1: \documentclass[acus]{JAC2000}
2:
3: %%
4: %% Use \documentclass[boxit]{JAC2000}
5: %% To draw a frame with the correct margins on the output.
6: %%
7: %% Use \documentclass[acus]{JAC2000}
8: %% For US letter paper layout
9: %%
10:
11: \usepackage{graphicx}
12:
13:
14: %%
15: %% VARIABLE HEIGHT FOR THE TITLE BOX (default 35mm)
16: %%
17:
18: \setlength{\titleblockheight}{31mm}
19:
20: \begin{document}
21: \title{\flushright{W03}\\[15pt] \centering
22: QCD Studies in Two-Photon Collisions at CLEO}
23: \author{Vladimir Savinov, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA}
24:
25: \maketitle
26:
27: \begin{abstract}
28:
29: We review the results of two-photon measurements
30: performed up to date by the CLEO experiment
31: at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
32: These measurements provide an almost background-free
33: virtual laboratory to study strong interactions
34: in the process of the $e^+e^-$ scattering.
35: We discuss the measurements of
36: two-photon partial widths of charmonium,
37: cross sections for hadron pairs production,
38: antisearch for glueballs and
39: the measurements of $\gamma^*\gamma \to$ pseudoscalar meson
40: transition form factors.
41: We emphasize the importance of other possible analyses,
42: favorable trigger conditions and selection criteria
43: of the presently running experiment
44: and the advantages of CLEOc
45: -- the future $\tau$-charm factory
46: with the existing CLEO III detector.
47:
48: \end{abstract}
49:
50: \section{Introduction}
51:
52: One of the ways to study properties of strong interactions,
53: surprisingly, is to collide high energy photons.
54: Photons do not interact strongly, however, in presence of
55: other photons they can fluctuate into quark pairs that
56: have sizable probability to realize as hadrons.
57: Space-like photons of relatively high energies can be obtained
58: in the process of the $e^+e^-$ scattering, {\it i.e.} in the
59: $e^+e^- \to e^+e^-$hadrons reactions, where hadrons are
60: produced in charge-even, {\it i.e.} $C=+1$ state.
61: These processes proceed mainly by two-photon fusion
62: therefore telling us about the strength of relevant
63: $\gamma\gamma$ couplings
64: and the properties of particles born in such reactions.
65: When a single hadron is born, the production cross section
66: is proportional to its two-photon partial width
67: thus allowing the measurement of this quantity in the
68: time-reversed two-photon decay.
69: When (at least) one of the photons is substantially off-mass shell,
70: we can measure the form factors associated with two-photon
71: transitions that probe spatial distribution of electric charge inside of
72: produced hadrons thus telling us about respective wave functions
73: {\it i.e.} details of binding potential.
74: The kinematics of two-photon collisions in the
75: $e^+e^-$ scattering is described elsewhere\cite{budnev,poppe}.
76:
77: \section{CLEO Experiment}
78:
79: The results discussed in this short review
80: were obtained from
81: the data collected at the
82: Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR)
83: with the CLEO detector.
84: The results are based on statistics that correspond
85: to an integrated $e^+e^-$ luminosity of
86: up to $9.2 fb^{-1}$ collected at the $\Upsilon(4{\rm S})$ energy
87: of 10.58 GeV and up to $4.6 fb^{-1}$
88: collected approximately 60 MeV below the $\Upsilon(4{\rm S})$ energy.
89: Our data sample was recorded with two configurations
90: of the CLEO detector.
91: The first third of the data were recorded with
92: the CLEO II detector\cite{CLEOII_description}
93: which consisted of three cylindrical drift chambers
94: placed in an axial solenoidal magnetic field of 1.5T,
95: a CsI(Tl)-crystal electromagnetic calorimeter,
96: a time-of-flight (TOF) plastic scintillator system
97: and a muon system (proportional counters embedded
98: at various depths in the steel absorber).
99: Two thirds of the data were taken with
100: the CLEO II.V configuration of the detector
101: where the innermost drift chamber
102: was replaced by a silicon vertex detector\cite{CLEOII.V_description}
103: and the argon-ethane gas of the main drift chamber
104: was changed to a helium-propane mixture.
105: This upgrade led to improved resolutions in momentum
106: and specific ionization energy loss
107: ($dE/dx$) measurements.
108: \newline \indent The three-tier CLEO trigger system\cite{CLEOII_trigger} complemented by the
109: software filter for beam-gas rejection utilizes
110: the information from the two outer drift chambers,
111: the TOF system and electromagnetic calorimeter.
112: The response of the detector is modeled with
113: a GEANT-based\cite{GEANT} Monte Carlo (MC) simulation program.
114: The data and simulated samples are processed
115: by the same event reconstruction program.
116: Whenever possible the efficiencies are either
117: calibrated or corrected for the difference
118: between simulated and actual detector responses
119: using direct measurements from independent data.
120: This is especially important for understanding the trigger
121: efficiency as most two-photon events experience strong Lorentz
122: boost along the $e^+e^-$ collision axis
123: often missing detection and failing to trigger data taking.
124: \newline \indent All analyses presented in
125: this summary employ complete reconstruction of hadronic final
126: states born in the process of two-photon fusion.
127: In all but the form factor measurements, final state leptons
128: escape detection in the beam pipe because of kinematics of two-photon
129: collisions that favors small scattering angles for electron and
130: positron. The detailed descriptions of the reviewed CLEO analyses
131: can be found in the references
132: to CLEO papers provided in the bibliography section.
133: Relevant theoretical references can be found in
134: the CLEO papers.
135:
136: \section{Charmonium Measurements}
137:
138: CLEO measured two-photon partial widths
139: of $\chi_{c_2}$ in the $J/\psi \gamma$ final state\cite{cleo_charm_old},
140: and, more recently, of the $\eta_c$ in the $K_s K^{\pm} \pi^{\mp}$
141: final state\cite{cleo_etac}
142: and $\chi_{c_0}$ and $\chi_{c_2}$ in the $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$
143: decays\cite{cleo_charm_new}.
144: The most recent results are
145: $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}(\chi_{c_0}) = (3.76 \pm 0.65 ({\rm stat}) \pm 0.41 ({\rm syst}) \pm 1.69 ({\rm br}))$ keV,
146: $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}(\chi_{c_2}) = (0.53 \pm 0.15 ({\rm stat}) \pm 0.06 ({\rm syst}) \pm 0.22 ({\rm br}))$ keV
147: and
148: $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}(\eta_c) = (7.6 \pm 0.8 ({\rm stat}) \pm 0.4 ({\rm syst}) \pm 2.3 ({\rm br}))$ keV.
149:
150: Our results on two-photon partial widths of charmonium
151: are consistent with some of the theoretical predictions
152: we refer to in our publications. It should be emphasized
153: that the extraction of $\alpha_s$ from our data presented
154: in our papers was done mainly
155: to compare our results with other similar measurements.
156: As became known recently\cite{kirill},
157: theoretical attempts to include next-to-next
158: to leading order corrections in $\alpha_s$
159: to perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics (pQCD) predictions
160: for two-photon partial widths
161: diverge and fail thus making
162: such $\alpha_s$ extraction poorly defined.
163: Another important aspect of the analyses presented
164: in our papers on charmonium is the assumption
165: about absence of the interference between
166: resonant and continuum two-photon production
167: of the studied final states. In the new $\eta_c$
168: analysis where we had sufficient statistics
169: to study possible effect of such interference,
170: we found no convincing indication of this effect.
171: Therefore, no interference was taken into account
172: when estimating systematic effects in either of our
173: charmonium analyses.
174:
175: Our new result for the $\chi_{c_0}$ is consistent
176: with previous result\cite{cleo_charm_old} obtained in the $J/\psi \gamma$ mode.
177: Also, our measurement of the product of $\eta_c$ two-photon partial width
178: and $\eta_c \to K_s K \pi$ branching fraction
179: is consistent with our preliminary results\cite{cleo_etac_preliminary}.
180: We would like to alert the reader to the fact that
181: there is a large uncertainty in our measurements
182: of two-photon partial widths as we measure the
183: products of these with the branching fractions
184: for the final states where we reconstruct
185: charmonium. Therefore we inherit large uncertainties in the
186: experimental values for these branching fractions
187: when we convert the measured products to the
188: measurements of two-photon partial widths.
189: Great care should be executed when comparing
190: the results of different experiments as a more recent
191: experiment often uses an updated value for the final state
192: branching fraction as an older one. A good strategy would be
193: to have old editions of the review of particle properties
194: available for such comparisons.
195:
196: In our $\eta_c$ analysis we also measured the mass and
197: (total) width of this charmonium state:
198: $M(\eta_c) = (2980.4 \pm 2.3 ({\rm stat}) \pm 0.6 ({\rm syst}))$ MeV
199: and
200: $M(\eta_c) = (27.0 \pm 5.8 ({\rm stat}) \pm 1.4 ({\rm syst}))$ MeV.
201: While we did a thorough study of systematics
202: that could be a source of experimental error,
203: we have to emphasize that we have no calibration channel
204: that would be a ``golden-bullet'' kind of a {\it proof} that
205: we understand the mass and width measurements around 3 GeV
206: in the four charged tracks final states
207: at CLEO.
208: This is to provide the reader with more information,
209: not to give an impression that we have any doubts in our results.
210: We refer the reader to our publication on the subject\cite{cleo_etac}
211: for more information.
212:
213: \section{Hadron Pair Production}
214:
215: CLEO measured a number of cross sections for two-photon
216: production of hadron pairs. These include combined measurement for
217: $\pi^+\pi^-$ and $K^+K^-$ pairs\cite{cleo_pipi},
218: $p\bar{p}$ pairs\cite{cleo_pp} and $\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ pairs\cite{cleo_lamlam}.
219: Our results agree well with the predictions of perturbative QCD and
220: diquark model, especially at higher invariant masses of produced pairs.
221: The agreement for the values and shapes of the cross sections
222: is also reasonable in the region of relatively low pair masses
223: and this fact is quite surprising because
224: predictions based on perturbative QCD are not expected to hold there.
225: However, and more important, our result prove that there is a qualitative difference
226: between hadron pairs produced at lower masses and at higher masses where
227: the definitions of lower and higher are CLEO-specific and are determined by
228: energies available to us in our experiment. This qualitative difference
229: is demonstrated in Fig.\ref{fig_cleo_pairs}(a) and Fig.~\ref{fig_cleo_pairs}(b) for
230: $\gamma\gamma \to \pi^+\pi^-$ and $\gamma\gamma \to pp$ measurements, respectively.
231: These figures show efficiency-corrected and background-subtracted
232: distributions of our data (points with the error bars)
233: for several intervals of hadron pairs invariant mass
234: versus $|\cos{\theta^*}|$, where $\theta^*$
235: is helicity angle.
236: Curves in figures show (a) perturbative prediction\cite{BL}
237: made by Brodsky and Lepage assuming their
238: mechanism $\gamma\gamma \to q\bar{q}g \to \pi^+\pi^-$ (BL)
239: for pion pairs production and (b) diquark model\cite{kroll_diquark}
240: and perturbative\cite{farrar} predictions
241: for $p\bar{p}$ production.
242: Theoretical curves
243: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_cleo_pairs}(b)
244: are normalized to our data and are displayed
245: only for $p\bar{p}$ invariant mass above 2.5 GeV.
246: Notice that there are two vertical scales for
247: two distributions shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_cleo_pairs}(b),
248: the right-side scale is for the events collected at
249: higher invariant mass.
250: Helicity angle is measured
251: between the direction of one of the hadrons
252: in the rest frame of two photons
253: and the momentum direction for a pair in the laboratory
254: reference frame. Notice that the range of helicity angle-related
255: variable is restricted to be below 0.6 which is a typical acceptance
256: region for a two-photon experiment.
257: It would take photons to be highly off-mass shell
258: to extend the range of non-zero acceptance for cosine of helicity angle.
259: This analysis is being planned, meanwhile, notice that
260: the distribution for the hadron pairs in the region
261: of higher invariant mass shows clear transition to the
262: diffractive ({\it i.e.} perturbative) behavior when compared to
263: that for the pairs in the region of lower invariant mass.
264:
265: \section{Glueball Antisearch}
266:
267: Possible existence of glueballs, {\it i.e.} hadrons
268: made of constituent glue, does not
269: contradict to known experimental and theoretical facts.
270: More important, such states are predicted to exist by
271: calculations on the lattice (LQCD). The main caveat here is that
272: these predictions are made in the so-called quenched approximation,
273: when quenching is removed, there is no consensus yet
274: if the predictions are going to hold. Therefore, possible discovery of
275: glueballs should help to advance the theory.
276: On the other hand, it is also possible that no
277: glue bound states could ever exist and this
278: scenario would not be a great disappointment, neither
279: a catastrophe for LQCD.
280: If the latter non-existence scenario realizes in nature,
281: it is still possible that glueball-like
282: field configurations play an important role in non-perturbative
283: QCD processes acting as a mass scale that modifies
284: predictions for cross sections at relatively low
285: energies, {\it i.e.} below 10 GeV.
286: \newline \indent So far CLEO has only searched for the most famous glueball candidate,
287: $f_j(2220)$ observed a few years ago in radiative $J/\psi$ decays at BES.
288: We searched for this resonance in the $K_s K_s$ and $\pi\pi$ final
289: states and set 95\% CL upper limits on the products of its two-photon partial
290: width and relevant branching fractions of
291: $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}(f_j(2220)) {\cal B}(f_j(2220) \to K_s K_s) < 1.3$eV
292: and
293: $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}(f_j(2220)) {\cal B}(f_j(2220) \to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-) < 2.5$eV,
294: respectively.
295: Small values of these upper limits are not surprising
296: as if the $f_j(2220)$ state existed, its electromagnetic coupling
297: would be very small because gluons do not couple
298: to photons directly. Invariant mass plots for relevant final states
299: from our analyses
300: are shown in Figs.~\ref{fig_cleo_glue}(a)~and~\ref{fig_cleo_glue}(b).
301: Fig.~\ref{fig_cleo_glue}(a) shows a histogram for our data,
302: a curve approximating the experimental line shape for
303: the not-found in our analyses $f_j(2220)$ and
304: the analytical shape chosen to approximate combinatorial
305: and two-photon continuum backgrounds, arrows show
306: the signal region used to estimate the upper limit.
307: Fig.~\ref{fig_cleo_glue}(b) shows points with the errors for our data,
308: a histogram describing the $f_j(2220)$ experimental line shape
309: obtained from our signal MC simulation, a curve that shows the result of
310: binned maximum likelihood fit to separate the sample into signal and background
311: contributions, the insert shows the signal region.
312: More information on CLEO antisearches for glueballs
313: can be found in publications that describe these analyses\cite{cleo_glue_1,cleo_glue_2}.
314:
315: \section{Transition Form Factors}
316:
317: In 1998 we published the results of our extensive analysis\cite{cleo_ff} of the
318: $\gamma^*\gamma \to {\cal R}$ transition form factors for three resonances ${\cal R}$:
319: $\pi^0$, $\eta$ and $\eta^\prime$. It turned out to be an important
320: publication providing data that helped, among other applications,
321: to reduce theoretical uncertainties in form factors predictions
322: for semileptonic and hadronic decays of $B$ and $D$ mesons.
323: Fixing these form factors is necessary for
324: extracting the values of CKM matrix elements
325: from data collected at existing and future experimental
326: facilities. Our data were also used to reduce
327: the theoretical uncertainty in hadronic contribution
328: from light-by-light scattering to
329: the result of the Muon $g-2$ experiment.
330: According to a number of theoretical papers our $\pi^0$ result
331: proves the transition to perturbative QCD region at relatively low
332: momentum transfer (negative squared mass of the highly off-shell photon).
333: Our publication\cite{cleo_ff} also
334: has references to theoretical papers
335: where this conclusion has been challenged.
336: We compare our $\pi^0$ result with some of available theoretical
337: predictions in Fig.~\ref{fig_cleo_ff}.
338: This figure also shows the results of CELLO experiment\cite{cello} at
339: lower values of momentum transfer $Q^2$.
340: The horizontal axis is momentum transfer $Q^2$ and
341: the vertical axis is the product of $Q^2$ with the
342: absolute value of the $\gamma^* \gamma \to \pi^0$ transition
343: form factor. Notice that this form factor is proportional
344: to the square root of the observed cross section after
345: effects of the $e^+e^- \to e^+e^- \pi^0$ kinematics are removed.
346: Horizontal line shows the well-defined $Q^2 \to \infty$ limit of pQCD\cite{BL}.
347: Fig.~\ref{fig_cleo_ff}(a) compares our results
348: with pQCD-inspired prediction\cite{jakob_pi0} that uses
349: (the unique) asymptotic\cite{BL} wave function
350: (shown with solid curve)
351: and
352: Chernyak-Zhitnitsky (CZ) model\cite{cz} wave function (shown with dashed curve)
353: to approximate non-perturbative effects.
354: The dotted curve shows the effect of running $\alpha_s$
355: on the latter prediction.
356: Fig.~\ref{fig_cleo_ff}(b) compares our results
357: with another pQCD-based prediction\cite{caofang},
358: the solid curve is for asymptotic wave function
359: and the dashed curve employs the CZ model distribution amplitude.
360: Fig.~\ref{fig_cleo_ff}(c) compares our results
361: with theoretical prediction\cite{rad} based on QCD sum rules method\cite{arkady}.
362: Eventually, such methods should help to describe
363: strong interactions in non-perturbative domain
364: from first principles.
365: Fig.~\ref{fig_cleo_ff}(d) compares our results
366: with interpolation\cite{BL} suggested by Brodsky and Lepage
367: (solid curve) that obeys both $Q^2 \to 0$ and $Q^2 \to \infty$ QCD limits.
368: Amazingly, our results agree well with
369: the $Q^2 \to \infty$ pQCD prediction
370: corrected to first order in $\alpha_s$ (not shown in figure).
371: Dashed curve shows the result of a phenomenology-based pole-mass fit
372: to our data that does not obey $Q^2 \to \infty$ pQCD limit.
373: Many other theoretical predictions are available in the literature.
374: More information is available in our publication\cite{cleo_ff}.
375: \newline \indent Our results for $\gamma^*\gamma \to \eta$ and
376: $\gamma^*\gamma \to \eta^\prime$ transition form factors
377: (plots are not shown in this review) are in full agreement
378: with the prediction based on mixing measured
379: from two-photon partial widths for these resonances\cite{kroll_mixing}.
380: More interestingly, the $\eta^\prime$ result was utilized\cite{feldman_charm}
381: to challenge the hypothesis of possible intrinsic charm\cite{ariel_charm} in
382: $\eta^\prime$ suggested to explain the anomalously large
383: branching fraction\cite{cleo_charm} discovered and measured by CLEO
384: for the decay $B \to K \eta^\prime$.
385:
386: \section{Other Opportunities}
387:
388: Existing CLEO II and II.V data could be used for a variety of
389: other interesting two-photon analyses probing dynamics of
390: strong interactions. These include detailed analyses
391: of $K_s K \pi$, $\eta \pi\pi$, $\pi^0\pi^0$ final states
392: at invariant masses below 2.5 ${\rm GeV/c^2}$
393: where glueball searches could be greatly extended,
394: a study of a quantum mechanical interference between
395: two-photon and bremsstrahlung production mechanisms for $\pi\pi$ pairs
396: sensitive to relative strong phase between corresponding amplitudes,
397: possible search for the $\eta_c^\prime$, analyses of axial-vector mesons
398: produced when at least one of the photons is off-mass shell and
399: many other projects.
400: Possible analysis of $\pi^0$ production by two off-shell photons
401: deserves special mention as this study could give a definitive
402: answer about pQCD applicability at moderately high momentum transfer.
403: \newline \indent The specifics of the new CLEO III data could allow us to probe the threshold
404: behavior of a number of two-photon hadronic cross sections.
405: The optimistic prognosis here comes from the fact that no
406: filtering has been done on CLEO III to reduce beam-gas contamination,
407: courtesy of powerful data acquisition system and event storing capabilities of
408: the new experiment. It should be noted, however, that the new
409: data samples of low final state particle multiplicities
410: will not be ready for the CLEO user-level analysis for some time.
411:
412: \section{Advantages of CLEOc}
413:
414: As the $B$ factories at SLAC and in Japan came on-line
415: and proved to be a great success, CLEO experiment is
416: changing the priorities and is about to start the new
417: experimental program in the region of $e^+e^-$ center-of-masses
418: energies between 3 and 5 GeV. While the range of invariant masses
419: of two-photon systems accessible at this new facility
420: is going to be below $\approx$1.5 GeV,
421: there are certain benefits associated with reduced Lorentz boost
422: for low-mass two-photon production.
423: For example, our estimates show that with the same detector
424: geometry, the number of detected and reconstructed $\pi^0$
425: events accompanied by detected electron or a positron
426: per unit of $e^+e^-$ luminosity could be by the order
427: of magnitude higher than at $\Upsilon(4S)$ energies.
428: Same estimate applies to $\pi\pi$ pairs that should
429: allow us to probe the threshold production
430: important for chiral perturbation theory predictions.
431: The increase in the number of events is achieved
432: by becoming sensitive to the region
433: of lower momentum transfer. Therefore, at CLEOc we lose
434: sensitivity in the perturbative region of high momentum transfer
435: but become able to probe highly non-perturbative
436: region of low momentum transfer.
437: The measurements of the $\gamma^*\gamma^* \to \pi^0$ transition form factor
438: and $\gamma^* \gamma \to \pi\pi$ cross sections at threshold are
439: among highlights of two-photon program at CLEOc.
440: We would like to emphasize that these measurements
441: are also among
442: interesting opportunities potentially available
443: at the PEP-N experiment.
444:
445: \section{Conclusions}
446:
447: It has been known since long time ago that two-photon processes
448: provide clean laboratory to study properties of strong interactions.
449: The measurements of two-photon partial widths allow us to test
450: the models of binding potential and mesons decays.
451: When combined with results from radiative decays of
452: $J/\psi$ and, in the near future, of $\Upsilon$ resonances,
453: two-photon partial widths can tell us about possible mixing
454: of mesons with glueballs. Extending $\gamma^*\gamma$-meson transition
455: form factors measurements to the axial-vector sector
456: should allow more tests of model wave functions and
457: theoretical predictions eventually derived from the first principles.
458: These measurements help
459: to fix hadronic uncertainties in precise measurements
460: of CKM matrix elements and in searches for new physics
461: at existing and future experiments.
462: Two-photon measurements at the $e^+e^-$ machines continue to play
463: important role in learning about properties of strong interactions.
464: \newline \indent The credit for the analyses summarized in this short
465: review belongs to the members of the CLEO collaboration,
466: past and present. These usually challenging physics analyses
467: are the product of thorough studies done by many people.
468: Besides efforts of my CLEO colleagues, CESR accelerator physicists
469: and support personnel, I would like to acknowledge
470: interesting and stimulating discussions
471: with Stanley Brodsky, Thorsten Feldman, Iliya Ginzburg,
472: Peter Kroll, Kirill Melnikov, Valery Serbo and Arkady Vainshtein.
473: It is my pleasure to thank the organizers of the PEP-N workshop
474: for creating productive and stimulating atmosphere.
475:
476: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
477:
478: \bibitem{budnev} V.~M.~Budnev {\em et al.},
479: {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf C15} (1975), 181.
480:
481: \bibitem{poppe} M.~Poppe,
482: {\it Int. J. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 1} (1986), 545.
483:
484: \bibitem{CLEOII_description} CLEO Collaboration, Y.~Kubota {\it et al.},
485: {\it Nucl. Instrum. Methods} {\bf A320} (1992), 66.
486:
487: \bibitem{CLEOII.V_description} T.~Hill,
488: {\it Nucl. Instrum. Methods} {\bf A418} (1998), 32.
489:
490: \bibitem{CLEOII_trigger} CLEO Collaboration, C.~Bebek {\it et al.},
491: {\it Nucl. Instrum. Methods} {\bf A302} (1992), 261.
492:
493: \bibitem{GEANT} R.~Brun {\it et al.}, GEANT 3.15,
494: CERN Report No. DD/EE/84-1 (1987).
495:
496: \bibitem{cleo_charm_old} CLEO Collaboration, J.~Dominick {\it et al.},
497: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D50} (1994), 4265.
498:
499: \bibitem{cleo_etac} CLEO Collaboration, G.~Brandenburg {\it et al.},
500: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 85} (2000), 3095.
501:
502: \bibitem{cleo_charm_new} CLEO Collaboration, B.~I.~Eisenstein {\it et al.},
503: hep-ex/0104042, submitted to {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}
504:
505: \bibitem{kirill} Private communication with Kirill Melnikov from SLAC.
506:
507: \bibitem{cleo_etac_preliminary} V.~Savinov and R.~Fulton
508: (CLEO Collaboration), Proceedings of the PHOTON95 conference,
509: edited by David J. Miller {\it et al.},
510: World Scientific, 1995.
511:
512: \bibitem{cleo_pipi} CLEO Collaboration, J.~Dominick {\it et al.},
513: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D50} (1994), 3027.
514:
515: \bibitem{cleo_pp} CLEO Collaboration, M.~Artuso {\it et al.},
516: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D50} (1994), 5484.
517:
518: \bibitem{cleo_lamlam} CLEO Collaboration, S.~Anderson {\it et al.},
519: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D56} (1997), 2485.
520:
521: \bibitem{BL} S.~J.~Brodsky and G.~P.~Lepage,
522: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D24} (1981), 1808.
523:
524: \bibitem{kroll_diquark} P.~Kroll {\it et al.},
525: {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B316} (1994), 546.
526:
527: \bibitem{farrar} G.~Farrar {\it et al.},
528: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B259} (1985), 702.
529:
530: \bibitem{cleo_glue_1} CLEO Collaboration, R.~Godang {\it et al.},
531: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 79} (1997), 3829.
532:
533: \bibitem{cleo_glue_2} CLEO Collaboration, M.~S.~Alam {\it et al.},
534: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 81} (1998), 3328.
535:
536: \bibitem{cleo_ff} CLEO Collaboration, J.~Gronberg {\it et al.},
537: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D57} (1998), 33.
538:
539: \bibitem{cello} CELLO Collaboration, H.-J.~Behrend {\it et al.},
540: {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf C49} (1991), 401.
541:
542: \bibitem{jakob_pi0} R.~Jakob {\it et al.},
543: {\it J. Phys.} {\bf G22} (1996), 45.
544:
545: \bibitem{cz} V.~L.~Chernyak and A.~R.~Zhitnitsky,
546: {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf D112} (1984), 173.
547:
548: \bibitem{caofang} F.-G.~Cao {\it et al.},
549: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D53} (1996), 6582.
550:
551: \bibitem{rad} A.~V.~Radyushkin and R.~Ruskov,
552: {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B374} (1996), 173.
553:
554: \bibitem{arkady} M.~A.~Shifman {\it et al.},
555: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B147} (1979), 385.
556:
557: \bibitem{kroll_mixing} T.~Feldmann and P.~Kroll,
558: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D58} (1998), 057501.
559:
560: \bibitem{feldman_charm} T.~Feldmann and P.~Kroll,
561: {\it Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C5} (1998), 327.
562:
563: \bibitem{ariel_charm} I.~Halperin and A.~Zhitnitsky,
564: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D56} (1997), 7247.
565:
566: \bibitem{cleo_charm} CLEO Collaboration, B.~H.~Behrens {\it et al.},
567: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 80} (1998), 3710.
568:
569: \end{thebibliography}
570:
571: %\newpage
572:
573: \begin{figure*}[t]
574: \centering
575: %\includegraphics*[width=180mm,height=120mm]{fig_cleo_pairs.eps}
576: \centerline{
577: \includegraphics*[width=100mm,height=110mm]{pipi.eps}
578: \includegraphics*[width=90mm,height=110mm]{pp.eps}
579: }
580: \caption{CLEO results on (a) $\pi\pi$ and (b) $p\bar{p}$ pairs production.
581: See the text for more information.}
582: \label{fig_cleo_pairs}
583: \end{figure*}
584:
585: \begin{figure*}[t]
586: \centering
587: \includegraphics*[width=180mm,height=90mm]{fig_cleo_glue.eps}
588: \caption{CLEO antisearch for $f_j(2220)$ in (a) $K_s K_s$ and (b) $\pi^+\pi^-$ channels.
589: See the text for more information.}
590: \label{fig_cleo_glue}
591: \end{figure*}
592:
593: \begin{figure*}[t]
594: \centering
595: \includegraphics*[width=180mm,height=150mm]{fig_cleo_ff.eps}
596: \caption{CLEO results on $\gamma^*\gamma \to \pi^0$ production.
597: See the text for more information.}
598: \label{fig_cleo_ff}
599: \end{figure*}
600:
601: \end{document}
602:
603:
604:
605:
606:
607:
608:
609:
610: