1: \documentclass{JHEP3}
2: %\accepted{LU-TP}
3: \keywords{QCD, Jets, Parton Model, Phenomenological Models}
4: %\received{hep-ph/0206195}
5: %\revised{May 23, 2002}
6: %\JHEP{05(2002)046}
7: \preprint{LU-TP 02-23\\
8: hep-ph/0206195}
9:
10: % --- This bit puts ``draft'' over everything! ---
11: %\special{!userdict begin /bop-hook{gsave 200 30 translate
12: %65 rotate /Times-Roman findfont 240 scalefont setfont
13: %0 0 moveto 0.9 setgray (DRAFT) show grestore}def end}
14: % --- end of this bit that puts `draft' over everything ---
15:
16: \usepackage{epsfig}
17: \usepackage{color}
18: \let\normalcolor\relax
19: \usepackage{graphics}
20: \usepackage{axodraw}
21: \usepackage{inputenc}
22: \usepackage{xspace}
23: \inputencoding{latin1}
24: \renewcommand\email[1]{{\scriptsize\tt\href{mailto:#1}{#1}}}
25:
26: %define page size
27: % \setlength{\textheight}{245mm}
28: % \setlength{\topmargin}{-5mm}
29: % \setlength{\headheight}{0mm}
30: % \setlength{\headsep}{0mm}
31: % \setlength{\footskip}{10mm}
32: % \setlength{\textwidth}{160mm}
33: % \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0mm}
34: % \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0mm}
35: % \setlength{\parindent}{0mm}
36: % \setlength{\parskip}{3mm}
37:
38:
39: %shorthand commands
40: %\def\rd{\ifmath{{\mathrm{d}}}}
41: \newcommand{\abar}{\ensuremath{\overline{\alpha}}}
42: \newcommand{\as}{\ensuremath{{\alpha}_{s}}}
43: \newcommand{\azero}{\ensuremath{{\alpha}_{0}}}
44: \newcommand{\Cbar}{\overline{C}}
45: \renewcommand{\d}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}}
46: \newcommand{\kT}{\ensuremath{k_{\perp}}}
47: \newcommand{\kTcut}{\ensuremath{k_{\perp 0}}}
48: \newcommand{\kTpot}[1]{\ensuremath{k_{\perp}^{#1}}}
49: \newcommand{\qbar}{\ensuremath{\overline{q}}}
50: \newcommand{\sigmahat}{\ensuremath{\hat{\sigma}}}
51: \newcommand{\smallx}{S\scalebox{0.8}{MALLX}\xspace}
52: \newcommand{\cascade}{C\scalebox{0.8}{ASCADE}\xspace}
53: \newcommand{\ldcmc}{\scalebox{0.8}{LDCMC}\xspace}
54: \def\mrm#1{\mathrm{#1}}
55: \def\sub#1{\ensuremath{_{\mrm{#1}}}}
56: \def\sup#1{\ensuremath{^{\mrm{#1}}}}
57: \def\ordo#1{\ensuremath{{\cal O}(#1)}}
58: \def\sud#1{\ensuremath{\Delta_{S_{#1}}}}
59: \def\Sud#1{\ensuremath{{\mathbf\Delta\sub{S_{#1}}}}}
60:
61: %for indented abstract
62: % \newlength{\abstwidth}
63: % \setlength{\abstwidth}{\textwidth}
64: % \addtolength{\abstwidth}{-25mm}
65: \skip\footins = 1\bigskipamount plus 2pt minus 4pt
66:
67: \title{\boldmath Gluon Distribution Functions\\ in the
68: $\kT$-factorization Approach}
69:
70: \author{G\"{o}sta Gustafson, Leif L\"onnblad and Gabriela Miu\\
71: Dept.~of Theoretical Physics,
72: S\"olvegatan 14A, S-223 62 Lund, Sweden\\
73: E-mail: \email{Gosta.Gustafson@thep.lu.se}, \email{Leif.Lonnblad@thep.lu.se}
74: and \email{Gabriela.Miu@thep.lu.se}}
75:
76: \abstract{At small $x$, the effects of finite transverse momenta of
77: partons inside a hadron become increasingly important, especially
78: in analyses of jets and heavy-quark production. These effects can
79: be systematically accounted for in a formalism based on
80: $\kT$-factorization and unintegrated distribution functions. We
81: present results for the unintegrated distribution function, together
82: with the corresponding integrated one, obtained within the
83: framework of the Linked Dipole Chain model. Comparisons are made
84: to results obtained within other approaches.}
85:
86: %****************************************************
87: \begin{document}
88:
89: %set sloppy attitude to line breaks
90: \sloppy
91:
92: % \pagestyle{empty}
93:
94:
95: % \begin{flushright}
96: % LU TP XX--XX \\
97: % hep-ph/0206195 \\
98: % May 23, 2002
99: % \end{flushright}
100:
101: % \vspace{\fill}
102:
103: % \begin{center}
104: % {\LARGE\bf Gluon Structure Functions}\\[3mm]
105: % {\LARGE\bf in the $\kT$-factorization Approach}\\[10mm]
106: % {\Large G\"{o}sta Gustafson, Leif L\"{o}nnblad
107: % and Gabriela Miu}\\ [2mm]
108: % {\it Department of Theoretical Physics,}\\[1mm]
109: % {\it Lund University, Lund, Sweden}\\[1mm]
110: % {\scriptsize Gosta.Gustafson@thep.lu.se, Leif.Lonnblad@thep.lu.se,
111: % Gabriela.Miu@thep.lu.se}
112: % \end{center}
113:
114: % \vspace{\fill}
115: % \begin{center}
116: % {\bf Abstract}\\[2ex]
117: % \begin{minipage}{\abstwidth}
118: % At small $x$, the effects of finite transverse momenta of the
119: % partons become increasingly important, especially in analysis of
120: % jets and heavy-quark production. These effects can be systematically
121: % accounted for in a formalism based on $\kT$-factorization and
122: % unintegrated structure functions. We present results for the
123: % unintegrated structure function, together with the corresponding
124: % integrated one, obtained within the framework of the Linked Dipole
125: % Chain model. Comparisons are made to results obtained within other
126: % approaches.
127:
128: % % We present results for the unintegrated and the integrated structure
129: % % functions, covering both the low- and high-$x$ ranges, obtained within
130: % % the framework of the Linked Dipole Chain Model (LDC), as implemented
131: % % in the latest version of the Monte Carlo event generator LDCMC. The
132: % % predictions are compared to those from other event generators, such
133: % % as CASCADE. Furthermore, we show that LDC can be used to describe the
134: % % behaviour of the structure function $F_2$ at large $x$, as observed in
135: % % recent H1 data.
136:
137: % \end{minipage}
138: % \end{center}
139:
140: % \vspace{\fill}
141:
142: % \clearpage
143: % \pagestyle{plain}
144: % \setcounter{page}{1}
145:
146:
147: %****************************************************
148: \section{Introduction}
149: \label{sect-intro}
150: %****************************************************
151:
152: In the description of a given cross section in deeply inelastic
153: lepton--hadron scattering (DIS), it is not enough to consider only the
154: leading order perturbative terms. Although \as\ may be small, each
155: power of \as\ may be accompanied by large logarithms due to the
156: large phase space available for additional gluon radiation.
157: It is, however, often possible to resum these emissions to all
158: orders in the leading logarithmic approximation (LLA).
159:
160: % however, not all terms need to be taken into account, since a
161: % considerable amount of them can be summed over, and thus do not
162: % contribute to the cross section.
163:
164: The most familiar resummation strategy is based on
165: DGLAP~\cite{Gribov:1972ri,Lipatov:1975qm,Altarelli:1977zs,Dokshitzer:1977sg}
166: evolution, which resums large logarithms of the virtual photon
167: momentum transfer, $Q^2$. Within this formalism, the cross-section for
168: any given physics process is calculated using collinear factorization
169: of the form
170: %
171: \begin{equation}
172: \sigma(x,Q^2) = \sigma_{0}(x,Q^2)\sum_a \int \frac{\d z}{z} \,
173: C^{a}(z) \, f_{a}(\frac{x}{z},Q^2),
174: \label{eq:coll-fact}
175: \end{equation}
176: %
177: i.e.\ as a convolution of coefficient functions $C^{a}$ and
178: parton densities $f_{a}(x,Q^2)$.
179:
180: DGLAP evolution describes most experimental results\footnote{see e.g.\
181: \cite{Anderson:2002cf} for a recent review.} from electron--proton
182: and proton--proton colliders. By using input parton densities which
183: are sufficiently singular when $x \rightarrow 0$, this formalism can
184: also account for the strong rise of $F_{2}$ for small $x$, as observed
185: at HERA. However, there are problems with the description of
186: non-inclusive observables such as forward jet production in $ep$ and
187: heavy-quark production in $ep$ and $pp$ collisions.
188:
189: In the region of very small $x$ (asymptotically large energies),
190: effects of finite transverse momenta of the partons may become more
191: and more important. The appropriate description in this region of
192: phase space is BFKL evolution~\cite{Kuraev:1977fs,Balitsky:1978ic}. The
193: cross-sections are calculated in the \kT-factorization approach of the
194: form
195: \begin{equation}
196: \sigma(x,Q^2) = \int \frac{\d z}{z} \, \d^{2} \kT \,
197: \sigmahat(z, Q^2, \kTpot{2}) \, \mathcal{F}(\frac{x}{z}, \kTpot{2}),
198: \label{eq:kt-fact}
199: \end{equation}
200: i.e.\ as a convolution over the energy fraction $z$ and the transverse
201: momentum $\kT$ of the incoming parton of off-shell partonic
202: cross-sections $\sigmahat$, and $\kT$-unintegrated parton
203: densities\footnote{In this paper we will use $\mathcal{F}$ for the
204: unintegrated parton distributions in general, and $\mathcal{G}$ for
205: the unintegrated gluon distribution, treated as densities in
206: $\log{1/x}$, i.e.\ $\mathcal{G}(x)=xG(x)$. For the integrated ones we
207: will use the standard notation $f$ and $g$ respectively.},
208: $\mathcal{F}(x,\kTpot{2})$. This corresponds to a resummation of
209: large logarithms of $1/x$. The BFKL evolution equation actually
210: predicts a strong power-like rise of $F_{2}$ at small $x$.
211:
212: There exist a couple of models which take into account large
213: logarithms of both $Q^2$ and $1/x$ in DIS, reproducing both DGLAP and
214: BFKL in the relevant limits. One such model, valid for both small and
215: large $x$, has been developed by Ciafaloni, Catani, Fiorani and
216: Marchesini, and is known as the CCFM model
217: \cite{Ciafaloni:1988ur,Catani:1990yc}. The resulting unintegrated
218: distribution functions, $\mathcal{F}(x, \kTpot{2}, \qbar)$, depend on two
219: scales, the additional scale, $\qbar$, being a variable related to the
220: maximum angle allowed in the emission.
221:
222: The Linked Dipole Chain model (LDC)
223: \cite{Andersson:1996ju,Andersson:1998bx} is a reformulation and
224: generalization of the CCFM model. Here, the unintegrated distribution
225: functions are essentially single-scale dependent quantities,
226: $\mathcal{F}(x, \kTpot{2})$. In this article we present results for the
227: integrated and unintegrated gluon distribution functions obtained
228: within the LDC formalism and make comparisons with the CCFM model and
229: with results from other formalisms.
230:
231: This article is organized as follows. We start in section
232: \ref{sect-DIS} by giving a short introduction to the DGLAP and BFKL
233: formalisms for deeply inelastic $ep$ scattering, moving over to a
234: description of the CCFM model. We end this section with a somewhat
235: more elaborate description of the Linked Dipole Chain model for DIS,
236: which is implemented in the Monte Carlo event generator
237: \ldcmc~\cite{Kharraziha:1998dn}. This program can be used to describe
238: both structure functions and exclusive properties of the hadronic
239: final states.
240:
241: Since the gluon distribution functions are not experimental observables they
242: are not uniquely defined, but depend on the formalism used. We discuss
243: this problem, and some different approaches presented in the literature,
244: in section \ref{sect-different}.
245:
246: In section \ref{sect-results} we present our results for the
247: unintegrated and integrated gluon distribution functions, obtained in the
248: LDC formalism as implemented in \ldcmc. These results are also
249: compared to those of other approaches, and we discuss how to make
250: relevant comparisons between the different formalisms.
251:
252: We end this article with a summary in section \ref{sect-summary}.
253:
254: % Recent H1 data \cite{ref-H1} on the structure function $F_2$ in the
255: % large-$x$ region show a $Q^2$ dependence of the BFKL exponent
256: % $\lambda = \lambda(Q^2)$. In Sect.~\ref{sect-lambda} we attempt to
257: % understand this behaviour within the framework of a simple version
258: % of the LCD model \cite{ref-simple}.
259: %
260: % Recently, a simple model \cite{ref-simple} has been developed, which
261: % incorporates the most essential features of the CCFM and LDC models;
262: % just like these, it interpolates between the DGLAP and BFKL regimes,
263: % having the advantage of providing an intuitive picture of the
264: % transition region. In Sect.~\ref{sect-simple} we give a brief
265: % description of this simple model. to recent H1 data
266: % \cite{ref-H1}.Mention the solution at small x (BFKL), and how it
267: % factorizes, $\lambda$.Mention that the $F_2$ data for larger $x$
268: % ($10^{-4} < x < 10^{-2}$) doesn't factorize, i.e. $\lambda =
269: % \lambda(Q^2)$. How can we understand this? Mention that this behaviour
270: % is included in the LDC model.
271: %
272:
273: %****************************************************
274: \section{Deep Inelastic Scattering}
275: \label{sect-DIS}
276: %****************************************************
277:
278: % Outline:
279: % \begin{itemize}
280: % \item{DGLAP and BFKL}
281: % \item{CCFM:\\
282: % $\circ$ present essential features of the model\\
283: % $\circ$ present their definition int-unint str fcn\\
284: % $\circ$ mention: 2-scaled unintegrated str fcn}
285: % \end{itemize}
286:
287: Typically a deeply inelastic scattering event is represented by a fan
288: diagram, as the one shown in figure \ref{fig:fanDIS}. The (quasi-)real
289: emitted gluons, constituting the initial-state radiation, are labeled
290: $q_{i}$, while the virtual propagators are referred to as $k_{i}$. The
291: figure represents an exclusive final state, with the final-state
292: radiation explicitly marked as the dashed lines. The final-state
293: emissions have to be defined so that they do not affect the
294: cross-section and give negligible recoils to the emitting partons. The
295: exact separation between initial- and final-state radiation depends,
296: however, on the formalism used. This problem will be further discussed
297: in section \ref{sect-different}.
298:
299: We will here mostly discuss purely gluonic chains, which should give
300: the dominating contributions at small $x$. We will use different
301: approximations of the gluon splitting function
302: $P\sub{gg}(z)=\frac{1}{z}+\frac{1}{1-z}-2+z(1-z)$. Splitting a gluon
303: means that we have two new gluons, carrying fractions $z$ and $1-z$ of
304: the original gluon energy, which contribute to the gluon density,
305: while the contribution from the original one must be subtracted.
306:
307: In analytical calculations the subtraction is achieved with the
308: so-called plus prescription for the pole at $z=1$ and the addition of a
309: term proportional to $\delta(1-z)$ to the
310: splitting function. At asymptotically small $x$ the leading contribution
311: can be obtained by considering only the
312: $1/z$ pole of the splitting function, thus effectively
313: only adding one gluon, neglecting the recoil for the emitting mother gluon.
314: In this way the problem with subtraction is avoided altogether.
315: A third approach is to include both poles in the splitting
316: function
317: %, $P\sub{gg}(z)=\frac{1}{z}+\frac{1}{1-z}$
318: accounting for
319: the two produced gluons. The subtraction is then handled by a Sudakov
320: form factor, which multiplies each splitting and represents the
321: probability that the gluon to be split has not already been split
322: before. Here \emph{before} has to be defined by the ordering imposed
323: on the emissions (e.g.\ \kT-ordering in DGLAP and angular ordering in
324: CCFM). In an approximation where the non-singular terms in $P\sub{gg}$
325: (i.e.\ the terms $-2+z(1-z)$) are neglected, the Sudakov form factor,
326: $\Delta\sub{S}$, is given by
327: \begin{equation}
328: \label{eq:sudakov}
329: \ln\Delta\sub{S} = - \int\abar\frac{dq_\perp^2}{q_\perp^2}\frac{dz}{1-z}
330: \Theta\sub{order},
331: \end{equation}
332: where $\abar=3\as/\pi$. This definition is used in the CCFM approach.
333: Equivalently the Sudakov form factor can be
334: obtained by considering energy-momentum
335: conservation~\cite{Dokshitzer:1991wu} and be written
336: \begin{equation}
337: \label{eq:yurisudakov}
338: \ln\Delta\sub{S} = - \int\abar\frac{dq_\perp^2}{q_\perp^2}zdzP\sub{gg}(z)
339: \Theta\sub{order}.
340: \end{equation}
341: Here the non-singular terms in $P\sub{gg}$ can be included without problems,
342: and this method is used in the \ldcmc generator.
343:
344: To make the presentation more transparent, we will in the following
345: discussion of the different
346: approaches only use the asymptotically small $x$ approximation, and
347: will return to the Sudakov form factor in section \ref{sect-results}.
348: There we will also consider the convolution of the perturbative
349: evolution with non-perturbative input parton densities, which will be
350: ignored in the remainder of this section.
351:
352: %******************************
353: \subsection{DGLAP and BFKL}
354: \label{subsect-DGLAP}
355: %******************************
356:
357:
358: %
359: %figure : fan diagram for DIS
360: \FIGURE[t]{\input{fanDIS}
361: \caption{\label{fig:fanDIS} A fan diagram for a DIS event.
362: The quasi-real partons from the initial-state radiation are denoted
363: $q_i$, and the virtual propagators $k_i$. The dashed lines denote
364: final-state radiation.}}
365: %
366: In the DGLAP region, characterized by large $Q^2$ and limited $1/x$,
367: the dominating contributions come from $\kT$-ordered chains
368: which fulfill $Q^2\gg k_{\perp n}^2 \gg k_{\perp,n-1}^2 \gg \ldots$
369: and $k_{+ i} > k_{+,i+1}$. In the limit where also $x$ is small, so
370: that we can approximate the gluon splitting function with
371: $P_{gg}(z)\approx1/z$ (in the double leading log approximation
372: -- DLLA) we can write the unintegrated gluon distribution function for a
373: fixed coupling $\as$ on the form
374: %
375: \begin{eqnarray}
376: \mathcal{G}(x,k_\perp^2) &\sim & \sum_n \int \prod^n \bar{\alpha}
377: \frac{dx_i}{x_i} \frac{d k_{\perp i}^2}{k_{\perp i}^2}
378: \theta(x_{i-1} -x_{i}) \theta(k_{\perp,i}^2 -k_{\perp,i-1}^2) \nonumber \\
379: & \sim & \sum_n \bar{\alpha}^n \frac{(\ln1/x)^n}{n!}
380: \frac{(\ln Q^2)^n}{n!}
381: \approx \exp (2\sqrt{\bar{\alpha} \ln Q^2 \ln 1/x}). \nonumber \\
382: {\mathrm {where}} \,\,\,\, \bar{\alpha}\! & \equiv & \!\frac{3\alpha_s}{\pi} \,\,\,\,{\mathrm {and}} \,\,\,\, x_i \equiv k_{+i}/ P_{+,tot}.
383: \label{eq:DGLAP}
384: \end{eqnarray}
385: %
386: In the case of a running coupling, $\abar(Q^2)\equiv\azero/\ln Q^2$, we get
387: the same exponential expression but with $\ln Q^2$ replaced by
388: $\ln(\ln Q^2)$ and \abar\ by \azero.
389:
390: In the BFKL region of very small $x$ and limited $Q^2$, chains that
391: are not ordered in $\kT$ need to be accounted for, even though they
392: are suppressed. The resulting unintegrated distribution function
393: increases like a power at small $x$:
394: \begin{equation}
395: \mathcal{G} \sim \frac{1}{x^\lambda} \, \mathrm{f}(\kT,x),
396: \end{equation}
397: with the function $\mathrm{f}(\kT,x)$ describing a random walk in
398: $\ln(\kTpot{2}/\Lambda_{QCD}^2)$
399: \cite{Levin:1990gg,Bartels:1993du,Forshaw:1994es,Andersson:1998bx}.
400: Such a power-like behavior is in approximate agreement with HERA data,
401: with $\lambda \sim 0.3$. We note, however, that a corresponding
402: increase is also obtained from NLO DGLAP evolution.
403:
404: Both the DGLAP and BFKL evolution were developed to describe inclusive
405: quantities such as $F_2$, but they can be interpreted as an explicit
406: summation of initial-state brems\-strahlung (ISB) of quasi-real
407: partons, and can thus be used to describe exclusive multi-parton
408: final states. To do this we must also include the final-state
409: brems\-strahlung (FSB) from the ISB partons within kinematic regions
410: allowed by the colour coherence constraint. This final-state
411: radiation should also be emitted in such a way that it gives
412: negligible recoils, and that it does not affect the total cross
413: section. The separation between ISB and FSB depends upon the formalism
414: used, and if more partons are treated as
415: initial-state radiation we get a larger number of contributing chains,
416: which is compensated by smaller weights for each chain, and with
417: correspondingly reduced kinematic regions for final-state emissions.
418:
419:
420: %*******************************
421: \subsection{CCFM}
422: \label{subsect-CCFM}
423: %******************************
424:
425: The particular calculation scheme adopted by Ciafaloni, Catani,
426: Fiorani and Marchesini has resulted in the well-known CCFM model
427: \cite{Ciafaloni:1988ur,Catani:1990yc}. This model, that has been
428: developed assuming purely gluonic chains, provides a description not
429: only of the structure function evolution in DIS, accurate at the
430: leading-log level, but also of final-state partons. Colour coherence
431: implies that the initial-state emissions are ordered in angle (or
432: equivalently in rapidity). According to the definition of the
433: separation between initial- and final-state radiation, they are also
434: ordered in the positive (along the incoming proton) light-cone
435: momentum $q_+$. All other kinematically allowed emissions (symbolized
436: by the $q'_1$ emission in figure \ref{fig:fanDIS}) are defined as
437: final-state emissions.
438:
439: The CCFM model is based on the $\kT$-factorization formalism, with the
440: unintegrated distribution function in the small-$x$ limit given by:
441: %
442: \begin{eqnarray}
443: \label{fCCFM}
444: \mathcal{G}(x,k_\perp^2,\qbar) &\sim& \sum_n \int \prod^n \bar{\alpha}
445: \frac{dz_i}{z_i} \frac{d^2 q_{\perp i}}{\pi q_{\perp i}^2}
446: \Delta_{ne} (z_i, k_{\perp i}^2, \qbar_i)\times\\
447: & & \delta(x-\Pi z_i)
448: \theta(\qbar_i - \qbar_{i-1} z_{i-1})
449: \delta(k_\perp^2-k_{\perp n}^2) \theta(\qbar-\qbar_n z_n)\nonumber.
450: \end{eqnarray}
451: %
452: The notation is that of figure \ref{fig:fanDIS}, i.e.\ $q_{\perp,i}$
453: and $k_{\perp,i}$ are the transverse momenta of the real and virtual
454: partons, respectively. The splitting parameter $z$ is defined as
455: $z_i=k_{+,i}/k_{+,i-1}$, and the so-called rescaled transverse
456: momentum $\qbar_i$ is defined by $\qbar_i \equiv q_{\perp i}/(1-z_i)$.
457: The interval for the $z$-variables is between 0 and 1, which
458: guarantees ordering in $q_+$, and the angular ordering condition is
459: satisfied by the constraint
460: %
461: \begin{equation}
462: \label{ao}
463: \qbar_i > \qbar_{i-1} z_ {i-1},
464: \end{equation}
465: %
466: explicitely written out in eq.~(\ref{fCCFM}). Moreover, we note the
467: occurrence of the so-called non-eikonal form factor $\Delta_{ne} (z,
468: k_{\perp}^2, \qbar)$ defined in ref.~\cite{Catani:1990yc}. The
469: distribution function, $\mathcal{G}$, depends on two separate scales,
470: the transverse momentum, \kT, of the interacting gluon, and \qbar,
471: which determines an angle beyond which there is no (quasi-) real
472: parton in the chain of initial-state radiation. In the rest frame of
473: the incoming proton, this limiting angle corresponds to a rapidity
474: given by (if counted negative in the direction of the probe)
475: \begin{equation}
476: \label{eq:ylim}
477: y\sub{lim}=\ln\left(x\frac{m_p}{\qbar}\right)
478: \end{equation}
479: In the original formulation there was also the so-called consistency
480: constraint
481: %
482: \begin{equation}
483: k_{\perp i}^2 > z_i q_{\perp i}^2,
484: \label{cc}
485: \end{equation}
486: %
487: which was needed to guarantee that the virtuality $k^2$ is well
488: approximated by $-\kT^2$. This constraint has a non-leading effect,
489: and has been disregarded in some analyses \cite{Kwiecinski:1996td}.
490:
491: The CCFM evolution has been implemented in two hadron-level event
492: generators, \smallx\cite{Marchesini:1991zy,Marchesini:1992jw} and
493: \cascade\cite{Jung:2001hx}, both maintained by Hannes Jung. These
494: programs reproduce HERA data on $F_{2}$ well for small $x$, where
495: purely gluonic chains should give the dominating contribution. For
496: larger $x$, we expect a large contribution from valence quarks;
497: such chains are not easily accounted for in the CCFM formalism and
498: are not included in the programs.
499:
500: Both programs are able to reproduce a wide range of final-state
501: observables. We note, however, that there is a large sensitivity to
502: non-leading corrections. In particular, the description of forward-jet
503: production at HERA turns out to be very sensitive to the non-singular
504: terms in the gluon splitting function. In the original CCFM
505: formulation these terms were left out, and without them the
506: forward-jet rates are well described. If, however, the non-singular
507: terms are included, which would be the most natural option, the jet
508: rates come out approximately a factor two below the data
509: \cite{Anderson:2002cf}.
510:
511: %****************************************************
512: \subsection{The Linked Dipole Chain Model}
513: \label{sect-LDC}
514: %****************************************************
515:
516: % Outline:
517: % \begin{itemize}
518: % \item{general presentation of model}
519: % \item{present features of model relevant here, e.g. definition
520: % int-unint str fcn}
521: % \item{input str fcn, discuss:\\
522: % $\circ$ choice of it, freedom available when choosing\\
523: % $\circ$ fitted to $F_2$ data only \\
524: % (CCFM: HERA data, LDC: HERA and other fixed target data ({\it which???}))}
525: % \item{The Linked Dipole Chain Monte Carlo:\\
526: % $\circ$ OLD: implementation of the LDC model; \\
527: % $\circ$ NEW: the recent modifications/improvements. { \it which are those?????}\\
528: % $\circ$ describe its properties}
529: % \end{itemize}
530:
531: % {\it mention consistency constraint!!}
532:
533: % {\it Possibly: mention that kithing LDC it's possible to describe
534: % several DIS sub-processes: normal DIS, boson-gluon fusion and
535: % Rutherford parton scattering processes.}
536:
537: % {\it Possibly: describe a typical LDC chain: part closest to the
538: % proton is BFKL-like, part closest to the photon is DGLAP-like.}
539:
540:
541: % { \it Possibly: the LDC evolution equations (Hamid paper II)}
542:
543:
544: The Linked Dipole Chain model (LDC) is based on the CCFM model, and
545: agrees with CCFM to leading double log accuracy. Also LDC is
546: formulated in terms of $\kT$-factorization and unintegrated
547: distribution functions. In LDC the ISB definition has been modified,
548: resulting in a more simple description, with the unintegrated
549: distribution functions being (essentially) dependent on only one scale
550: and allowing for some sub-leading corrections to be introduced in a
551: rather straight-forward manner.
552:
553: In LDC more gluons are treated as final-state radiation. The remaining
554: initial-state gluons are ordered both in $q_+$ {\it and} $q_-$
555: (which implies that they are also ordered in angle or rapidity $y$) with
556: $q_{\perp i}$ satisfying
557: \begin{equation}
558: q_{\perp i} > \min(k_{\perp i},k_{\perp,i-1}).
559: \label{eq:ldccut}
560: \end{equation}
561: This redefinition of the ISB--FSB separation implies that one single
562: chain in the LDC model corresponds to a set of CCFM chains. It turns
563: out that when one considers the contributions from all chains of this
564: set, with their corresponding non-eikonal form factors, they add up to
565: one \cite{Andersson:1996ju}. Thus, the non-eikonal form factors do not
566: appear explicitly in LDC, resulting in a simpler form for the
567: unintegrated distribution function
568: %
569: \begin{equation}
570: \mathcal{G}(x,k_\perp^2) \sim \sum_n \int \prod^n \bar{\alpha}
571: \frac{dz_i}{z_i} \frac{d^2 q_{\perp i}}{\pi q_{\perp i}^2}
572: \theta(q_{+,i-1} -q_{+ i}) \theta(q_{- i} -q_{-,i-1})
573: \delta(x-\Pi z_i) \delta(\ln k_\perp^2 - \ln k_{\perp n}^2).
574: \label{eq:fq}
575: \end{equation}
576: %
577:
578: The notation in the above and what will follow refers to that of
579: figure \ref{fig:typ-chain}. Here, a typical DIS event is shown
580: together with the corresponding phase space available in the
581: $\gamma$-p rest frame, where the rapidity, $y$, and the transverse
582: momentum, $q_{\perp}$, of any final-state parton are limited by a
583: triangular region in the ($y,\ln q_{\perp}^2$)-plane. The proton
584: direction is towards the right end of the triangle, and the photon
585: direction is towards the left. The real emitted (ISB) gluons are
586: represented by points in this diagram. The virtual propagators do not
587: have well defined rapidities, and are represented by horizontal lines,
588: the left and right ends of which have the coordinates $(\ln [k_{+
589: i}/k_{\perp i}],\ln k_{\perp i}^2$) and ($\ln [-k_{\perp i}/k_{-
590: i}],\ln k_{\perp i}^2$) respectively. The phase space available for
591: FSB is given by the area below the horizontal lines (including the
592: folds that stick out of the main triangle).
593: %
594: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
595: %
596: \FIGURE[t]{\input{fan}\input{typ-chain}
597: \caption{\label{fig:typ-chain} The initial-state emissions $q_i$
598: in the $(y,\kappa=ln(k_{\perp}^2))$-plane. Final-state radiation
599: is allowed in the region below the horizontal lines. The height of
600: the horizontal lines determine $\ln k_{\perp i}^2$. The light-cone
601: momenta $k_{+i}$ and $k_{-i}$ can be read off as described in the
602: text.}}
603:
604: The ordering of the CCFM evolution in $q_+$ but not in $q_-$ means
605: that this formalism is not left--right symmetric. In contrast the LDC
606: formulation is completely symmetric, which implies that the chain in
607: figure \ref{fig:typ-chain} can be thought of as evolved from either
608: the photon or the proton end. (Thus, the LDC formalism automatically
609: takes into account contributions from ``resolved photons''.)
610:
611: Returning to eq.~(\ref{eq:fq}), we note that it can equally well be
612: expressed in terms of the virtual propagator momenta. Due to the
613: condition in eq.~(\ref{eq:ldccut}) we have $q_{\perp i}^2 \approx
614: \max(k_{\perp i}^2,k_{\perp,i-1}^2)$ and, suppressing the $\theta$-
615: and $\delta$-functions, we obtain
616: %
617: \begin{equation}
618: \mathcal{G} \sim \sum \int \prod \bar{\alpha} \frac{dz_i}{z_i}
619: \frac{d k_{\perp i}^2}{\max(k_{\perp i}^2,k_{\perp,i-1}^2)}.
620: \label{eq:fk}
621: \end{equation}
622: %
623: In particular we note that this implies that, for a ``step up'' or a
624: ``step down'' in $\kT$, the following weights result:
625: %
626: \begin{eqnarray}
627: \frac{d^2 q_{\perp i}}{q_{\perp i}^2} \approx \frac{d^2 k_{\perp i}}
628: {k_{\perp i}^2},
629: \,\,\,\, k_{\perp i} > k_{\perp,i-1} \,\,\,\,\,{\mathrm {and}}
630: \label{eq:step-up}\\
631: \frac{d^2 q_{\perp i}}{q_{\perp i}^2} \approx \frac{d^2 k_{\perp i}}
632: {k_{\perp i}^2}
633: \cdot \frac{ k_{\perp i}^2}{k_{\perp,i-1}^2},\,\,\,\,\,
634: k_{\perp i} < k_{\perp,i-1}.
635: \label{eq:step-down}
636: \end{eqnarray}
637: %
638: Thus, for a step down there occurs an additional suppression factor $
639: k_{\perp i}^2/k_{\perp,i-1}^2$.
640:
641: The relation between the integrated and the unintegrated distribution
642: functions are symbolically written as $xf(x,Q^2) \sim \int \frac{d
643: k_{\perp}^2}{k_{\perp}^2} \mathcal{F}(x,k_{\perp}^2)$. The exact
644: relationship is somewhat dependent on the evolution scheme used for
645: $\mathcal{F}(x,k_{\perp}^2)$. For LDC we have
646: %
647: \begin{equation}
648: xf(x,Q^2) = \int^{Q^2} \frac{d k_{\perp}^2}{k_{\perp}^2}
649: \mathcal{F}(x,k_{\perp}^2) + \int_{Q^2} \frac{d k_{\perp}^2}{k_{\perp}^2}
650: \mathcal{F}(x \frac{k_\perp^2}{Q^2},k_{\perp}^2)
651: \frac{Q^2}{k_{\perp}^2},
652: \label{eq:relation-new}
653: \end{equation}
654: %
655: assuming a single-scale dependent unintegrated distribution function.
656:
657: The first term of eq.~(\ref{eq:relation-new}) corresponds to chains
658: whose struck parton is less virtual than the probe, $\kTpot{2} < Q^2$.
659: The second term contains the suppressed contributions that come from
660: chains whose struck parton has $\kTpot{2} > Q^2$; the suppression
661: factor $Q^2 / k_{\perp}^2$ is analogous to the one occurring in
662: eq.~(\ref{eq:step-down}). Note also that the $x$-argument in the
663: unintegrated distribution function of the second term has been rescaled
664: by the factor $k_{\perp}^2 / Q^2$.
665:
666: %Connect to LDCMC...
667: Below we list some properties of the LDC model:
668: \begin{itemize}
669: \item The natural scale in the running coupling, $\as$, is $q_{\perp
670: i}^2$, which coincides with $\max(k_{\perp i}^2, k_{\perp,i-1}^2)$.
671: \item Non-leading effects such as those coming from quark-initiated
672: chains, from the non-singular terms in the splitting functions and
673: from energy-momentum conservation can be included in a
674: straight-forward manner. It is also possible to correct the two
675: emissions connected with the highest-virtuality link with the full
676: $2\rightarrow2$ matrix element, thus improving the result. Finally,
677: for the ISB emission closest to the photon end, the full off-shell
678: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha\as)$ matrix element is used.
679: \item The fact that fewer gluons are considered as initial-state
680: radiation implies that typical $z$-values are smaller, thus
681: resulting in smaller sub-leading corrections.
682: \item The formalism is greatly simplified by the fact that the
683: non-eikonal form factors do not appear explicitly in the model.
684: \item The LDC formalism is fully left-right symmetric, in the sense
685: that the result is independent of whether the evolution starts at
686: the probe (photon) or target (proton) end. Hence it can
687: easily be generalized to the case when the photon is replaced by a
688: hadron. As a result, the formalism can be applied to the study of
689: jet production in hadronic collisions \cite{Gustafson:1999kh}.
690: \item Besides giving an inclusive description of the events, the
691: result in eq.~(\ref{eq:fk}) can also be interpreted as the
692: production probability for an exclusive final state.
693: \end{itemize}
694: These qualities make LDC particularly suitable for implementation in
695: an event generator. One such LDC-based Monte Carlo event generator, \ldcmc, has
696: been developed by Kharraziha and L\"{o}nnblad~\cite{Kharraziha:1998dn}.
697:
698: The \ldcmc has been shown to be able to reproduce available $F_2$ data
699: very well (see further section \ref{sect-results}), not only the
700: small-$x$ data from of HERA but also data at
701: higher $x$ from fixed target experiments. This success relies on the
702: fact that quark-initiated chains are easily incorporated in the
703: evolution.
704:
705: It should be mentioned that, just like the CCFM-based \cascade,
706: \ldcmc has problems describing the H1 forward-jet data. Again
707: the data can be reproduced only when the non-singular terms of the
708: gluon splitting function are omitted. The more physical case of
709: including the full splitting function predicts a distribution which is
710: approximately a factor 2 below the data.
711:
712: In section \ref{sect-results} we present results for the integrated
713: and unintegrated gluon distribution functions obtained within the LDC
714: formalism using the \ldcmc simulation program. Before comparing these
715: results with those of other approaches, we discuss in the following
716: section the relationship between the integrated and unintegrated
717: distribution functions in different formalisms.
718:
719: %****************************************************
720: \section{Discussion on Different Distribution Function Definitions}
721: \label{sect-different}
722: %****************************************************
723:
724: In contrast to the structure function $F_2$, the unintegrated parton
725: distributions are not experimental observables, and depend on the
726: specific scheme in which they are defined. Not only do they depend on
727: the approximations used in the description of the evolution, it has
728: also been argued that the unintegrated distributions are not
729: gauge-invariant objects and there is a dependence on the gauge choice
730: used for the off-shell matrix elements they are convoluted
731: with\footnote{See e.g.\ discussions in \cite{Anderson:2002cf} and
732: \cite{DokshitzerLundSmallx2}}.
733:
734: For asymptotically large values of $Q^2$ or $1/x$ it is possible to
735: define unintegrated parton distribution functions,
736: $\mathcal{F}(x,\kT^2)$, which depend on a single scale, $\kT^2$,
737: specifying the transverse momentum (or virtuality) of the interacting
738: parton. In the DGLAP region the $\kT$-ordering of the links implies
739: that we can define $\mathcal{F}(x,\kT^2)$ as the derivative of the
740: integrated distribution functions, $xf(x,Q^2)$, and thus
741: \begin{equation}
742: xf(x,Q^2) = \int^{Q^2} \frac{d \kT^2}{\kT^2} \mathcal{F}(x,\kT^2)
743: \label{dglap-non-int}
744: \end{equation}
745: Also in the BFKL equation the distribution functions are determined by a
746: single scale. However, since the chains are not ordered in $\kT$, the
747: integrated distribution function, $f(x,Q^2)$, also obtains contributions
748: from $\kT$-values larger than $Q^2$, and therefore the simple relation
749: in eq.~(\ref{dglap-non-int}) is not satisfied.
750:
751: As discussed in section \ref{subsect-CCFM} the angular ordering in the
752: CCFM model implies that the unintegrated distribution functions depend
753: on two scales, $\kT$ and $\qbar$, where \qbar\ specifies the limiting
754: angle in eq.~(\ref{eq:ylim}). (Note that the strong ordering in $\kT$ in
755: DGLAP, or in $x$ in BFKL, also automatically implies an ordering in
756: angle, which makes this second scale redundant.) In the CCFM
757: formalism the gluon distribution function depends very strongly on the
758: scale $\qbar$, when $\qbar$ is in the neighbourhood of $\kT$. The
759: angular constraint is expressed by the last $\theta$-function in
760: eq.~(\ref{fCCFM}), which guarantees the relation
761: \begin{equation}
762: \qbar > \qbar_n z_n, \,\,\,\mathrm{where}\,\,\,\qbar_n \equiv
763: \frac{q_{\perp n}}{1 - z_n}
764: \label{angularlimit}
765: \end{equation}
766: This implies an upper limit for $z_n$ of the last emission given by
767: \begin{equation}
768: z_n < z\sub{lim} = \frac{\qbar}{\qbar + q_{\perp}}
769: \label{z-limit}
770: \end{equation}
771: From this result we can see that if the scale $\qbar$ is chosen in the
772: neighborhood of $\kT$, then a large fraction of the possible chains
773: are cut away. To realize this we make two observations:
774: \begin{itemize}
775: \item[(i)] For $\qbar = \kT$ we find $z\sub{lim} \approx 0.5$ when the
776: last link is a step up in $\kT$ (in which case $q_\perp \approx
777: \kT$), and $z\sub{lim} < 0.5$ when the last link is a step down (and
778: $q_\perp > \kT$).
779: \item[(ii)] In the CCFM model the $1/z$ pole in the splitting function
780: is screened by the non-eikonal form factor, and the $z$-distribution
781: obtained in the \smallx and \cascade MCs therefore does not peak at
782: small $z$-values, but has a maximum around
783: $z=0.5$~\cite{Anderson:2002cf}.
784: \end{itemize}
785: This implies that for $\qbar = \kT$ the constraint in
786: eq.~(\ref{z-limit}) will exclude a large fraction of the possible
787: chains. Furthermore, the fact that for $\qbar = \kT$, $z\sub{lim}$
788: approximately coincides with the maximum in the $z$-distribution
789: implies that increasing (decreasing) $\qbar$ in the neighborhood of
790: $\kT$ includes (excludes) a significant set of chains. Consequently,
791: for fixed $\kT$, the structure functions depend strongly on $\qbar$ in
792: this region.
793:
794: The relevant values for $\qbar$ in a hard sub-collision should, however,
795: be significantly larger than $\kT$. If the limiting angle is given by
796: the final state parton in the hard collision, then it is easy to show that
797: \begin{equation}
798: \qbar^2 = \frac{\hat{t} \hat{s}}{\hat{u}}
799: \label{qbarhard}
800: \end{equation}
801: where $\hat{t}$, $\hat{s}$, and $\hat{u}$ are the Mandelstam variables
802: for the sub-collision. Thus if $\hat{s}$ is large compared to
803: $\hat{t}$ we find $\qbar^2 \approx - \hat{t}$. For a very hard
804: collision we find $\qbar^2$ of the same order as $\hat{s}$. We note
805: that choosing $\qbar^2=\hat{s}$ corresponds to a limiting angle equal
806: to 90$^\circ$ in the rest frame of the hard sub-collision. For a
807: typical hard sub-collision we may thus have $\qbar$ substantially
808: larger than $\kT$, and we will return to this question in the
809: following section.
810:
811: Many of the gluons which make up the initial-radiation chain in the
812: CCFM model, are treated as final-state radiation in the LDC formalism.
813: Therefore typical $z$-values are smaller in the LDC model,
814: and most of the problem of
815: angular ordering is postponed to the treatment of the final-state
816: radiation. To leading order in $\ln 1/x$ the result is determined by
817: the $1/z$ pole, and the unintegrated distribution function in LDC depends
818: on only a single scale, $\kT^2$. As discussed in section
819: \ref{sect-DIS}, sub-leading effects due to the $1/(1-z)$ pole or the
820: non-singular terms in the splitting function are included with Sudakov
821: form factors, which do depend on the angular region allowed for
822: radiation. Therefore also in LDC the unintegrated distribution
823: functions depend on the scale $\qbar$ defined above, although as we
824: will see below, the dependence is very much weaker for this model.
825:
826: Many schemes are presented in the literature to treat unintegrated
827: parton distributions. Besides with the CCFM formalism in the \cascade
828: and \smallx MCs, which in the following will be referred to as JS
829: (Jung and Salam) \cite{Jung:2000hk}, we compare in the following
830: section our results also with the formalisms presented by Kwiecinski,
831: Martin, and Stasto (KMS) \cite{Kwiecinski:1997ee} and by Kimber,
832: Martin, and Ryskin (KMR) \cite{Kimber:2001sc}. In KMS a term
833: describing leading order DGLAP evolution is added to the BFKL
834: equation. The parton distribution is described by a single scale,
835: $\kT$, and is assumed to satisfy the relation in
836: eq.~(\ref{dglap-non-int}). In KMR two-scale parton distributions are
837: extracted from the same unified DGLAP-BFKL evolution equation, but as
838: we discuss in more detail in section \ref{subsect-unintegrated}, the
839: dependence on $\qbar$ for fixed $\kT$ is rather weak. Finally we will
840: compare to a simple derivative, according to
841: eq.~(\ref{dglap-non-int}), of the integrated gluon density from the
842: GRV98 \cite{Gluck:1998xa} parameterization, referred to as dGRV in the
843: following.
844:
845: %****************************************************
846: \section{Results}
847: \label{sect-results}
848: %****************************************************
849:
850: In this section we discuss some results obtained from \ldcmc. To
851: illuminate the effect of the different contributions we study the
852: following three different versions:
853:
854: \begin{enumerate}
855: \item {\em Standard}: Including non-leading contributions from quarks
856: and non-singular terms in the splitting functions.
857: \item {\em Gluonic}: Including non-singular terms in the splitting
858: functions, but no quark links in the evolution.
859: \item {\em Leading}: Also purely gluonic chains, but with only the
860: singular terms in the gluon splitting function.
861: \end{enumerate}
862: To get realistic results from these three versions we now also need to
863: consider the convolution of non-perturbative input parton densities.
864: These are not {\`a} priori known, but need to be parameterized in some
865: way. We will use the same parameterization as in
866: \cite{Kharraziha:1998dn} given by
867: \begin{equation}
868: xf_i(x,k_{\perp0}^2) = A_i x^{a_i} (1-x)^{b_i},
869: \label{eq:fit-form}
870: \end{equation}
871: where $i=d_v,u_v,g$ and $s$ for the d-valence, u-valence, gluon and
872: sea-quark densities respectively (where the sea flavour densities are
873: assumed to be $f_{\bar{d}}=f_{\bar{u}}=2f_{\bar{s}}$). The parameters
874: $A_i,a_i,b_i$ and the perturbative cutoff, $k_{\perp0}$, are then
875: fitted to reproduce the measured data on $F_2$. There are some sum
876: rules which fix the relationship between some of the parameters. The
877: $A_{d_v}$ and $A_{u_v}$ are fixed by flavour conservation and $A_s$ is
878: fixed by momentum conservation. The fits to $F_2$ do not constrain the
879: remaining parameters very strongly, so we have fixed the $b$
880: parameters to $3$ in the valence densities and to $4$ in the sea and
881: gluon densities. To check the sensitivity to the $b$ parameter we have
882: an additional fit for the \textit{gluonic} case with $b=7$ called
883: \textit{gluonic-2}. In table \ref{tab:param} we present the result of
884: the fits. Note that in the case of the \textit{gluonic} and
885: \textit{leading} versions, only the gluon input density is considered.
886:
887: \TABLE[t]{
888: \begin{tabular}{|l||r|r|r||r|r||r|r||r|r||r||r||l|}
889: \hline
890: fit & $A_g$ & $a_g$ & $b_g$ &
891: $a_d$ & $b_d$ & $a_u$ & $b_u$ & $a_s$ & $b_s$ & $k_{\perp 0}$ &
892: $\int xg(x)$ & $\chi^2/\mbox{d.o.f.}$ \\
893: \hline
894: \textit{standard} & 1.86 & \textbf{0} & \textbf{4} &
895: 1.78 & \textbf{3} & 0.57 & \textbf{3} &
896: \textbf{0} & \textbf{4} & 0.99 & \textit{0.37} & 694/625 \\
897: \textit{gluonic} & 2.71 & \textbf{0} & \textbf{4}
898: & & & & & & & 1.80 & \textit{0.54} & 193/86 \\
899: \textit{gluonic-2} & 3.11 & \textbf{0} & \textbf{7}
900: & & & & & & & 2.17 & \textit{0.39} & 125/86 \\
901: \textit{leading} & 2.34 & \textbf{0} & \textbf{4}
902: & & & & & & & 1.95 & \textit{0.47} & 126/86 \\
903: \hline
904: \end{tabular}
905: \caption{The result of the fit of the parameters for the
906: input parton densities. The \textit{standard} version has been
907: fitted to data from H1 \cite{Aid:1996au},
908: ZEUS \cite{Derrick:1996hn}, NMC \cite{Arneodo:1995cq} and
909: E665 \cite{Adams:1996gu} in the region $x<0.3$, $Q^2>1.5$~GeV$^2$,
910: while the \textit{gluonic} and \textit{leading} have been fitted
911: to H1 data only, in the region $x>0.013$ and $Q^2>3.5$~GeV$^2$.
912: The last two columns give the resulting fraction of the proton
913: momentum carried by the gluons and the $\chi^2$ over the number of
914: fitted data points, respectively. Parameters in bold face have not
915: been fitted.}
916: \label{tab:param}}
917:
918:
919: \FIGURE[t]{
920: \epsfig{figure=unint-F2b.eps,width=10cm}
921: %
922: \epsfig{figure=unint-F2a.eps,width=10cm}
923: \caption{The description of $F_2$ data as a
924: function of $x$ for the different fits presented in this paper.
925: To separate the results for different $Q^2$, what is shown is
926: $F_2+i$ for $Q_i^2$. In (a) both small and large $x$ data from H1,
927: ZEUS \cite{Derrick:1996hn}, NMC \cite{Arneodo:1995cq} and
928: E665 \cite{Adams:1996gu} are included. The full line is
929: \textit{gluonic}, dashed is \textit{leading} and the dotted line
930: is \textit{standard}. In (b) the versions with only gluonic chains
931: are compared to small-$x$ H1 data \cite{Aid:1996au}. As in (a),
932: full line is the \textit{gluonic} case, dashed is
933: \textit{leading}, whereas dotted is \textit{gluonic-2} (with
934: $b_g$=7).}
935: \label{fig:f2}}
936:
937: In figure \ref{fig:f2} we show the resulting reproduction of $F_2$
938: data. Clearly, all versions give a satisfactory fit to the data. The
939: \textit{standard} version gives an excellent description for all
940: values of $x$. The \textit{gluonic} and \textit{leading} versions are
941: naturally unable to fit the large-$x$ data, as the inclusion of
942: quark-initiated chains is essential for a description of large
943: $x$-values. These versions are therefore only fitted to the small-$x$
944: H1 data, and these fits are shown separately in figure \ref{fig:f2}b.
945: We note that \textit{gluonic-2} gives a better fit than
946: \textit{gluonic}, but we will anyway in the following concentrate on
947: the latter, to make the comparison with the JS results (which also
948: uses $b_g=4$) more informative.
949:
950: It should be noted that the version of \ldcmc used here has not been
951: released yet, and differs somewhat from the one described in
952: \cite{Kharraziha:1998dn}. The main difference is the handling of the
953: Sudakov form factors, which were not quite correct in the original
954: version. Also the full off-shell $\gamma^*g^*\rightarrow q\bar{q}$
955: matrix element is now included\footnote{Note, however, that the matrix
956: element in \cite{Baier:1981kx} is used, rather than the one from
957: \cite{Catani:1991eg} used in \smallx and \cascade}. These, and other
958: minor changes, do not give a big effect on the results.
959:
960: In the following subsections we discuss the corresponding results for
961: the integrated and the unintegrated gluon distribution functions. As
962: we will see, the results are very similar for the \textit{standard}
963: and the \textit{gluonic} version. The differences in the cascade can
964: here be compensated by the adjustment of the input distribution
965: functions and the perturbative cutoff, $k_{\perp 0}$. For the
966: \textit{leading} version, without the non-singular terms in the
967: splitting function, we find, however, that the resulting differences
968: are small but not negligible.
969:
970: %****************************************************
971: \subsection{Results for the Integrated Gluon Distribution Function}
972: \label{subsect-integrated}
973: %****************************************************
974:
975:
976: We start by studying the results obtained for the integrated gluon
977: distribution function. As mentioned in section \ref{sect-LDC} (cf.\
978: eq.~(\ref{eq:relation-new})), in the LDC model the relation between
979: the integrated and the unintegrated gluon distribution functions is as
980: follows:
981: %
982: \begin{equation}
983: xg(x,Q^2) = \int^{Q^2}_{k_{\perp 0}^2} \frac{\d \kTpot{2}}{\kTpot{2}}
984: \mathcal{G}(x,\kTpot{2}, Q) + \int^{Q^2/x}_{Q^2}
985: \frac{\d \kTpot{2}}{\kTpot{2}}
986: \mathcal{G}(x \frac{\kTpot{2}}{Q^2},\kTpot{2}, Q)
987: \frac{Q^2}{\kTpot{2}} + xg_{0}(x,Q_0^2) \times \Delta\sub{S}.
988: \label{eq:int-terms}
989: \end{equation}
990: %
991: Thus, the integrated distribution function receives contributions from
992: three different terms. The first term corresponds to struck gluons of
993: transverse momenta below the virtuality of the probe, $\kTpot{2} <
994: Q^2$ (the full line in the triangular phase space of figure
995: \ref{fig:hard-probe} is an example of such a chain), while the second
996: term originates from chains whose struck gluons have $\kTpot{2} > Q^2$
997: (e.g.\ the long-dashed line in figure \ref{fig:hard-probe}). Finally,
998: the third term is the contribution from the input distribution
999: function, corresponding to the case when no evolution has taken place.
1000:
1001: As discussed in section \ref{sect-LDC}, the distribution function
1002: $\mathcal{G}(x,\kTpot{2}, Q)$ in the LDC model depends only very
1003: weakly upon the scale $Q$. This dependence is due to the Sudakov
1004: form factor corresponding mainly to the $1/(1-z)$ term in the
1005: splitting function. Although this dependence is weak and can
1006: essentially be neglected in the first two terms in
1007: eq.~(\ref{eq:int-terms}), it has a larger effect on the last term,
1008: where it is explicitely included as a multiplicative factor. This term
1009: dominates at large $x$, and the effect of the form factor is a
1010: suppression for larger values of $Q^2$.
1011: %
1012: \FIGURE[t]{\input{hard-probe}
1013: \caption{\label{fig:hard-probe} The hard colour-neutral probe
1014: $Q^2$ probes the gluon. The continuous line and the long-dashed
1015: line chains correspond to a struck gluon of $\kTpot{2} < Q^2$ and
1016: $\kTpot{2} > Q^2$, respectively.}}
1017: %
1018:
1019: We first study the relative importance of the different terms
1020: contributing to the LDC integrated gluon distribution function. In
1021: figure \ref{fig:int-terms} the integrated gluon distribution function is
1022: shown as a function of $x$, for fixed $Q^{2} = 16 \, GeV^{2}$. As can
1023: be seen, at small $x$-values the first term of
1024: eq.~(\ref{eq:int-terms}) dominates; as $x$ decreases the second term
1025: becomes noticeable. At large $x$-values, the behavior is governed
1026: by the input distribution function.
1027:
1028: %
1029: \FIGURE[t]{\epsfig{file=g_terms_Q2_16.eps,width=10cm}
1030: \caption{\label{fig:int-terms} Relative importance of the
1031: different terms contributing to the LDC integrated gluon distribution
1032: function, for fixed $Q^{2} = 16 \, GeV^{2}$. The dotted curve
1033: corresponds to keeping only the first term in
1034: eq.~(\ref{eq:int-terms}); keeping the first and second terms we
1035: obtain the dashed curve. The total result is represented by the
1036: full curve.}}
1037: %
1038:
1039: Next we compare the LDC results with those obtained by other analyses.
1040: In figure \ref{fig:int-comp} we show the LDC integrated gluon
1041: distribution function as a function of $x$ for $Q^2 = 16\,GeV^2$ and
1042: $Q^2 = 100\,GeV^2$. We show our result for the \textit{gluonic}
1043: together with the \textit{gluonic-2} case. As discussed above, they
1044: both give a good fit to $F_2$. We see that the \ldcmc results lie
1045: significantly below the JS curve for large $x$, but above JS for
1046: smaller $x$-values.
1047: %
1048: \FIGURE[t]{\epsfig{file=g_comp_Q2_16.eps,width=7.4cm}
1049: \epsfig{file=g_comp_Q2_100.eps,width=7.4cm}
1050: \caption{\label{fig:int-comp} The LDC integrated gluon
1051: distribution function (full curve is \textit{gluonic}, dotted curve
1052: is \textit{gluonic-2}), compared to the corresponding results of
1053: JS (dash-dotted curve), CTEQ (short-dashed curve) and MRST
1054: (long-dashed curve), for (a) $Q^2 = 16\,GeV^2$ and (b) $Q^2 =
1055: 100\,GeV^2$.}}
1056: %
1057: Also shown in figure \ref{fig:int-comp} are the corresponding results
1058: for CTEQ5M1 \cite{Lai:1999wy} and MRST20011 \cite{Martin:2001es}. An
1059: important point is that, while the LDC and JS results have been fitted
1060: to $F_2$ data only, the CTEQ and MRST curves have been fitted to more
1061: data. We see that these latter curves are more or less in agreement at
1062: large $x$, where there is more data available, while they separate
1063: more for smaller $x$-values. Clearly the LDC result agrees well with
1064: these curves for small $x$, where it almost coincides with CTEQ5M1.
1065: For larger $x$ the LDC curve lies above CTEQ and MRST for
1066: \textit{gluonic}, but agrees well with them for \textit{gluonic-2}.
1067:
1068: This comparison leads to increased confidence in the physical
1069: relevance of the LDC model in general and in the LDC unintegrated
1070: gluon distribution function in particular. We shall study this in the
1071: next subsection.
1072:
1073:
1074:
1075: %****************************************************
1076: \subsection{Results for the Unintegrated Gluon Distribution Function}
1077: \label{subsect-unintegrated}
1078: %****************************************************
1079:
1080:
1081: We now turn our attention to the topic of unintegrated gluon distribution
1082: functions, and we first want to study the effects from sub-leading
1083: corrections caused by the inclusion of quarks and by the inclusion of
1084: the non-singular terms in the gluon splitting function, in order to
1085: verify the statements made earlier in this section.
1086:
1087: In figure~\ref{fig:unint-quarks-Pgg} the unintegrated LDC gluon
1088: distribution function is shown both as a function of $x$ and $\kTpot{2}$.
1089: Comparing the result for the purely gluonic case to that when we allow
1090: for quarks as well, we see that the differences are very small. (Note
1091: that the input distribution functions have been refitted.)
1092: %
1093: \FIGURE[t]{\epsfig{file=G_of_x_sub-lead-eff.eps,width=7.4cm}
1094: \epsfig{file=G_of_kT_sub-lead-eff.eps,width=7.4cm}
1095: \caption{\label{fig:unint-quarks-Pgg}
1096: The LDC unintegrated gluon distribution function as a function of (a)
1097: $x$ and (b) $\kTpot{2}$. Study of sub-leading effects caused by
1098: inclusion of quarks and non-singular terms in the gluon splitting
1099: function. Full line is \textit{gluonic}, dotted line is
1100: \textit{leading} and dashed line is \textit{standard}. (In these
1101: figures $\qbar$ is put equal to $\kT$.)}}
1102: %
1103: Even though the effect of omitting the non-singular terms in the gluon
1104: splitting function is rather small, it is nevertheless not completely
1105: negligible: as can be seen in figure~\ref{fig:unint-quarks-Pgg}a, at
1106: small $x$ there is a discrepancy of about a factor of two, a result
1107: that is related to the problem with the description of H1 forward-jet
1108: data that was mentioned in Section \ref{sect-DIS}.
1109:
1110: Our conclusion is that the non-leading effects can be largely
1111: compensated by slight modifications of the input distribution
1112: functions; we note in particular that the results with and without
1113: quark links are almost identical.
1114:
1115: %
1116: \FIGURE[t]{\epsfig{file=G_of_qbar_kT_3.eps,width=7.4cm}
1117: \epsfig{file=G_of_qbar_kT_7.eps,width=7.4cm}
1118: \caption{\label{fig:unint-comp} The LDC \textit{gluonic} unintegrated
1119: gluon distribution function (full curve), compared to the
1120: corresponding results of JS (long-dashed curve) and KMR (dotted
1121: curve), as functions of $\qbar/\kT$ for (a) $x=0.01$ and $\kT=3 GeV$
1122: and (b) $x=0.001$ and $\kT=7 GeV$.}}
1123: %
1124:
1125: We now want to study the dependence upon the two different scales
1126: discussed in section \ref{sect-different}. We show in figure
1127: \ref{fig:unint-comp} the dependence on $\qbar$ for fixed $\kT$ for the
1128: LDC, CCFM, and KMR formalisms. As discussed in section \ref{sect-different},
1129: the $\qbar$-dependence is rather weak in the LDC model, but very
1130: strong in the CCFM approach. We also see that the result in the KMR
1131: formalism is quite insensitive to variations in $\qbar$. This is also
1132: illustrated in figure \ref{fig:unint-comp-2sc}, which shows the
1133: results as functions of $\kT^2$ for fixed $\qbar$ = 10~GeV. We see
1134: that the JS results start to fall dramatically below the other two, as
1135: $\kT$ approaches $\qbar$.
1136:
1137: \FIGURE[t]{\epsfig{file=G_of_kT_comp_smallx_2sc.eps, width=7.4cm}
1138: \epsfig{file=G_of_kT_comp_largex_2sc.eps,width=7.4cm}
1139: \caption{\label{fig:unint-comp-2sc} The LDC \textit{gluonic}
1140: unintegrated gluon distribution function (full curve), compared to
1141: the corresponding results of JS (long-dashed curve) and KMR
1142: (dotted curve), as functions of $\kTpot{2}$ for (a) $x=0.001$ and
1143: (b) $x=0.01$. (In these figures $\qbar$ is put equal to $10 \, GeV$.)}}
1144:
1145: From figure \ref{fig:unint-comp} we note, however, that the CCFM
1146: result saturates for $\qbar \gtrsim 2 \kT$. In a hard-interaction
1147: event the scales $\hat{|t|}$ and $\hat{s}$ are normally larger than
1148: $\kT^2$, and often characteristically by a factor of this order. For
1149: this reason we want to argue that when comparing the different
1150: formalisms, it is more relevant to study the CCFM distributions for
1151: $\qbar$ equal to the saturation value, rather than e.g.\ for $\qbar =
1152: \kT$. Indeed, for this larger $\qbar$-value we see in figure
1153: \ref{fig:unint-comp} that there is a rather good agreement between the
1154: three models.
1155:
1156: This feature is further illustrated in figure
1157: \ref{fig:unint-comp-1sc}, which shows the distribution functions for
1158: $\qbar = 2 \kT$, as a functions of $\kT^2$ for fixed $x$ and as a
1159: functions $x$ for fixed $\kT$, and we see indeed a reasonable
1160: agreement between the LDC, JS, and KMR results. In these figures we
1161: also show the single scale KMS and dGRV results. Although these earlier
1162: parameterizations are somewhat lower for larger $x$-values, we note a
1163: fair overall agreement between all five models.
1164:
1165: %
1166: \FIGURE[t]{\epsfig{file=G_of_kT_comp_smallx_1sc.eps,width=7.45cm}
1167: \epsfig{file=G_of_kT_comp_largex_1sc.eps,width=7.45cm}
1168: \epsfig{file=G_of_x_comp_smallkT_1sc.eps,width=7.45cm}
1169: \epsfig{file=G_of_x_comp_largekT_1sc.eps,width=7.45cm}
1170: \caption{\label{fig:unint-comp-1sc} The LDC \textit{gluonic}
1171: unintegrated gluon distribution function (full curve), compared to
1172: the corresponding results of JS (long-dashed curve), KMR (dotted
1173: curve), KMS (short-dashed curve) and dGRV (dash-dotted curve)
1174: as functions of $\kTpot{2}$ for (a) $x=0.001$ and (b) $x=0.01$,
1175: and as functions of $x$ for (c) $\kTpot{2}= 10\,GeV^2$ and (d)
1176: $\kTpot{2}= 30\,GeV^2$. Results for LDC, JS and KMR, with
1177: $\qbar=2 \kT$, are shown together with the 1-scaled distribution
1178: functions of KMS and dGRV.}}
1179: %
1180:
1181: %****************************************************
1182: \section{Summary}
1183: \label{sect-summary}
1184: %****************************************************
1185:
1186: Unintegrated parton distribution functions are not uniquely defined.
1187: They are not experimental observables, and their definition and
1188: properties depend critically on the formalism used. Thus when
1189: calculating e.g.\ cross-sections for production of jets or heavy
1190: quarks it is necessary to use a consistent formalism for off-shell
1191: parton cross-sections and parton distribution functions.
1192:
1193: In this paper we present results for integrated and unintegrated gluon
1194: distribution functions according to the definitions in the Linked
1195: Dipole Chain model, obtained from the \ldcmc program. We compare them
1196: with those obtained in other formalisms, in particular with results
1197: from the CCFM model obtained from the \smallx and \cascade MCs, and we
1198: demonstrate how to make a relevant comparison between the models.
1199: Indeed we find in this way a reasonable agreement between
1200: distributions obtained in different formalisms.
1201:
1202: Adjusting the input distribution functions for $\kT = k_{\perp0}$, it is
1203: possible to find a good fit to the structure function $F_2$ from
1204: \ldcmc. The corresponding integrated gluon distribution function agrees
1205: well with fits to more complete data sets obtained by the CTEQ or MRST
1206: collaborations. The result is rather insensitive to non-singular
1207: contributions in the gluon splitting function or from from quark links
1208: in the chain. The contributions from quarks can be almost fully
1209: compensated by adjusting the input distribution functions. Omitting the
1210: non-singular terms in the gluon splitting function has a somewhat
1211: larger effect, reducing the gluon distribution for small $x$ by
1212: roughly a factor 2.
1213:
1214: In the CCFM formalism the unintegrated parton distribution functions
1215: depend sensitively on two different scales: $\kT$, which specifies the
1216: transverse momentum and the virtuality of the interacting parton, and
1217: $\qbar$, which determines an angle beyond which there is no (quasi-)real
1218: parton in the chain of initial-state radiation. Many of the
1219: gluons which make up the initial-radiation chain in the CCFM model
1220: are treated as final-state radiation in the LDC formalism. Therefore
1221: typical $z$-values are smaller in LDC, and most of the problem of angular
1222: ordering is postponed to the treatment of the final-state radiation.
1223: This implies that in the LDC formalism the gluon distribution function
1224: is quite insensitive to the second scale $\qbar$, and to leading $\log
1225: 1/x$ it depends only on a single scale $\kT$.
1226:
1227: In a typical hard sub-collision the relevant additional scale $\qbar$
1228: should be given by $\qbar^2\sim|\hat{t}|$ or $\hat{s}$. We
1229: observe that in the CCFM formalism, for a fixed $\kT$, the gluon
1230: distribution function saturates for $\qbar \gtrsim 2 \kT$. This
1231: corresponds to typical values of $\hat{t}$ or $\hat{s}$, and we
1232: therefore suggest that for a relevant comparison between the different
1233: formalisms we should choose $\qbar$ in this saturation region. Here we
1234: find indeed a reasonable agreement, not only between LDC and CCFM, but
1235: also with e.g.\ the two-scale formalism presented by Kimber, Martin
1236: and Ryskin, and the one-scale formalism by Kwiecinski, Martin and
1237: Sutton. Actually we see that it also agrees rather well with the
1238: derivative of the integrated distribution function GRV98, obtained in
1239: the pure DGLAP formalism.
1240:
1241: %****************************************
1242: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1243: %****************************************
1244:
1245: We want to thank Hannes Jung for valuable discussions, and in
1246: particular for help in evaluating the distribution functions for the JS,
1247: KMS, and KMR models.
1248:
1249: \bibliographystyle{utcaps}
1250: \bibliography{references}
1251:
1252: \end{document}
1253:
1254: