSZZ} this missing strength

378:  was modeled by 

379: a non-perturbative, soft correction $\sigma_{npt}(r)$ to the 

380: dipole cross section $\sigma(r)=\sigma_{pt}(r)+\sigma_{npt}(r).$ 

381: Specific form of $\sigma_{npt}(r)$ was successfully tested against

382:  diffractive vector meson production data \cite{Vec}.

383: 

384:  Denoted by  

385: $|\Psi_{\lambda}(z,{\bf{r}})|^2$ in (\ref{eq:FACTOR}) is the light 

386: cone density of 

387: $c\bar s$ states with the $c$ quark 

388: carrying fraction $z$ of the $W^+$ light-cone momentum and 

389: $\bar s$ with momentum fraction $1-z$. 

390: In particular, $|\Psi_{L}|^2$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:FACTOR})  

391: is the incoherent sum of two terms,  the vector, $V_L$,  and the  axial-vector, $A_L$

392:  \cite{Kolya92,FZ1},

393: \beq

394: |\Psi_{L}(z,\br)|^2= |V_{L}(z,\br)|^2+ |A_{L}(z,\br)|^2

395: \label{eq:PSIL2}

396: \eeq

397: with \cite{Kolya92,FZ1}

398: \bea

399: |V_L(z,{\bf r})|^2

400: ={{2\alpha_W N_c}\over (2\pi)^2 Q^2}\left\{\left[2Q^2z(1-z)

401: +(m_c-m_s)[(1-z)m_c-zm_s]\right]^2K_0^2(\varepsilon r)

402: \right.

403: \nonumber\\

404: \left.

405:  +(m_c-m_s)^2

406: \varepsilon^2 K^2_1(\varepsilon r)\right\}

407: \label{eq:RHOS1}\\

408: |A_L(z,{\bf r})|^2

409: ={{2\alpha_W N_c}\over (2\pi)^2 Q^2}\left\{\left[2Q^2z(1-z)

410: +(m_c+m_s)[(1-z)m_c+zm_s]\right]^2 K_0^2(\varepsilon r)

411: \right.

412: \nonumber\\

413: \left.

414:  +(m_c+m_s)^2

415: \varepsilon^2 K^2_1(\varepsilon r)\right\},

416: \label{eq:RHOS2}

417: \eea

418: where $\alpha_W=g^2/4\pi$ and the weak charge $g$ is

419: related to the Fermi coupling constant $G_F$,

420: \beq

421: {G_F\over \sqrt{2}}={g^2\over m^2_{W}}.

422: \label{eq:GF}

423: \eeq 

424: Hereafter, $m_c$ and $m_s$ are the quark and antiquark masses\footnote{In 

425: this paper we deal with constituent quarks  in the spirit 

426: of  Weinberg \cite{Weinberg}.

427: The renormalization of the axial charge $g_A$ is neglected here  and

428: the ratio $g_A/g_V$ for constituent quarks is assumed to be the same as

429: for current quarks, $g_A=g_V=g$.} and 

430: $\varepsilon^2$ which controls the transverse size of $c\bar s$ and, 

431: with obvious substitutions,  

432: of $u\bar d$ dipoles  is as follows

433: \beq

434: \varepsilon^2=z(1-z)Q^2+(1-z)m_c^2+zm_s^2 

435: \label{eq:EPSILON2}

436: \eeq

437: The terms proportional to $K_0^2(\varepsilon r)$ and $K_1^2(\varepsilon r)$ 

438: describe  the 

439: quark-antiquark states with the angular momentum $L=0$ (S-wave) and $L=1$

440: (P-wave), respectively.

441: The weak current non-conservation shows up in  

442:  terms $\propto m_c^2/Q^2$ and $ m_s^2/Q^2$ which dominate both 

443:  the vector $|V_L|^2$ and axial-vector $|A_L|^2$

444: density of states at small $Q^2$. 

445: The P-wave component of $|\Psi_L|^2$  arises

446: only due  to the current non-conservation.

447: 

448: {\bf 3. Qualitative estimates. DLLA.}

449: The absorption cross sections  

450: for longitudinal EW bosons, $\sigma_{L}$, defined by the Eq.(\ref{eq:FACTOR})

451: can be converted into the structure function $F_L$,

452: \beq

453: F_L(x,Q^2)={Q^2\over 4\pi^2\alpha_{W}}\sigma_{L}(x,Q^{2}),

454: \label{eq:FL}

455: \eeq  

456: Let us start with $F^{cs}_L(x,Q^2)$  at  large $Q^2$. 

457: At $Q^2\gg m_c^2$ the P-wave component of 

458:  $|\Psi_L|^2$ proportional to $K_1^2(\varepsilon r)$  vanishes 

459: approximately  as $(m_c^2/Q^2)\log(Q^2/m_s^2)$ and 

460:  the structure function $F^{cs}_L$ is dominated by   

461:   the S-wave component  represented by 

462: the terms $\propto K_0^2(\varepsilon r)$.

463: The asymptotic behavior of the 

464: Bessel function, $K_{0,1}(x)\simeq \exp(-x)\sqrt{\pi/2x}$ makes the 

465: $\bf{r}$-integration in Eq.~(\ref{eq:FACTOR}) rapidly convergent 

466: at $\varepsilon r \gsim 1$. For  $Q^2\gg m_c^2$, 

467: the  product 

468: $\alpha_S(Q^2)G(x,Q^2)$ is  flat in $Q^2$. Then,

469:  integration over $\bf{r}$  yields a broad symmetric $z$-distribution

470: \bea

471: F^{cs}_L\sim Q^4\int_0^1 dz 

472: {z^2(1-z)^2\over \varepsilon^4}

473: \alpha_S(\varepsilon^2)G(x,A\varepsilon^2) \nonumber\\

474: \sim \alpha_S(\overline{\varepsilon^2})G(x,A\overline{\varepsilon^2}),

475: \label{eq:FLS}

476: \eea

477: where $\overline{\varepsilon^2}\sim Q^2/4$  corresponds to 

478: the ``non-partonic'' 

479: domain of $z\sim 1/2$. Similar to the LSF of the  

480: muon induced  DIS ($\mu$DIS)

481: \cite{D, Cooper, Dick}, 

482: the LSF  of neutrino DIS ($\nu$DIS) is 

483: dominated by $r^2\sim 1/Q^2$ and provides a direct  probe

484: of the gluon density $G(x,Q^2)$ \cite{KolyaNUDIS}. The S-wave component of 

485: $F_L^{cs}$ decreases with decreasing $Q^2$, as shown in 

486: Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1} by the solid line,

487:  but contrary to the $\mu$DIS it

488: does not vanish at $Q^2\to 0$ because of the current non-conservation

489: generated by the  mass terms in Eqs.(\ref{eq:RHOS1},\ref{eq:RHOS2}). 

490: Deviations from the symmetric $z$-distribution do not lead to any 

491: sizable effects and $F^{cs}_L$ 

492: in  Eq.(\ref{eq:FLS}) flattens   at 

493:  $Q^2\sim m_c^2$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1}).

494: 

495: At moderate $Q^2\lsim m_c^2$  the P-wave component of $F_L^{cs}$ 

496: (dashed line in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1}) takes over.

497: The P-wave  density of $c\bar s$ states is more singular at $r\to 0$, 

498: $K_1(\varepsilon r)\sim 1/\varepsilon r$.

499:  Then,  integration  over $\bf{r}$ 

500: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:FACTOR}) leads to the  $z$-distribution

501: \begin{figure}[h]

502: %\psfig{figure=fig1.eps,height=14cm}

503: %\psfig{figure=fig1.eps,angle=-90,scale=0.6}

504: \psfig{figure=fltest.eps,scale=0.8}

505: \vspace{-0.5cm}

506: \caption{The  charm-strange component, $F^{cs}_L(x,Q^2)$,

507:  of the longitudinal neutrino-nucleon structure function.

508: Dashed curve corresponds to the P-wave

509:  contribution to $F_L^{cs}$,

510: solid curve represents the  S-wave component of $F_L^{cs}$.

511: The sum of two terms, $F_L^{cs}=P+S$,  is a slowly varying function of $Q^2$.} 

512: \label{fig:fig1}

513: \end{figure} 

514: \bea

515: {dF^{cs}_L\over dz}\sim 

516: {m_c^2\over Q^2z(1-z)+(1-z)m_c^2+zm_s^2}

517: \label{eq:FLP}

518: \eea

519: which develops  the parton model peaks at $z\to 0$ and $z\to 1$ 

520: at asymptotically large $Q^2$. At   $Q^2\lsim m_c^2$

521: the $z$-distribution becomes highly asymmetric, 

522:  only the peak at  $z\to 1$ survives, 

523: \bea

524: {dF^{cs}_L\over dz}\sim 

525: {1\over 1+\delta-z},

526: \label{eq:FLPNEW}

527: \eea 

528: where $\delta=m_s^2/(m_c^2+Q^2)$,

529: so that 

530: the charmed quark carries a fraction $z\sim 1-\delta$ of 

531: the  $ W^+$'s  light-cone momentum. With the Eq.(\ref{eq:FLPNEW}) 

532: the origin of $\log(m_c^2/ m_s^2)$

533: in (\ref{eq:LogLog}) becomes evident.

534: 

535: To clarify the issue of relevant dipole sizes

536: one can  integrate first over $z$

537: \bea

538: F_L^{cs} \sim {2N_c\over {(2\pi)^3}}m_c^2\int_0^1dz\int_0^{1/\varepsilon^2} 

539: {dr^2\over r^2}\sigma(x,r)\nonumber\\

540: \sim {2N_c\over {(2\pi)^3}}{m_c^2\over {m_c^2+Q^2}}

541: \int_{1/(m_c^2+Q^2)}^{1/m_s^2} 

542: {dr^2\over r^4}\sigma(x,r),

543: \label{eq:FLCSBORN}

544: \eea

545: where the factor $2$ is due to the additivity of $V$ and $A$ components of 

546: $F_L^{cs}$.

547: For numerical estimates we note that at $x\sim 0.01$

548: and moderate $Q^2$ the Born approximation (the two-gluon exchange) gives 

549: the results which are not unreasonable phenomenologically \cite{NZ91}.

550: For small dipoles the 2g-exchange yields

551: $\sigma(r)\sim \pi C_F\alpha_S^2 r^2\log(r_S^2/r^2)$ and the interpolating

552: function is

553: \beq

554: \sigma(r)\sim \pi C_F\alpha_S^2 r^2\log\left(1+{r_S^2\over r^2}\right).

555: \label{eq:2G}

556: \eeq

557: \begin{figure}[h]

558: %\psfig{figure=fig1.eps,height=14cm}

559: %\psfig{figure=fig1.eps,angle=-90,scale=0.6}

560: \psfig{figure=flft.eps,scale=0.8}

561: \vspace{-0.5cm}

562: \caption{Data points are CCFR measurements of $F_L$ 

563: and $F_T=2xF_1$ \cite{FLCCFR}. 

564: Solid curves show the vacuum exchange contribution to  $F_L$ and $F_T$

565: in  $\nu Fe$ interactions.

566: Shown separately are the charm-strange (dashed curves) and light 

567: flavor (dotted curves) contributions to $F_L$ and $F_T$. 

568: Also shown are the predictions for $F_L$ and $F_T$

569:  at  $x_{Bj}=10^{-4}$.} 

570: \label{fig:fig2}

571: \end{figure}

572: Then, for the charmed-strange component of  $F_L$ 

573:  one gets

574: \beq

575: F_L^{cs}\sim {N_cC_F\over 4}{m_c^2\over {m_c^2+Q^2}}{1\over {2!}}L^2,

576: \label{eq:FL2G}

577: \eeq

578: where 

579: \beq

580: L={\alpha_S\over \pi}\log{\left(m_c^2+Q^2\over m^2_s\right)}

581: \label{eq:L}

582: \eeq

583: Here, $m_s^2$ introduces the infrared cutoff and stands, in fact, for 

584:   $max\{m_s^2,r_S^{-2}\}$ where  $r_S^{-2}$

585: comes from Eq.(\ref{eq:Amug}). 

586: In our numerical estimates the constituent strange quark mass equals to 

587:  $m_s=0.3$ GeV 

588:  and  is  close  to $r_S^{-1}$.

589: 

590: There is also a  contribution to 

591: $F_L^{cs}$  from the region $0<r^2<(m_c^2+Q^2)^{-1}$

592: \bea  

593: F_L^{cs}\sim {2N_c\over (2\pi)^3} 

594: m_c^2\int_0^1 dz\int^{1/(m_c^2+Q^2)}_0{dr^2\over r^2}

595: \sigma(x,r)\nonumber\\

596: \sim {N_cC_F\over 4}{m_c^2\over {m_c^2+Q^2}}

597: \left({\alpha_S\over \pi}\right)^2\log\left[r_S^2(m_c^2+Q^2)\right]

598: \label{eq:FLPEN1}

599: \eea

600: which is short of one $\log$, though. Notice the DLLA

601: ordering of sizes

602: \beq 

603: (m_c^2+Q^2)^{-1}<r^2<r^2_S,m_s^{-2}

604: \label{eq:ORDER1}

605: \eeq

606: announced in (\ref{eq:ORDER}) and elucidated by 

607: Eqs.(\ref{eq:FLCSBORN},\ref{eq:FLPEN1}). 

608: 

609: The rise of $F^{cs}_L(x,Q^2)$ towards small $x$ is generated by interactions

610: of the higher Fock states,  $c\bar{s}+gluons$, of the light-cone W-boson.

611: Making use of the technique developed in Ref.\cite{NZ91} one can estimate

612: the leading contribution to $F^{cs}_L$ associated with the Fock state 

613:  $c\bar{s}+one\,gluon$.  The result is 

614: \bea

615: \delta F_L^{cs}\sim {N_cC_FC_A\over 4}

616: {m_c^2\over {m_c^2+Q^2}}\log\left({x_0\over x}\right){1\over 3!}L^3

617: \label{eq:DELTAFL}

618: \eea

619: with $C_A\log(x_0/x)L$ as the DLLA expansion parameter.

620: The slope parameter $$\Delta={1\over 3}C_AL$$ is rather large,

621: $\Delta\simeq 0.3$ even at $Q^2=0$

622:  and we predict a rapid rise of $F^{cs}_L(x,Q^2)$ 

623: towards the region of small $x$.

624: \footnote{The DLLA resummation with the infrared cutoff $\mu_G$

625: results in 

626: $$

627: F_L^{cs}\sim {N_cC_F\over 4}{m_c^2\over 

628: {m_c^2+Q^2}}{L(m_c^2+Q^2)\eta^{-1}}I_2(2\sqrt{\xi}),

629: $$

630: where $I_2(z)\simeq \exp(z)/\sqrt{2\pi z}$ is the Bessel function,

631:  $\xi= \eta L(m_c^2+Q^2)$, 

632: $L(k^2)={4\over \beta_0}\log[{\alpha_S(\mu_G^2)/\alpha_S(k^2)}]$ 

633: and

634: $\eta=C_A\log\left({x_0/x}\right).$}

635: 

636: 

637: 

638: 

639: Our crude  estimate of the P-wave contribution

640: to $F^{cs}_L(x,0)$ given by Eqs.(\ref{eq:L},\ref{eq:FLPEN1},\ref{eq:DELTAFL}),

641: $F_L^{cs}+\delta F_L^{cs}\simeq 0.4$ at $x\simeq 10^{-4}$ and $x_0=0.03$, 

642: is  compatible  with the results of the CD 

643: BFKL analysis shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1}. For comparison, Adler's theorem

644: gives for $F^{ud}_L(x,0)$ the value 

645: $f^2_\pi\sigma_\pi(\nu)/\pi\simeq 0.30-0.35$

646: and allows only a slow rise of $F^{ud}_L(x,0)$ with $\nu\propto x^{-1}$,

647: \beq

648: F^{ud}_L(x,0)\propto (1/x)^{\Delta_{soft}},

649: \label{eq:NU008} 

650: \eeq

651: where $\Delta_{soft}\simeq 0.08$ comes from the Regge parameterization of 

652: the total $\pi N$ cross section \cite{DonLan}.

653: Therefore, the   charmed-strange 

654: current dominates $F_L$ at   small-$x$. 

655: 

656: {\bf 4. Numerical results and discussion.} 

657: We evaluate $F_L$, $F_T$ and $F_2$, 

658: \beq

659: F_2(x,Q^2)=F_L(x,Q^2)+F_T(x,Q^2),

660: \label{eq:F2}

661: \eeq

662: for the $\nu Fe$ and $\nu Pb$ interactions 

663:   making use of the  

664:  approach to nuclear shadowing  developed in \cite{NSZZ}.

665: The $\log(1/x)$-evolution  

666: is described by the CD BFKL equation with boundary condition 

667: at $x_0=0.03$.

668: \begin{figure}[h]

669: %\psfig{figure=fig2.eps,height=14cm}

670: %\psfig{figure=fig2.eps,angle=-90,scale=0.6}

671: \psfig{figure=f2chor.eps,scale=0.8}

672: %\vspace{-0.5cm}

673: \caption{

674: The nucleon structure function $F_2(x,Q^2)$ at smallest available  $x_{Bj}$

675:  as measured in   $\nu Fe$ CC DIS by the 

676: CCFR \cite{Fleming} (circles) and  

677: CDHSW Collaboration \cite{CDHSW} (squares, $x_{Bj}=0.015$). 

678: Triangles are  the CHORUS Collaboration  measurements  \cite{CHORUS}

679: of $F_2$  in 

680:  $\nu Pb$ CC DIS. 

681:  Solid curves show the vacuum  exchange 

682: contribution to $F_2(x,Q^2)$. 

683: Also shown are the charm-strange (dashed curves) and light 

684: flavor (dotted curves) components of $F_2$.} 

685: \label{fig:fig3}

686: \end{figure}

687:  In order to give a crude idea of

688:  finite energy effects at moderately small $x$ we stretch our estimates 

689: to $x>x_0=0.03$ multiplying the above CD cross sections by the purely 

690: phenomenological factor $(1-x)^5$ motivated by the familiar large-$x$ 

691: behavior of DGLAP parameterizations of the gluon structure function of the 

692: proton. Here $x$  makes sense of the gluon momentum fraction and equals to  

693: $x=x_{Bj}(1+M^2/Q^2)$ for $Q^2\lsim M^2$.

694:  For 

695: $Q^2\gsim M^2$,  $x=2x_{Bj}$ what corresponds to the

696: collinear DLLA. 

697: The mass scale $M$  differs for vector and axial-vector 

698: channels, $M=m_{\rho},m_{a_1}$ 

699: thus introducing non-universality of  $\sigma(x,r)$. For charmed-strange 

700: states we put $M^2=4$ GeV$^2$.  

701: 

702: 

703: 

704: 

705: 

706: The CCFR Collaboration  measurements \cite{FLCCFR} of 

707: the structure function  $F_L$ and $F_T=2xF_1$ as a function of $Q^2$ 

708: for two smallest values of $x$ 

709: are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig2}. 

710: From Fig. \ref{fig:fig2} it follows that we strongly overestimate 

711: $F_L$ and underestimate $F_T$ considerably.

712: However, the sum of two structure functions, $F_2=F_L+F_T$, shown in

713: Fig. \ref{fig:fig3} is in reasonable  agreement with data \cite{Fleming}.

714:  Also shown are the high statistics measurement of  $F_2$  from

715:  charged current $\nu Pb$ interactions

716: at smallest available $x_{Bj}=0.02$ by the CHORUS Collaboration \cite{CHORUS}

717: and $F_2$ as measured by the CDHSW 

718: collaboration \cite{CDHSW} in the $\nu Fe$ DIS

719: at $x_{Bj}=0.015$ (shown by squares in Fig. \ref{fig:fig3}).

720: The cs-component dominates the LSF $F_L$ 

721:  already at $x_{Bj}=0.0045$ and affects the slope of both  $F_L$ 

722: and $F_2$ at $Q^2\to 0$. Therefore,  the extrapolation 

723: of experimentally measured $F_2$ down to $Q^2\to 0$ 

724:  can hardly be used directly  to test PCAC. 

725: The cs-contribution to $F_2$ is 

726: quite considerable already at  

727: $x_{Bj}=0.0045$ and 

728: dominates $F_2$ at $x_{Bj}=10^{-4}$ for $Q^2\lsim m_c^2$ as 

729: shown in Fig. \ref{fig:fig3}.

730: The latter observation  is important for planned  tests of PCAC 

731: with high energy neutrino beams.

732: 

733: We underestimate $F_2$ at  moderately

734: small $x\gsim 0.01$ and small $Q^2$ (valence component is not included). 

735: Besides, in our analysis of small-$x$ phenomena  we rely upon the color

736:  dipole factorization (\ref{eq:FACTOR}) which is equally valid 

737: for small and large dipoles, in both  perturbative and non-perturbative 

738: domains. However,  two factors in  (\ref{eq:FACTOR}) have  different 

739: status. The CD cross section $\sigma(r)=\sigma_{pt}(r)+\sigma_{npt}(r)$

740:  is corrected for  the 

741: effects of soft physics while  the light-cone density of states 

742: $|\Psi_L(r)|^2$ is of purely perturbative nature.

743: Non-perturbative corrections to $|\Psi_L(r)|^2$ at small $Q^2$ may cause

744: observable effects.

745: In \cite{FZAdler} it has been found that the color dipole models successfully 

746: tested against the

747:  DIS  data from HERA  underestimate 

748: $F^{ud}_L(x,0)$ defined by the  Eq.(\ref{eq:FLPCAC}).

749: Particularly, our model with 

750: $m_u=m_d=0.15$ GeV reproduces  only half of the empirical  value  

751: $f^2_{\pi}\sigma_{\pi}/\pi$, not quite bad for the model evaluation

752: of the soft observable, although not satisfactory either. 

753: This may lead to the  deficit of  $F_2$ in the kinematical region of 

754: moderately  small $x$ dominated by the $ud$-current.

755: 

756: It is worth noticing that the nuclear absorption  is  weaker for 

757: charmed-strange  states. Therefore,  there is a specific nuclear  

758: enhancement of the 

759: charm production compared to the excitation of  light flavors.

760: The analysis of 

761: nuclear effects in the CC DIS 

762: will be published elsewhere.  

763: 

764: {\bf 5. Summary.}

765: We 

766: developed the  color dipole

767: description  of the phenomenon of charged  current non-conservation

768: in the neutrino DIS at small Bjorken $x$. 

769:  We quantified the effect

770:  in terms of the tree level

771:  light-cone wave functions and found  that 

772:  the charmed-strange component of the longitudinal 

773: structure function   is much larger than its light quark

774: component  already at $x\sim 0.01$. 

775: We  found also that

776:   the excitation of charm and strangeness dominates  the 

777: structure function 

778: $F_2(x,Q^2)$ at   $Q^2\lsim m_c^2$ and small enough $x$. 

779: A structure function analysis \cite{Fleming, CDHSW,CHORUS} of  neutrino

780:  DIS data  lends support  to our predictions. 

781: 

782: 

783: 

784: 

785: 

786: 

787:  

788: \vspace{0.2cm} \noindent \underline{\bf Acknowledgments:}

789: The authors are indebted  to   N.N. Nikolaev and B.G. Zakharov

790: for useful comments. 

791: V.R.~Z. thanks  the Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit\`a

792: della Calabria and the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica

793: Nucleare - gruppo collegato di Cosenza for their warm

794: hospitality while a part of this work was done.

795: The work was supported in part by the Ministero Italiano

796: dell'Istruzione, dell'Universit\`a e della Ricerca and  by

797:  the RFBR grant 06-02-16905  and 07-02-00021.

798: 

799: 

800: \vspace{2cm}

801: 

802: 

803: 

804:  

805: 

806: \begin{thebibliography}{299}

807: 

808: \bibitem{Jones} 

809: G.T. Jones, R.W.L. Jones, B.W. Kennedy et al. {\sl Z. Phys.} C {\bf 37}, 25 (1987).

810: 

811: \bibitem{Fleming}

812: B.T. Fleming, T. Adams, A. Alton et al. {\sl Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 86}, 5430 (2001).

813: 

814: \bibitem{KopMar}

815: B.Z. Kopeliovich and P. Marage, {\sl Int. J. Mod. Phys.} A {\bf 8}, 1513 (1993).

816: 

817: 

818: \bibitem{Nambu}

819: Y.Nambu, {\sl Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 4},  380 (1960);\\

820: M. Gell-Mann and M. Levy, {\sl Nuovo Cimento} {\bf 17},  70 (1960).

821: 

822: \bibitem{Adler}

823: S. Adler, {\sl Phys. Rev.} {\bf 135}, B963 (1964).

824: 

825: 

826: \bibitem{FZAdler}

827: R. Fiore and V.R. Zoller, {\sl JETP Lett.} {\bf 85}, 309 (2007).

828: 

829:  

830: \bibitem{NZ91}

831: N.N. Nikolaev and B.G. Zakharov,

832: {\sl Z.Phys.} C {\bf 49}, 607 (1991); C {\bf 53}, 331 (1992); C {\bf 64},

833:  631 (1994).

834: 

835: \bibitem{M}

836: A.H. Mueller, {\sl Nucl. Phys.}  B {\bf 415}, 373 (1994);

837: A.H. Mueller and B. Patel, {\sl Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 425}, 471 (1994).

838: 

839: \bibitem{HEBECKER}

840: A. Hebecker,

841: {\sl Phys.Rept.} {\bf 331},  1 (2000).

842: 

843: \bibitem{D}

844: Yu.L. Dokshitzer, {\sl Sov. Phys.  JETP}  {\bf 46},  641 (1977);

845: Yu.L. Dokshitzer, D.I. Dyakonov and S.I. Troyan, {\sl Phys. Rep.} C {\bf 58},

846:  265 (1980).

847: \bibitem{GL}

848: V.N. Gribov and L.N. Lipatov, {\sl Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 15}, 438 (1972);

849: L.N. Lipatov, {\sl Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 20}, 181 (1974).

850: \bibitem{AP}

851: G. Altarelli and C. Parisi, {\sl Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 126}, 298 (1977).

852: 

853: \bibitem{FLCCFR}

854: U.K. Yang, T. Adams, A. Alton et al., {\sl Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 87}, 

855: 251802 (2001).

856: 

857: \bibitem{Kolya92}

858: V. Barone, M. Genovese, N.N. Nikolaev, E. Predazzi and B.G. Zakharov,

859: {\sl Phys.Lett.} B {\bf 292}, 181 (1992).

860: 

861: \bibitem{KolyaNUDIS}

862: V. Barone, M. Genovese, N.N. Nikolaev, E. Predazzi and B.G. Zakharov,

863: {\sl Phys.Lett.} B {\bf 304}, 176 (1993); B {\bf 328}, 143 (1994).

864: 

865: \bibitem{BGNPZ2}

866: V. Barone, M. Genovese, N.N. Nikolaev, E. Predazzi and B.G. Zakharov,

867: {\sl Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 268}, 279 (1991);

868: V. Barone, U. D'Alesio, M. Genovese, {\sl Phys.Lett.} B {\bf 357},

869: 435 (1995);

870: M. Bertini, M. Genovese, N.N. Nikolaev, B.G. Zakharov, 

871: {\sl Phys.Lett.} B {\bf 442}, 398 (1998);

872: V. Barone, M. Genovese, N.N. Nikolaev, E. Predazzi and B.G. Zakharov,

873: {\sl Phys.Lett.} B {\bf 317}, 433 (1993).

874: 

875: \bibitem{MILTHOM}

876: G. A. Miller, A. W. Thomas, 

877: {\sl Int. J. Mod. Phys.} A {\bf 20}, 95 (2005); 

878: C. Boros, J.T. Londergan and A.W. Thomas, {\sl Phys. Rev} D {\bf  58}, 

879:  114030 (1998); 

880: %\bibitem{BROD}

881: S.J. Brodsky, I. Schmidt and Jian-Jun Yang, {\sl Phys.Rev.} D {\bf 70},

882:  116003 (2004);

883: %\bibitem{QIU}

884: J. Qiu and I. Vitev, {\sl Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 587},  52 (2004); 

885: %\bibitem{KULPET}

886: S.A. Kulagin and  R. Petti, 

887: {\sl Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 76}, 094023 (2007);

888: %\bibitem{MACHADO}

889: M.B. Gay Ducati, M.M. Machado and  M.V.T. Machado, 

890: {\sl Phys.Lett.} B {\bf 644}, 340 (2007). 

891: 

892: \bibitem{ZKL}

893: A.B. Zamolodchikov, B.Z. Kopeliovich and L.I. Lapidus,

894: {\sl JETP Lett.} {\bf 33}, 595 (1981). 

895: 

896: \bibitem{BBGG}

897: G. Bertsch, S.J. Brodsky, A.S. Goldhaber and J.R. Gunion,

898: {\sl Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 47}, 297 (1981). 

899: 

900: \bibitem{BFKL} E.A. Kuraev, L.N. Lipatov and V.S. Fadin,

901: {\sl Sov. Phys. JETP} {\bf 45}, 199 (1977);   

902: I.I. Balitsky and L.N. Lipatov,

903: {\sl Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 28}, 822 (1978).

904: 

905: 

906: \bibitem{NZZBFKL} N.N. Nikolaev, B.G. Zakharov and V.R. Zoller,

907: {\sl JETP Lett.} {\bf 59}, 6 (1994).

908: 

909: 

910: \bibitem{PHLA10}

911: N.N. Nikolaev and B.G. Zakharov,

912: {\sl Phys.Lett.} B {\bf 332}, 184 (1994).

913: 

914: 

915: 

916: \bibitem{MEGGIO}

917: M. D'Elia, A. Di Giacomo and E. Meggiolaro,

918: {\sl Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 67}, 114504 (2003).

919: 

920: \bibitem{NPT} 

921: N.N. Nikolaev and B.G. Zakharov, {\sl Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 327}, 147 (1994);

922: N.N. Nikolaev, B.G. Zakharov and V.R. Zoller, {\sl JETP Lett.} {\bf 66},

923: 138 (1997) ;

924: N.N. Nikolaev, J. Speth and V.R. Zoller, {\sl Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 473}, 

925:  157 (2000).

926: 

927: \bibitem{NSZZ}

928: N.N. Nikolaev, W. Sch\"afer, B.G. Zakharov, V.R. Zoller, 

929: {\sl JETP Lett.}

930: {\bf 84}, 537 (2007).

931: 

932: \bibitem{Vec}

933: J. Nemchik, N.N. Nikolaev, E. Predazzi, B.G. Zakharov and V.R. Zoller, 

934: {\sl ZhETF}

935: {\bf 86}, 1054 (1998).

936: 

937: \bibitem{FZ1} R. Fiore and V.R. Zoller, {\sl JETP Lett.}

938: {\bf 82}, 385 (2005); {\sl Phys.Lett.} B {\bf 632}, 87 (2006).

939: 

940: \bibitem{Weinberg}

941: S.Weinberg, {\sl Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 65}, 1181 (1991);

942: {\sl Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 67}, 3473 (1991).

943: 

944: 

945: \bibitem{Cooper} A.M. Cooper-Sarkar, G. Ingelman, K.R. Long, R.G. Roberts and

946: D.H. Saxon, {\sl Z. Phys.} C {\bf 39}, 281 (1988).

947: 

948: \bibitem{Dick} R.G. Roberts, The Structure of the Proton 

949: (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990) Section 6.4

950: 

951: \bibitem{DonLan} A. Donnachie and P.V. Landshoff, 

952: {\sl Phys.Lett.} B {\bf 296}, 227 (1992).

953: 

954: \bibitem{CDHSW} CDHSW Collab., P. Berge et al., {\sl Zeit. Phys.} 

955: C {\bf 49}, 187 (1991).

956: 

957: \bibitem{CHORUS} CHORUS Collab., G. Onengut et al., {\sl Phys. Lett.} 

958: B {\bf 632}, 65 (2006).

959: 

960: 

961: 

962: \end{thebibliography}

963: 

964: 

965: \end{document}

966: