1: \documentclass{appolb}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3: \bibliographystyle{l4z_SR_temp}
4: \usepackage{cite}
5: \usepackage{mcite}
6: % epsfig package included for placing EPS figures in the text
7: %------------------------------------------------------
8:
9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
10: % %
11: % BEGINNING OF TEXT %
12: % %
13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
14: \begin{document}
15: % \eqsec % uncomment this line to get equations numbered by (sec.num)
16: \title{$D^{*\pm}$ Production in $e^-p$ and $e^+p$ \\
17: Deep Inelastic Scattering at HERA%
18: \thanks{Presented at DIS02}%
19: % you can use '\\' to break lines
20: }
21: \author{S. D. Robins
22: \address{on behalf of the ZEUS collaboration}
23: %\and
24: %the Name(s) of other Author(s)
25: %\address{and their affiliation}
26: }
27: \maketitle
28: \begin{abstract}
29: Inclusive production of $D^{*\pm} (2010)$ mesons in deep inelastic scattering has been measured using $e^+p$ and $e^-p$ data obtained with the ZEUS detector at HERA using integrated luminosities of $16.7$ and $65.2 \rm pb^{-1}$, respectively.
30: The decay channel $D^{*+} \rightarrow D^{0} \pi^{+}$ with $D^{0} \rightarrow K^{-} \pi^{+}$ and corresponding antiparticle decays were used to identify $D^{*\pm}$ mesons.
31: The $D^{*\pm}$ cross sections in $e^-p$ and $e^+p$ interactions agree with NLO QCD predictions, although the $D^{*\pm}$ cross section in $e^-p$ is slightly higher than that in $e^+p$.
32:
33: \end{abstract}
34: %\PACS{}
35:
36:
37:
38: \section{Introduction}
39: Charm production in deep inelastic scattering (DIS) at HERA has been
40: shown in previous studies to be consistent with purely dynamic
41: Boson-Gluon Fusion (BGF) production
42: \cite{epj:c12:35,zfp:c72:593,pl:b407:402}. This agreement has now
43: been tested with a larger data sample than the previous ZEUS
44: measurements, and $e^-p$ as well as $e^+p$ cross sections have been
45: calculated. The charmed mesons were identified using the decay
46: $D^{*+} \rightarrow D^{0} \pi^{+}$ with $D^{0} \rightarrow K^{-}
47: \pi^{+}$ and corresponding antiparticle processes, where $\pi_s$
48: refers to a low momentum pion accompanying the $D^0$. The
49: differential cross sections are measured as functions of $Q^2$ and
50: Bjorken $x$, defined as $Q^2 = -q^2 = (k-k^{\prime})^2$ and $x = Q^2 /
51: (2P \cdot q)$, where $k$ and $k^{\prime}$ are the four-momenta of the
52: initial and final state lepton, and P is the four-momentum of the
53: proton.
54:
55: \section{Kinematic reconstruction and event selection}
56: The ZEUS detector is described in detail elsewhere
57: \cite{pl:b293:465,zfp:c63:391}. The $x$ and $Q^2$ variables were
58: reconstructed by the $\Sigma$-method, which uses both the scattered
59: lepton and the hadronic system measurements \cite{nim:a361:197}.
60: Standard cuts were imposed to select neutral current DIS events
61: \cite{misc:eps01:493}. The $D^{\ast \pm}$ mesons were selected in the
62: range $1.80 < M(D^0) < 1.92$ GeV, $0.143 < \Delta M < 0.148$ GeV, $1.5
63: < p_T(D^\ast) < 15$ GeV, and $|\eta(D^\ast)| < 1.5$. The number of
64: $D^{\ast\pm}$ events determined from a 5 parameter fit
65:
66: \begin{center}
67: $F( \Delta M) = [P1/\sqrt{2 \pi} \cdot P3] \cdot exp[0.5 \cdot(
68: \Delta M - P2)^2 / P3] + P4 \cdot (\Delta M - m_{\pi}) ^{P5}$
69: \end{center}
70:
71: \noindent
72: where $P1$ - $P5$ are free parameters is $1229 \pm 48$ in the $e^-p$
73: data, and $4240 \pm 90$ in the $e^+p$ data. The number of $D^{\ast
74: \pm}$ mesons extracted from empirical wrong charge background
75: subtraction within the signal region $143 < \Delta M < 148$ MeV, is
76: $1219 \pm 58$ and $4239 \pm 113$ in the $e^-p$ and $e^+p$ data
77: respectively. The $\Delta M$ distributions are shown in Figure 1, for
78: $e^-p$ and $e^+p$ data separately.
79:
80: \section{Study of systematic effects}
81:
82: The systematic uncertainties on the measured $D^{\ast \pm}$ cross
83: sections were determined by changing the selection cuts or analysis
84: procedure. These uncertainties are divided into three groups.\\
85:
86: \noindent
87: Event reconstruction and selection:
88:
89: \begin{itemize}
90: \setlength{\itemsep}{-5pt}
91: \item{The cuts on $y_e$. $y_JB$, $\delta$, and the vertex position were varied \cite{misc:eps01:493}.}
92: \item{The cut on the position of the scattered lepton in the RCAL was raised.}
93: \item{The minimum energy of the scattered lepton was raised.}
94: \item{The Electron method or Double Angle method \cite{proc:hera:1991:23} was used to reconstruct the kinematics.}
95: \end{itemize}
96: \noindent
97: $D^{\ast \pm}$ reconstruction:
98: \begin{itemize}
99: \setlength{\itemsep}{-5pt}
100: \item{A higher track quality was required (restriction on the polar angle of the track).}
101: \item{The transverse momentum requirement of the $K$ and $\pi$ candidates was varied.}
102: \item{The signal region for $M(D^0)$ and $\Delta M$ were varied.}
103: \end{itemize}
104: \noindent
105: Monte Carlo:
106: \begin{itemize}
107: \setlength{\itemsep}{-5pt}
108: \item{The acceptance was calculated using HERWIG \cite{cpc:67:465} instead of RAPGAP \cite{cpc:86:147}.}
109: \end{itemize}
110:
111: \noindent
112: The overall systematic uncertainty was determined by adding the above
113: uncertainties in quadrature. The normalisation uncertainties due to
114: the luminosity measurement error, and those due to the $D^{\ast \pm}$
115: and $D^0$ branching ratios were not included.
116:
117: \section{Results}
118:
119: In the kinematic region $1 < Q^2 < 1000$ GeV$^2$, $0.02 < y < 0.08$
120: and the selected $D^{\ast\pm}$ region, the cross sections calculated
121: are
122:
123: \begin{center}
124: $ \sigma (e^-p \rightarrow e^- D^{\ast\pm} X) = 10.20 \pm 0.48
125: (stat.) ^{0.36} _{0.54} (syst.)$ nb,
126: \end{center}
127: \begin{center}
128: $ \sigma (e^+p \rightarrow e^+ D^{\ast\pm} X) = 8.94 \pm 0.24
129: (stat.) ^{0.27} _{0.51} (syst.)$ nb.
130: \end{center}
131:
132: \noindent
133: The $e^+p$ cross section is consistent with that previously published
134: \cite{epj:c12:35}, allowing for the increase in proton beam energy
135: \cite{misc:eps01:493}, while the $e^-p$ cross section is slightly
136: higher. Figure 2 shows the differential cross sections as a function
137: of $Q^2$ and $x$ compared to the NLO calculation implemented in the
138: HVQDIS program \cite{pl:b353:535,pr:d57:2806}. This program is based
139: on the BGF mechanism, and uses the Peterson fragmentation function
140: \cite{pr:d27:105}, with $ \epsilon $ = 0.035, to hadronise the charm
141: quark to a $D^{\ast\pm}$. The mass and renormalisation scales were
142: set to $\sqrt{ 4 m_c^2 + Q^2}$. The hadronisation fraction $f (c
143: \rightarrow D^{\ast+})$ was set to 0.235 \cite{hep-ex-9912064}. The
144: boundaries of the shaded band indicate two extreme values of HVQDIS
145: predictions, from changing the charm mass between $m_c = 1.3$ to $1.6$
146: GeV, and using different sets of structure functions, GRV98HO
147: \cite{epj:c5:461}, CTEQ5F3 \cite{epj:c12:375} and a ZEUS NLO fit
148: \cite{epj:c7:609}. The NLO calculations based on BGF give a good
149: description of the measured $D^{\ast \pm}$ cross section over the full
150: range of $Q^2$ and $x$. For $Q^2 > 20$ GeV$^2$, the $D^{\ast \pm}$
151: cross sections in $e^-p$ and $e^+p$ differ slightly, while
152: conventional charm production mechanisms contain no charge dependence
153: on the lepton in these interactions. More $e^-p$ data is essential to
154: investigate whether this is a statistical fluctuation.
155:
156:
157: {
158: \def\bibname{\Large\bf References}
159: \def\refname{\Large\bf References}
160: \pagestyle{plain}
161: {\raggedright
162: \bibliography{./SR.bib}}
163: }
164:
165: \vfill\eject
166:
167:
168: %\newpage
169:
170:
171: \begin{figure}
172: \begin{center}
173: \begin{minipage}[tl]{0.40\linewidth}
174: \epsfig{file=deltamplots.eps, scale=0.2, width=\linewidth}
175: \end{minipage}\hfill
176: \begin{minipage}[tr]{0.45\linewidth}
177: \caption{\textit{Data (solid dots) for $\Delta M = (M_{K \pi \pi_s} - M_{K \pi})$ for $e^-p$ data above and $e^+p$ data below. The background from wrong charge combinations in shown as the filled histogram. The solid line shows the result of the fit described in the text; the dashed vertical line indicates the signal region.}}
178: \end{minipage}
179: \end{center}
180: \end{figure}
181:
182:
183: \begin{figure}
184: \begin{center}
185: \begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\linewidth}
186: \epsfig{file=q2plot.eps, scale=0.35, width=\linewidth}
187: \end{minipage}\hfill
188: \begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\linewidth}
189: \epsfig{file=xplot.eps, scale=0.35, width=\linewidth}
190: \end{minipage} \caption{\textit{Differential $D^{\ast\pm}$ cross
191: sections for $e^-p$ and $e^+p$ data as a function of $Q^2$ on
192: the left and $x$ on the right, compared to the NLO QCD
193: calculation of HVQDIS. The inner error bars show the
194: statistical uncertainties, while the outer ones are the
195: statistical and systematic errors added in quadrature. The
196: boundaries of the shaded band for the HVQDIS prediction
197: correspond to the full uncertainty due to the charm mass
198: variation and choice of structure function as described in the
199: text. The lower portion of each plot shows the ratio of the
200: $e^-p$ to $e^+p$ cross sections.}} \end{center} \end{figure}
201: \end{document}
202:
203: