1: %\documentstyle[12pt,a4,epsfig,epsf]{article}
2:
3: %\documentstyle[12pt,a4,epsfig]{report}
4: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
5: %\usepackage{dina4p}
6: \usepackage{epsfig}
7: \usepackage[hang,bf,small]{caption}
8: %\usepackage{showkeys}
9: %\usepackage{amsmath}
10: %\usepackage{amsmath}
11: \DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.eps.gz,.eps,.ps,.ps.gz}
12: \oddsidemargin-5mm
13: \evensidemargin-5mm
14:
15: \setcounter{secnumdepth}{7}
16: \setcounter{tocdepth}{7}
17: \parskip=\itemsep %?
18:
19: \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt} %?
20: \setlength{\partopsep}{0pt} %?
21: \setlength{\topsep}{0pt} %?
22: %---layout fuer eine dina4 seite-------------------
23: \setlength{\textheight}{22cm}
24: \setlength{\textwidth}{174mm}
25: \setlength{\topmargin}{-1.5cm}
26:
27: \setlength{\marginparwidth}{0cm}
28: \setlength{\marginparsep}{0cm}
29: \setlength{\parindent}{0cm}
30:
31: %\input psfig
32: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
33: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
34: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
35: %
36: \newcommand{\beqar}[1]{\begin{eqnarray}\label{#1}}
37: \newcommand{\eeqar}{\end{eqnarray}}
38: %
39: \newcommand{\m}{\marginpar{*}}
40: \newcommand{\lash}[1]{\not\! #1 \,}
41: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\big< #1 \big|}
42: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{\big| #1 \big>}
43: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}
44: \newcommand{\D}{\partial}
45: %
46: \newcommand{\g}{{\rm g}}
47: %
48: %\newcommand{\q}{\vec{q}}
49: %\newcommand{\q_0}{\vec{q_0}}
50: %\newcommand{\q'}{\vec{q}'}
51: \newcommand{\el}{{\cal L}}
52: \newcommand{\A}{{\cal A}}
53: \newcommand{\Ka}{{\cal K}}
54: \newcommand{\al}{\alpha}
55: \newcommand{\be}{\beta}
56: \newcommand{\ep}{\varepsilon}
57: \newcommand{\ga}{\gamma}
58: \newcommand{\de}{\delta}
59: \newcommand{\De}{\Delta}
60: \newcommand{\et}{\eta}
61: \newcommand{\ka}{\vec{\kappa}}
62: \newcommand{\la}{\lambda}
63: \newcommand{\ph}{\varphi}
64: \newcommand{\si}{\sigma}
65: \newcommand{\ro}{\varrho}
66: \newcommand{\Ga}{\Gamma}
67: \newcommand{\om}{\omega}
68: \newcommand{\La}{\Lambda}
69: \newcommand{\tG}{ {G}}
70: \newcommand{\as}{\alpha_S}
71: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
72: \def\eq#1{{Eq.~(\ref{#1})}}
73:
74: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
75: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
76: % ABBREVIATED JOURNAL NAMES
77: %
78: \def\ap#1#2#3{ {\it Ann. Phys. (NY) }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
79: \def\arnps#1#2#3{ {\it Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
80: \def\npb#1#2#3{ {\it Nucl. Phys. }{\bf B#1} (19#2) #3}
81: \def\plb#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Lett. }{\bf B#1} (19#2) #3}
82: \def\prd#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Rev. }{\bf D#1} (19#2) #3}
83: \def\prep#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Rep. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
84: \def\prl#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
85: \def\ptp#1#2#3{ {\it Prog. Theor. Phys. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
86: \def\rmp#1#2#3{ {\it Rev. Mod. Phys. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
87: \def\zpc#1#2#3{ {\it Z. Phys. }{\bf C#1} (19#2) #3}
88: \def\mpla#1#2#3{ {\it Mod. Phys. Lett. }{\bf A#1} (19#2) #3}
89: \def\nc#1#2#3{ {\it Nuovo Cim. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
90: \def\yf#1#2#3{ {\it Yad. Fiz. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
91: \def\sjnp#1#2#3{ {\it Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
92: \def\jetp#1#2#3{ {\it Sov. Phys. }{JETP }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
93: \def\jetpl#1#2#3{ {\it JETP Lett. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
94: %%%%%%%%% notice the parenthesys is only on one side
95: \def\ppsjnp#1#2#3{ {\it (Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
96: \def\ppjetp#1#2#3{ {\it (Sov. Phys. JETP }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
97: \def\ppjetpl#1#2#3{{\it (JETP Lett. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
98: \def\zetf#1#2#3{ {\it Zh. ETF }{\bf #1}(19#2) #3}
99: \def\cmp#1#2#3{ {\it Comm. Math. Phys. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
100: \def\cpc#1#2#3{ {\it Comp. Phys. Commun. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
101: \def\dis#1#2{ {\it Dissertation, }{\sf #1 } 19#2}
102: \def\dip#1#2#3{ {\it Diplomarbeit, }{\sf #1 #2} 19#3 }
103: \def\ib#1#2#3{ {\it ibid. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
104: \def\jpg#1#2#3{ {\it J. Phys}. {\bf G#1}#2#3}
105: %
106: \newcommand{\bas}{\bar{\alpha}_S}
107: \relax
108: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
109: %\renewcommand{\thefigure}{{\protect\bf\arabic{figure}}}
110: %
111: \begin{document}
112: %
113: \title{
114: {\Large \bf Diffractive Dissociation and Saturation Scale }\\\
115: { \Large \bf from Non-Linear Evolution in High Energy DIS}}
116: \author{
117: {\large ~ E.~Levin\thanks{e-mail:
118: leving@post.tau.ac.il}~~$\mathbf{{}^{a),b)}}$
119: \,~\,and\,\,~
120: M. ~Lublinsky\thanks{e-mail:
121: mal@techunix.technion.ac.il}~~$\mathbf{{}^{c),d)}}$}\\[2.5ex]
122: {\it ${}^{a)}$ \small HEP Department}\\
123: {\it \small School of Physics and Astronomy}\\
124: {\it\small Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Science}\\
125: {\it \small Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, ISRAEL}\\[2.5ex]
126: {\it ${}^{b)}$\small DESY Theory Group,}\\
127: { \it\small D-22602, Hamburg, GERMANY}\\[2.5ex]
128: {\it ${}^{c)}$ \small Department of Physics}\\
129: {\it \small Technion -- Israel Institute of Technology}\\
130: {\it \small Haifa 32000, ISRAEL}\\[2.5ex]
131: {\it ${}^{d)}$ \small II. Institut f\"{u}r Theoretische Physik, Universit\"{a}t Hamburg}\\
132: {\it\small Luruper Chaussee 149,
133: 22761 Hamburg, GERMANY }\\[1.5ex]
134: }
135:
136:
137: \maketitle
138: \thispagestyle{empty}
139:
140: \begin{abstract}
141: This paper presents the first numerical solution to the non-linear
142: evolution equation for diffractive
143: dissociation processes in deep inelastic scattering.
144: It is shown that the solution depends on one scaling variable
145: $\tau = Q^2/Q^{D\,2}_s(x,x_0)$,
146: where $Q^D_s(x,x_0)$ is the saturation scale for the diffraction
147: processes. The dependence of the saturation scale
148: $Q^D_s(x,x_0)$ on both $x$ and $x_0$ is investigated, ($Y_0 = \ln(1/x_0)$ is a
149: minimal rapidity gap for the diffraction process).
150: The $x$ - dependence of $Q^D_s$ turns out to be the same as of the saturation scale in
151: the total inclusive DIS cross section. In our calculations $Q^D_s(x,x_0)$ reveals only
152: mild dependence on $x_0$. The scaling is shown to hold for $x \ll x_0$ but is violated
153: at $ x \sim x_0$.
154:
155: \end{abstract}
156: \thispagestyle{empty}
157: \begin{flushright}
158: \vspace{-21.5cm}
159: DESY-01-122 \\
160: TAUP - 2687 - 2001 \\
161: \today
162: \end{flushright}
163: \newpage
164: \setcounter{page}{1}
165:
166:
167:
168:
169: \section{Introduction}
170: \setcounter{equation}{0}
171:
172:
173: Diffractive inclusive production in deep inelastic scattering (DIS) at
174: high energy has become
175: an area of particular interest of experts since it provides a deeper
176: insight into dynamics of QCD in the kinematic region where the density of
177: partons is expected to be high (see Ref.\cite{WM} and reference therein).
178:
179: Inclusive diffraction in DIS offers an opportunity to probe the
180: transition region between ``soft" and ``hard" interactions giving
181: natural estimates for the value of the shadowing corrections in DIS,
182: namely $ \Delta F_2 = F_2 - F_2^{DGLAP} = F_D $ \footnote{$F_D$ is
183: the diffractive structure
184: function introduced in Ref. \cite{ZEUSDATA}.}
185: as was firstly shown in Ref. \cite{LW} on the
186: basis of the AGK cutting rules \cite{AGK}.
187: A more detail approach started with the
188: Kovchegov-McLerran\cite{KM}
189: formula which expresses the ratio of the diffraction cross section
190: ($\sigma_{diff}$) to the total cross section ($\sigma_{tot}$)
191: in DIS initiated by the
192: quark-antiquark pair produced in
193: $\gamma^* \,\rightarrow\,q\,\,+\,\,\bar q $ decay of the virtual
194: photon. This formula reads
195:
196: \beq \label{KMF}
197: R\,\,=\,\,\frac{\sigma_{diff}}{\sigma_{tot}}\,\,=\,\,\frac{\int\,d^2\,b \int
198: \,dz \int \,d^2 r_{\perp}
199: P^{\gamma^*}(z,r_{\perp};Q^2)\, N^2(r_{\perp},x;b)}
200: { 2\, \int\,d^2 b \,\int\,dz
201: \,\int\,d^2\,r_{\perp}\,\,P^{\gamma^*}(z,r_{\perp};Q^2)\,\,
202: N ( r_{\perp},x;b)
203: }\,\,.
204: \eeq
205: where $N(r_{\perp},x;b)$ is the imaginary part of
206: the elastic dipole-target
207: amplitude for dipole of the size $r_\perp$ scattered at fixed Bjorken
208: $ x =
209: Q^2/W^2$ ($ Q^2$ is the photon virtuality and $W$ is its energy in the target rest frame) and at
210: fixed impact $b$.
211: $P^{\gamma^*}(z,r_{\perp};Q^2)$ is the probability to find a
212: quark-antiquark pair with size $r_{\perp}$ inside the virtual photon
213: \cite{MU90,WF}:
214: \begin{eqnarray}
215: P^{\gamma^*}(z,r_{\perp};Q^2)&=&\frac{\alpha_{em} N_c}{2
216: \pi^2}
217: \,\sum_f \,Z^2_f \sum_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2}\,\{\, | \Psi_T |^2\,\,+\,\,|
218: \Psi_L|^2 \,\}\,\,\label{PROBPH}\\
219: &=&\frac{\alpha_{em} N_c}{2 \pi^2}
220: \sum_f Z^2_f \,\{\,( z^2 + ( 1 - z )^2 )a^2 K^2_1( a\,r_{\perp}
221: )\,+\,4\,Q^2\,z^2( 1 - z )^2 K^2_0(
222: a\,r_{\perp})\,\},\nonumber
223: \end{eqnarray}
224: where $a^2 = z(1-z)Q^2 + m^2_q$. The functions $\Psi_{T,L}$ stand for transverse and
225: longitudinal polarized photon wave functions.
226: \eq{KMF} is important since it provides a relation
227: between the dipole-target elastic amplitude and the
228: cross section of the diffraction dissociation. A non-linear
229: evolution equation was derived
230: for the former \cite{GLR,MUQI,MU94,BA,KO,Braun,ILM}.
231: This equation has been studied both
232: analytically \cite{ILM,LT} and numerically \cite{Braun,LGLM,LL,Braun2}.
233:
234: The formula (\ref{KMF}) fails to describe correctly the experimental data on
235: the diffraction production. Moreover, inclusion of an extra gluon emission
236: in the initial virtual photon wave function is still
237: insufficient to reproduce
238: the data
239: \cite{GLMDD,KOP,KOVN,KOV}.
240: Nevertheless, \eq{KMF} can be viewed rather as initial
241: condition to a more complicated equation.
242:
243: The non-linear equation for the diffraction dissociation
244: processes can be written for the amplitude $N^D$ which has the following
245: meaning \cite{LK}.
246:
247:
248: We introduce the cross section for diffraction production with the
249: rapidity gap larger than given $Y_0\equiv\ln (1/x_0)$:
250: \beq
251: \label{F2D}
252: \si_{diff}(x,x_0,Q^2)\,\,\,=\,\,\int\,\,d^2 r_{\perp} \int \,d
253: z\,\,P^{\gamma^*}(z,r_{\perp};Q^2)
254: \,\,\sigma_{\rm dipole}^{diff}(r_{\perp},
255: x,x_0)\,,
256: \eeq
257: and
258: \beq \label{DDCX}
259: \sigma_{\rm dipole}^{diff}(r_{\perp},x,x_0) \,\,=\,\,\int\,d^2
260: b\,\,N^D(r_{\perp},x,x_0;b)\,.
261: \eeq
262:
263: The function $N^D$ is the amplitude
264: of the diffraction production induced by the dipole
265: with size $r_{\perp}$ with rapidity
266: gap larger than given ($Y_0$).
267: Note that the minimal rapidity gap $Y_0$ can be kinematically
268: related to the maximal diffractively produced mass: $x_0=(Q^2+M^2)/W^2$.
269:
270: The non-linear evolution equation for $N^D$ was derived in Ref. \cite{LK}
271: and recently rederived in Ref. \cite{KOVN}:
272: \begin{eqnarray}
273: N^D({\mathbf{x_{01}}},Y,Y_0;b) = N^2({\mathbf{x_{01}}},Y_0;b)\,
274: {\rm e}^{-\frac{4
275: C_F\,\as}{\pi} \,\ln\left( \frac{{\mathbf{x_{01}}}}{\rho}\right)(Y-Y_0)}\,
276: +\frac{C_F\,\as}{\pi^2}\int_{Y_0}^Y dy \, {\rm e}^{-\frac{4
277: C_F\,\as}{\pi} \,\ln\left( \frac{{\mathbf{x_{01}}}}{\rho}\right)(Y-y)} \times \nonumber \\
278: \nonumber \\
279: \int_{\rho} \, d^2 {\mathbf{x_{2}}}
280: \frac{{\mathbf{x^2_{01}}}}{{\mathbf{x^2_{02}}}\,
281: {\mathbf{x^2_{12}}}}
282: [\,2\, N^D({\mathbf{x_{02}}},y,Y_0;{ \mathbf{ b-
283: \frac{1}{2}
284: x_{12}}})
285: + N^D({\mathbf{x_{02}}},y,Y_0;{ \mathbf{ b - \frac{1}{2}
286: x_{12}}}) N^D({\mathbf{x_{12}}},y,Y_0;{ \mathbf{ b- \frac{1}{2}
287: x_{02}}}) \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
288: - 4 \, N^D({\mathbf{x_{02}}},y,Y_0;{ \mathbf{ b - \frac{1}{2}
289: x_{12}}}) N({\mathbf{x_{12}}},y;{ \mathbf{ b- \frac{1}{2}
290: x_{02}}})+2\, N({\mathbf{x_{02}}},y;{ \mathbf{ b -
291: \frac{1}{2}
292: x_{12}}}) N({\mathbf{x_{12}}},y;{ \mathbf{ b- \frac{1}{2}
293: x_{02}}})
294: ]\,. \nonumber \\ \label{DDEQ}
295: \end{eqnarray}
296: The evolution (\ref{DDEQ}) is a subject to initial conditions at $x=x_0$:
297: \beq\label{iniDD}
298: N^D(r_\perp,x_0,x_0;b)\,=\,N^2(r_\perp,x_0;b)\,.
299: \eeq
300:
301:
302: Namely, at the energy equal to the energy gap diffraction is purely given
303: by the elastic scattering as
304: it was stated in \eq{KMF}.
305:
306: Since at high energies color dipoles are correct degrees of freedom
307: \cite{MU94} we can write the
308: unitarity constraint :
309: \beq\label{F}
310: 2\,N\,=\,N^D\,+\,F\,,
311: \eeq
312: where the function $F$ denotes contributions of all the inelastic processes. An important
313: observation is that $F$ satisfies the same equation as $N$ \cite{BA,KO} but with shifted initial
314: conditions \cite{LK}:
315: \beq\label{iniF}
316: F_{ini}\,=\, N_{ini}\,-\,N^2_{ini}
317: \eeq
318:
319: Another interesting quantity to study is the cross section of diffractive dissociation process
320: with a fixed gap or equivalently to a fixed mass:
321: \beq\label{R}
322: \Re\,\equiv \,-\,\partial N^D/\partial Y_0\,.
323: \eeq
324: The function $\Re$ was introduced in Ref. \cite{LK}. The authors of this paper proposed
325: a model in which $\Re$ was shown to possess a maximum when varying $Y_0$
326: at fixed $Y$. Physically this maximum means that at given $Y$ there is a preferable mass
327: for the production. Below we will argue that the appearance of the maximum is related
328: to the scaling phenomena to be displayed by the function $N^D$.
329:
330: The present paper is entirely devoted to the numerical solution of the equation (\ref{DDEQ}). Various
331: properties of the solutions $N^D$ are investigated while our final goal computation of the diffraction
332: cross section will be published separately \cite{LL1}.
333: In the next Section (2) the solution of the equation
334: (\ref{DDEQ}) is presented. Section 3 deals with the determination of the diffractive saturation scale.
335: Scaling phenomena is discussed in Section 4. We conclude in the last Section (5).
336:
337: \section{Solution of the non-linear equation}
338:
339: In this section we report on the numerical solution of the equation (\ref{DDEQ}). The method
340: of iterations proposed in Ref. \cite{LGLM} is applied. The constant value for the strong
341: coupling constant $\as=0.25$ is always used.The solutions are computed for
342: $4\times 10^{-5} \le x_0\le 10^{-2}$ and within the kinematic region $10^{-7}\le x \le x_0$
343: and distances up to a few fermi.
344:
345:
346: The function $N^D$ is formally a function of four variables: the energy gap $x_0$,
347: the Bjorken variable $x$, the transverse
348: distance $r_\perp$, and the impact parameter $b$. The $b$-dependence is parametric only
349: because the evolution kernel does not depend on $b$. In order to simplify the problem
350: we will proceed similarly to the treatment of the $b$-dependence of the function $N$
351: \cite{LGLM}. In that paper we assumed the function $N$ to
352: preserve the very same $b$-dependence as introduced
353: in the initial conditions:
354: \beq
355: \label{Nb}
356: N(r_\perp,x; b)\,=\, (1\,-\,e^{-\kappa(x,r_\perp)\, S(b)}),
357: \eeq
358: with the function $\kappa$ being related to the ``$b=0$'' solution $\tilde N(r_\perp,x)$:
359: \beq
360: \label{kappa}
361: \kappa(x,r_\perp)\,=\,-\,\ln(1\,-\,\tilde N(r_\perp,x)).
362: \eeq
363: $\tilde N(r_\perp,x)$ represents a solution of the very same non-linear equation (see
364: Refs.\cite{BA,KO}) but with
365: no dependence on the third variable. The initial conditions for the function
366: $\tilde N(r_\perp,x)$ are taken at $b=0$. For the case of the proton target \cite{LGLM}
367: the anzatz in the form (\ref{Nb}) was shown to be a quite good approximation of the exact
368: $b$-dependence of the solution to the non-linear equation for $ N(r_\perp,x;b)$. In Ref.
369: \cite{LL} we investigated the anzatz
370: (\ref{Nb}) for the gold target and again found it to be a very good approximation at least
371: for impact parameters smaller than the target radius.
372:
373: In order to be consistent with initial conditions (\ref{iniDD}) we assume the following
374: $b$-dependence of $N^D$:
375: \beq
376: \label{NDb}
377: N^D(r_\perp,x,x_0; b)\,=\, (1\,-\,e^{-\kappa^D(x,x_0,r_\perp)\, S(b)})^2,
378: \eeq
379: with
380: \beq
381: \label{kappaD}
382: \kappa^D(x,x_0,r_\perp)\,=\,-\,\ln(1\,-\,\sqrt{\tilde N^D(r_\perp,x,x_0)}).
383: \eeq
384: $\tilde N^D(r_\perp,x,x_0)$ represents a solution of the equation (\ref{DDEQ})
385: but with no dependence on the forth variable. The initial conditions for the function
386: $\tilde N^D(r_\perp,x,x_0)$ are set at $b=0$ and $\kappa^D(x_0,x_0,r_\perp)\,=\,
387: \kappa(x_0,r_\perp)$. Since in the present paper we do not intend to compute cross sections,
388: for which we would need to perform the $b$ integration, the accuracy of the anzatz (\ref{NDb})
389: will not be investigated here.
390:
391: For each initial value of $x_0$ the function $\tilde N^D(r_\perp,x,x_0)$
392: is obtained after about ten iterations.
393: The Fig.~\ref{solution} shows the solutions $\tilde N^D$ as a function of the distance
394: for various values of $x_0$ and $x$. The amplitude
395: for the elastic scattering $\tilde N^2$ \cite{LGLM} is plotted in the same graph.
396: The obtained numerical
397: inequality $\tilde N^2\le \tilde N^D\le\tilde N$ is in perfect agreement with the physical expectations for
398: the diffractive dissociation cross section to be larger than the elastic cross section. Another
399: consistency check is the saturation of the function $\tilde N^D$ which is a consequence of
400: the unitarity bound. In the black disk limit diffractive dissociation is a half of the total cross
401: section.
402: \begin{figure}[htbp]
403: \begin{tabular}{c c c}
404: $x=10^{-7}$ & $x=10^{-5}$ & $x=10^{-3}$ \\
405: \epsfig{file=sol_1_7f.eps,width=54mm, height=42mm}&
406: \epsfig{file=sol_1_5.eps,width=48mm, height=42mm}&
407: \epsfig{file=sol_1_3.eps,width=48mm, height=42mm} \\
408: \epsfig{file=sol_01_7f.eps,width=54mm, height=45mm}&
409: \epsfig{file=sol_01_5f.eps,width=48mm, height=45mm}&
410: \epsfig{file=sol_01_3f.eps,width=48mm, height=45mm}\\
411: \end{tabular}
412: \caption[]{\it The function $\tilde N^D$ is plotted versus distance. The curves correspond
413: to different values of $x_0$: a - $x_0=10^{-2}$; b - $x_0=10^{-3}$; c - $x_0=10^{-4}$.
414: The solid line is $\tilde N^2$.}
415: \label{solution}
416: \end{figure}
417:
418: It is worth to investigate the dependence of the solutions obtained on the gap
419: variable $x_0$. To this goal we plot the function $N^D$ as a function of the gap $Y_0$
420: for various distances and at fixed $Y=10$ (Fig.~\ref{solution2}). At short distances the solution
421: depends strongly
422: on $x_0$ though as we approach the saturation region this dependence dies out.
423: \begin{figure}[htbp]
424: \begin{tabular}{c c c c }
425: \epsfig{file=solY10_r01f.eps,width=44mm, height=38mm}&
426: \epsfig{file=solY10_r07f.eps,width=37mm, height=38mm}&
427: \epsfig{file=solY10_r17f.eps,width=37mm, height=38mm} &
428: \epsfig{file=solY10_r27f.eps,width=37mm, height=38mm}\\
429: \end{tabular}
430: \caption[]{\it The function $\tilde N^D$ is plotted versus the gap $Y_0$ at fixed rapidity
431: $Y=10$.}
432: \label{solution2}
433: \end{figure}
434:
435: It was stated in the Introduction that the function $N^D$ equals $2 N - F$, where both
436: functions $N$ and $F$ are solutions of the same non-linear equation \cite{BA,KO}. Thus it is natural
437: to compute
438: $2 N - F$ solving the non-linear evolution equation
439: \cite{BA,KO} with appropriate initial
440: conditions.
441: A comparison with $N^D$ from (\ref{DDEQ}) would be an
442: ultimate test for the correctness of the numerical procedures. Such test was successfully
443: performed and we found an absolute agreement (relative error less than 1\%)
444: between both the computations.
445:
446: \section{Saturation Scale}
447:
448: Determination of the diffractive saturation scale $Q_s^D(x,x_0)$ from the solution $\tilde N^D$
449: is a subject of this section. Unfortunately, no exact mathematical
450: definition of the saturation scale is known so far. In the Refs. \cite{LGLM,me} several definitions
451: of the saturation scale $Q_s(x)$ were proposed which related saturation scale to the shape
452: of the function $\tilde N$. It is important to stress that it is not clear a priori whether $Q_s^D$
453: should coincide with $Q_s$ or not.
454: We will proceed here in the same spirit as Ref. \cite{me}. Namely,
455: we propose several definitions of the saturation scale while the variety of the obtained
456: results will indicate the uncertainty in the definitions.
457:
458: For a step like function it is natural to define the saturation scale as position where
459: it reaches half of the maximum:
460: \begin{itemize}
461: \item {\bf Definition (a):}
462: \beq \label{defa}
463: \tilde N^D(R_s^D,x,x_0)\,=\,1/2\,,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, Q_s^D\,\equiv\, 2/R_s^D\,.
464: \eeq
465: \end{itemize}
466: The equality between the saturation radius $R_s^D$ and the saturation scale
467: $Q_s^D$ is motivated by the double logarithmic approximation. Though
468: this approximation is formally not justified, we still believe it to make reliable
469: estimates provided $Q_s^D$ is large enough.
470: The definition (\ref{defa}) is analogous to the one proposed in Ref. \cite{LGLM}
471: $N(2/Q_s,x)=1/2$. If we recall that $N^D=N^2$ at $x=x_0$ and postulate $Q_s^D(x_0,x_0)
472: =Q_s(x_0)$ then consistency requires
473: \begin{itemize}
474: \item {\bf Definition (b):}
475: \beq \label{defb}
476: \tilde N^D(2/Q_s^D,x,x_0)\,=\,1/4\,.
477: \eeq
478: \end{itemize}
479:
480: An alternative definition of the saturation scale could be one motivated by the
481: Glauber-Mueller formula:
482: \begin{itemize}
483: \item {\bf Definition (c):}
484: \beq \label{defc}
485: \kappa^D(2/Q_s^D,x,x_0)\,=\,1/2\,.
486: \eeq
487: \end{itemize}
488:
489:
490: The saturation scales deduced through the above definitions are depicted in Fig. \ref{Qs}.
491: \begin{figure}[htbp]
492: \begin{tabular}{c c c }
493: \epsfig{file=Qs_x12f.eps,width=55mm, height=38mm}&
494: \epsfig{file=Qs_x13f.eps,width=52mm, height=38mm}&
495: \epsfig{file=Qs_x14f.eps,width=55mm, height=38mm} \\
496: \end{tabular}
497: \caption[]{\it The saturation scale $Q_s^D$ is plotted versus $x$. The three curves correspond
498: to the definitions (\ref{defa}) (lowest curve), (\ref{defb}) (middle curve), and
499: (\ref{defc}) (upper curve).}
500: \label{Qs}
501: \end{figure}
502: For given $x_0$ the observed hierarchy
503: between the saturation scales obtained is an obvious consequence of the definitions
504: (\ref{defa}), (\ref{defb}), (\ref{defc}) and the shape of the function $\tilde N^D$
505: (Fig. \ref{solution}). Note that the saturation scale is almost $x_0$ independent.
506:
507: It is important to learn about $x$-dependence of the saturation scale. To this goal,
508: we assume the following parameterization:
509: \beq\label{qsat}
510: Q_s^D(x,x_0)\,=\,Q_{s\,0}^D\,\,x^{-\lambda}\,\,x_0^\beta\,.
511: \eeq
512: In fact, the parameterization (\ref{qsat}) is a good approximation for the values
513: of the saturation scales obtained with
514: $$
515: \lambda\,=\,0.385\,\pm\,0.015\,; \,\,\,\,\,\,\, {\rm and}\,\,\,\,\,\, \beta\,=\,0.045\,\pm\,0.025\,.
516: $$
517: Within the errors these powers coincide for all the saturation scale definitions
518: (\ref{defa}), (\ref{defb}), (\ref{defc}). The small value for the power $\beta$ is
519: a numeric indication of the very weak $x_0$-dependence of the saturation scale. Its
520: large relative error results on one hand from numerical limitations and on the other hand,
521: this error signals for more complicated $x_0$-dependence than it is given in (\ref{qsat}).
522:
523: It is important to stress that the obtained power $\lambda$ coincides with the corresponding
524: power of the saturation scale $Q_s$ \cite{me}.
525:
526: \section{Scaling phenomena}
527:
528: In the Ref. \cite{me} the function $\tilde N$ was shown to display the scaling phenomena.
529: We present here a similar analysis for the function $\tilde N^D$.
530: In the saturation region the scaling
531: implies the amplitude to be a function of only one variable $\tau= (r_\perp\cdot Q_s^D(x,x_0))^2$:
532: \beq\label{SCALING}
533: \tilde N^D(r_\perp,x,x_0)\,=\,\tilde N^D(\tau)\,.
534: \eeq
535:
536: Let us define the following derivative functions assuming the
537: scaling behavior (\ref{SCALING}):
538: \beq
539: N_y^D(r_\perp,x,x_0)\,\equiv\,-\,\frac{\partial \tilde N^D}{\partial Y}\,=\,
540: \frac{d \tilde N^D}{d \tau}\,\tau\,\frac{\partial\ln (Q_s^D)^2}{\partial \ln x}\,,
541: \label{DX}
542: \eeq
543: \beq
544: N_r^D(r_\perp,x,x_0)\,\equiv\, r_\perp^2\,\frac{\partial \tilde N^D}{\partial r_\perp^2}\, =\,
545: \frac{d \tilde N^D}{d \tau}\,\tau\,,
546: \label{DR}
547: \eeq
548: \beq
549: \Re(r_\perp,x,x_0)\,\equiv\,-\frac{\partial \tilde N^D}{\partial Y_0}\,=\,
550: \frac{d \tilde N^D}{d \tau}\,\tau\,\frac{\partial\ln (Q_s^D)^2}{\partial \ln x_0}\,.
551: \label{DX0}
552: \eeq
553:
554: If the scaling behavior (\ref{SCALING}) takes place indeed, then both the ratios
555: $N_y^D/N_r^D$ and $\Re/N_r^D$ are $r_\perp$ independent functions.
556: Let us first consider scaling with respect to $x$. Fig. \ref{scal_x} presents the derivatives
557: $N_y^D$ and $N_r^D$ as functions of the distance $r_\perp$ at fixed $x_0=10^{-2}$.
558: \begin{figure}[htbp]
559: \begin{tabular}{c c c c}
560: \epsfig{file=scal_12_x3f.eps,width=40mm, height=40mm}&
561: \epsfig{file=scal_12_x4f.eps,width=40mm, height=40mm}&
562: \epsfig{file=scal_12_x5f.eps,width=40mm, height=40mm}&
563: \epsfig{file=scal_12_x6f.eps,width=40mm, height=40mm}\\
564: \end{tabular}
565: \caption[]{\it The derivative functions $N_r^D$ (dashed line) and $N_y^D$ (solid line)
566: as functions of the distance at fixed $x_0=10^{-2}$. }
567: \label{scal_x}
568: \end{figure}
569: Both functions $N_y^D$ and $N_r^D$ have extrema placed at the same distance
570: depending on $x$. This is a consequence of the scaling behavior (\ref{SCALING}) and
571: equations (\ref{DX}) and (\ref{DR}). The extrema occur at certain $\tau_{max}$, such
572: that $\tilde N^{D\,\prime} (\tau_{max})=-\tau_{max} \tilde
573: N^{D\,{\prime\prime}}(\tau_{max})$. In Fig.
574: \ref{scal_x}, $\tau_{max}$ is approached by varying $r_\perp$ at fixed $x$. Alternatively
575: it can be reached by varying $x$ at fixed $r_\perp$ (Fig. \ref{scal_r}).
576: \begin{figure}[htbp]
577: \begin{tabular}{c c c c}
578: \epsfig{file=scal_12_r07f.eps,width=42mm, height=40mm}&
579: \epsfig{file=scal_12_r17f.eps,width=38mm, height=40mm}&
580: \epsfig{file=scal_12_r27f.eps,width=38mm, height=40mm}&
581: \epsfig{file=scal_12_r37f.eps,width=38mm, height=40mm}\\
582: \end{tabular}
583: \caption[]{\it The derivative function $N_r^D$ as function of the rapidity $Y$
584: at $x_0=10^{-2}$. }
585: \label{scal_r}
586: \end{figure}
587:
588:
589: Consider now the ratio function $R_a^D$:
590: \beq\label{Ra}
591: R_a^D(r_\perp,x,x_0)\,\equiv\, \frac{ N_y^D}{ N_r^D}\,=\,\frac{\partial \ln (Q_s^D)^2}
592: {\partial \ln x}\,.
593: \eeq
594: If the scaling phenomenon takes place the function $R_a^D$ is expected to be $r_\perp$
595: independent. We study the scaling within the distance interval
596: $0.04\, {\rm GeV^{-1}}\le r_\perp \le 10 \, {\rm GeV^{-1}}$ that corresponds to
597: $0.25\, {\rm GeV^{2}}\le Q^2 \le 2.5\times 10^3\, {\rm GeV^{2}}$.
598: Fig. \ref{ratio} presents the results on the scaling.
599: The three lines correspond to
600: functions $N_r^D$ and $N_y^D$
601: divided by their minimal values within the interval, and the function
602: $R_a^D$ multiplied by the factor 40 to be seen on the scale.
603:
604: \begin{figure}[htbp]
605: \begin{tabular}{c c c c}
606: \epsfig{file=rat_12_x3f.eps,width=38mm, height=40mm}&
607: \epsfig{file=rat_12_x4f.eps,width=38mm, height=40mm}&
608: \epsfig{file=rat_12_x5f.eps,width=38mm, height=40mm}&
609: \epsfig{file=rat_12_x6f.eps,width=38mm, height=40mm}\\
610: \end{tabular}
611: \caption[]{\it The scaling as a function of the distance at fixed $x_0=10^{-2}$.
612: The positive curves
613: are $N_r^D/N_{r\,min}^D$ (dashed line) and $N_y^D/N_{y\,min}^D$ (solid line).
614: The dotted line is $40\times R_a^D$. }
615: \label{ratio}
616: \end{figure}
617:
618: The function $R_a^D$ is clearly observed to be a very slowly varying function of $r_\perp$
619: for all values of $x$ and $r_\perp$. Though at fixed $x$
620: the function $R_a^D$ cannot be claimed to be exact constant, its variations with $r_\perp$
621: are very much suppressed comparing to the variations of the functions $N_r^D$ and $N_y^D$.
622: For example, at $x=10^{-5}$ within the given interval the function $R_a^D$ changes by maximum
623: 20\%, while
624: within the very same interval both functions $N_r^D$ and $N_y^D$ change in several
625: times. Then the relative fluctuation is much less than 10\%, which confirms the scaling.
626: The phenomenon holds with a few percent accuracy and it
627: improves at smaller $x\simeq10^{-7}$ and in the deep saturation
628: region. However to observe this scaling behavior
629: in these regions is numerically more problematic since
630: both derivatives $N_r^D$ and $N_y^D$ tend to zero.
631:
632: The above analysis was performed for the fixed value $x_0=10^{-2}$.
633: Within the errors the function $R_a^D\simeq - 0.75\pm 0.08$,
634: constant independent on both $r_\perp$ and $x$. Moreover, if we repeat the same program
635: but for different values of $x_0$ we discover quite similar scaling phenomena with
636: $R_a^D$ being numerically independent on $x_0$ as well. This observation implies
637: \beq\label{lam}
638: Q_s^D(x,x_0)\,=\,Q_{s\,0}^D(x_0)\, x^{-\lambda}\,;\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \lambda\,=\,0.37\,\pm \,0.04\,.
639: \eeq
640: Note that the value obtained for $\lambda$ is in agreement with the one determined in the
641: previous section.
642:
643: Let us now study the scaling behavior with respect to the variable $x_0$. To this goal
644: we investigate the function $\Re$ which is related to the $x_0$-dependence of the saturation
645: scale $Q_{s\,0}^D$. Assuming $Q_{s\,0}^D\sim x_0^\beta$ we predict $\Re$ to have a maximum
646: at $\tau=\tau_{min}$. Fig. \ref{Re} displays the function $\Re$ as a function of the distance
647: at fixed $x=4.54\cdot 10^{-5}$ ($Y=10$).
648: \begin{figure}[htbp]
649: \begin{tabular}{c c }
650: \epsfig{file=Re_Y10_x0_3rf.eps,width=60mm, height=45mm}&
651: \epsfig{file=Re_Y10_x0_4rf.eps,width=60mm, height=45mm}\\
652: \end{tabular}
653: \caption[]{\it The function $\Re$ versus distance at fixed $Y=10$. }
654: \label{Re}
655: \end{figure}
656: In complete agreement with the scaling assumption (\ref{DX0}) the
657: function $\Re$ possesses maximum with respect to $r_\perp$ variations. The
658: heights of the maxima are proportional to $\beta$. Since $\tau\,\tilde N^{D\,\prime}(\tau)
659: |_{\tau=\tau_{max}}\simeq0.2$, $\beta$ can be estimated to be approximately $0.05\pm 0.02$
660: which agrees with the value deduced earlier.
661:
662: We can learn more about the scaling if we consider the function
663: $\Re$ as a function of $x_0$ or the energy gap $Y_0$. In Ref. \cite{LK} a model was built
664: in which the function $\Re$ had a maximum with respect to $Y_0$ variation at fixed $Y$.
665: We know now that this maximum is a consequence of the scaling phenomena.
666: The dependence of $\Re$ on $Y_0$ at $Y=10$ is plotted in Fig. \ref{Y0}.
667: \begin{figure}[htbp]
668: \begin{tabular}{c c c c}
669: \epsfig{file=Re_Y10_r02_Y0f.eps,width=42mm, height=40mm}&
670: \epsfig{file=Re_Y10_r07_Y0f.eps,width=38mm, height=40mm}&
671: \epsfig{file=Re_Y10_r17_Y0f.eps,width=38mm, height=40mm}&
672: \epsfig{file=Re_Y10_r27_Y0f.eps,width=38mm, height=40mm}\\
673: \end{tabular}
674: \caption[]{\it The function $\Re$ as a function of the ratio $Y_0/Y$
675: at fixed $Y=10$. }
676: \label{Y0}
677: \end{figure}
678:
679: No maxima is observed on the plots of Fig. \ref{Y0}. In fact this is a sign of the scaling
680: violation so far avoided by the discussion. The scaling with respect to $x_0$ is not exact
681: at $Y_0\simeq Y$.
682: Due to its smallness ($\Re\propto \beta$) the
683: function $\Re$ is most sensitive to small deviations from the scaling behavior:
684: \beq\label{dev}
685: \tilde N^D(r_\perp,x,x_0)\,=\,\tilde N^D_{scaling}(\tau)\,+\,\delta \tilde N^D(r_\perp,x,x_0)
686: \eeq
687: In the kinematic region of the investigation variations of the function $\delta \tilde N^D$
688: with respect to $r_\perp$ and $x$ are small compared to variations of $\tilde N^D_{scaling}$.
689: In contrary, the derivative of $\delta N^D$ with respect to $Y_0$ is of the same order
690: as derivative of $\tilde N^D_{scaling}$. This is the origin of the large errors of $\beta$ and
691: the $x_0$ scaling violation at $x_0\simeq x$.
692:
693: In order to complete the analysis we propose yet another definition of the saturation
694: scale based on the above presented scaling analysis. It is natural to define the saturation
695: radius at the position where $\tau\,\tilde N^\prime(\tau)$ has maximum, namely at $\tau_{max}$:
696: \begin{itemize}
697: \item {\bf Definition (d):}
698: \beq \label{defd}
699: \left (\frac{\partial \,(\tau\,\tilde N^\prime(\tau))}
700: {\partial r_\perp^2 }\right )_{r_\perp^2=4/(Q_s^{D})^2}\,
701: =\,0\,.
702: \eeq
703: \end{itemize}
704: The saturation scale obtained from (\ref{defd}) is depicted in Fig. \ref{Qs_scal}. Note again
705: the weak dependence on the value of $x_0$.
706: \begin{figure}[htbp]
707: \epsfig{file=Qs_scalingf.eps,width=70mm, height=40mm}
708: \begin{minipage}{9.5 cm}
709: \vspace{-4.5cm}
710: \caption[]{\it The saturation scale deduced from (\ref{defd}).
711: The different curves correspond to $x_0=10^{-2}$
712: (the upper curve), $10^{-3}$ (middle curve) and
713: $x_0=10^{-4}$ (the lowest curve)}
714: \label{Qs_scal}
715: \end{minipage}
716: \end{figure}
717:
718:
719:
720: \section{Conclusions}
721:
722: The non-linear evolution equation (\ref{DDEQ}) is solved numerically by the method of iterations.
723: The solutions obtained are in agreement with the unitarity constraints: the diffraction dissociation
724: is larger than just the elastic scattering but smaller or equal than half of the total.
725:
726:
727: The diffractive saturation scale $Q_s^D$ is estimated form the solutions of (\ref{DDEQ}) basing
728: on four different definitions of the saturation scale. Though there exists a significant uncertainty in
729: the absolute values of the scale its $x$-dependence is found to be the same as of
730: $Q_s$ - saturation scale deduced from the non-linear equation for $\tilde{N}$ \cite{BA,KO}. In fact
731: this result is quite natural.
732: The dependence of the saturation scale on $x$ is entire property of the evolution equation and it
733: should not depend on both initial conditions and saturation scale definition.
734: The
735: saturation scale $Q_s^D$ is discovered to be almost independent on the minimal gap $x_0$.
736:
737:
738: The scaling phenomena with respect to all variables were studied in details. The scaling
739: with respect to $x$ is well established. It holds with a few percent accuracy in the whole
740: kinematic region investigated. The discovered scaling should manifest itself in the experiments
741: on diffraction, and hence it would be interesting to search for it in the
742: $F^D_2(x,Q^2)/(Q^2\,S)$ experimental data ($S$ stands for the target transverse area).
743:
744:
745: The numerically observed small scaling violation shows up when we consider
746: the scaling with respect to $x_0$. This happens due to the weak sensitivity of the solutions to the variation
747: of $x_0$. As a result, the variations of the solutions with respect to $x_0$ are of the same order as the
748: scaling violation. The scaling sets in at $x\ll x_0$ but is violated at $x\sim x_0$.
749:
750:
751: The detailed analysis of the ratio between the total diffractive
752: dissociation and the total DIS cross
753: section will be presented in a separate publication \cite{LL1}.
754: Our preliminary computations show that this ratio
755: happens to be independent on the central mass energy in agreement with the
756: experimental data \cite{ZEUSDATA}.
757: This independence can be traced back
758: to the scaling property displayed by the amplitudes $N$ and $N^D$
759: and to the fact that both saturation
760: scales depend on $x$ with the very same power $\lambda$.
761:
762:
763: \section*{Acknowledgments}
764:
765:
766:
767: The authors are very much indebted to Jochen Bartels,
768: Krystoff Golec-Biernat and Yuri Kovchergov
769: for numerous helpful discussions about
770: diffraction production in DIS. We would like to thank
771: Asher Gotsman, Uri Maor, Eran Naftali and Kirill Tuchin
772: for many
773: informative and encouraging discussions. We thank DESY theory group
774: and Hamburg University Institute of theoretical physics for their
775: hospitality and
776: creative atmosphere during several stages of this work.
777:
778: The research of
779: E. L. was supported in part by the BSF grant $\#$ 9800276, by GIF grant $\#$ I-620.-22.1411444 and by
780: Israeli Science Foundation, founded by the Israeli Academy of Science
781: and Humanities.
782: The work of M.L. was partially supported by the Minerva Foundation and its
783: financial help is gratefully acknowledged.
784:
785: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
786:
787: \bibitem{WM}
788: M. W\"{u}sthoff and A. D. Martin, {\it J. Phys.} {\bf G25} (1999) R309.
789: %\cite{Levin:1994bz}
790:
791: \bibitem{ZEUSDATA}
792: H1 collaboration: T. Ahmed et al., {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 348} (1995) 681;\\
793: ZEUS collaboration: J. Breitweg et al., {\it Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C 6}
794: (1999) 43.
795:
796: \bibitem{LW}
797: E.~Levin and M.~Wusthoff,
798: %``Photon diffractive dissociation in deep inelastic scattering,''
799: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}\ {\bf D 50} (1994) 4306.
800: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D50,4306;%%
801:
802:
803:
804: %\cite{Abramovsky:1973fm}
805: \bibitem{AGK}
806: V.~A.~Abramovsky, V.~N.~Gribov and O.~V.~Kancheli,
807: %``Character Of Inclusive Spectra And Fluctuations Produced In Inelastic Processes By Multi -
808: Pomeron Exchange,''
809: {\it Yad.\ Fiz.\, } {\bf 18} (1973) 595
810: [{\it Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\,} {\bf 18} (1973) 308].
811: %%CITATION = YAFIA,18,595;%%
812:
813: %\cite{Kovchegov:1999kx}
814: \bibitem{KM}
815: Y.~V.~Kovchegov and L.~McLerran,
816: %``Diffractive structure function in a quasi-classical approximation,''
817: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\,} {\bf D 60} (1999) 054025,
818: Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf D 62} (1999) 019901.
819: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903246;%%
820: \bibitem{MU90}
821: A. H. Mueller: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B335} (1990) 115.
822: \bibitem{WF}
823: N.N.Nikolaev and B.G. Zakharov, \zpc{49}{91}{607},\plb{260}{91}{414};
824: E. Levin and M. W\"{u}sthoff, \prd{50}{94}{4306}; E. Levin, A.D. Martin,
825: M.G. Ryskin and T. Teubner, \zpc{74}{97}{671}.
826:
827:
828:
829: \bibitem{GLR} L. V. Gribov, E. M. Levin, and M. G. Ryskin, {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf
830: 100}
831: (1981) 1.
832: \bibitem{MUQI}
833: A. H. Mueller and J. Qiu, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 268} (1986) 427.
834:
835: \bibitem{MU94}
836: A. H. Mueller, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 415} (1994) 373.
837:
838: \bibitem{BA}
839: Ia. Balitsky, {\it Nucl. Phys. } {\bf B 463} (1996) 99.
840:
841: \bibitem{KO}
842: Yu. Kovchegov,
843: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 60} (2000) 034008.
844:
845: \bibitem{Braun}
846: M. Braun, {\it Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C 16} (2000) 337, {\tt hep-ph/0101070}.
847:
848:
849: \bibitem{ILM}
850: E. Iancu, A. Leonidov, and L. McLerran, {\tt hep-ph/0011241};
851: E. Iancu and L. McLerran, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 510} (2001) 145.
852: \bibitem{LT}
853: Yu. Kovchegov, { \it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 61} (2000) 074018;
854: E. Levin and K. Tuchin, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 573} (2000) 833;
855: {\tt hep-ph/01012175}; {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A 691} (2001) 779.
856:
857: \bibitem{LGLM} M. Lublinsky, E. Gotsman, E. Levin, and U. Maor,
858: {\tt hep-ph/0102321}, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A} (in press).
859:
860: \bibitem{LL} E. Levin and M. Lublinsky, {\tt hep-ph/0104108},
861: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A} (in press).
862:
863:
864: \bibitem{Braun2} N. Armesto and M. Braun, {\it Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C 20} (2001) 517.
865:
866: %\cite{Gotsman:2000gb}
867: \bibitem{GLMDD}
868: E.~Gotsman, E.~Levin, M.~Lublinsky, U.~Maor and K.~Tuchin,
869: hep-ph/0007261, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A} (in press).
870: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007261;%%
871:
872: %\cite{Kopeliovich:2001pc}
873: \bibitem{KOP}
874: B.~Z.~Kopeliovich, I.~K.~Potashnikova, B.~Povh and E.~Predazzi,
875: %``Soft QCD dynamics of elastic scattering in impact parameter
876: %representation,''
877: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\,} {\bf D 63} (2001) 054001.
878: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009008;%%
879:
880: %\cite{Kovner:2001vi}
881: \bibitem{KOVN}
882: A.~Kovner and U.~A.~Wiedemann,
883: %{\it ``Eikonal evolution and gluon radiation''},
884: hep-ph/0106240.
885: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106240;%%
886: %\cite{Kovchegov:2001ni}
887:
888: \bibitem{KOV}
889: Y.~V.~Kovchegov,
890: %{\it ``Diffractive gluon production in proton nucleus collisions and in DIS,''}
891: hep-ph/0107256.
892: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107256;%%
893:
894:
895:
896: \bibitem{LK} Yu. Kovchegov and E. Levin, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 577} (2000) 221.
897:
898: \bibitem{LL1} E. Levin and M. Lublinsky, in preparation.
899:
900: \bibitem{me} M. Lublinsky, {\tt hep-ph/0106112}, {\it Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C} (in press).
901:
902:
903:
904:
905: \end{thebibliography}
906:
907: \end{document}
908: