1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsfig]{article}
2:
3: \voffset0cm
4: \hoffset0cm
5: \oddsidemargin0cm
6: \evensidemargin0cm
7: \topmargin0cm
8: \textwidth16.cm
9: \textheight22.cm
10: \setlength{\arraycolsep}{0.5mm}
11:
12: \newcommand{\tr}{\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits}
13: \newcommand{\diag}{\mathop{\mathrm{diag}}\nolimits}
14: \newcommand{\agt}{\,\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt \hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}} \raise 1pt
15: \hbox {$>$}\,}
16: \newcommand{\alt}{\,\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt \hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}} \raise 1pt
17: \hbox {$<$}\,}
18:
19: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
20: %The following macro is from world_sci.sty, originally written for DPF91
21:
22: \catcode`@=11
23: % Collapse citation numbers to ranges. Non-numeric and undefined labels
24: % are handled. No sorting is done. E.g., 1,3,2,3,4,5,foo,1,2,3,?,4,5
25: % gives 1,3,2-5,foo,1-3,?,4,5
26: \newcount\@tempcntc
27: \def\@citex[#1]#2{\if@filesw\immediate\write\@auxout{\string\citation{#2}}\fi
28: \@tempcnta\z@\@tempcntb\m@ne\def\@citea{}\@cite{\@for\@citeb:=#2\do
29: {\@ifundefined
30: {b@\@citeb}{\@citeo\@tempcntb\m@ne\@citea\def\@citea{,}{\bf ?}\@warning
31: {Citation `\@citeb' on page \thepage \space undefined}}%
32: {\setbox\z@\hbox{\global\@tempcntc0\csname b@\@citeb\endcsname\relax}%
33: \ifnum\@tempcntc=\z@ \@citeo\@tempcntb\m@ne
34: \@citea\def\@citea{,}\hbox{\csname b@\@citeb\endcsname}%
35: \else
36: \advance\@tempcntb\@ne
37: \ifnum\@tempcntb=\@tempcntc
38: \else\advance\@tempcntb\m@ne\@citeo
39: \@tempcnta\@tempcntc\@tempcntb\@tempcntc\fi\fi}}\@citeo}{#1}}
40: \def\@citeo{\ifnum\@tempcnta>\@tempcntb\else\@citea\def\@citea{,}%
41: \ifnum\@tempcnta=\@tempcntb\the\@tempcnta\else
42: {\advance\@tempcnta\@ne\ifnum\@tempcnta=\@tempcntb \else \def\@citea{--}\fi
43: \advance\@tempcnta\m@ne\the\@tempcnta\@citea\the\@tempcntb}\fi\fi}
44: \catcode`@=12
45: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
46:
47: \begin{document}
48:
49: \title{\vskip-3cm{\baselineskip14pt
50: \centerline{\normalsize DESY 01-196\hfill ISSN 0418-9833}
51: \centerline{\normalsize MPI/PhT/2001-29\hfill}
52: \centerline{\normalsize hep-ph/0112199\hfill}
53: \centerline{\normalsize August 2001\hfill}
54: }
55: \vskip1.5cm
56: $J/\psi$ Inclusive Production in $ep$ Deep-Inelastic Scattering at DESY HERA}
57: \author{
58: {\sc Bernd A. Kniehl}\thanks{Permanent address: II. Institut f\"ur
59: Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Hamburg, Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761
60: Hamburg, Germany.}
61: \\
62: {\normalsize Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Physik (Werner-Heisenberg-Institut),}\\
63: {\normalsize F\"ohringer Ring 6, 80805 Munich, Germany}\\
64: \\
65: {\sc Lennart Zwirner}\\
66: {\normalsize II. Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Hamburg,}\\
67: {\normalsize Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany}}
68:
69: \date{}
70:
71: \maketitle
72:
73: \thispagestyle{empty}
74:
75: \begin{abstract}
76: We calculate the cross section of $J/\psi$ plus jet associated production in
77: $ep$ deep-inelastic scattering within the factorization formalism of
78: nonrelativistic quantum chromodynamics.
79: Our analytic results disagree with previous analyses, both for the
80: colour-singlet and colour-octet channels.
81: Our theoretical predictions agree reasonably well with recent data taken by
82: the H1 Collaboration at DESY HERA, significantly better than those obtained
83: within the colour-singlet model.
84:
85: \medskip
86:
87: \noindent
88: PACS numbers: 12.38.-t, 13.60.Hb, 13.60.Le, 14.40.Gx
89: \end{abstract}
90:
91: \newpage
92:
93: \section{Introduction}
94:
95: Since its discovery in 1974, the $J/\psi$ meson has provided a useful
96: laboratory for quantitative tests of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and, in
97: particular, of the interplay of perturbative and nonperturbative phenomena.
98: The factorization formalism of nonrelativistic QCD (NRQCD) \cite{bbl} provides
99: a rigorous theoretical framework for the description of heavy-quarkonium
100: production and decay.
101: This formalism implies a separation of short-distance coefficients, which can
102: be calculated perturbatively as expansions in the strong-coupling constant
103: $\alpha_s$, from long-distance matrix elements (MEs), which must be extracted
104: from experiment.
105: The relative importance of the latter can be estimated by means of velocity
106: scaling rules, i.e.\ the MEs are predicted to scale with a definite power of
107: the heavy-quark ($Q$) velocity $v$ in the limit $v\ll1$.
108: In this way, the theoretical predictions are organized as double expansions in
109: $\alpha_s$ and $v$.
110: A crucial feature of this formalism is that it takes into account the complete
111: structure of the $Q\overline{Q}$ Fock space, which is spanned by the states
112: $n={}^{2S+1}L_J^{(c)}$ with definite spin $S$, orbital angular momentum $L$,
113: total angular momentum $J$, and colour multiplicity $c=1,8$.
114: In particular, this formalism predicts the existence of colour-octet (CO)
115: processes in nature.
116: This means that $Q\overline{Q}$ pairs are produced at short distances in
117: CO states and subsequently evolve into physical, colour-singlet (CS) quarkonia
118: by the nonperturbative emission of soft gluons.
119: In the limit $v\to 0$, the traditional CS model (CSM) \cite{ber,bai} is
120: recovered.
121: The greatest triumph of this formalism was that it was able to correctly
122: describe \cite{ebr,cho} the cross section of inclusive charmonium
123: hadroproduction measured in $p\overline{p}$ collisions at the Fermilab
124: Tevatron \cite{abe}, which had turned out to be more than one order of
125: magnitude in excess of the theoretical prediction based on the CSM.
126:
127: In order to convincingly establish the phenomenological significance of the
128: CO processes, it is indispensable to identify them in other kinds of
129: high-energy experiments as well.
130: Studies of charmonium production in $ep$ photoproduction, $ep$ and $\nu N$
131: deep-inelastic scattering (DIS), $e^+e^-$ annihilation, $\gamma\gamma$
132: collisions, and $b$-hadron decays may be found in the literature; see
133: Ref.~\cite{bra} and references cited therein.
134: Furthermore, the polarization of charmonium, which also provides a sensitive
135: probe of CO processes, was investigated \cite{ben,bkv,bkl}.
136: None of these studies was able to prove or disprove the NRQCD factorization
137: hypothesis.
138:
139: In this paper, we revisit $J/\psi$ inclusive production in $ep$ DIS.
140: In order to avoid kinematic overlap with diffractive production, which cannot
141: yet be reliably described within purely perturbative QCD, we require that the
142: $J/\psi$ meson be produced in association with a hadron jet $j$, i.e.\ we
143: consider the process $e+p\to e+J/\psi+j+X$, where $X$ denotes the proton
144: remnant.
145: In this way, the inelasticity variable $z$, which measures the fraction of the
146: virtual-photon ($\gamma^\star$) energy transferred to the $J/\psi$ meson in
147: the proton rest frame, can take values below unity, away from the endpoint
148: $z=1$, where diffractive production takes place.
149: At the same time, the $J/\psi$ meson can acquire finite transverse momentum
150: $p_T^\star$ in the $\gamma^\star p$ centre-of-mass (CM) frame, and the
151: hadronic system $X^\prime$ consisting of the jet $j$ and the proton remnant
152: $X$ can acquire finite mass $M_{X^\prime}$.
153: By the same token, diffractive events can be eliminated from the experimental
154: data sample by applying appropriate acceptance cuts on $z$, $p_T^\star$, or
155: $M_{X^\prime}$.
156: Another possibility to suppress the diffractive background at $z\alt1$ would
157: be to require that the photon virtuality $Q^2$ be sufficiently large
158: \cite{bro}.
159: However, then also the bulk of the nondiffractive signal would be sacrificed.
160:
161: The leading CS ME of the $J/\psi$ meson is
162: $\left\langle{\cal O}^\psi\left[{}^3\!S_1^{(1)}\right]\right\rangle$, its
163: leading CO ones are\break
164: $\left\langle{\cal O}^\psi\left[{}^1\!S_0^{(8)}\right]\right\rangle$,
165: $\left\langle{\cal O}^\psi\left[{}^3\!S_1^{(8)}\right]\right\rangle$, and
166: $\left\langle{\cal O}^\psi\left[{}^3\!P_J^{(8)}\right]\right\rangle$, with
167: $J=0,1,2$.
168: At LO, we are thus led to consider the partonic subprocesses
169: $e+a\to e+c\overline{c}[n]+a$, where $a=g,q,\overline{q}$ and
170: $n={}^3\!S_1^{(1)},{}^1\!S_0^{(8)},{}^3\!S_1^{(8)},{}^3\!P_J^{(8)}$.
171: Here, $q$ runs over the light-quark flavours $u$, $d$, and $s$.
172: Notice that
173: $e+q(\overline{q})\to e+c\overline{c}\left[{}^3\!S_1^{(1)}\right]
174: +q(\overline{q})$ is forbidden because the charm-quark line is connected to
175: one gluon, which transfers colour to the $c\overline{c}$ pair.
176: Representative Feynman diagrams are depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:fey}.
177: The corresponding cross sections are of ${\cal O}(\alpha^2\alpha_s^2)$.
178:
179: There are several motivations for our study of $e+p\to e+J/\psi+j+X$ in DIS.
180: For one thing, the H1 Collaboration measured various distributions of this
181: process at DESY HERA \cite{mey,h1,mor}, which wait to be confronted with
182: appropriate theoretical predictions.
183: This allows for a particularly clean test of the NRQCD factorization
184: hypothesis, since the large photon virtuality $Q^2$ ensures that perturbative
185: QCD is applicable and that the resolved-photon contribution, which suffers
186: from our imperfect knowledge of the parton density functions (PDFs) of the
187: photon, is greatly suppressed.
188: Furthermore, at least within the CSM, this process provides a good handle on
189: the gluon PDF of the proton, which is less precisely known than the quark
190: ones.
191: In NRQCD, however, the extraction of the gluon PDF is somewhat aggravated by
192: the presence of the CO channels with a quark or antiquark in the initial state
193: and by the uncertainties associated with the CO MEs.
194: Fortunately, detailed inspection reveals that the relative importance of the
195: quark- and antiquark-induced channels is greatly damped in the HERA regime.
196: We return to this point at the end of Section~\ref{sec:three}.
197:
198: On the other hand, in the case of $J/\psi$ inelastic photoproduction, with
199: $Q^2\approx0$, NRQCD with CO MEs tuned \cite{cho} to fit the Tevatron data
200: \cite{abe} predicts \cite{cac,ko} at leading order (LO) a distinct rise in
201: cross section as $z\to1$, which is not observed by the H1 \cite{aid} and ZEUS
202: \cite{bre} Collaborations at HERA.
203: This CO charmonium anomaly has cast doubts on the validity of the NRQCD
204: factorization hypothesis, which seems so indispensible to interpret the
205: Tevatron data in a meaningful way.
206: Although there are several interesting and promising ideas how to reconcile
207: this data with the NRQCD prediction, e.g.\ by including dominant higher-order
208: effects \cite{ano}, by introducing nonperturbative shape functions that resum
209: higher-order corrections related to the kinematics of soft-gluon radiation and
210: to the difference between the partonic and hadronic phase spaces \cite{rot},
211: or by endowing the partons inside the proton with intrinsic transverse
212: momentum ($k_T$) \cite{sri}, it is of great interest to find out if this
213: anomaly persists, at LO and without resorting to shape functions or $k_T$
214: effects, if $Q^2$ is increased to large values.
215:
216: On the theoretical side, the cross sections of the partonic subprocesses under
217: consideration here constitute an essential ingredient for the calculation of
218: the next-to-leading-order (NLO) corrections to the inclusive cross section of
219: the reaction $e+p\to e+J/\psi+X$ in DIS, which, at LO, proceeds through the
220: partonic subprocesses $e+g\to e+c\overline{c}[n]$ with
221: $n={}^1\!S_0^{(8)},{}^3\!P_J^{(8)}$.
222: The cross sections of the latter are of ${\cal O}(\alpha^2\alpha_s)$ and may
223: be found in Eq.~(3) of Ref.~\cite{fle}.
224: In fact, integrating over the phase space of the massless final-state parton
225: $a$, one obtains the real radiative corrections.
226: If $a=g$ and $n={}^1\!S_0^{(8)},{}^3\!P_J^{(8)}$, then they suffer from both
227: infrared (IR) singularities and collinear ones associated with the incoming
228: gluon.
229: The latter are factorized, at some factorization scale $M$, and absorbed into
230: the bare gluon PDF of the proton, so as to render it renormalized.
231: The IR singularities cancel when the real radiative corrections are combined
232: with the virtual ones.
233: Finally, the ultraviolet (UV) radiative corrections contained in the latter
234: are removed by renormalizing the couplings, masses, wave-functions, and
235: non-perturbative MEs appearing in the LO cross section of $e+p\to e+J/\psi+X$.
236:
237: Finally, the literature contains mutually inconsistent formulas for the cross
238: section of the CS partonic subprocess
239: $e+g\to e+c\overline{c}\left[{}^3\!S_1^{(1)}\right]+g$
240: \cite{koe,gui,mer,kru,yua}.
241: On the other hand, there is only one paper specifying analytic results for the
242: cross sections of the CO partonic subprocesses enumerated above \cite{yua}, so
243: that an independent check seems to be in order.
244: We anticipate that we disagree with all published CS and CO formulas, except
245: with the one referring to
246: $e+g\to e+c\overline{c}\left[{}^1\!S_0^{(8)}\right]+g$ \cite{yua}.
247:
248: This paper is organized as follows.
249: In Section~\ref{sec:two}, we present, in analytic form, the cross sections of
250: the partonic subprocesses $e+a\to e+c\overline{c}[n]+a$ enumerated above to LO
251: in NRQCD and explain how to calculate from them the total cross section of
252: $e+p\to e+J/\psi+j+X$ in DIS and several distributions of phenomenological
253: interest.
254: Lengthy expressions are relegated to the Appendix.
255: In Section~\ref{sec:three}, we present our numerical results and compare them
256: with recent H1 data \cite{mey}.
257: Our conclusions are summarized in Section~\ref{sec:four}.
258:
259: \section{Analytic results}
260: \label{sec:two}
261:
262: In this section, we present our analytic results for the cross section of
263: $e+p\to e+J/\psi+j+X$ in DIS.
264: We work at LO in the parton model of QCD with $n_f=3$ active quark flavours
265: and employ the NRQCD factorization formalism \cite{bbl} to describe the
266: formation of the $J/\psi$ meson.
267: We start by defining the kinematics.
268: As indicated in Fig.~\ref{fig:kin}, we denote the four-momenta of the incoming
269: lepton and proton and the outgoing lepton, $J/\psi$ meson, and jet by $k$,
270: $P$, $k^\prime$, $p_\psi$, and $p^\prime$, respectively.
271: The parton struck by the virtual photon carries four-momentum $p=xP$.
272: We neglect the masses of the proton, lepton, and light quarks, call the one
273: of the $J/\psi$ meson $M_\psi$, and take the charm-quark mass to be
274: $m_c=M_\psi/2$.
275: In our approximation, the proton remnant $X$ has zero invariant mass,
276: $M_X^2=(P-p)^2=0$.
277: The CM energy square of the $ep$ collision is $S=(k+P)^2$.
278: The virtual photon has four-momentum $q=k-k^\prime$, and it is customary
279: \cite{pdg} to define $Q^2=-q^2>0$ and $y=q\cdot P/k\cdot P$, which measures
280: the relative lepton energy loss in the proton rest frame.
281: The inelasticity variable, which was already mentioned in the Introduction, is
282: defined as $z=p_\psi\cdot P/q\cdot P$.
283: The system $X^\prime$ consisting of the jet $j$ and the proton remnant $X$ has
284: invariant mass square $M_{X^\prime}^2=(q+P-p_\psi)^2=(1-x)y(1-z)S$.
285: Other frequently employed variables \cite{pdg} are Bjorken's variable
286: $x_B=Q^2/(2q\cdot P)=Q^2/(yS)$ and the $\gamma^\star p$ CM energy square
287: $W^2=(q+P)^2=yS-Q^2$.
288: As usual, we define the partonic Mandelstam variables as
289: $\hat s=(q+p)^2=xyS-Q^2$, $\hat t=(q-p_\psi)^2=-xy(1-z)S$, and
290: $\hat u=(p-p_\psi)^2=M_\psi^2-xyzS$.
291: By four-momentum conservation, we have $\hat s+\hat t+\hat u=M_\psi^2-Q^2$.
292: In the $\gamma^\star p$ CM frame, the $J/\psi$ meson has transverse momentum
293: and rapidity
294: \begin{eqnarray}
295: p_T^\star&=&\frac{\sqrt{\hat t\left(\hat s\hat u+Q^2M_\psi^2\right)}}
296: {\hat s+Q^2},
297: \\
298: y_\psi^\star&=&\frac{1}{2}\ln\frac{\hat s\left(M_\psi^2-\hat u\right)}
299: {\hat s\left(M_\psi^2-\hat t\right)+Q^2M_\psi^2}
300: +\frac{1}{2}\ln\frac{W^2}{\hat s},
301: \label{eq:ycms}
302: \end{eqnarray}
303: respectively.
304: Here and in the following, we denote the quantities referring to the
305: $\gamma^\star p$ CM frame by an asterisk.
306: The second term on the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:ycms}) originates from
307: the Lorentz boost from the $\gamma^\star a$ CM frame to the $\gamma^\star p$
308: one.
309: Here, $y_\psi^\star$ is taken to be positive in the direction of the
310: three-momentum of the virtual photon, in accordance with the convention of
311: Refs.~\cite{mey,h1,mor}.
312:
313: In the parton model, the proton is characterized by its PDFs $f_{a/p}(x,M)$,
314: and, at LO, an outgoing parton may be identified with a jet.
315: Thus, we have
316: \begin{equation}
317: d\sigma(e+p\to e+J/\psi+j+X)
318: =\int_0^1dx\sum_af_{a/p}(x,M)d\sigma(e+a\to e+J/\psi+a),
319: \label{eq:par}
320: \end{equation}
321: where $a=g,u,\overline{u},d,\overline{d},s,\overline{s}$.
322: Furthermore, according to the NRQCD factorization formalism, we have
323: \begin{equation}
324: d\sigma(e+a\to e+J/\psi+a)
325: =\sum_n\left\langle{\cal O}^\psi[n]\right\rangle
326: d\sigma(e+a\to e+c\overline{c}[n]+a),
327: \label{eq:fac}
328: \end{equation}
329: where, to LO in $v$,
330: $n={}^3\!S_1^{(1)},{}^1\!S_0^{(8)},{}^3\!S_1^{(8)},{}^3\!P_J^{(8)}$.
331:
332: Decomposing the transition-matrix element of the partonic subprocess
333: $e+a\to e+c\overline{c}[n]+a$ into a leptonic part,
334: ${\cal T}^\mu(e\to e+\gamma^\star)
335: =-(e/q^2)\overline{u}(k^\prime)\gamma^\mu u(k)$,
336: and a hadronic one, ${\cal T}^\mu(\gamma^\star+a\to c\overline{c}[n]+a)$, from
337: which the virtual-photon leg is amputated, we can write its cross section as
338: \begin{equation}
339: d\sigma(e+a\to e+c\overline{c}[n]+a)
340: =\frac{1}{2xS}\,\frac{1}{4N_a}\,\frac{e^2}{(q^2)^2}
341: \tr(\not k\gamma^\nu\not k^\prime\gamma^\mu)H_{\mu\nu}
342: d{\mathrm PS}_3(k+p;k^\prime,p_\psi,p^\prime),
343: \label{eq:dec}
344: \end{equation}
345: where $N_g=(N_c^2-1)$ and $N_q=N_{\overline{q}}=N_c=3$ are the colour
346: multiplicities of the partons $a$, $e$ is the electron charge magnitude, and
347: the hadronic tensor $H^{\mu\nu}$ is obtained by summing the absolute square of
348: ${\cal T}^\mu(\gamma^\star+a\to c\overline{c}[n]+a)$ over the spin and colour
349: states of the incoming and outgoing partons $a$.
350: Here and in the following, we employ the Lorentz-invariant phase-space measure
351: \begin{equation}
352: d{\mathrm PS}_n(p;p_1,\ldots,p_n)
353: =(2\pi)^4\delta^{(4)}\left(p-\sum_{i=1}^np_i\right)\prod_{i=1}^n
354: \frac{d^3p_i}{(2\pi)^32p_i^0}.
355: \end{equation}
356: The first factor in Eq.~(\ref{eq:dec}) stems from the flux and the second one
357: from the average over the spin and colour states of the incoming particles.
358: Integrating over the azimuthal angle of the outgoing lepton, we may simplify
359: Eq.~(\ref{eq:dec}) to become
360: \begin{equation}
361: d\sigma(e+a\to e+c\overline{c}[n]+a)=\frac{1}{2xS}\,\frac{1}{4N_a}\,
362: \frac{\alpha}{2\pi}L^{\mu\nu}H_{\mu\nu}\frac{dy}{y}\,\frac{dQ^2}{Q^2}
363: d{\mathrm PS}_2(q+p;p_\psi,p^\prime),
364: \label{eq:red}
365: \end{equation}
366: where $\alpha=e^2/(4\pi)$ is Sommerfeld's fine-structure constant and
367: \cite{gra}
368: \begin{equation}
369: L^{\mu\nu}=\frac{1+(1-y)^2}{y}\epsilon_T^{\mu\nu}
370: -\frac{4(1-y)}{y}\epsilon_L^{\mu\nu},
371: \label{eq:lep}
372: \end{equation}
373: with
374: \begin{eqnarray}
375: \epsilon_T^{\mu\nu}&=&-g^{\mu\nu}+\frac{1}{q\cdot p}(q^\mu p^\nu+p^\mu q^\nu)
376: -\frac{q^2}{(q\cdot p)^2}p^\mu p^\nu,
377: \nonumber\\
378: \epsilon_L^{\mu\nu}&=&\frac{1}{q^2}\left(q-\frac{q^2}{q\cdot p}p\right)^\mu
379: \left(q-\frac{q^2}{q\cdot p}p\right)^\nu,
380: \end{eqnarray}
381: is the leptonic tensor.
382: We have $q_\mu\epsilon_T^{\mu\nu}=q_\mu\epsilon_L^{\mu\nu}=0$,
383: $\epsilon_{T\mu}^\mu=-2$, and $\epsilon_{L\mu}^\mu=-1$.
384: Furthermore,
385: \begin{equation}
386: \epsilon^{\mu\nu}=\epsilon_T^{\mu\nu}+\epsilon_L^{\mu\nu}
387: =-g^{\mu\nu}+\frac{q^\mu q^\nu}{q^2}
388: \end{equation}
389: is the polarization tensor of an unpolarized spin-one boson with mass $q^2$.
390: In the $\gamma^\star a$ CM frame, where $q^\mu=(q^0,0,0,q^3)$ and
391: $p^\mu=(q^3,0,0,-q^3)$, we have $\epsilon_T^{\mu\nu}=\diag(0,1,1,0)$ and
392: $\epsilon_L^{\mu\nu}=(1/q^2)(q^3,0,0,q^0)^\mu(q^3,0,0,q^0)^\nu$, so that
393: $\epsilon_T^{\mu\nu}$ and $\epsilon_L^{\mu\nu}$ refer to transverse and
394: longitudinal polarization, as indicated by their subscripts.
395: Since the hadronic current is conserved in QED, we have $q_\mu H^{\mu\nu}=0$,
396: which leads to a further simplification as Eq.~(\ref{eq:lep}) is inserted
397: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:red}).
398:
399: It is interesting to study the photoproduction limit, by taking $Q^2\to0$ in
400: Eq.~(\ref{eq:red}).
401: This provides us with a powerful check for our results by relating them to
402: well-known results in the literature \cite{ber,bkv,ko}.
403: The differential cross section of the partonic process
404: $\gamma+a\to c\overline{c}[n]+a$ reads
405: \begin{equation}
406: d\sigma(\gamma+a\to c\overline{c}[n]+a)=\frac{1}{2\hat s}\,\frac{1}{4N_a}\,
407: (-g^{\mu\nu})H_{\mu\nu}|_{Q^2=0}d{\mathrm PS}_2(q+p;p_\psi,p^\prime).
408: \label{eq:pho}
409: \end{equation}
410: Comparing Eqs.~(\ref{eq:red}) and (\ref{eq:pho}), we thus obtain the master
411: formula
412: \begin{equation}
413: \lim_{Q^2\to0}\frac{Q^2d^2\sigma}{dy\,dQ^2}(e+a\to e+c\overline{c}[n]+a)
414: =\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}\,\frac{1+(1-y)^2}{y}
415: \sigma(\gamma+a\to c\overline{c}[n]+a).
416: \label{eq:mas}
417: \end{equation}
418: A similar relationship between the DIS process $e+p\to e+J/\psi+X$ and the
419: photoproduction one $\gamma+p\to J/\psi+X$ may be found in Eq.~(4) of
420: Ref.~\cite{fle}.
421:
422: We evaluate the cross sections of the relevant partonic subprocesses
423: $e+a\to e+c\overline{c}[n]+a$ from Eq.~(\ref{eq:red}) applying the
424: covariant-projector method of Ref.~\cite{pet}.
425: Our results can be written in the form
426: \begin{equation}
427: \frac{d^3\sigma}{dy\,dQ^2\,d\hat t}(e+a\to e+c\overline{c}[n]+a)
428: =\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}F_a[n]\left[\frac{1+(1-y)^2}{yQ^2}T_a[n]
429: -\frac{4(1-y)}{y}L_a[n]\right],
430: \label{eq:res}
431: \end{equation}
432: where $F_a[n]$, $T_a[n]$, and $L_a[n]$ are functions of $\hat s$, $\hat t$,
433: $\hat u$, and $Q^2$, which are listed in the Appendix.
434: They are finite for $Q^2=0$.
435: We combined the results for $n={}^3\!P_J^{(8)}$, with $J=0,1,2$, exploiting
436: the multiplicity relation
437: \begin{equation}
438: \left\langle{\cal O}^\psi\left[{}^3\!P_J^{(8)}\right]\right\rangle
439: =(2J+1)\left\langle{\cal O}^\psi\left[{}^3\!P_0^{(8)}\right]\right\rangle,
440: \end{equation}
441: which follows to LO in $v$ from heavy-quark spin symmetry.
442: We recover the well-known cross sections of the corresponding CS \cite{ber}
443: and CO \cite{bkv,ko} processes of photoproduction by inserting
444: Eq.~(\ref{eq:res}) in Eq.~(\ref{eq:mas}), as
445: \begin{equation}
446: \frac{d\sigma}{d\hat t}(\gamma+a\to c\overline{c}[n]+a)=F_a[n]T_a[n]|_{Q^2=0}.
447: \end{equation}
448:
449: At this point, we should compare our analytic results with the literature.
450: Formulas for the cross section of the CS partonic subprocess
451: $e+g\to e+c\overline{c}\left[{}^3\!S_1^{(1)}\right]+g$ may be found in
452: Refs.~\cite{koe,gui,mer,kru,yua}.
453: In Ref.~\cite{yua}, also cross section formulas for the CO partonic
454: subprocesses $e+a\to e+c\overline{c}[n]+a$ with $a=g,q,\overline{q}$ and
455: $n={}^1\!S_0^{(8)},{}^3\!S_1^{(8)},{}^3\!P_J^{(8)}$ are listed.
456: We agree with the result for
457: $e+g\to e+c\overline{c}\left[{}^1\!S_0^{(8)}\right]+g$ \cite{yua}, but we
458: disagree with all the other results.
459: In particular, the results of Refs.~\cite{koe,mer} and the residual results
460: of Ref.~\cite{yua} fail to reproduce the well-established formulas of
461: Refs.~\cite{ber,bkv,ko} in the photoproduction limit.
462: We also remark that Eqs.~(A21) and (A35)--(A37) of Ref.~\cite{yua} suffer from
463: mass-dimensional inconsistencies.
464: Furthermore, we only find agreement with the result in Eq.~(4) of
465: Ref.~\cite{gui} if we flip the overall sign of $L_a[n]$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:res}).
466: However, this causes the cross section in Eq.~(\ref{eq:res}) to turn negative
467: in certain regions of phase space, e.g.\ at $y=0.5$, $Q^2=25$~GeV${}^2$,
468: $\hat s=100$~GeV${}^2$, and $\hat t=-10$~GeV${}^2$.
469: Similarly, we only agree with the result in Eq.~(2.49) of Ref.~\cite{kru} if
470: we include an overall factor of $4\pi\alpha$ on the right-hand side of
471: Eq.~(\ref{eq:res}) and halve $L_a[n]$.
472: As for the cross sections of the CO partonic subprocesses
473: $e+g\to e+c\overline{c}[n]$ with $n={}^1\!S_0^{(8)},{}^3\!P_J^{(8)}$, which do
474: not enter our analysis, we agree with Eq.~(3) of Ref.~\cite{fle}.
475:
476: The cross sections of $e+g\to e+c\overline{c}[n]+g$ with
477: $n={}^1\!S_0^{(8)},{}^3\!P_J^{(8)}$ exhibit collinear singularities in the
478: limit $\hat t\to0$.
479: According to the factorization theorem of the QCD-improved parton model, the
480: limiting expressions must coincide with the $e+g\to e+c\overline{c}[n]$ cross
481: sections \cite{fle} multiplied by the spacelike $g\to g$ splitting functions.
482: This provides another nontrivial check for our results, and, among other
483: things, this fixes the overall factor of $L_a[n]$.
484:
485: Inserting Eq.~(\ref{eq:fac}) in Eq.~(\ref{eq:par}) and including the maximum
486: boundaries of the integrations over $x$ and $\hat t$, we obtain
487: \begin{eqnarray}
488: \lefteqn{\frac{d^2\sigma}{dy\,dQ^2}(e+p\to e+J/\psi+j+X)
489: =\int_{(Q^2+M_\psi^2)/(yS)}^1dx
490: \int_{-(\hat s+Q^2)(\hat s-M_\psi^2)/\hat s}^0d\hat t}
491: \nonumber\\
492: &&{}\times
493: \sum_af_{a/p}(x,M)\sum_n\left\langle{\cal O}^\psi[n]\right\rangle
494: \frac{d^3\sigma}{dy\,dQ^2\,d\hat t}(e+a\to e+c\overline{c}[n]+a),
495: \label{eq:dif}
496: \end{eqnarray}
497: where $\left(d^3\sigma/dy\,dQ^2\,d\hat t\right)(e+a\to e+c\overline{c}[n]+a)$
498: is given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:res}).
499: The kinematically allowed ranges of $y$ and $Q^2$ are $M_\psi^2/S<y<1$ and
500: $0<Q^2<yS-M_\psi^2$, respectively.
501: In order to avoid the collinear singularities mentioned above, we need to
502: reduce the upper boundary of the $\hat t$ integration in Eq.~(\ref{eq:dif}).
503: This cut-off should, of course, depend on variables that can be controlled
504: experimentally.
505: It is convenient to introduce an upper cut-off, below unity, on the
506: inelasticity variable $z$.
507: As explained in the Introduction, such a cut-off also suppresses the
508: diffractive background.
509: The distributions in $y$ and $Q^2$ can be evaluated from Eq.~(\ref{eq:dif}) as
510: it stands.
511: It is also straightforward to obtain the distributions in $z$, $x_B$, $W$,
512: $p_T^\star$, and $y_\psi^\star$, by accordingly redefining and reordering the
513: integration variables in Eq.~(\ref{eq:dif}).
514: The distribution in the $J/\psi$ azimuthal angle $\phi^\star$ in the
515: $\gamma^\star p$ CM frame is constant.
516:
517: The evaluation of the distributions in the $J/\psi$ transverse momentum $p_T$,
518: rapidity $y_\psi$, and azimuthal angle $\phi$ in the HERA laboratory frame is
519: somewhat more involved.
520: Choosing a suitable coordinate system in the $\gamma^\star p$ CM frame, we
521: have
522: \begin{eqnarray}
523: (k^\star)^\mu&=&\frac{S-Q^2}{2W}\left(
524: \begin{array}{c}
525: 1\\
526: \sin\psi^\star\\
527: 0\\
528: \cos\psi^\star
529: \end{array}
530: \right),
531: \qquad
532: (k^{\prime\star})^\mu=\frac{S-W^2}{2W}\left(
533: \begin{array}{c}
534: 1\\
535: \sin\theta^\star\\
536: 0\\
537: \cos\theta^\star
538: \end{array}
539: \right),
540: \nonumber\\
541: (q^\star)^\mu&=&\frac{1}{2W}\left(
542: \begin{array}{c}
543: W^2-Q^2\\
544: 0\\
545: 0\\
546: W^2+Q^2
547: \end{array}
548: \right),
549: \qquad
550: (P^\star)^\mu=\frac{W^2+Q^2}{2W}\left(
551: \begin{array}{c}
552: 1\\
553: 0\\
554: 0\\
555: -1
556: \end{array}
557: \right),
558: \nonumber\\
559: (p_\psi^\star)^\mu&=&\left(
560: \begin{array}{c}
561: m_T^\star\cosh y_\psi^\star\\
562: p_T^\star\cos\phi^\star\\
563: p_T^\star\sin\phi^\star\\
564: m_T^\star\sinh y_\psi^\star
565: \end{array}
566: \right),
567: \end{eqnarray}
568: where $\cos\psi^\star=2SW^2/[(S-Q^2)(W^2+Q^2)]-1$,
569: $\cos\theta^\star=1-2SQ^2/[(S-W^2)(W^2+Q^2)]$, and
570: $m_T^\star=\sqrt{M_\psi^2+\left(p_T^\star\right)^2}$ is the $J/\psi$
571: transverse mass.
572: On the other hand, in the laboratory frame, we have
573: \begin{eqnarray}
574: k^\mu&=&E_e\left(
575: \begin{array}{c}
576: 1\\
577: 0\\
578: 0\\
579: 1
580: \end{array}
581: \right),
582: \qquad
583: (k^\prime)^\mu=E_e^\prime\left(
584: \begin{array}{c}
585: 1\\
586: \sin\theta\\
587: 0\\
588: \cos\theta
589: \end{array}
590: \right),
591: \nonumber\\
592: q^\mu&=&\left(
593: \begin{array}{c}
594: q^0\\
595: -q\sin\psi\\
596: 0\\
597: q\cos\psi
598: \end{array}
599: \right),
600: \qquad
601: P^\mu=E_p\left(
602: \begin{array}{c}
603: 1\\
604: 0\\
605: 0\\
606: -1
607: \end{array}
608: \right),
609: \nonumber\\
610: p_\psi^\mu&=&\left(
611: \begin{array}{c}
612: m_T\cosh y_\psi\\
613: p_T\cos\phi\\
614: p_T\sin\phi\\
615: m_T\sinh y_\psi
616: \end{array}
617: \right),
618: \end{eqnarray}
619: where $E_e$ and $E_p$ are the lepton and proton energies, respectively,
620: $E_e^\prime=[(S-W^2-Q^2)/E_p+Q^2/E_e]/4$,
621: $\cos\theta=1-Q^2/\left(2E_eE_e^\prime\right)$,
622: $q^0=[(W^2+Q^2)/E_p-Q^2/E_e]/4$, $q=\sqrt{Q^2+(q^0)^2}$,
623: $\cos\psi=[(W^2+Q^2)/E_p+Q^2/E_e]/(4q)$, and $m_T=\sqrt{M_\psi^2+p_T^2}$ is
624: the $J/\psi$ transverse mass.
625: Notice that $y_\psi$ is taken to be positive in the direction of the
626: three-momentum of the incoming lepton.
627: Without loss of generality, we may require that $0\le\psi^\star,\psi\le\pi$,
628: for, otherwise, we can achieve this by rotating the respective coordinate
629: systems by $180^\circ$ around the $z$ axis.
630: We can then evaluate $p_T$, $y_\psi$, and $\phi$ from $p_T^\star$,
631: $y_\psi^\star$, and $\phi^\star$ as
632: \begin{eqnarray}
633: p_T&=&\sqrt{\left(p_T^\star\right)^2+A\left(A-2p_T^\star\cos\phi^\star\right)},
634: \label{eq:ptlab}
635: \\
636: y_\psi&=&y_\psi^\star+\ln\frac{(W^2+Q^2)m_T^\star}{\sqrt SWm_T}
637: +\frac{1}{2}\ln\frac{E_e}{E_p},
638: \label{eq:ylab}
639: \\
640: \cos\phi&=&\frac{p_T^\star\cos\phi^\star-A}{p_T},
641: \label{eq:philab}
642: \end{eqnarray}
643: where
644: \begin{equation}
645: A=\frac{m_T^\star\exp(y_\psi^\star)\sin\psi^\star}{1+\cos\psi^\star}
646: =\sqrt{\frac{Q^2(S-W^2-Q^2)}{SW^2}}m_T^\star\exp(y_\psi^\star).
647: \label{eq:a}
648: \end{equation}
649: The third term on the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:ylab}) stems from the
650: Lorentz boost from the $ep$ CM frame to the laboratory one.
651: Since $p_T$, $y_\psi$, and $\phi$ depend on $\phi^\star$, the integration over
652: $\phi^\star$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:dif}) is no longer trivial, and we need to insert
653: the symbolic factor $(1/2\pi)\int_0^{2\pi}d\phi^\star$ on the right-hand side
654: of that equation.
655:
656: For future applications, we also present compact formulas that allow us to
657: determine $p_T^\star$, $y_\psi^\star$, and $\phi^\star$, once $p_T$, $y_\psi$,
658: and $\phi$ are given.
659: In fact, Eqs.~(\ref{eq:ptlab}) and (\ref{eq:philab}) can be straightforwardly
660: inverted by observing that the quantity $A$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:a}) can be
661: expressed in terms of $m_T$ and $y_\psi$ by substituting Eq.~(\ref{eq:ylab}),
662: the result being
663: \begin{equation}
664: A=\frac{m_T\exp(y_\psi)}{W^2+Q^2}\sqrt{\frac{E_p}{E_e}Q^2(S-W^2-Q^2)}.
665: \end{equation}
666: Having obtained $p_T^\star$, we can then evaluate $y_\psi^\star$ from
667: Eq.~(\ref{eq:ylab}).
668: For the reader's convenience, we collect the relevant formulas here:
669: \begin{eqnarray}
670: p_T^\star&=&\sqrt{p_T^2+A(A+2p_T\cos\phi)},
671: \nonumber\\
672: y_\psi^\star&=&y_\psi+\ln\frac{\sqrt SWm_T}{(W^2+Q^2)m_T^\star}
673: +\frac{1}{2}\ln\frac{E_p}{E_e},
674: \nonumber\\
675: \cos\phi^\star&=&\frac{p_T\cos\phi+A}{p_T^\star}.
676: \end{eqnarray}
677:
678: \section{Numerical results}
679: \label{sec:three}
680:
681: We are now in a position to present our numerical results.
682: We first describe our theoretical input and the kinematic conditions.
683: We use $m_c=(1.5\pm0.1)$~GeV, $\alpha=1/137.036$, and the LO formula for
684: $\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)$ with $n_f=3$ active quark flavours \cite{pdg}.
685: As for the proton PDFs, we employ the LO set by Martin, Roberts, Stirling, and
686: Thorne (MRST98LO) \cite{mrst}, with asymptotic scale parameter
687: $\Lambda^{(4)}=174$~MeV, as our default and the LO set by the CTEQ
688: Collaboration (CTEQ5L) \cite{cteq}, with $\Lambda^{(4)}=192$~MeV, for
689: comparison.
690: The corresponding values of $\Lambda^{(3)}$ are 204~MeV and 224~MeV,
691: respectively.
692: We choose the renormalization and factorization scales to be
693: $\mu=M=\xi\sqrt{Q^2+M_\psi^2}$ and vary the scale parameter $\xi$ between
694: 1/2 and 2 abound the default value 1.
695: We adopt the NRQCD MEs from Table~I of Ref.~\cite{bkl}.
696: Specifically, they read
697: $\left\langle{\cal O}^\psi\left[{}^3\!S_1^{(1)}\right]\right\rangle
698: =(1.3\pm0.1)$~GeV${}^3$,
699: $\left\langle{\cal O}^\psi\left[{}^3\!S_1^{(8)}\right]\right\rangle
700: =(4.4\pm0.7)\times10^{-3}$~GeV${}^3$, and
701: $M_{3.4}^\psi=(8.7\pm0.9)\times10^{-2}$~GeV${}^3$ for set MRST98LO, where
702: \begin{equation}
703: M_r^\psi=\left\langle{\cal O}^\psi\left({}^1\!S_0^{(8)}\right)\right\rangle
704: +\frac{r}{m_c^2}
705: \left\langle{\cal O}^\psi\left({}^3\!P_0^{(8)}\right)\right\rangle.
706: \label{eq:mr}
707: \end{equation}
708: The corresponding values for set CTEQ5L are
709: $(1.4\pm0.1)$~GeV${}^3$, $(3.9\pm0.7)\times10^{-3}$~GeV${}^3$, and
710: $(6.6\pm0.7)\times10^{-2}$~GeV${}^3$, respectively.
711: Since Eq.~(\ref{eq:dif}) is sensitive to a different linear combination of
712: $\left\langle{\cal O}^\psi\left({}^1\!S_0^{(8)}\right)\right\rangle$ and
713: $\left\langle{\cal O}^\psi\left({}^3\!P_0^{(8)}\right)\right\rangle$ than
714: appears in Eq.~(\ref{eq:mr}), we write
715: $\left\langle{\cal O}^\psi\left({}^1\!S_0^{(8)}\right)\right\rangle=\kappa
716: M_r^\psi$
717: and
718: $\left\langle{\cal O}^\psi\left({}^3\!P_0^{(8)}\right)\right\rangle=(1-\kappa)
719: \left(m_c^2/r\right)M_r^\psi$ and vary $\kappa$ between 0 and 1 around the
720: default value 1/2.
721: In order to estimate the theoretical uncertainties in our predictions, we
722: vary the unphysical parameters $\xi$ and $\kappa$ as indicated above, take
723: into account the experimental errors on $m_c$ and the default MEs, and switch
724: from our default PDF set to the CTEQ5L one, properly adjusting $\Lambda^{(3)}$
725: and the MEs.
726: We then combine the individual shifts in quadrature.
727:
728: The H1 data on $J/\psi$ inclusive and inelastic production in DIS
729: \cite{mey,h1} were taken in collisions of positrons with $E_e=27.5$~GeV and
730: protons with $E_p=820$~GeV in the HERA laboratory frame, so that
731: $\sqrt S=2\sqrt{E_eE_p}=300$~GeV, and they refer to the kinematic region
732: defined by $2<Q^2<80$~GeV${}^2$, $40<W<180$~GeV, and $z>0.2$.
733: In Ref.~\cite{h1}, the acceptance cut $M_{X^\prime}>10$~GeV on the invariant
734: mass of the hadronic system $X^\prime$ produced in association with the
735: $J/\psi$ meson was imposed in order to exclude the contribution of $J/\psi$
736: elastic production, which, to a large extent, is due to diffractive processes.
737: Notice that this cut allows for $z$ to be as large as
738: $z_{\mathrm max}=1-M_{X^\prime,{\mathrm min}}^2/\left(W_{\mathrm max}^2
739: -M_\psi^2\right)\approx0.997$ and for $\left|\hat t\right|$ to be as small as
740: $\left|\hat t\right|_{\mathrm min}=(1-z_{\mathrm max})\left(Q_{\mathrm min}
741: +M_\psi^2\right)\approx0.040$~GeV${}^2$.
742: A more conservative way to eliminate the domain of $J/\psi$ elastic production
743: is to directly impose the cut $z<0.9$ \cite{mey}, which ensures that
744: $\left|\hat t\right|$ is in excess of
745: $\left|\hat t\right|_{\mathrm min}\approx1.3$~GeV${}^2$.
746: At the same time, a sufficiently large lower bound on $\left|\hat t\right|$ is
747: requisite in order to screen Eq.~(\ref{eq:dif}) from the collinear
748: singularities in the ${}^1\!S_0^{(8)}$ and ${}^3\!P_J^{(8)}$ channels,
749: mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:two}, and, thus, to keep our theoretical
750: predictions perturbatively stable.
751: In the following, we, therefore, use the H1 data with the cut $z<0.9$, as
752: presented in Ref.~\cite{mey}, for comparisons.
753:
754: In Figs.~\ref{fig:Q2}--\ref{fig:W}, we confront the measured $Q^2$, $p_T^2$,
755: $z$, $y^\star$, and $W$ distributions, respectively, with our NRQCD
756: predictions.
757: For comparison, we also show the corresponding CSM predictions.
758: In each case, the theoretical errors, evaluated as explained above, are
759: indicated by the hatched areas.
760: Instead of presenting our theoretical predictions as continuous curves, we
761: adopt the binning pattern encoded in the experimental data, so as to
762: facilitate quantitative comparisons.
763: As for the $Q^2$ and $p_T^2$ distributions, the experimental data agrees
764: rather well with the NRQCD predictions, both in normalization and shape, while
765: it significantly overshoots the CSM predictions.
766: In the case of the $z$ distribution, the NRQCD prediction, in general, agrees
767: better with the experimental data than the CSM one as far as the normalization
768: is concerned.
769: As for the shape, however, the experimental measurement favours the CSM
770: prediction, while the NRQCD one exhibits an excess at large values of $z$,
771: which is familiar from $J/\psi$ inclusive photoproduction \cite{cac,ko}.
772: As in the latter case, this rise in $z$ is chiefly due to the
773: ${}^1\!S_0^{(8)}$ and ${}^3\!P_J^{(8)}$ channels.
774: In the case of the $y^\star$ distribution, the NRQCD prediction nicely agrees
775: with the experimental data for $y^\star<3$, while it appreciably overshoots
776: the latter in the very forward direction.
777: The CSM prediction roughly agrees with the experimental $y^\star$
778: distribution at the endpoints, while it significantly falls short of the
779: latter in the central region.
780: In the case of the $W$ distribution, the experimental data mostly lie in the
781: middle between the NRQCD and CSM predictions, slightly favouring the former.
782: We conclude from Figs.~\ref{fig:Q2}--\ref{fig:W} that the H1 data \cite{mey}
783: tends to support the NRQCD predictions, while, in general, it overshoots the
784: CSM predictions.
785: In Figs.~\ref{fig:pT2} and \ref{fig:yLab}, we present our NRQCD and CSM
786: predictions for the $\left(p_T^\star\right)^2$ and $y$ distributions,
787: respectively, although there are no experimental data to compare them with.
788:
789: At this point, we should compare our numerical results for the cross section
790: of $e+p\to e+J/\psi+j+X$ with the ones presented in Table~II of
791: Ref.~\cite{fle}.
792: To this end, we adopt the theoretical input and kinematic conditions from
793: Ref.~\cite{fle}.
794: Specifically, the authors of Ref.~\cite{fle} evaluated $\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)$
795: with $n_f=4$ and $\Lambda^{(4)}=130$~MeV, employed the LO proton PDF set by
796: Gl\"uck, Reya, and Vogt \cite{grv}, took the NRQCD MEs to be
797: $\left\langle{\cal O}^\psi\left[{}^3\!S_1^{(1)}\right]\right\rangle
798: =1.1$~GeV${}^3$,
799: $\left\langle{\cal O}^\psi\left[{}^1\!S_0^{(8)}\right]\right\rangle
800: =1\times10^{-2}$~GeV${}^3$,
801: $\left\langle{\cal O}^\psi\left[{}^3\!S_1^{(8)}\right]\right\rangle
802: =1.12\times10^{-2}$~GeV${}^3$, and
803: $\left\langle{\cal O}^\psi\left[{}^3\!P_0^{(8)}\right]\right\rangle/m_c^2
804: =5\times10^{-3}$~GeV${}^3$, and required that $30<W<150$~GeV.
805: All their other choices, except for the cuts on $Q^2$, $p_T$, $p_T^\star$, and
806: $z$, coincide with our default settings.
807: The outcome of this comparison is presented in Table~\ref{tab:com}.
808: We are unable to determine the source of discrepancy.
809:
810: \begin{table}[ht]
811: \begin{center}
812: \caption{Comparison of our results for the CS and CO contributions to
813: $\sigma(e+p\to e+J/\psi+j+X)$ in DIS with the ones of Ref.~\protect\cite{fle}.}
814: \label{tab:com}
815: \medskip
816: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|r|r|}
817: \hline\hline
818: Type & Cuts & Ref.~\cite{fle} & Our result \\
819: \hline
820: CS & $Q^2>4$~GeV${}^2$ & 89~pb & 107~pb \\
821: CS & $Q^2,p_T^2>4$~GeV${}^2$ & 40~pb & 62~pb \\
822: CS & $Q^2>4$~GeV${}^2$, $\left(p_T^\star\right)^2>2$~GeV${}^2$, $z<0.8$ &
823: 13~pb & 24~pb \\
824: CO & $Q^2>4$~GeV${}^2$, $\left(p_T^\star\right)^2>2$~GeV${}^2$, $z<0.8$ &
825: 8~pb & 16~pb \\
826: \hline\hline
827: \end{tabular}
828: \end{center}
829: \end{table}
830:
831: Before the advent of the NRQCD factorization formalism \cite{bbl}, one of the
832: major motivations to study $J/\psi$ inclusive production in $ep$ DIS was to
833: extract the gluon PDF of the proton $f_{g/p}(x,M)$ \cite{gui,mer}.
834: In fact, to LO the CSM, the only contributing partonic subprocess is
835: $e+g\to e+c\overline{c}\left[{}^3\!S_1^{(1)}\right]+g$, and
836: $\left\langle{\cal O}^\psi\left[{}^3\!S_1^{(1)}\right]\right\rangle$ is well
837: determined from the partial width of the $J/\psi$ decay to lepton pairs.
838: Furthermore, $x$ is experimentally accessible through the relation
839: $x=1-M_{X^\prime}^2/[y(1-z)S]$, and $M=\sqrt{Q^2+M_\psi^2}$ is a plausible
840: choice.
841: To LO in NRQCD, this task is somewhat impeded by the presence of CO partonic
842: subprocesses with quarks or antiquarks in the initial state and by the
843: presently still considerable uncertainties in the CO MEs.
844: We observe from Figs.~\ref{fig:Q2}--\ref{fig:W} that the CO contributions lead
845: to a dramatic increase in cross section relative to the CSM predictions.
846: In fact, if we consider the total cross section evaluated with the H1
847: acceptance cuts \cite{mey}, then the CSM contribution only makes up 25\% of
848: the full NRQCD result.
849: Thus, the present uncertainties in the CO MEs do constitute a serious problem.
850: However, the quark- and antiquark-induced CO subprocesses only yield a minor
851: contribution, less than 5\% of the total cross section.
852: Thus, $J/\psi$ inclusive production in $ep$ DIS remains to be a sensitive
853: probe of the gluon PDF of the proton if we pass from the CSM to NRQCD.
854:
855: \section{Conclusions}
856: \label{sec:four}
857:
858: We provided, in analytic form, the cross sections of the partonic subprocesses
859: $e+a\to e+c\overline{c}[n]+a$, where $a=g,q,\overline{q}$ and
860: $n={}^3\!S_1^{(1)},{}^1\!S_0^{(8)},{}^3\!S_1^{(8)},{}^3\!P_J^{(8)}$, to LO in
861: the NRQCD factorization formalism \cite{bbl}.
862: Using these results, we then studied the cross section of
863: $e+p\to e+J/\psi+j+X$ in DIS under HERA kinematic conditions and compared
864: various of its distributions with recent H1 data \cite{mey}, from which the
865: contribution of elastic $J/\psi$ production was separated by a suitable
866: acceptance cut on $z$.
867: It turned out that, in general, the experimental data agrees reasonably well
868: with our NRQCD predictions, while they tend to disfavour the CSM ones.
869: However, a familiar feature of $J/\psi$ inclusive photoproduction in $ep$
870: scattering at HERA \cite{cac,ko} carries over to DIS, namely that the cross
871: section predicted to LO in NRQCD exhibits a distinct rise as $z\to1$, which is
872: absent in the experimental $z$ distribution.
873:
874: At this point, it is still premature to jump to conclusions concerning the
875: experimental verification or falsification of the NRQCD factorization
876: hypothesis.
877: On the one hand, the theoretical predictions for $J/\psi$ inclusive production
878: in $p\overline{p}$ scattering at the Tevatron \cite{bai,cho} and in $ep$ DIS
879: at HERA are of LO in $\alpha_s$ and $v$, and they suffer from considerable
880: uncertainties, mostly from the scale dependences and from the lack of
881: information on the CO MEs.
882: On the other hand, the experimental errors are still rather sizeable
883: \cite{abe,mey,h1}.
884: The latter will be dramatically reduced with the upgrades of HERA and the
885: Tevatron, and with the advent of CERN LHC and hopefully a future $e^+e^-$
886: linear collider such as DESY TESLA.
887: On the theoretical side, it is necessary to calculate the NLO corrections to
888: the hard-scattering cross sections and to include the effective operators
889: which are suppressed by higher powers of $v$.
890:
891: %\bigskip
892: \newpage
893: \noindent
894: {\bf Acknowledgements}
895: \smallskip
896:
897: \noindent
898: We acknowledge the collaboration of Jungil Lee at the initial stage of this
899: work.
900: We thank Jochen Bartels for instructive comments on the possibilities of
901: suppressing the contribution from $J/\psi$ diffractive production in $ep$ DIS.
902: We are grateful to Sean Fleming for helpful communications concerning
903: Ref.~\cite{fle}.
904: We are indepted to Arnd Meyer, Susanne Mohrdieck, and Beate Naroska for
905: numerous useful discussions regarding Ref.~\cite{mey,h1,mor}.
906: The work of L.Z. was supported by the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes
907: through a PhD scholarship.
908: This work was supported in part by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through
909: Grant No.\ KN~365/1-1, by the Bundesministerium f\"ur Bildung und Forschung
910: through Grant No.\ 05~HT1GUA/4, by the European Commission through the
911: Research Training Network {\it Quantum Chromodynamics and the Deep Structure
912: of Elementary Particles} under Contract No.\ ERBFMRX-CT98-0194, and by Sun
913: Microsystems through Academic Equipment Grant No.~EDUD-7832-000332-GER.
914:
915: \def\theequation{\Alph{section}.\arabic{equation}}
916: \begin{appendix}
917: \setcounter{equation}{0}
918: \section{Partonic cross sections}
919:
920: In this Appendix, we present analytic expressions for the coefficients
921: $F_a[n]$, $T_a[n]$, and $L_a[n]$ appearing in Eq.~(\ref{eq:res}).
922: In order to compactify the expressions, it is useful to introduce the Lorentz
923: invariants $s=2q\cdot p$, $t=-2p\cdot p^\prime$, and $u=-2q\cdot p^\prime$,
924: which are related to the partonic Mandelstam variables by $s=\hat s+Q^2$,
925: $t=\hat t$, and $u=\hat u+Q^2$, respectively.
926: In the following, $e_q$ is the fractional electric charge of quark $q$.
927:
928: $e+q(\overline{q})\to c\overline{c}\left[{}^3\!S_1^{(1)}\right]
929: +q(\overline{q})$:
930: \begin{equation}
931: F=T=L=0.
932: \end{equation}
933:
934: $e+q(\overline{q})\to c\overline{c}\left[{}^1\!S_0^{(8)}\right]
935: +q(\overline{q})$:
936: \begin{eqnarray}
937: F&=&\frac{-16 \pi^2 e_c^2 \alpha \alpha_s^2}{3 M_\psi s^4 t (s + u)^2},
938: \nonumber\\
939: T&=&2 Q^4 t^2+2 Q^2 s t (s + u)+s^2 (s^2 + u^2),
940: \nonumber\\
941: L&=&-2 t (Q^2 t + s u).
942: \end{eqnarray}
943:
944: $e+q(\overline{q})\to c\overline{c}\left[{}^3\!S_1^{(8)}\right]
945: +q(\overline{q})$:
946: \begin{eqnarray}
947: F&=&\frac{-8 \pi^2 e_q^2 \alpha \alpha_s^2}{9 M_\psi^3 s^4 (Q^2 - s)^2
948: (Q^2 - u)^2},
949: \nonumber\\
950: T&=&2 Q^6 t^2 (2 s + t)+
951: 2 Q^4 s [s^2 u - s t (3 t - 2 u) - 2 t^3]+
952: Q^2 s^2 [s^2 (t - 2 u)
953: \nonumber\\
954: &&{} + 2 s (t^2 - 4 t u - u^2) + t (2 t^2 - 2 t u - u^2)]+
955: s^3 u (s^2 + 2 s t + 2 t^2 + 2 t u + u^2),
956: \nonumber\\
957: L&=&-2 (Q^2 - s)^2 t (s + t)^2.
958: \end{eqnarray}
959:
960: $e+q(\overline{q})\to c\overline{c}\left[{}^3\!P_J^{(8)}\right]
961: +q(\overline{q})$:
962: \begin{eqnarray}
963: F&=&\frac{64 \pi^2 e_c^2 \alpha \alpha_s^2}{3 M_\psi^3 s^4 t (s + u)^4},
964: \nonumber\\
965: T&=&8 Q^6 t [2 s^2 + s t + t (2 t + u)]-
966: 2 Q^4 [4 s^4 + 12 s^3 t + s^2 (19 t^2 + 8 t u + 4 u^2)
967: + 2 s t (6 t^2
968: \nonumber\\
969: &&{} + t u - 2 u^2) + t^2 (8 t^2 + 12 t u + 7 u^2)]+
970: 2 Q^2 s [6 s^4 + s^3 (7 t + 6 u)+
971: s^2 (4 t^2 + 3 t u
972: \nonumber\\
973: &&{}+ 6 u^2) - s u (8 t^2 + 3 t u - 6 u^2)
974: - t u (8 t^2 + 12 t u + 7 u^2)]-s^2 (s + u)
975: [7 s^3 + s^2 (12 t
976: \nonumber\\
977: &&{}+ 7 u) +
978: s (8 t^2 + 16 t u + 7 u^2) + u (8 t^2 + 12 t u + 7 u^2)],
979: \nonumber\\
980: L&=&8 Q^4 t [s^2 - s t - t (2 t + u)]-
981: 2 Q^2 [2 s^4 + 4 s^3 t + s^2 (5 t^2 + 8 t u + 2 u^2)
982: - 2 s t (6 t^2
983: \nonumber\\
984: &&{}+ t u - 2 u^2) - t^2 (8 t^2 + 12 t u + 7 u^2)]+
985: 2 s (s + u) [2 s^3 + 2 s^2 t + s (8 t^2 + 5 t u
986: \nonumber\\
987: &&{} + 2 u^2) + t (8 t^2 + 12 t u + 7 u^2)].
988: \end{eqnarray}
989:
990: $e+g\to c\overline{c}\left[{}^3\!S_1^{(1)}\right]+g$:
991: \begin{eqnarray}
992: F&=&\frac{64 \pi^2 e_c^2 \alpha \alpha_s^2}{27 M_\psi s^4 (s + t)^2
993: (s + u)^2 (t + u)^2},
994: \nonumber\\
995: T&=&-4 Q^6 t^2 (s^2 + t^2)+
996: 2Q^4 t [s^3 (3 t - 2 u) + 3 s^2 t (t + u) + 2 s t^2 (t - u)
997: + 2 t^3 (t + u)]
998: \nonumber\\
999: &&{}-2Q^2 s [s^3 (t - u)^2 - 2 s^2 t u (t + u) - s t^2 u (2 t - u)
1000: - 2 t^3 u (t + u)] +
1001: 2s^2 [ s^3 (t^2
1002: \nonumber\\
1003: &&{} + t u + u^2) + s^2 (t + u)^3 +
1004: s t u (t^2 + 3 t u + u^2) + t^2 u^2 (t + u)],
1005: \nonumber\\
1006: L&=& -2Q^4 t^2 (s^2 - 2 t^2)+ 2Q^2 t (s^2 - 2 t^2) [s (t - u)
1007: + t (t + u)]
1008: - s [s^3 (t^2 + u^2)
1009: \nonumber\\
1010: &&{} + 2 s^2 t^2 (t + u)
1011: + s t^2 (t^2 + 6 t u + u^2)+ 4 t^3 u (t + u)].
1012: \end{eqnarray}
1013:
1014: $e+g\to c\overline{c}\left[{}^1\!S_0^{(8)}\right]+g$:
1015: \begin{eqnarray}
1016: F&=&\frac{24 \pi^2 e_c^2 \alpha \alpha_s^2}{M_\psi s^4 t (s + t)^2
1017: (s + u)^2 (t + u)^2},
1018: \nonumber\\
1019: T&=& 2 Q^6 t^3 u^2 + 2 Q^4 s t^2 u [s (t + u) + t^2 + t u + 2 u^2
1020: ] +
1021: Q^2 s^2 t [s^4 + 2 s^3 (t + u)
1022: \nonumber\\
1023: &&{} + 3 s^2 (t + u)^2
1024: + 2 s (t^3 + 3 t^2 u + 4 t u^2 + 2 u^3) + t^4 + 2 t^3 u +
1025: 5 t^2 u^2 + 4 t u^3 + 3 u^4]
1026: \nonumber\\
1027: &&{} + s^3 u [s^4 + 2 s^3 (t + u)
1028: + 3 s^2 (t + u)^2 + 2 s (t + u)^3 + (t^2 + t u + u^2)^2],
1029: \nonumber\\
1030: L&=& -2 Q^4 t^3 u^2 -
1031: 2 Q^2 s t^2 u [ s (t + u) + t^2 + t u + 2 u^2]-
1032: s^2 t [s^2 (t + u)^2
1033: \nonumber\\
1034: &&{} + 2 s (t^3 + 2 t^2 u + 2 t u^2 + u^3)
1035: + t^4 + 2 t^3 u + 3 t^2 u^2 + 2 t u^3 + 2 u^4].
1036: \end{eqnarray}
1037:
1038: $e+g\to c\overline{c}[{}^3\!S_1^{(8)}]+g$:
1039: \begin{eqnarray}
1040: F&=&\frac{15}{8}
1041: F\left(e+g\to c\overline{c}\left[{}^3\!S_1^{(1)}\right]+g\right),
1042: \nonumber\\
1043: T&=&T\left(e+g\to c\overline{c}\left[{}^3\!S_1^{(1)}\right]+g\right),
1044: \nonumber\\
1045: L&=&L\left(e+g\to c\overline{c}\left[{}^3\!S_1^{(1)}\right]+g\right).
1046: \end{eqnarray}
1047:
1048: $e+g\to c\overline{c}\left[{}^3\!P_J^{(8)}\right]+g$:
1049: \begin{eqnarray}
1050: F&=&\frac{96 \pi^2 e_c^2 \alpha \alpha_s^2}{M_\psi^3 s^4 t (s + t)^3
1051: (s + u)^4 (t + u)^3},
1052: \nonumber\\
1053: T&=& -8 Q^8 t^2 [2 s^5 t - 2 s^4 u^2 + s^3 t^2 (2 t - 3 u) - s^2 t u (t^2
1054: + 3 t u - 3 u^2) - s t u (2 t^3 + t^2 u - t u^2
1055: \nonumber\\
1056: &&{} - u^3) + t^2 u^3 (2 t + u)] +
1057: 2 Q^6 t [4 s^7 (t + u) + 4 s^6 (5 t^2 + 2 u^2) +
1058: 4 s^5 (5 t^3 + 6 t^2 u - 2 t u^2
1059: \nonumber\\
1060: &&{} + 4 u^3)
1061: + 2 s^4 (9 t^4 - 9 t^3 u + 4 t^2 u^2 - 6 t u^3 + 4 u^4)
1062: + s^3 (12 t^5 - 2 t^4 u - 29 t^3 u^2 + 33 t^2 u^3
1063: \nonumber\\
1064: &&{} - 12 t u^4 + 4 u^5)
1065: - s^2 t (2 t^5 + 20 t^4 u + 25 t^3 u^2 - t^2 u^3 - 16 t u^4 + 4 u^5)
1066: - s t^2 u (12 t^4 + 26 t^3 u
1067: \nonumber\\
1068: &&{} + 2 t^2 u^2 + t u^3 + u^4)
1069: - t^3 u^2 (2 t^3 - 6 t^2 u - 15 t u^2 - 7 u^3)]-
1070: 2 Q^4 [2 s^8 (3 t^2 + t u - 2 u^2)
1071: \nonumber\\
1072: &&{} + s^7 (21 t^3 + 3 t^2 u + 10 t u^2 - 8 u^3)
1073: + s^6 (28 t^4 + 15 t^3 u - 15 t^2 u^2 + 22 t u^3 - 12 u^4)
1074: + s^5 (27 t^5
1075: \nonumber\\
1076: &&{} + 11 t^4 u + 8 t^3 u^2 - 20 t^2 u^3 + 26 t u^4 - 8 u^5)
1077: + s^4 (16 t^6 + 17 t^5 u - 20 t^4 u^2 + 2 t^3 u^3 - 33 t^2 u^4
1078: \nonumber\\
1079: &&{} + 18 t u^5 - 4 u^6)
1080: + s^3 t (2 t^6 + 8 t^5 u - 3 t^4 u^2 - 19 t^3 u^3 - 19 t^2 u^4 - 17 t u^5
1081: + 6 u^6)
1082: - s^2 t^2 (2 t^6
1083: \nonumber\\
1084: &&{} + 14 t^5 u + 30 t^4 u^2 + 33 t^3 u^3 +
1085: 46 t^2 u^4 + 21 t u^5 + 4 u^6)
1086: - 2 s t^3 u (2 t^5 + 10 t^4 u + 16 t^3 u^2
1087: \nonumber\\
1088: &&{} + 20 t^2 u^3 + 19 t u^4 + 7 u^5)
1089: - 2 t^6 u^2 (t + u)^2] +
1090: Q^2 s [ s^8 (7 t^2 - 5 t u - 12 u^2)
1091: + s^7 (25 t^3 + 3 t^2 u
1092: \nonumber\\
1093: &&{} - 18 t u^2 - 36 u^3)
1094: + s^6 (37 t^4 + 25 t^3 u - 12 t^2 u^2 - 20 t u^3 - 60 u^4)
1095: + s^5 (39 t^5 + 39 t^4 u + 16 t^3 u^2
1096: \nonumber\\
1097: &&{} - 18 t^2 u^3 - 6 t u^4 - 60 u^5)
1098: + s^4 (29 t^6 + 83 t^5 u + 72 t^4 u^2 + 88 t^3 u^3 + 40 t^2 u^4 +
1099: 22 t u^5 - 36 u^6)
1100: \nonumber\\
1101: &&{} + s^3 (9 t^7 + 75 t^6 u + 148 t^5 u^2 + 176 t^4 u^3 + 178 t^3 u^4 +
1102: 102 t^2 u^5 + 22 t u^6 - 12 u^7)
1103: + s^2 t u (22 t^6
1104: \nonumber\\
1105: &&{} + 107 t^5 u + 199 t^4 u^2 +
1106: 211 t^3 u^3 + 177 t^2 u^4 + 73 t u^5 + 9 u^6)
1107: + s t^2 u^2 (17 t^5 + 69 t^4 u + 107 t^3 u^2
1108: \nonumber\\
1109: &&{} + 105 t^2 u^3 + 71 t u^4 +
1110: 21 u^5)
1111: + 4 t^5 u^3 (t + u)^2] +
1112: s^2 (s + u) [7 s^7 u (t + u)
1113: + s^6 u (25 t^2 + 38 t u
1114: \nonumber\\
1115: &&{} + 21 u^2)
1116: + s^5 (2 t^4 + 47 t^3 u + 88 t^2 u^2 + 78 t u^3 + 35 u^4)
1117: + s^4 (4 t^5 + 63 t^4 u + 132 t^3 u^2
1118: \nonumber\\
1119: &&{} + 156 t^2 u^3 + 98 t u^4 + 35 u^5)
1120: + s^3 (2 t^6 + 47 t^5 u + 136 t^4 u^2 + 190 t^3 u^3 + 156 t^2 u^4
1121: + 78 t u^5
1122: \nonumber\\
1123: &&{} + 21 u^6)
1124: + s^2 u (13 t^6 + 70 t^5 u + 136 t^4 u^2 + 132 t^3 u^3 + 88 t^2 u^4 +
1125: 38 t u^5 + 7 u^6)
1126: + s t u^2 (13 t^5
1127: \nonumber\\
1128: &&{} + 47 t^4 u + 63 t^3 u^2 + 47 t^2 u^3 + 25 t u^4 + 7 u^5)
1129: + 2 t^4 u^3 (t + u)^2],
1130: \nonumber\\
1131: L&=& -8 Q^6 t^2 [s^5 t- s^4 u^2- 2 s^3 t^3 + s^2 t^2 u (t
1132: + 3 u)
1133: + s t u (2 t^3 + t^2 u - t u^2 - u^3)
1134: - t^2 u^3 (2 t + u)]
1135: \nonumber\\
1136: &&{} + 2 Q^4 t [2 s^7 (t + u) + 4 s^6 (2 t^2 + u^2)
1137: - s^5 (t^3 - t^2 u + 2 t u^2 - 8 u^3)
1138: - s^4 (21 t^4 + 13 t^3 u
1139: \nonumber\\
1140: &&{} + 18 t^2 u^2 - 2 t u^3 - 4 u^4)
1141: - 2 s^3 (6 t^5 + 10 t^4 u + t^3 u^2 + 4 t^2 u^3 - 6 t u^4 - u^5)
1142: + 2 s^2 t (t^5 + 10 t^4 u
1143: \nonumber\\
1144: &&{} + 11 t^3 u^2 + 9 t^2 u^3 + 6 t u^4 + 5 u^5)
1145: + s t^2 u (12 t^4 + 26 t^3 u + 2 t^2 u^2 + t u^3 + u^4)
1146: + t^3 u^2 (2 t^3
1147: \nonumber\\
1148: &&{} - 6 t^2 u - 15 t u^2 - 7 u^3)] -
1149: 4 Q^2 [s^8 (t^2 - u^2)
1150: + s^7 (3 t^3 + t u^2 - 2 u^3)
1151: - s^6 (2 t^4 + 2 t^3 u + 2 t^2 u^2
1152: \nonumber\\
1153: &&{} - t u^3 + 3 u^4)
1154: - s^5 (12 t^5 + 16 t^4 u + 16 t^3 u^2 - t^2 u^3 + t u^4 + 2 u^5)
1155: - s^4 (10 t^6 + 28 t^5 u + 28 t^4 u^2
1156: \nonumber\\
1157: &&{} + 13 t^3 u^3 - 7 t^2 u^4 + 3 t u^5 +
1158: u^6)
1159: - s^3 t (t^6 + 9 t^5 u + 18 t^4 u^2 + t^3 u^3 - 15 t^2 u^4 -
1160: 10 t u^5 + 2 u^6)
1161: \nonumber\\
1162: &&{} + s^2 t^2 (t^6 + 7 t^5 u + 13 t^4 u^2 + 18 t^3 u^3 +
1163: 35 t^2 u^4 + 24 t u^5 + 6 u^6)
1164: + s t^3 u (2 t^5 + 10 t^4 u + 16 t^3 u^2
1165: \nonumber\\
1166: &&{} + 20 t^2 u^3 + 19 t u^4 + 7 u^5)
1167: + t^6 u^2 (t + u)^2] -
1168: 2 s (s + u) [2 s^7 u (t + u)
1169: + 2 s^6 u (3 t^2 + 3 t u
1170: \nonumber\\
1171: &&{} + 2 u^2)
1172: + s^5 (5 t^4 + 15 t^3 u + 18 t^2 u^2 + 14 t u^3 + 6 u^4)
1173: + s^4 (15 t^5 + 38 t^4 u + 53 t^3 u^2 + 40 t^2 u^3
1174: \nonumber\\
1175: &&{} + 22 t u^4 + 4 u^5)
1176: + s^3 (15 t^6 + 52 t^5 u + 88 t^4 u^2 + 81 t^3 u^3 + 47 t^2 u^4
1177: + 19 t u^5 + 2 u^6)+ s^2 t (5 t^6
1178: \nonumber\\
1179: &&{} + 32 t^5 u + 78 t^4 u^2 + 90 t^3 u^3 + 68 t^2 u^4 + 34 t u^5
1180: + 9 u^6)
1181: + s t^2 u (7 t^5 + 31 t^4 u + 47 t^3 u^2 + 39 t^2 u^3
1182: \nonumber\\
1183: &&{} + 23 t u^4 + 7 u^5)
1184: + 2 t^5 u^2 (t + u)^2].
1185: \end{eqnarray}
1186:
1187: \end{appendix}
1188:
1189: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1190:
1191: \bibitem{bbl} G.T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, G.P. Lepage,
1192: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 51 (1995) 1125;\\
1193: G.T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, G.P. Lepage,
1194: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 55 (1997) 5853, Erratum.
1195:
1196: \bibitem{ber} E.L. Berger, D. Jones,
1197: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 23 (1981) 1521.
1198:
1199: \bibitem{bai} R. Baier, R. R\"uckl,
1200: Phys.\ Lett.\ 102 B (1981) 364;\\
1201: R. Baier, R. R\"uckl,
1202: Z. Phys.\ C 19 (1983) 251;\\
1203: B. Humpert,
1204: Phys.\ Lett.\ B 184 (1987) 105;\\
1205: R. Gastmans, W. Troost, T.T. Wu,
1206: Phys.\ Lett.\ B 184 (1987) 257;\\
1207: R. Gastmans, W. Troost, T.T. Wu,
1208: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 291 (1987) 731.
1209:
1210: \bibitem{ebr} E. Braaten, S. Fleming,
1211: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ 74 (1995) 3327;\\
1212: E. Braaten, T.C. Yuan,
1213: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 52 (1995) 6627.
1214:
1215: \bibitem{cho} P. Cho, A.K. Leibovich,
1216: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 53 (1996) 150;\\
1217: P. Cho, A.K. Leibovich,
1218: Phys.\ Rev.\ 53 (1996) 6203.
1219:
1220: \bibitem{abe} CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al.,
1221: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ 69 (1992) 3704;\\
1222: CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al.,
1223: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ 71 (1993) 2537;\\
1224: CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al.,
1225: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ 79 (1997) 572;\\
1226: CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al.,
1227: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ 79 (1997) 578;\\
1228: D0 Collaboration, S. Abachi et al.,
1229: Phys.\ Lett.\ B 370 (1996) 239;\\
1230: D0 Collaboration, B. Abbott et al.,
1231: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ 82 (1999) 35.
1232:
1233: \bibitem{bra} E. Braaten, S. Fleming, T.C. Yuan,
1234: Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ 46 (1996) 197;\\
1235: B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer,
1236: Phys.\ Lett.\ B 413 (1997) 416;\\
1237: M. Kr\"amer,
1238: Prog.\ Part.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ 47 (2001) 141.
1239:
1240: \bibitem{ben} M. Beneke, M. Kr\"amer,
1241: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 55 (1997) 5269;\\
1242: A.K. Leibovich,
1243: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 56 (1997) 4412;\\
1244: B.A. Kniehl, J. Lee,
1245: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 62 (2000) 114027;\\
1246: S. Fleming, A.K. Leibovich, I.Z. Rothstein,
1247: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 64 (2001) 036002.
1248:
1249: \bibitem{bkv} M. Beneke, M. Kr\"amer, M. V\"anttinen,
1250: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 57 (1998) 4258.
1251:
1252: \bibitem{bkl} E. Braaten, B.A. Kniehl, J. Lee,
1253: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 62 (2000) 094005.
1254:
1255: \bibitem{bro} S.J. Brodsky, L. Frankfurt, J.F. Gunion, A.H. Mueller,
1256: M. Strikman,
1257: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 50 (1994) 3134.
1258:
1259: \bibitem{mey} A. Meyer,
1260: PhD Thesis, Universit\"at Hamburg, 1998, Report No.\ DESY-THESIS-1998-012;\\
1261: A. Meyer, private communication;\\
1262: S. Mohrdieck, private communication.
1263:
1264: \bibitem{h1} H1 Collaboration, C. Adloff et al.,
1265: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C 10 (1999) 373;\\
1266: B. Naroska, on behalf of the H1 and ZEUS Collaborations,
1267: in: S. S\"oldner-Rembold (Ed.),
1268: Photon 99: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Structure and
1269: Interactions of the Photon, including the 12th International Workshop on
1270: Photon-Photon Collisions, Freiburg, Germany, 23--27 May 1999,
1271: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.) 82 (2000) 187;\\
1272: B. Naroska, on behalf of the H1 and ZEUS Collaborations,
1273: in: G. Grindhammer, B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, W. Ochs (Eds.),
1274: Proceedings of the Ringberg Workshop on New Trends in HERA Physics 2001,
1275: Tegernsee, Germany, 17--22 June 2001, J. Phys.\ G (to appear);\\
1276: A. Bertolin, on behalf of the H1 and ZEUS Collaborations,
1277: in: K. Huitu, H. Kurki-Suonio, J. Maalampi (Eds.),
1278: High Energy Physics 99: Proceedings of the International Europhysics
1279: Conference on High Energy Physics, Tampere, Finland, 15--21 July 1999,
1280: Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol and Philadelphia, 2000, p.~580.
1281:
1282: \bibitem{mor} S. Mohrdieck,
1283: PhD Thesis, Universit\"at Hamburg, 2000, Report No.\ DESY-THESIS-2000-059.
1284:
1285: \bibitem{cac} M. Cacciari, M. Kr\"amer,
1286: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ 76 (1996) 4128.
1287:
1288: \bibitem{ko} P. Ko, J. Lee, H.S. Song,
1289: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 54 (1996) 4312;\\
1290: P. Ko, J. Lee, H.S. Song,
1291: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 60 (1999) 119902, Erratum.
1292:
1293: \bibitem{aid} H1 Collaboration, S. Aid et al.,
1294: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 472 (1996) 3.
1295:
1296: \bibitem{bre} ZEUS Collaboration, J. Breitweg et al.,
1297: Z. Phys.\ C 76 (1997) 599.
1298:
1299: \bibitem{ano} B. Cano-Coloma, M.A. Sanchis-Lozano,
1300: Phys.\ Lett.\ B 406 (1997) 232;\\
1301: B. Cano-Coloma, M.A. Sanchis-Lozano,
1302: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 508 (1997) 753;\\
1303: B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer,
1304: Z. Phys.\ C 6 (1999) 493.
1305:
1306: \bibitem{rot} M. Beneke, I.Z. Rothstein, M.B. Wise,
1307: Phys.\ Lett.\ B 408 (1997) 373.
1308:
1309: \bibitem{sri} K. Sridhar, A.D. Martin, W.J. Stirling,
1310: Phys.\ Lett.\ B 438 (1998) 211;\\
1311: Ph.\ H\"agler, R. Kirschner, A. Sch\"afer, L. Szymanowski, O.V. Teryaev,
1312: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 63 (2001) 077501.
1313:
1314: \bibitem{fle} S. Fleming, T. Mehen,
1315: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 57 (1998) 1846;\\
1316: S. Fleming, private communication.
1317:
1318: \bibitem{koe} J.G. K\"orner, J. Cleymans, M. Kuroda, G.J. Gounaris,
1319: Phys.\ Lett.\ 114B (1982) 195.
1320:
1321: \bibitem{gui} J.-Ph.\ Guillet,
1322: Z. Phys.\ C 39 (1988) 75.
1323:
1324: \bibitem{mer} H. Merabet, J.F. Mathiot, R. Mendez-Galain,
1325: Z. Phys.\ C 62 (1994) 639.
1326:
1327: \bibitem{kru} D. Kr\"ucker,
1328: PhD Thesis, RWTH Aachen, 1995.
1329:
1330: \bibitem{yua} F. Yuan, K.-T. Chao,
1331: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 63 (2001) 034017.
1332:
1333: \bibitem{pdg} Particle Data Group, D.E. Groom et al.,
1334: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C 15 (2000) 1.
1335:
1336: \bibitem{gra} D. Graudenz,
1337: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 49 (1994) 3291.
1338:
1339: \bibitem{pet} A. Petrelli, M. Cacciari, M. Greco, F. Maltoni, M.L. Mangano,
1340: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 514 (1998) 245;\\
1341: F. Maltoni, M.L. Mangano, A. Petrelli,
1342: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 519 (1998) 361.
1343:
1344: \bibitem{mrst} A.D. Martin, R.G. Roberts, W.J. Stirling, R.S. Thorne,
1345: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C 4 (1998) 463.
1346:
1347: \bibitem{cteq} CTEQ Collaboration, H.L. Lai et al.,
1348: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C 12 (2000) 375.
1349:
1350: \bibitem{grv} M. Gl\"uck, E. Reya, A. Vogt,
1351: Z. Phys.\ C 67 (1995) 433.
1352:
1353: \end{thebibliography}
1354:
1355: \newpage
1356: \begin{figure}[ht]
1357: \begin{center}
1358: \centerline{
1359: \epsfig{figure=epfey.eps,height=18cm,bbllx=214pt,bblly=121pt,bburx=317pt,%
1360: bbury=311pt,clip=}
1361: }
1362: \caption{Representative Feynman diagrams for the partonic subprocesses
1363: $e+a\to e+c\overline{c}[n]+a$, where $a=g,q,\overline{q}$ and
1364: $n={}^3\!S_1^{(1)},{}^1\!S_0^{(8)},{}^3\!S_1^{(8)},{}^3\!P_J^{(8)}$.
1365: There are six diagrams of the type shown in part (a), two ones of the type
1366: shown in part (b), and two ones of the type shown in part (c).
1367: There are two more diagrams that are obtained from the diagrams of the type
1368: shown in part (b) by replacing the external gluon lines with quark ones.
1369: The CS process only proceeds through the diagrams shown in part (a).}
1370: \label{fig:fey}
1371: \end{center}
1372: \end{figure}
1373:
1374: \newpage
1375: \begin{figure}[ht]
1376: \begin{center}
1377: \centerline{
1378: \epsfig{figure=epkin.eps,width=16cm,bbllx=222pt,bblly=194pt,bburx=306pt,%
1379: bbury=257pt}
1380: }
1381: \caption{Schematic representation of $e+p\to e+J/\psi+j+X$ explaining the
1382: four-momentum assignments.}
1383: \label{fig:kin}
1384: \end{center}
1385: \end{figure}
1386:
1387: \newpage
1388: \begin{figure}[ht]
1389: \begin{center}
1390: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
1391: \begin{picture}(15,10)
1392: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
1393: \put(0.5,0){\includegraphics[width=15cm,height=10cm]{Q2.eps}}
1394: \put(-1.5,5){$\displaystyle\frac{d\sigma}{dQ^2}$}
1395: \put(-1.5,4){[pb/GeV${}^2$]}
1396: \put(7.5,-0.5){$Q^2$ [GeV${}^2$]}
1397: \end{picture}
1398: \end{center}
1399: \caption{The $Q^2$ distribution of $J/\psi$ inclusive production in $ep$ DIS
1400: measured with the H1 detector \protect\cite{mey} is compared with the LO NRQCD
1401: (upper histogram) and CSM (lower histogram) predictions.}
1402: \label{fig:Q2}
1403: \end{figure}
1404:
1405: \newpage
1406: \begin{figure}[ht]
1407: \begin{center}
1408: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
1409: \begin{picture}(15,10)
1410: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
1411: \put(0.5,0){\includegraphics[width=15cm,height=10cm]{PT2Lab.eps}}
1412: \put(-1.5,5){$\displaystyle\frac{d\sigma}{dp_T^2}$}
1413: \put(-1.5,4){[pb/GeV${}^2$]}
1414: \put(7.5,-0.5){$p_T^2$ [GeV${}^2$]}
1415: \end{picture}
1416: \end{center}
1417: \caption{The $p_T^2$ distribution of $J/\psi$ inclusive production in $ep$ DIS
1418: measured with the H1 detector \protect\cite{mey} is compared with the LO NRQCD
1419: (upper histogram) and CSM (lower histogram) predictions.}
1420: \label{fig:pT2Lab}
1421: \end{figure}
1422:
1423: \newpage
1424: \begin{figure}[ht]
1425: \begin{center}
1426: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
1427: \begin{picture}(15,10)
1428: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
1429: \put(0.5,0){\includegraphics[width=15cm,height=10cm]{Z.eps}}
1430: \put(0,5){$\displaystyle\frac{d\sigma}{dz}$}
1431: \put(0,4){[pb]}
1432: \put(8.5,-0.5){$z$}
1433: \end{picture}
1434: \end{center}
1435: \caption{The $z$ distribution of $J/\psi$ inclusive production in $ep$ DIS
1436: measured with the H1 detector \protect\cite{mey} is compared with the LO NRQCD
1437: (upper histogram) and CSM (lower histogram) predictions.}
1438: \label{fig:z}
1439: \end{figure}
1440:
1441: \newpage
1442: \begin{figure}[ht]
1443: \begin{center}
1444: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
1445: \begin{picture}(15,10)
1446: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
1447: \put(0.5,0){\includegraphics[width=15cm,height=10cm]{y.eps}}
1448: \put(0,5){$\displaystyle\frac{d\sigma}{dy^\star}$}
1449: \put(0,4){[pb]}
1450: \put(8.5,-0.5){$y^\star$}
1451: \end{picture}
1452: \end{center}
1453: \caption{The $y^\star$ distribution of $J/\psi$ inclusive production in $ep$
1454: DIS measured with the H1 detector \protect\cite{mey} is compared with the LO
1455: NRQCD (upper histogram) and CSM (lower histogram) predictions.}
1456: \label{fig:y}
1457: \end{figure}
1458:
1459: \newpage
1460: \begin{figure}[ht]
1461: \begin{center}
1462: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
1463: \begin{picture}(15,10)
1464: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
1465: \put(0.5,0){\includegraphics[width=15cm,height=10cm]{W.eps}}
1466: \put(-1.5,5){$\displaystyle\frac{d\sigma}{dW}$}
1467: \put(-1.5,4){[pb/GeV]}
1468: \put(7.5,-0.5){$W$ [GeV]}
1469: \end{picture}
1470: \end{center}
1471: \caption{The $W$ distribution of $J/\psi$ inclusive production in $ep$ DIS
1472: measured with the H1 detector \protect\cite{mey} is compared with the LO NRQCD
1473: (upper histogram) and CSM (lower histogram) predictions.}
1474: \label{fig:W}
1475: \end{figure}
1476:
1477: \newpage
1478: \begin{figure}[ht]
1479: \begin{center}
1480: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
1481: \begin{picture}(15,10)
1482: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
1483: \put(0.5,0){\includegraphics[width=15cm,height=10cm]{PT2.eps}}
1484: \put(-1.5,5){$\displaystyle\frac{d\sigma}{d\left(p_T^\star\right)^2}$}
1485: \put(-1.5,4){[pb/GeV${}^2$]}
1486: \put(7.5,-0.5){$\left(p_T^\star\right)^2$ [GeV${}^2$]}
1487: \end{picture}
1488: \end{center}
1489: \caption{LO NRQCD (upper histogram) and CSM (lower histogram) predictions for
1490: the $\left(p_T^\star\right)^2$ distribution of $J/\psi$ inclusive production
1491: in $ep$ DIS.}
1492: \label{fig:pT2}
1493: \end{figure}
1494:
1495: \newpage
1496: \begin{figure}[ht]
1497: \begin{center}
1498: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
1499: \begin{picture}(15,10)
1500: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
1501: \put(0.5,0){\includegraphics[width=15cm,height=10cm]{yLab.eps}}
1502: \put(0,5){$\displaystyle\frac{d\sigma}{dy}$}
1503: \put(0,4){[pb]}
1504: \put(8.5,-0.5){$y$}
1505: \end{picture}
1506: \end{center}
1507: \caption{LO NRQCD (upper histogram) and CSM (lower histogram) predictions for
1508: the $y$ distribution of $J/\psi$ inclusive production in $ep$ DIS.}
1509: \label{fig:yLab}
1510: \end{figure}
1511:
1512: \end{document}
1513: The evaluation of the distributions in $J/\psi$ transverse momentum $p_T$ and
1514: rapidity $y_\psi$ in the HERA laboratory frame is somewhat more involved.
1515: Choosing a suitable Cartesian coordinate system in the $\gamma^\star p$ CM
1516: frame, we have
1517: \begin{eqnarray}
1518: (q^\star)^\mu&=&\frac{1}{2W}\left(
1519: \begin{array}{c}
1520: W^2-Q^2\\
1521: 0\\
1522: 0\\
1523: W^2+Q^2
1524: \end{array}
1525: \right),
1526: \qquad
1527: (P^\star)^\mu=\frac{W^2+Q^2}{2W}\left(
1528: \begin{array}{c}
1529: 1\\
1530: 0\\
1531: 0\\
1532: -1
1533: \end{array}
1534: \right),
1535: \nonumber\\
1536: (k^\star)^\mu&=&\frac{S-Q^2}{2W}\left(
1537: \begin{array}{c}
1538: 1\\
1539: \sin\psi^\star\\
1540: 0\\
1541: \cos\psi^\star
1542: \end{array}
1543: \right),
1544: \qquad
1545: (p_\psi^\star)^\mu=\left(
1546: \begin{array}{c}
1547: m_T^\star\cosh y_\psi^\star\\
1548: p_T^\star\cos\phi^\star\\
1549: p_T^\star\sin\phi^\star\\
1550: m_T^\star\sinh y_\psi^\star
1551: \end{array}
1552: \right),
1553: \end{eqnarray}
1554: where $\cos\psi^\star=2SW^2/[(S-Q^2)(W^2+Q^2)]-1$ and
1555: $m_T^\star=\sqrt{M_\psi^2+\left(p_T^\star\right)^2}$ is the $J/\psi$
1556: transverse mass.
1557: Without loss of generality, we may require that $0\le\psi^\star\le\pi$.
1558: In the HERA laboratory frame, we then have
1559: \begin{eqnarray}
1560: p_T^2&=&\left(p_T^\star\right)^2+A\left(A-2p_T^\star\cos\phi^\star\right),
1561: \\
1562: y_\psi&=&y_\psi^\star+\ln\frac{(W^2+Q^2)m_T^\star}{\sqrt SWm_T}
1563: +\frac{1}{2}\ln\frac{E_e}{E_p},
1564: \label{eq:ylab}
1565: \end{eqnarray}
1566: where $m_T=\sqrt{M_\psi^2+p_T^2}$ is the $J/\psi$ transverse mass,
1567: \begin{equation}
1568: A=\frac{m_T^\star\exp(y_\psi^\star)\sin\psi^\star}{1+\cos\psi^\star}
1569: =\sqrt{\frac{Q^2(S-W^2-Q^2)}{SW^2}}m_T^\star\exp(y_\psi^\star),
1570: \end{equation}
1571: and $E_e$ and $E_p$ are the lepton and proton energies in the laboratory
1572: frame, respectively.
1573: Here, $y_\psi$ is taken to be positive in the direction of the three-momentum
1574: of the incoming lepton.
1575: The third term on the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:ylab}) stems from the
1576: Lorentz boost from the $ep$ CM frame to the laboratory one.
1577: Since $p_T$ and $y$ depend on the $J/\psi$ azimuthal angle $\phi^\star$ in the
1578: $\gamma^\star p$ CM frame, the integration over $\phi^\star$ in
1579: Eq.~(\ref{eq:dif}) is no longer trivial, and we need to insert the symbolic
1580: factor $(1/2\pi)\int_0^{2\pi}d\phi^\star$ on the right-hand side of that
1581: equation.
1582:
1583: For the reader's convenience, we also present compact formulas that allow us
1584: to determine $p_T^\star$ and $y_\psi^\star$ from the kinematics in the
1585: laboratory frame.
1586: In the latter, we have
1587: \begin{eqnarray}
1588: k^\mu&=&E_e\left(
1589: \begin{array}{c}
1590: 1\\
1591: 0\\
1592: 0\\
1593: 1
1594: \end{array}
1595: \right),
1596: \qquad
1597: P^\mu=E_p\left(
1598: \begin{array}{c}
1599: 1\\
1600: 0\\
1601: 0\\
1602: -1
1603: \end{array}
1604: \right),
1605: \nonumber\\
1606: (k^\prime)^\mu&=&E_e^\prime\left(
1607: \begin{array}{c}
1608: 1\\
1609: \sin\theta\\
1610: 0\\
1611: \cos\theta
1612: \end{array}
1613: \right),
1614: \qquad
1615: p_\psi^\mu=\left(
1616: \begin{array}{c}
1617: m_T\cosh y_\psi\\
1618: p_T\cos\phi\\
1619: p_T\sin\phi\\
1620: m_T\sinh y_\psi
1621: \end{array}
1622: \right),
1623: \end{eqnarray}
1624: where $E_e^\prime=[Q^2/E_e+(S-W^2-Q^2)/E_p]/4$,
1625: $\cos\theta=1-Q^2/\left(2E_eE_e^\prime\right)$, and we arrange that
1626: $0\le\theta\le\pi$.
1627: We can then calculate $p_T^\star$ from
1628: \begin{equation}
1629: \left(p_T^\star\right)^2=p_T^2+B(B+2p_T\cos\phi),
1630: \end{equation}
1631: where
1632: \begin{equation}
1633: B=\frac{\sqrt{Q^2(S-W^2-Q^2)}}{W^2+Q^2}m_T
1634: \sqrt\frac{E_p}{E_e}\exp(y_\psi),
1635: \end{equation}
1636: and $y_\psi^\star$ from Eq.~(\ref{eq:ylab}).
1637: