1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsfig]{article}
2: \topmargin -50pt
3: \textwidth 150mm
4: \textheight 220mm
5: \oddsidemargin 5mm
6: \evensidemargin 5mm
7: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.0}
8: %\pagestyle{plane}
9: \setcounter{page}{1}
10: \begin{document}
11: \begin{flushright}
12: DTP/00/02 \\
13: January 2000\\
14: \end{flushright}
15: \begin{center}
16: {\Large \bf The interplay between perturbative QCD and power corrections:
17: the description of scaling or automodelling limit violation
18: in deep-inelastic scattering
19: }
20: \bigskip
21:
22: {\large A.L.~Kataev$^{a,}$\footnote{Supported by UK Royal Society
23: and in part by the Russian
24: Foundation of Basic Research, Grant N 99-01-00091},
25: G.~Parente$^{b,}$\footnote{Supported by CICYT (AEN96-1773) and Xunta
26: de Galicia (Xuga-20602B98)} A.V.~Sidorov$^{c,}$\footnote{Supported in part
27: by the Russian Foundation of Basic Research, Grant N 99-01-00091}}
28: \date{}
29: \smallskip
30:
31: {\it (a) Centre for Particle Theory of the University of Durham,\\
32: DH1 3LE, Durham, United Kingdom and \\
33: Institute for Nuclear Research of the Academy of Sciences of Russia,\\
34: 117312 Moscow, Russian Federation\footnote{Permanent address}\\
35: (b) Department of Particle Physics, University of Santiago de Compostela,\\
36: 15706 Santiago de Compostela, Spain \\
37: (c) Bogolyubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics,
38: Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, 141980 Dubna, Russian Federation
39: }
40:
41: \hspace{3cm}
42:
43:
44:
45:
46: \end{center}
47:
48: \begin{abstract}
49: The summary of the results of our next-to-next-to-leading fits of the
50: Tevatron experimental data for $xF_3$ structure function of the $\nu N$
51: deep-inelastic scattering is given. The special attention is paid to
52: the extraction of twist-4 contributions and demonstration
53: of the interplay between these effects and higher
54: order perturbative QCD corrections. The factorization and renormalization
55: scale uncertainties of the results obtained are analysed.
56: \end{abstract}
57:
58: \hspace{3cm}
59:
60: \begin{center}
61:
62: {\it Contributed to Bogolyubov Conference \\``Problems of Theoretical
63: and Mathematical Physics"\\ Moscow-Dubna-Kyiv, 27 September - 6 October 1999}
64:
65: \end{center}
66: \newpage
67: {\bf 1.}~The study of deep-inelastic scattering (DIS)
68: processes has a rather long and inspiring history. One of the first
69: realizations that the analysis of $\nu N$ DIS could play an important role
70: in investigations of the properties of the nucleon came
71: in Ref.\cite{Markov}. The fundamental concept of scaling of
72: DIS structure functions (SFs) \cite{Bj2} has lead to many subsequent
73: investigations. Other important stages in the
74: development of both theoretical and experimental studies
75: of various characteristics of DIS processes in this productive
76: period were reviewed in detail recently \cite{Drell}.
77: In particular, it was stressed that after the experimental
78: confirmation of scaling and indications of the existence
79: of point-like constituents of the nucleon, the more rigorous theoretical
80: explanation of the behaviour of DIS form factors
81: came onto the agenda. A series of
82: works by N. N. Bogolyubov and coauthors \cite{BVT}, were devoted to
83: the development of the new method, which made it possible to analyse the
84: asymptotics of the form factors
85: of $eN$ DIS using the Jost-Lehmann-Dyson
86: integral representation,
87: and explain the property
88: of scaling (or as called it by the authors of Ref.\cite{BVT} ``automodelling")
89: behaviour of the corresponding SFs
90: in the framework of general principles of local quantum field
91: theory \cite{BSh}.
92:
93: We now know that this property is true only in the asymptotic
94: regime and that it is violated within the framework of QCD
95: (see e.g. the extensive
96: discussions in a number of books on the subject \cite{Books}).
97: Indeed, the theory of QCD predicts that scaling or automodelling
98: behaviour of SFs is violated by the logarithmically
99: decreasing perturbative QCD contributions
100: to the leading twist operators. However, in the intermediate
101: and low $Q^2$ regime the higher twist operators, which
102: give rise to scaling violations of the form $1/Q^2$,
103: $1/Q^4$, etc., might also be important \cite{HT1,HT2}.
104: Indeed, the NLO DGLAP fits \cite{VM}
105: of the BCDMS data of DIS of charged leptons on nucleons \cite{BCDMS}
106: and reanalysed SLAC $eN$ data \cite{SLAC} resulted in the detection of
107: the signals from the twist-4 contributions.
108:
109: During the last few years there has been
110: considerable progress in modeling these effects
111: with the help of the infrared renormalon (IRR) approach (for the review
112: see Ref.\cite{IRR})
113: and the dispersive method \cite{disp} (see also Ref.\cite{disp1}).
114: Using these methods the authors of Ref.\cite{DW}
115: explained the behaviour
116: of the twist-4 contributions to the $F_2$ SF observed in Ref.\cite{VM}
117: and constructed a model
118: for the similar power-suppressed corrections to $xF_3$ SF.
119: In view of this it became important to check the predictions of Ref.\cite{DW}
120: and to study the possibility of extracting higher-twist contributions
121: from the new more precise
122: experimental data for $\nu N$ DIS, obtained by the CCFR
123: collaboration at Fermilab Tevatron \cite{CCFR}, and
124: also to exploit the
125: considerable progress in calculations of the
126: perturbative QCD corrections to characteristics of DIS, achieved in the
127: last decade.
128:
129: Indeed, the analytic expressions for the
130: next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) perturbative QCD corrections
131: to the coefficient functions of
132: SFs $F_2$ \cite{VZ} and $xF_3$ \cite{ZV} are now known.
133: Moreover, the
134: expressions for the NNLO corrections to the anomalous dimensions of non-singlet (NS)
135: even Mellin moments of $F_2$ SF with $n=2,4,6,8,10$ and for the
136: N$^3$LO corrections
137: to the coefficient functions of these moments
138: are also available \cite{LRV}.
139: In this report we will summarize the results of the series of the
140: works of Refs.\cite{KKPS1}-\cite{KPS1}, devoted to
141: the analysis of the CCFR data at NNLO, which has the aim
142: to determine
143: the NNLO value of the QCD coupling constant $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ and
144: to extract the effects
145: of the twist-4 contributions to SF $xF_3$ \cite{KKPS2,KPS1}.
146: In particular, we will concentrate on the discussion
147: of the factorization and renormalization
148: scale uncertainties of the results obtained.
149:
150: {\bf 2.}~ Our analysis of Refs.\cite{KKPS1}-
151: \cite{KPS1} is based on reconstruction of the SF $xF_3$ from
152: its Mellin moments $M_n(Q^2)=\int_0^1x^{n-1}F_3(x,Q^2)dx$ using the Jacobi polynomials method, proposed
153: in Ref.\cite{PS} and further developed in the works of Ref.\cite{Jacobi}.
154: Within this framework one has:
155: \begin{equation}
156: xF_3(x,Q^2)=x^{\alpha}(1-x)^{\beta} \sum_{n=0}^{N_{max}}\Theta_{n}^{\alpha,\beta}(x)
157: \sum_{j=0}^{n}c_j^{(n)}(\alpha,\beta)M_{j+2}(Q^2)
158: \end{equation}
159: where
160: $\Theta_{n}^{\alpha,\beta}$ are the Jacobi polynomials,
161: $c_j^{(n)}(\alpha,\beta)$ are combinatorial coefficients given in
162: terms of Euler $\Gamma$-functions of the $\alpha$ and $\beta$ weight parameters.
163: In view of the reasons discussed in Ref.\cite{KPS1}, they were fixed
164: to 0.7 and 3 respectively. The QCD evolution of the moments
165: %$M_n(Q^2)=\int_0^{1} x^{n-1}F_3(x,Q^2)dx$
166: is defined by the solution of the corresponding renormalization group equation:
167: \begin{equation}
168: \frac{M_n(Q^2)}{M_n(Q_0^2)}=exp \bigg[-\int_{A_s(Q_0^2)}^{A_s(Q^2)}
169: \frac{\gamma_{NS}^{(n)}(x)}{\beta(x)}dx\bigg]
170: \frac{C_{NS}^{(n)}(A_s(Q^2))}{C_{NS}^{(n)}(A_s(Q_0^2)}
171: \end{equation}
172: The QCD running coupling constant enters this equation
173: through $A_s(Q^2)=\alpha_s(Q^2)/(4\pi)$ and is defined as the expansion
174: in terms of inverse powers of $ln(Q^2/\Lambda_{\overline{MS}}^{(4)~2})$.
175: For the initial scale $Q_0^2$, from which the evolution is started, the
176: moments in Eq.(2) were parametrized as
177: $M_n(Q_0^2)=\int_0^{1}x^{n-2}A(Q_0^2)x^{b(Q_0^2)}(1-x)^{c(Q_0^2)}
178: (1+\gamma(Q_0^2) x)dx$.
179: In the process of our analysis we took into account both target
180: mass corrections and twist-4 contributions.
181: The latter were modeled using the IRR approach
182: as $M_n^{IRR}=C(n)M_n(Q^2)A_2^{'}/Q^2$ \cite{DW} and by adding into the r.h.s.
183: of Eq.(1) the term $h(x)/Q^2$ with $h(x)$ considered as a free parameter
184: for each $x$-bin of the experimental data.
185:
186: For arbitrary factorization and renormalization scales
187: the NNLO expression
188: for the NS Mellin moments reads:
189: \begin{equation}
190: M_n(Q^2) \sim (A_s(Q^2 k_F))^{a}\times \overline{AD}(n,A_s(Q^2k_F))
191: \times C_{NS}^{(n)}(A_s(Q^2 k_R))
192: \end{equation}
193: where $a=\gamma_{NS}^{(0)}/(2\beta_0)$,
194: $\overline{AD}=1+\bigg[p(n)+ak^F_1\bigg]A_s(Q^2k_F)+\bigg[q(n)+p(n)(a+1)k_1^F
195: + (\beta_1/\beta_0)ak^F_1+a(a+1)(k^F_1)^2/2\bigg]
196: A_s^2(Q^2k_F)$ and $C_{NS}^{(n)}=1+C^{(1)}(n)A_s(Q^2k_R)+\bigg[C^{(2)}(n)+
197: C^{(1)}(n)k_1^R\bigg]A_s^2(Q^2k_R)$. Here $\gamma_{NS}^{(0)}$, $\beta_0$ and
198: $\beta_1$ are the scheme-independent coefficients of the
199: anomalous dimension function $\gamma_{NS}(x)$ and QCD $\beta$-function
200: $\beta(x)$, $p(n)$ and $q(n)$-terms are expressed through
201: the NLO and NNLO coefficients of $\gamma_{NS}(x)$ and $\beta(x)$
202: via equations, given in
203: Refs.\cite{KKPS1,KPS1}. Within the $\overline{MS}$-like schemes
204: the factorization and renormalization scale ambiguities are parameterized
205: by the terms $k_1^F=\beta_0ln(k_F)$ and $k_1^R=\beta_0 ln(k_R)$, where
206: $k_F$ ($k_R$) is the ratio of the factorization (renormalization) scale and
207: the scale of the $\overline{MS}$-scheme. Following the analysis of Ref.\cite{NV}
208: we
209: take $k_R=k_F=k$, fixing identically the factorization scale and the
210: renormalization scale. We performed our fits for the case of $k=1$
211: (namely, in the pure $\overline{MS}$-scheme) and then determine
212: the scale uncertainties of $\Lambda_{\overline{MS}}^{(4)}$,
213: the twist-4 parameter $A_2^{'}$ and the $x$-shape
214: of $h(x)$ by
215: choosing
216: $k=1/4$ and $k=4$ and repeating the fits for these two cases.
217:
218: {\bf 3.}~ In the process of our analysis of CCFR'97
219: data we applied the same kinematic cuts as in Ref.\cite{CCFR},
220: namely $Q^2>5~GeV^2$, $x<0.7$ and $W^2>10~GeV^2$. We started the QCD
221: evolution from the
222: initial scale $Q_0^2=20~GeV^2$, which we consider as more appropriate
223: from the point of view of stability of the NLO and NNLO results for
224: $\Lambda_{\overline{MS}}^{(4)}$ due to variation of the initial scale
225: \cite{KPS1}.
226: In order to estimate the uncertainties of the NNLO results, we
227: also performed the N$^3$LO fits with the help of the expanded Pad\'e
228: approximations technique (for the detailed discussions see Ref.\cite{KPS1}).
229: The results are presented in Table 1.
230: %\begin{table}
231: \begin{center}
232: %\caption{The results of the fits of CCFR'97 data with the cut
233: %$Q^2>5~GeV^2$.}
234: \begin{tabular}{||r|c|c|c|}
235: \hline
236: &
237: $\Lambda_{\overline{MS}}^{(4)}$ (MeV) &
238: $ A_2^{'}$ (GeV$^2$) &
239: $\chi^2$/points \\
240: \hline
241: LO & 264$\pm$37 & -- & 113.1/86 \\
242: & 433$\pm$53 & -0.33$\pm$0.06 & 83.1/86 \\
243: & 331$\pm$162 & h(x) in Fig.1 & 66.3/86 \\
244: \hline
245: NLO & 339$\pm$42 & -- & 87.6/86 \\
246: & 369$\pm$39 & -0.12$\pm$0.06 & 82.3/86 \\
247: & 440$\pm$183 & h(x) in Fig.1 & 65.8/86 \\
248: \hline
249: NNLO & 326$\pm$35 & -- & 77.0/86 \\
250: & 327$\pm$35 & -0.01$\pm$0.05 & 76.9/86 \\
251: & 372$\pm$133 & h(x) in Fig.1 & 65.0/86 \\
252: \hline
253: N$^3$LO & 332$\pm$28 & -- & 76.9/86 \\
254: Pade & 333$\pm$27 & -0.04$\pm$0.05 & 76.3/86 \\
255: & 371$\pm$127& h(x) in Fig.1 & 64.8/86 \\
256: \hline
257: \end{tabular}
258: \end{center}
259: {{\bf Table 1.} The results of the fits of CCFR'97 data with the
260: cut $Q^2>5~GeV^2$.}
261: %\end{table}
262: \vspace{0.5cm}
263:
264: At NLO the value for $\Lambda_{\overline{MS}}^{(4)}$ is in good agreement
265: with the NLO result $\Lambda_{\overline{MS}}^{(4)}=337\pm28~MeV$, obtained
266: by the CCFR collaboration with the help of DGLAP NLO analysis of both $F_2$
267: and $xF_3$ SFs data in the case when HT-corrections were neglected \cite{CCFR}.
268: The obtained NLO value of the IRR-model parameter $A_2^{'}$ is in agreement
269: with the estimates of Ref.\cite{DW} and of Ref.\cite{Maul} especially.
270: However, at NNLO a significant decrease of the
271: magnitude of the parameter $A_2^{'}$ is observed. In view of this
272: the results for $\Lambda_{\overline{MS}}^{(4)}$ obtained at the NNLO
273: without HT corrections and with IRR-model of twist-4 term almost coincide.
274: A similar tendency was observed in the process of the N$^3$LO Pad\'e fits.
275: To study this feature in more detail we extracted the $x$-shape
276: of the model-independent function $h(x)$ (see Fig.1) and analysed the
277: factorization/renormalization scale uncertainties of the outcomes of our fits
278: \cite{KPS1}. The corresponding results are presented in Table 2
279: where $\Delta_k$ is defined as $\Delta_k=\Lambda_{\overline{MS}}^{(4)}(k)-
280: \Lambda_{\overline{MS}}^{(4)}(k=1)$. The related $x$-shapes of $h(x)$
281: are presented in Fig.2.
282: %\begin{table}
283: \begin{center}
284: %\caption{The results of NLO and NNLO fits of CCFR'97 data
285: %for different values of factorization/renormalization scales.}
286: \begin{tabular}{||r|c|c|c|c|}
287: \hline
288: Order & $k$ & $\Delta_k$ (MeV) & $A_2^{'}$ (GeV$^2$) & $\chi^2$/points \\
289: \hline
290: NLO & 4 & 116 & -- & 99.1/86 \\
291: & 4 & 213 & -0.22$\pm$0.006 & 84.2/86 \\
292: & 1/4 & -61 & -- & 80.4/86 \\
293: & 1/4 & -99 & +0.02$\pm$0.005 & 80.2/86 \\
294: \hline
295: NNLO & 4 & 35 & -- & 83.5/86 \\
296: & 4 & 66 & -0.11$\pm$0.06 & 83.5/86 \\
297: & 1/4 & -51 & -- & 87.3/86 \\
298: & 1/4 & -45 & +0.09$\pm$0.05 & 84.5/86 \\
299: \hline
300: \end{tabular}
301: \end{center}
302: {{\bf Table 2.} The results of NLO and NNLO fits of CCFR'97 data for
303: different values of factorization/renormalization scales.}
304:
305: %\newpage
306: %{{\bf Fig.1} $h(x)$ extracted from the CCFR'97 data ;~
307: %{\bf Fig.2} Scale dependence of $h(x)$}
308: %{\bf 3. Summary of the results}. We will concentrate first on the discussions
309: %of the presented at Fig.1 and Fig.2 behaviour of the twist-4 parameter $h(x)$.
310: \begin{center}
311: \begin{figure}
312: \psfig{figure=fig.ps, height=6.5cm,width=10cm}
313: \caption{$h(x)$ extracted from CCFR'97 data}
314: \psfig{figure=fig3.ps, height=6.5cm, width=10cm}
315: %\end{figure}
316: \caption{ Scale dependence
317: of $h(x)$}
318: \end{figure}
319: \end{center}
320: %\vspace{-0.5cm}
321: %\vspace{0.1cm}
322:
323: {\bf 4.} We will concentrate first on
324: discussing the presented behaviour of the twist-4
325: parameter $h(x)$ of $xF_3$ SF, presented in Figs.1,2.
326: In the case of $k=1$, namely in the pure
327: $\overline{MS}$-scheme,
328: %Refs.\cite{KKPS2,KPS1}
329: $x$-shape of $h(x)$
330: obtained from the LO and NLO analysis of Refs.\cite{KKPS2,KPS1}
331: is in
332: agreement
333: with the IRR-model predictions of Ref.\cite{DW}. Note also that the
334: combination of the quark counting rules \cite{qcr} with the
335: results of Ref.\cite{HT1}
336: predict the following $x$-form of $h(x)$: $h(x)\sim A_2^{'}
337: (1-x)^2$. Taking into account the negative
338: values of $A_2^{'}$, obtained in the process of
339: our LO and NLO fits (see Table 1), we conclude that the related
340: behaviour of $h(x)$ is in qualitative agreement with these
341: predictions.
342: %Definite deviations from this quark-parton
343: %motivated picture is associated with the effects of asymptitic freedom of QCD,
344: %which enter at this stage of the analysis of Ref.\cite{KKPS2,KPS1}
345: %through the LO and NLO perturbative QCD corrections.
346:
347: At the NNLO the situation is more intriguing. Indeed, though a certain
348: indication
349: of the twist-4 term survives even
350: at this level, the NNLO part of Fig.1 demonstrates that its
351: extracted $x$-shape starts
352: to deviate
353: both from the IRR prediction of Ref.\cite{DW} and from
354: the quark-parton model picture, mentioned above. Notice also that
355: within the statistical error bars the NNLO value of $A_2^{'}$
356: is indistinguishable from zero.
357: These conclusions are confirmed by the studies of the
358: factorization/renormalization scale dependence of the
359: NLO and NNLO outcomes of the fits \cite{KPS1}.
360:
361: Indeed, it is known that the variation of the related scales
362: is simulating in part the effects of the higher-order
363: perturbative QCD corrections. In view of this the NLO (NNLO)
364: results, obtained in the case of $k=1/4$ (see Table 2 and
365: Fig.2 in particular), are almost identical to the NNLO (Pad\'e motivated
366: N$^3$LO) extractions of $h(x)$ and of the IRR model parameter $A_2^{'}$
367: from the fits with $k=1$ (see Fig.1 and Table 1). Thus, we conclude,
368: that as the result of analysis of the CCFR'97 data
369: the NNLO and beyond we observe the minimization
370: of the
371: twist-4 contributions to $xF_3$ SF. This feature
372: is related to the interplay between NNLO perturbative
373: QCD and twist-4 $1/Q^2$ corrections.
374: The recent studies of the scale-dependence
375: of the
376: NLO DGLAP extraction of the twist-4 terms from different recent
377: DIS experimental data \cite{AK} are supporting the foundations
378: of Refs.\cite{KKPS2,KPS1}. This means that the higher-twist
379: parameters cannot be defined independently of the effects of perturbation
380: theory and that the NNLO corrections can mimick the contributions
381: of higher twists \cite{St} provided the experimental data is not precise
382: enough for the clear separation of the nonperturbative
383: from perturbative effects. Thus, it is highly desirable to have
384: new experimental data for $xF_3$ SF, which are more precise than the
385: ones given by the CCFR collaboration.
386:
387: In conclusion we present also the NLO and NNLO values of $\alpha_s(M_Z)$,
388: obtained by us in Ref.\cite{KPS1} from the fits of CCFR'97 data for $xF_3$
389: SF with twist-4 terms modeled through the IRR approach :
390: \begin{eqnarray}
391: NLO~~~\alpha_s(M_Z) &=& 0.120 \pm 0.003 (stat) \pm 0.005 (syst)^{+ 0.009}
392: _{-0.007} \\
393: \nonumber
394: NNLO ~~\alpha_s(M_Z) &=& 0.118 \pm 0.003 (stat) \pm 0.005 (syst) \pm 0.003
395: \end{eqnarray}
396: The systematical uncertainties in these results are determined by
397: the systematical uncertainties of the CCFR'97 data and the
398: theoretical errors are fixed
399: from the numbers for $\Delta_k$ (see Table 2), which reflect
400: the factorization/renormalization scale uncertainties of the values
401: of $\Lambda_{\overline{MS}}^{(4)}$. The
402: incorporation into the $\overline{MS}$-matching formula
403: \cite{match} of the proposals
404: of Ref.\cite{MOM}
405: for estimates of the ambiguities due to smooth transition to the world with
406: $f=5$ numbers of active flavours was also taken into account.
407: The theoretical
408: uncertainties presented are in agreement with the ones, obtained in Ref.\cite{NV}, while
409: the NNLO value of $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ is in agreement with another
410: NNLO result $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.1172 \pm 0.0024$, which was obtained
411: from the analysis of SLAC, BCDMS, E665 and HERA data for $F_2$ SF with
412: the help of the Bernstein polynomial technique \cite{SYnd}.
413: It might be of interest to verify the theoretical errors
414: of these two available phenomenological NNLO analysis using
415: different variants of fixing scheme-dependence ambiguities.
416: The first steps towards the analysis of this problem
417: are already made \cite{Ch}.
418:
419: {\bf Acknowledgements.} We are grateful to C.J. Maxwell for careful
420: reading of the manuscript.
421: \newpage
422: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
423: \bibitem{Markov} M. A. Markov, {\it The Neutrino [in English]},
424: Preprint JINR, D-1269 (1963), published as the book
425: by Fizmatgiz (1964), translated to Japanese.
426: %\bibitem{Bj} J. D. Bjorken, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 148} (1966) 1467;
427: %{\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 16} (1966) 408.
428: \bibitem{Bj2} J. D. Bjorken, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 179} (1969) 1547.
429: \bibitem{Drell} R. J. Jaffe, Preprint MIT-CTP-2791; hep-ph/9811327;\\
430: C. H. Llewellyn Smith, Preprint CERN-DG/98-3534; hep-ph/9812301.
431: \bibitem{BVT}
432: N. N. Bogolyubov, V. S. Vladimirov, A. N. Tavkhelidze, {\it Theor. Math.
433: Phys.} {\bf 12} (1972) 3, 305.
434: \bibitem{BSh} N. N. Bogolyubov, D.V. Shirkov, {\it Introduction to the
435: Theory of Quantum Fields}, Nauka, Moskow (1973, 1976, 1986);
436: {\it English transl.} Wiley, NY (1959,1980).
437: \bibitem{Books}
438: F. J. Yndur\'ain, {\it Quantum chromodynamics: an introduction to the
439: theory of quarks and gluons}, Springer Verlag (1983);\\
440: B.L. Ioffe, V.A. Khoze, L.N. Lipatov, {\it Hard processes. v1: Phenomenology,
441: quark parton model}, {\it English transl.} North Holland (1984)\\
442: G. Altarelli, {\it The development of perturbative QCD}, World Scient. (1994);\\
443: R. K. Ellis, W.J. Stirling, B.R. Webber, {\it QCD and colliders}, Cambridge
444: Univ. Press (1996).
445: \bibitem{HT1}
446: E. Berger, S.J. Brodsky, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 42} (1979) 940;\\
447: J. Gunion, P. Nason, R. Blankenbecler,
448: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D29} (1984) 2491.
449: \bibitem{HT2}
450: R.L. Jaffe, M. Soldate, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D26} (1982) 49;\\
451: S.P. Luttrell, S. Wada, B.R. Webber, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B188}
452: (1981) 219;\\
453: E.V. Shuryak, A.I. Vainshtein, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B199} (1982) 451.
454: \bibitem{VM}
455: M. Virchaux, A.Milsztain, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B274} (1992) 221.
456: \bibitem{BCDMS}
457: BCDMS Collab., C. Benvenuti et al., {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B195} (1987) 97;
458: {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B232} (1989) 490.
459: \bibitem{SLAC}
460: L.W. Whitlow, Ph. D. Thesis; SLAC-0357 (1990).
461: %\bibitem{VM}
462: %M. Virchaux, A. Milsztain, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B274} (1992) 221.
463: %\bibitem{SLAC}
464: %\bibitem{Alekhin1}
465: %S.I. Alekhin, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D59} (1999) 114016.
466: \bibitem{IRR}
467: M. Beneke, {\it Phys. Rept.} {\bf 317} (1999) 1.
468: \bibitem{disp}
469: Yu.L.Dokshitzer, G.Marchesini, B.R.Webber, {\it Nucl. Phys.}
470: {\bf B469} (1996) 93.
471: \bibitem{disp1}
472: D.V. Shirkov, I.L. Solovtsov, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 79} (1997)
473: 1209;
474: I.L. Solovtsov, D.V. Shirkov, {\it Theor. Math. Phys.}
475: {\bf 120} (1999) 482 (hep-ph/9909305).
476: \bibitem{DW}
477: M. Dasgupta, B.R. Webber, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B382} (1996) 273.
478: \bibitem{CCFR}
479: CCFR-NuTeV Collab., W.G. Seligman et al., {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}
480: {\bf 79} (1997) 213.
481: \bibitem{VZ}
482: W.L. van Neerven, E.B. Zijlstra, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B272} (1991)
483: 127; ibid. {\bf B273} (1991) 476; {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B383} (1992) 525.
484: \bibitem{ZV}
485: E.B. Zijlstra, W.L. van Neerven, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B297} (1992) 377;
486: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B417} (1994) 61.
487: \bibitem{LRV}
488: S.A. Larin, T. van Ritbergen, J.A.M. Vermaseren, {\it Nucl. Phys.}
489: {\bf B427} (1994) 41;
490: S.A. Larin, P. Nogueira, T. van Ritbergen, J.A.M. Vermaseren,
491: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B492} (1997) 338.
492: \bibitem{KKPS1}
493: A.L.Kataev, A.V.Kotikov, G.Parente, A.V.Sidorov,
494: {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B388} (1996) 179.
495: \bibitem{KKPS2}
496: A.L.Kataev, A.V.Kotikov, G.Parente, A.V.Sidorov,
497: {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B417} (1998) 374.
498: \bibitem{KPS1}
499: A.L.Kataev, G. Parente, A.V. Sidorov, Preprint IC/99/51 (1999)
500: and hep-ph/9905310; to be published in {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B}.
501: %\bibitem{KPS2}
502: %A.L. Kataev, G. Parente, A.V. Sidorov, Proc. Workshop "Nucleon99",
503: %Frascati, June 1999, to pe published in {\it Nucl. Phys. }
504: %{\bf A} (hep-ph/9908349).
505: \bibitem{PS}
506: G. Parisi, N. Sourlas, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B151} (1979) 421;\\
507: I.S. Barker, C.B. Langensiepen, G. Shaw, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B186}
508: (1981) 61.
509: \bibitem{Jacobi}
510: J. Ch\'yla, J. Ramez, {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf C31} (1986) 151;\\
511: V.G. Krivokhizhin et al., {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf C36} (1987) 51;
512: ibid. {\bf C48} (1990) 347.
513: \bibitem{NV}
514: W.L. van Neerven, A. Vogt, preprint INLO-PUB 14/99 (1999)
515: (hep-ph/9907472), to be published in {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B}.
516: \bibitem{Maul} M. Maul, E. Stein, A. Sch\"afer, L. Mankiewicz,
517: {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B401} (1997) 100.
518: \bibitem{qcr}
519: V.A. Matveev, R.M. Muradyan, A.N. Tavkhelidze, {\it Lett. Nuov. Cim.}
520: {\bf 7} (1973) 719;
521: S.J. Brodsky, G.R. Farrar, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 31} (1973) 1153.
522: %\bibitem{AB}
523: %L.F. Abbot, R.M. Barnett, {\it Ann. of Phys.} {\bf 125} (1980) 276;
524: %V.A. Bednyakov et al., {\it Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 40} (1984) 494.
525: \bibitem{AK}
526: S.I. Alekhin, hep-ph/9907350;
527: S.I. Alekhin, A.L. Kataev, hep-ph/9908349,
528: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A} (in press).
529: \bibitem{St}
530: G. Sterman, hep-ph/9905548 and talk at the QCD-Euronet Workshop, Florence,
531: Italy, October 1999, quoted by Yu. L. Dokshitzer, hep-ph/9911299.
532: %\bibitem{PP} A.A. Penin, A.A. Pivovarov, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B401} (1997) 294.
533: \bibitem{match}
534: W. Bernreuther, W.Wetzel, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B197} (1982) 288;
535: Err. ibid. {\bf B513} (1998) 758; S.A. Larin, T. van Ritbergen, J.A.M.
536: Vermaseren, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B438} (1995) 278; K.G. Chetyrkin,
537: B.A. Kniehl, M.Steinhauser, {\it Phys.Rev.Lett.} {\bf 79} (1997) 2184.
538: \bibitem{MOM}
539: J. Bl\"umlein, W.L. van Neerven, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B450}
540: (1999) 417.
541: \bibitem{SYnd} J. Santiago, F.J. Yndur\'ain, preprint FTUAM 99-8
542: (hep-ph/9904344).
543: \bibitem{Ch}
544: C.J. Maxwell, A. Mirjalili, work in progress (private communication
545: to A.L.K.).
546: \end{thebibliography}
547: \end{document}
548: %\end{verbatim}
549: %\end{document}
550:
551:
552:
553:
554:
555:
556:
557:
558:
559:
560:
561: