1: \documentstyle[12pt,fleqn]{article}
2: \textwidth 438pt
3: \textheight 640pt
4: \oddsidemargin 6.pt
5: \evensidemargin 6.pt
6: \topmargin -10pt
7: \def\ra{\rightarrow}
8: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
9: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
10: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
11: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
12:
13: \begin{document}
14: \titlepage
15: \begin{flushright}IFT-2003-27\end{flushright}
16:
17: ~
18: \vspace*{0.5cm}
19:
20: \begin{center}
21: {\Large\bf Photoproduction of isolated photon and jet at the DESY HERA}
22: \vspace*{3cm}
23:
24: {\large Andrzej Zembrzuski, Maria Krawczyk}\\~
25:
26: {\sl Institute of Theoretical Physics, Warsaw University,\\
27: ul. Ho\.za 69, 00-681 Warsaw, Poland}
28:
29: \end{center}
30: \vspace*{3cm}
31:
32: \begin{abstract}
33: The next-to-leading order (NLO) QCD calculation for the isolated photon
34: and isolated photon plus jet photoproduction at the $ep$ collider
35: DESY HERA is presented. The predictions for the isolated photon with
36: no restrictions imposed on the jet are compared with the previous
37: ones obtained in the small cone approximation, and the differences
38: are found to be below 2\%. The theoretical uncertainties in
39: the cross section of the photoproduction of the photon
40: plus jet are discussed.
41: A short comparison with the new preliminary H1 data and with
42: the NLO predictions of Fontannaz et al. is also presented.
43: \end{abstract}
44: \thispagestyle{empty}
45: \newpage
46:
47: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
48: \section{Introduction}
49: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
50:
51: In the previous papers~\cite{Krawczyk:1998it,Krawczyk:2001tz} we
52: have presented the next-to-leading order QCD calculation (NLO) for the
53: photoproduction of a photon with large transverse momentum,
54: so called prompt photon, at the $ep$ collider HERA.
55: We have also shown the leading order (LO) predictions for the
56: prompt photon and a jet production~\cite{Krawczyk:2001tz}~\footnote{A
57: rough estimation of NLO predictions for the
58: photon plus jet production was given in~\cite{Krawczyk:1998it}.}.
59:
60: For comparison with experimental data, the final photon
61: was considered in~\cite{Krawczyk:1998it,Krawczyk:2001tz}
62: as an isolated one, i.e. the hadronic energy within some cone
63: around the photon was restricted. We introduced the isolation
64: in an approximated way with the assumption that the momenta of
65: partons inside the isolation cone were almost collinear with the photon
66: momentum (small cone approximation).
67:
68: In this paper we study in NLO the photoproduction of both
69: the isolated (prompt) photon and isolated (prompt) photon plus
70: a jet without the small cone approximation. Since the numerical
71: differences between the present calculation and the previous
72: approximated one are found to be very small for the photoproduction of
73: the isolated photon, we focus our attention mainly
74: on the NLO predictions for the isolated photon observed in the
75: final state together with a jet, see fig.~\ref{comptonjet}.
76:
77: \begin{figure}[b]
78: \label{comptonjet}
79: \vskip 5.2cm\relax\noindent\hskip 0cm
80: \relax{\special{psfile=kcomptonjet-b.ps}}
81: \vspace{0cm}
82: \caption{\small\sl The $ep\ra e\gamma ~jet ~X$ photoproduction.}
83: \label{fig:nojet.ptgamma}
84: \end{figure}
85:
86: The photoproduction is a process in which a real or almost real
87: photon is collided with another particle in order to produce
88: some final state
89: (for a recent reviews see~\cite{Klasen:2002xb,Krawczyk:2000mf,Nisius:2000cv}).
90: In an electron-proton scattering the photoproduction corresponds
91: to the small virtuality of the exchanged photon, $Q^2$, say $Q^2$
92: \begin{minipage}[t]{10pt} \raisebox{3pt}{$<$} \makebox[-17pt]{}
93: \raisebox{-3pt}{$\sim$}\end{minipage} 1 GeV$^2$
94: \cite{Breitweg:1997pa,unknown:uj,Breitweg:1999su,Chekanov:2001aq,h12003}.
95: In such a case this almost real photon colliding with the proton
96: may lead for instance
97: to a production of jets or particles with large transverse momenta.
98:
99: The photoproduction of the prompt photon in the $ep$ or $\gamma p$ collision
100: have been studied theoretically (for a non-isolated final photon) since
101: 1969~\cite{Bjorken:1969ja}-\cite{Gordon:1994sm}.
102: Then the NLO predictions for the isolated photon have been
103: presented by various authors~\cite{Gordon:1995km,Krawczyk:1998it,
104: Fontannaz:2001ek,Krawczyk:2001tz}.
105: The photoproduction of the isolated photon and a jet at HERA have been
106: calculated in NLO by Gordon~\cite{Gordon:1998yt}
107: and Fontannaz, Guillet and Heinrich~\cite{Fontannaz:2001nq}.
108: There is also a NLO calculation for the isolated photon
109: and isolated photon plus a jet production in the deep inelastic
110: scattering ($Q^2\gg 1$ GeV$^2$)~\cite{Kramer:1998nb},
111: which is in many theoretical aspects close to the calculations
112: for the corresponding photoproduction events.
113:
114: The photoproduction of isolated photons without and with additional jets
115: has been measured at the HERA collider by the ZEUS~\cite{Breitweg:1997pa,
116: unknown:uj,Breitweg:1999su,Chekanov:2001aq} and H1~\cite{h11997,h12003}
117: Collaborations.
118: In general, the data are in reasonably agreement with NLO predictions.
119: Nevertheless, none of theoretical predictions as well as
120: Monte Carlo simulations give sufficiently good description of the ZEUS
121: data~\cite{unknown:uj,Breitweg:1999su} (see also~\cite{Bussey2001})
122: for the isolated photon at negative photon rapidities ($\eta_{\gamma}$).
123: Some discrepancies between NLO~\cite{Fontannaz:2001nq} and data are
124: also seen for the preliminary H1 data~\cite{h12003}, mainly at
125: $\eta_{\gamma} > 0.6$ and $x_{\gamma}<0.5$.
126:
127: In the paper~\cite{Chekanov:2001aq} the ZEUS Collaboration has
128: considered in Monte Carlo simulations the intrinsic transverse
129: momentum of partons in the proton in photoproduction events
130: containing the prompt photon plus
131: jet, and the effective intrinsic transverse momentum
132: was found to be $<k_T>=1.69\pm0.18^{+0.18}_{-0.20}$ GeV.
133: On the other hand, no need for the intrinsic transverse momentum
134: in the proton was reported in~\cite{Fontannaz:2001nq}.
135:
136: In our analysis the intrinsic transverse momentum is
137: not included, since we think that the measured $<k_T>$
138: is not due to the transverse momenta of partons inside the proton, but it
139: describes effectively higher order emissions or multiple interactions.
140:
141: The paper is organized as follows.
142: First, in sec~\ref{nlo} the processes contributing in NLO and
143: the general formula for the cross section are shortly presented.
144: The isolation cuts and the jet definition
145: are introduced in sec.~\ref{isol}.
146: In sec.~\ref{pss} the slicing of the three body phase space
147: is discussed, and some other calculation details and inputs are given
148: in sec.~\ref{det}.
149: The predictions for the $ep\ra e\gamma X$ process are given
150: in sec.~\ref{nojet}. The results for the
151: $ep\ra e\gamma ~jet ~X$ process, discussion of theoretical
152: uncertainties, and comparison with the new preliminary
153: H1 data, as well as with the predictions
154: of Fontannaz et al.~\cite{Fontannaz:2001nq} are presented in sec.~\ref{jet}.
155: A short summary is given in sec.~\ref{sum}.
156:
157: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
158: \section{Cross section}\label{nlo}
159: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
160:
161: In our previous papers~\cite{Krawczyk:1998it,Krawczyk:2001tz}
162: we have discussed the NLO calculation of the cross section of the
163: isolated photon production in the $ep$ collision.
164: The set of contributing diagrams was different than in NLO calculations
165: of other authors~\cite{Gordon:1995km,Fontannaz:2001ek,
166: Gordon:1998yt,Fontannaz:2001nq}, since we assumed that parton densities
167: in the photon were of order $\mathcal{O}$$(\alpha )$,
168: while in the cited papers their were assumed to be of order
169: $\mathcal{O}$$(\alpha /\alpha_S)$.
170:
171: The parton densities inside the photon are proportional to the
172: electromagnetic coupling, $\alpha$, and to the logarithm of the energy
173: scale $\mu$ at which the densities are probed,
174: $\ln (\mu^2/\Lambda_{QCD}^2)$~\footnote{We define the scale
175: $\mu$ in sec.~\ref{det}.}~\cite{Walsh:1973mz,DeWitt:1978wn,Chyla:1999mw}.
176: This logarithm is formally proportional to $1/\alpha_S (\mu^2)$ but
177: it originates from the pure electromagnetic process,
178: $\gamma\ra q\bar{q}$,
179: with no strong interactions, and therefore the parton densities
180: in the photon should be treated as quantities of order
181: $\mathcal{O}$$(\alpha )$,
182: and not $\mathcal{O}$$(\alpha /\alpha_S)$.
183: This different treatment
184: of parton densities leads to different set of diagrams
185: in NLO calculations involving resolved photons, and to some
186: moderate differences
187: in numerical predictions in comparison with predictions of other
188: authors~\cite{Krawczyk:2001tz}.
189:
190: In the present calculation we take into account the same set of
191: contributing partonic processes as it was taken in~\cite{Krawczyk:2001tz},
192: namely: the Born diagram ($\gamma q\ra\gamma q$) together with QCD
193: corrections, the box diagram ($\gamma g\ra\gamma g$)~\cite{Combridge:1980sx},
194: processes with the resolved initial or final photon, and processes
195: with resolved both the initial and final photon.
196: The general formula for the differential cross
197: section for the $ep\ra e\gamma X$ (or $ep\ra e\gamma ~jet ~X$)
198: photoproduction is:
199: \be\label{epa}
200: d\sigma^{ep\ra e\gamma (jet) X} = \int G_{\gamma /e}(y)
201: d\sigma^{\gamma p\ra \gamma (jet) X} dy ~,
202: \ee
203: and
204: \bea
205: d\sigma^{\gamma p\ra \gamma (jet) X}=
206: \sum_{a=\gamma ,q,\bar{q},g} \int dx_{\gamma}
207: \sum_{b=q,\bar{q},g} \int dx
208: \sum_{c=\gamma ,q,\bar{q},g} \int {dz\over z^2}
209: f_{a/\gamma}(x_{\gamma},\mu^2)\cdot
210: \nonumber
211: \eea
212: \be\label{cross}
213: %\makebox[2.4cm]{}
214: \cdot
215: f_{b/p}(x,\mu^2)
216: D_{\gamma /c}(z,\mu^2)
217: d\sigma^{ab\ra cd_1} +
218: \sum_{b=q,\bar{q},g}
219: \int dx f_{b/p}(x,\mu^2) d\sigma^{\gamma b\ra\gamma d_1d_2} ~,
220: \ee
221: where $ab\ra cd_1$ and $\gamma b\ra\gamma d_1d_2$ are the partonic processes.
222:
223: The eq.~\ref{epa} is the Weizs\"{a}cker-Williams
224: approximation~\cite{vonWeizsacker:1934sx,Williams:1934ad}
225: (see also e.g.~\cite{Budnev:1974de,Frixione:1993yw,Nisius:2000cv})
226: with the flux of the real photons emitted from the electron given
227: by $G_{\gamma /e}(y)$, where $y$ is the fraction of the initial electron
228: momentum carried by the photon. The functions $f_{a/\gamma}$,
229: $f_{b/p}$, and $D_{\gamma /c}$ stand for parton distributions
230: in the photon and proton, and a fragmentation function into the photon,
231: respectively.
232: For the direct initial ($a=\gamma$) or final ($c=\gamma$) photon
233: the corresponding distributions are replaced by the $\delta$-functions:
234: $f_{a/\gamma}=\delta(x_{\gamma}-1)$ or $D_{\gamma /c}=\delta(z-1)$.
235: The longitudinal-momentum fractions in the photon and proton parton
236: densities, and in the
237: fragmentation functions are denoted as $x_{\gamma}$, $x$, and $z$,
238: respectively, while $\mu$ stands for the factorization/renormalization scale.
239:
240: The calculation of the partonic cross sections,
241: $d\sigma^{\gamma b\ra\gamma d_1(d_2)}$, involve isolation
242: restrictions and other kinematic cuts, as used in
243: corresponding experimental analyses.
244:
245: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
246: \section{Isolation cut and jet definition}\label{isol}
247: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
248:
249: The NLO calculation includes partonic processes with two ($2\ra 2$) or three
250: ($2\ra 3$) particles in the final state:
251: \be\label{223}
252: ab\ra cd_1(d_2)\nonumber ,
253: \ee
254: where $a$ is the photon or a parton originating from the photon,
255: $b$ is a parton from the proton, $c$ stand for the final photon
256: or a parton which decay into the photon in the fragmentation process,
257: and $d_i$ are quarks and/or gluons.
258: The outgoing partons $d_i$ are not observed in the final state
259: -~they recombine into colorless hadronic jets.
260:
261: In experimental analyses the final photon is required to be isolated,
262: i.e the transverse energy of hadrons inside a cone of radius R around
263: the photon is assumed to be less than $\epsilon$ times the photon
264: transverse energy,
265: \be\label{eps}
266: \sum_{hadrons} E_T^{hadron} < \epsilon E_T^{\gamma} ,
267: \ee
268: where $\epsilon$ is a small parameter.
269: The cone is defined in the rapidity and azimuthal-angle phase space,
270: \be\label{R}
271: \sqrt{(\eta_{hadron}-\eta_{\gamma})^2+(\phi_{hadron}-\phi_{\gamma})^2} < R.
272: \ee
273:
274: The some isolation restriction is taken into
275: account in theoretical parton-level predictions, where the
276: sum in eq.~(\ref{eps}) runs over $c$-parton remnant and
277: over $d_i$-partons, if they are inside the cone (\ref{R}).
278: In the present calculation we take $R=1$ and $\epsilon =0.1$,
279: as in the H1 and ZEUS Collaborations' analyses.
280:
281: In the partonic $2\ra 2$ processes with a direct final photon ($c=\gamma$),
282: \be\label{22nofrag}
283: ab\ra\gamma d_1 ,
284: \ee
285: the photon is isolated by definition.
286: If the final photon comes from the fragmentation process ($c\ne\gamma$),
287: \be
288: ab\ra c d_1 ,
289: \ee
290: it is isolated for the momentum fraction $z>1/(1+\epsilon)$,
291: and this cut is used in an integration in eq.~(\ref{cross}).
292: An inclusion of the isolation in the partonic cross sections
293: for $2\ra 3$ processes,
294: \be
295: \gamma b\ra\gamma d_1 d_2 ,
296: \ee
297: is more complicated, since one needs to restrict the final momenta
298: of two partons (eq.~\ref{eps},~\ref{R}),
299: and to care about a cancellation
300: and factorization of singularities, as described in the next section.
301:
302: For $2\ra 2$ processes only one jet appears,
303: and it originates from the $d_1$-parton.
304: The jet's transverse energy, rapidity, and azimuthal angle
305: are assumed equal to the transverse energy,
306: rapidity, and azimuthal angle of the $d_1$-parton.
307:
308: Two partons, $d_1$ and $d_2$, produced in the $2\ra 3$ subprocess
309: may lead to two separate
310: jets or they may form one jet. A number of jets in the final state depends
311: on the jet definition. In this paper the inclusive $k_T$-jet finding
312: algorithm~\cite{Ellis:tq} is employed.
313:
314: Since in NLO calculation we deal with no more than two partons
315: forming a jet/jets,
316: the algorithm becomes very simple. If the distance between the partons,
317: $R_{12}$, defined as
318: \be
319: R_{12}=\sqrt{(\eta^{d_1}-\eta^{d_2})^2+(\phi^{d_1}-\phi^{d_2})^2} ~,
320: \ee
321: is larger than an arbitrary parameter $R_J$,
322: then two separate jets arise with transverse energies, rapidities,
323: and azimuthal angles of the $d_i$-partons:
324: \be
325: E_T^{jet_i}=E_T^{d_i}\makebox[1cm]{,}
326: \eta^{jet_i}=\eta^{d_i}\makebox[1cm]{,}
327: \phi^{jet_i}=\phi^{d_i}\makebox[1cm]{,}
328: i=1, ~2.\nonumber
329: \ee
330: For $R_{12} < R_J$ the $d_i$-partons are treated as ingredients of
331: one jet with
332: \be
333: E_T^{jet}=E_T^{d_1}+E_T^{d_2} ,\label{jaE}
334: \ee
335: \be
336: \eta^{jet}=(E_T^{d_1}\eta^{d_1}+E_T^{d_2}\eta^{d_2})/E_T^{jet}\label{jan} ,
337: \ee
338: \be
339: \phi^{jet}=(E_T^{d_1}\phi^{d_1}+E_T^{d_2}\phi^{d_2})/E_T^{jet}\label{jap} .
340: \ee
341: Following experimental analyses,
342: $R_J=1$ will be used in numerical calculations.
343:
344: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
345: \section{Phase-space integration}\label{pss}
346: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
347:
348: To obtain predictions, one need to perform an integration over
349: four-momentum of at least one final particle, since
350: unintegrated partonic cross sections contain $\delta^{(4)}$-functions.
351: In case of $2\ra 2$ processes with no virtual gluon exchange
352: this integration is straightforward, and will not be discussed.
353:
354: There are three types of diagrams giving NLO corrections to the Born process,
355: namely:
356: $\gamma q\ra\gamma qg$ (real gluon emission), $\gamma g\ra\gamma q\bar{q}$,
357: and the process $\gamma q{\stackrel {g^*}{\longrightarrow}}\gamma q$
358: with a virtual gluon exchange.
359: The cross sections of the above processes contains infrared
360: singularities. For numerical integration over momenta
361: of final particles, one needs to isolate these
362: singularities~\cite{Fontannaz:2001ek,Gordon:1998yt}.
363: Like in earlier calculations for the $ep\ra e\gamma (jet) X$
364: reaction~\cite{Fontannaz:2001ek,Gordon:1998yt,Fontannaz:2001nq},
365: also in the present one the phase space is sliced into a few parts.
366:
367: Let us assume that
368: $\theta_{ji}$ is an angle between the momentum of $d_i$ parton
369: and the momentum of an initial particle $j$, where $j=e,~p$.
370: Let us also define the distance, $R_{\gamma i}$, between the
371: $d_i$ parton and the final photon:
372: \be
373: R_{\gamma i}=\sqrt{(\eta_{d_i}-\eta_{\gamma})^2+(\phi_{d_i}-\phi_{\gamma})^2}.
374: \ee
375:
376: We define the parts of the phase space in the following way:
377:
378: $\bullet$ Part 1. In the first part the variable $w$
379: (see Appendix~\ref{notation})
380: is assumed in the range $w_{cut} \le w \le 1$, where $w_{cut}$
381: is an arbitrary parameter close to 1: $0<1-w_{cut}\ll 1$.
382: This region of the phase space contains
383: all types of NLO corrections: virtual gluon exchange, real gluon
384: emission, and the process $\gamma g\ra\gamma q\bar{q}$.
385: The virtual gluon exchange is a $2\ra 2$ process, while the other
386: ones are of $2\ra 3$. However, for $w$ close to 1, $w_{cut} < w \le 1$,
387: the two final partons in the $2\ra 3$ processes are almost collinear
388: or/and one of the final partons is soft.
389: For $w_{cut}$ sufficiently close to 1 the kinematics of
390: the $2\ra 3$ processes is almost the same as in the $2\ra 2$ case:
391: \be
392: \gamma b\ra\gamma d \makebox[1cm]{,}d\equiv d_1 + d_2,
393: \ee
394: where the ``particle'' $d$ has four-momentum equal to the sum
395: of four-momenta of the $d_i$-partons, and its mass is almost zero.
396: In this case the final photon is isolated
397: and the jet can be identified with the $d$-``particle''.
398:
399: The other parts of the phase space, parts 2-5 described below,
400: are defined for $w<w_{cut}$, and contain only $2\ra 3$ processes.
401:
402: $\bullet$ Part 2. In this region $w<w_{cut}$ and
403: $\theta_{cut} > min (\theta_{e 1}, \theta_{e 2})$,
404: where $\theta_{cut}$ is a small arbitrary parameter, $\theta_{cut}\ll 1$.
405: Here, one of the final partons has the
406: momentum almost collinear to the momentum
407: of the initial electron and it, for sufficiently small $\theta_{cut}$,
408: does not enter the isolation cone around the final photon,
409: and does not enter the cone defining the jet.
410: The second parton has a large transverse momentum balancing the
411: photon transverse momentum, so the final photon
412: is isolated, and the jet consists (on the
413: partonic level) of only this very parton.
414:
415: $\bullet$ Part 3. Here $w<w_{cut}$ and
416: $\theta_{cut} > min (\theta_{p 1}, \theta_{p 2})$.
417: One of the final partons has momentum almost collinear to the momentum
418: of the proton, and, like in part 2, the final photon is isolated
419: and the high-$E_T$ jet originates from the second parton alone.
420:
421: $\bullet$ Part 4. Here $w<w_{cut}$ and
422: $R_{cut} > min (R_{\gamma 1}, R_{\gamma 2})$,
423: where $R_{cut}$ is a small parameter, $R_{cut}\ll1$.
424: In this case one of the final partons, say $d_1$-parton, is almost collinear
425: to the final photon and the photon is isolated if
426: $E_T^{d_1}<\epsilon E_T^{\gamma}$. This $d_1$-parton does not contribute to
427: the jet.
428:
429: $\bullet$ Part 5. The last part is defined as the region in which there
430: are no collinear configurations: $w<w_{cut}$,
431: $\theta_{cut} < min (\theta_{e 1}, \theta_{e 2})$,
432: $\theta_{cut} < min (\theta_{p 1}, \theta_{p 2})$, and
433: $R_{cut} < min (R_{\gamma 1}, R_{\gamma 2})$.
434:
435: In numerical calculations we apply in part 1
436: the formulae integrated over four-momenta of
437: the final partons and virtual gluons~\cite{Aurenche:1984hc,jan},
438: namely the eqs.~(24) and (37) from ref.~\cite{Aurenche:1984hc}.
439: In these formulae all the soft gluon singularities present in the virtual
440: gluon and real gluon corrections are canceled, and all the
441: collinear singularities are factorized into the parton densities.
442:
443: Parts 2-5 contain no contribution from the virtual gluon exchange,
444: and no soft gluon singularities.
445: Analytical expressions for cross sections corresponding to
446: parts 2, 3, and 4 are given in the Appendix~\ref{col}. All the collinear
447: singularities appearing in the calculations are factorized
448: into parton densities in the photon (part 2), proton (part 3),
449: and into fragmentation functions (part 4).
450:
451: The cross section in part 5 has no singularities at all,
452: and one can perform an exact numerical integration over
453: final four-momenta in any kinematic range, including isolation
454: restrictions and other cuts.
455: For this purpose we use the squared matrix element given in eqs.~(36)
456: (with $\varepsilon =0$) in ref.~\cite{Aurenche:1984hc}.
457:
458: We assume that the cut-off angle $\theta_{cut}$ is defined
459: in the centre of mass of the initial photon and the initial parton.
460: The predictions should not depend on a choice of unphysical cut-off parameters,
461: $1-w_{cut}$, $\theta_{cut}$ and $R_{cut}$, if they are small enough.
462: On the other hand, they can not be too small, since very low values lead
463: to large numerical errors.
464: The results presented in secs.~\ref{nojet} and ~\ref{jet} are obtained
465: with $1- w_{cut}=\theta_{cut}=R_{cut}=0.01$.
466: We have checked that the change of the predictions due to the variation
467: of these parameters is negligible, below 1\%, if they are taken
468: in the range $10^{-4} \le 1 - w_{cut} \le 0.03$,
469: $10^{-4} \le \theta_{cut} \le 0.05$ and
470: $10^{-4} \le R_{cut} \le 0.05$.
471:
472: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
473: \section{Other calculation details}\label{det}
474: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
475:
476: Our NLO calculations are performed in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme.
477: The factorization/renor\-malization scales in parton densities and
478: fragmentation functions are assumed equal to the
479: renormalization scale in the strong coupling constant and are denoted
480: as $\mu$. As a reference $\mu$ equal to the transverse
481: momentum (transverse energy) of the final photon is taken,
482: $\mu=p_T^{\gamma}=E_T^{\gamma}$. For comparison $\mu=E_T^{\gamma}/2$
483: and $\mu=2E_T^{\gamma}$ will be also considered.
484:
485: The two-loop strong coupling constant,
486: \be
487: \alpha_S(\mu^2)={{12 \pi}\over {(33-2N_f)\ln(\mu^2/\Lambda^2)}}
488: [1-{{6(153-19N_f)}\over (33-2N_f)^2} {{\ln[\ln(\mu^2/\Lambda^2)]}
489: \over{\ln(\mu^2/\Lambda^2)}}] ~,
490: \ee
491: is used with the QCD parameter $\Lambda$=0.386, 0.332 and 0.230 GeV
492: for the number of active massless flavours $N_f$=3, 4 and 5,
493: respectively. In LO we use one-loop $\alpha_S$ with $\Lambda$=0.123 GeV
494: and $N_f$=4. The above $\Lambda$ values are obtained by us from
495: the world average of $\alpha_S$ at the scale
496: $M_Z$~\cite{Bethke:2002rv}:
497: \be
498: \label{1183}
499: \overline{\alpha_S} (M_Z) = 0.1183 \pm 0.0027.
500: \ee
501: To minimize theoretical and experimental uncertainties,
502: $\overline{\alpha_S} (M_Z)$ was determined from precise data based on
503: NNLO analyses only. The data given at scales different than $M_Z$ were
504: extrapolated to the $M_Z$ scale using the four-loop coupling. Although we
505: use one- and two-loop expressions, we have applied~(\ref{1183})
506: as the best estimation of the true value of $\alpha_S (M_Z)$.
507:
508: In numerical calculations we take the Gl\"uck-Reya-Vogt (GRV)
509: LO and NLO parton densities in the proton~\cite{Gluck:1995uf}
510: and photon~\cite{Gluck:1992ee}, and the NLO GRV
511: fragmentation functions~\cite{Gluck:1993zx}. For comparison
512: we also use other parametrizations, namely
513: Martin-Roberts-Stirling-Thorne (MRST2002)~\cite{Martin:2002aw},
514: CTEQ6~\cite{Pumplin:2002vw}, Aurenche-Guillet-Fontannaz
515: (AFG)~\cite{Aurenche:1994in} and (AFG02)~\cite{afg02},
516: Gordon-Storrow (GS)~\cite{Gordon:1997pm},
517: Cornet-Jankowski-Krawczyk-Lorca (CJKL)~\cite{Cornet:2002iy},
518: Duke-Owens (DO)~\cite{Duke:1982bj}, and
519: Bourhis-Fontannaz-Guillet (BFG)~\cite{Bourhis:1997yu}.
520:
521: The initial electron and proton energies at the HERA collider
522: are assumed equal to
523: $E_e=27.6$ GeV and $E_p=920$ GeV, respectively.
524: In the Weizs\"{a}cker-Williams
525: approximation~\cite{vonWeizsacker:1934sx,Williams:1934ad}
526: the photon spectrum in the electron is taken in the
527: form~\cite{Frixione:1993yw}:
528: \be
529: G_{\gamma/e}(y)={\alpha\over 2\pi} \{ {1+(1-y)^2\over y}
530: \ln [ {Q^2_{max}(1-y)\over m_e^2 y^2}]
531: - ~ {2\over y}(1-y-{m_e^2y^2\over Q^2_{max}}) \} ~,
532: \ee
533: with the maximal virtuality $Q^2_{max} = 1$ GeV.
534: % $m_e$ - the electron mass
535: The above formula describes the spectrum of equivalent real
536: (transversally polarized) photons. We neglect longitudinally polarized
537: photons and the interference between longitudinally and transversally
538: polarized photons, since they give very small
539: contribution~\cite{Jezuita-Dabrowska:bp}.
540: As usual, we also do not take into account an emission of the final
541: large-$p_T$ photon directly from the electron~\cite{ula}.
542:
543: The results presented in next sections are obtained in NLO QCD
544: with use of the GRV set of parametrizations
545: with $\mu =E_T^{\gamma}$ and $N_f=4$ unless explicitly stated otherwise.
546:
547: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
548: \section{Results for the $ep\ra e\gamma X$ process}\label{nojet}
549: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
550:
551: The comparison with the ZEUS Collaboration
552: data~\cite{Breitweg:1999su} for the photoproduction of isolated photons
553: have been discussed in details in~\cite{Krawczyk:2001tz}. Recently a new
554: preliminary data have been presented by the H1 Collaboration~\cite{h12003}.
555: For a comparison with these data, we apply
556: kinematic cuts used in~\cite{h12003}, namely
557: the fraction of the electron energy transferred to the photon
558: is restricted to the range $0.2<y<0.7$, and the final photon rapidity
559: and transverse energy are taken in the limits
560: $-1<\eta_{\gamma}<0.9$ and $5<E_T^{\gamma}<10$~GeV, respectively.
561:
562: In fig.~\ref{fig:nojet}
563: the differential cross sections $d\sigma /dE_T^{\gamma}$ and
564: $d\sigma /d\eta_{\gamma}$
565: are shown. Our exact predictions (solid lines) are compared
566: with the predictions obtained in the small cone approximation
567: (dashed lines) discussed in our previous paper~\cite{Krawczyk:2001tz}.
568: The differences do not exceed 2\%, so the
569: small cone approximation works very well, despite the fact that the isolation
570: cone of radius $R=1$ is not a small one.
571:
572: The predictions are in good agreement with the H1 preliminary
573: data~\cite{h12003} (not shown) for both $d\sigma /dE_T^{\gamma}$ and
574: $d\sigma /d\eta_{\gamma}$ distributions with exception of one
575: experimental point at $\eta_{\gamma} > 0.58$, which lies slightly below
576: the predictions.
577:
578: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
579: \section{Results for the $ep\ra e\gamma ~jet ~X$ process}\label{jet}
580: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
581:
582: There are two publications of the ZEUS Collaboration
583: presenting results of
584: measurements of the isolated photon plus jet photoproduction
585: at the HERA Collider~\cite{Breitweg:1997pa,Chekanov:2001aq}.
586: In the first paper~\cite{Breitweg:1997pa}
587: the total cross section integrated over some kinematic range
588: is given. The aim of the second one~\cite{Chekanov:2001aq} was to study
589: transverse momentum of partons in the proton, and no data
590: for cross sections were presented (although some data
591: for distributions of events, not corrected for the detector
592: effects, were shown).
593:
594: In the new paper of the H1 Collaboration~\cite{h12003}
595: (see also~\cite{Lemrani:2003mj}), the
596: preliminary photoproduction data are presented for various
597: differential cross sections of both $ep\ra e\gamma X$ (considered
598: above in sec.~\ref{nojet}) and $ep\ra e\gamma ~jet ~X$ processes.
599:
600: As in sec.~\ref{nojet},
601: we impose kinematic limits used in the H1 analysis~\cite{h12003}.
602: The cross sections are integrated over $0.2<y<0.7$, and
603: $-1<\eta_{\gamma}<0.9$ and/or $5<E_T^{\gamma}<10$~GeV
604: with the jet rapidity and jet transverse energy in the
605: range $-1<\eta_{jet}<2.3$ and 4.5 GeV $<E_T^{jet}$, respectively.
606: If two jets are found with the above parameters, that
607: with higher $E_T^{jet}$ is taken.
608:
609: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
610: \subsection{Theoretical uncertainties}\label{res}
611: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
612:
613: As it is discussed in details in~\cite{Fontannaz:2001nq}, the symmetric cuts
614: for the photon and the jet transverse energy leads to unphysical
615: results in next-to-leading or higher orders of
616: calculations. This effect is shown in fig.~\ref{fig:ptgamma}a, where
617: the LO and NLO predictions as a function of the photon
618: transverse energy are shown in the $E_T^{\gamma}$-range wider than
619: the range considered by the H1 Collaboration.
620: At $E_T^{\gamma}$ values close to the minimal jet transverse energy,
621: $E_{T,min}^{jet} = 4.5$ GeV, the NLO differential cross section
622: has a discontinuity: for $(E_T^{\gamma})_-\ra 4.5$ GeV it has
623: a strong maximum, and a minimum for $(E_T^{\gamma})_+\ra 4.5$ GeV.
624: In the minimum the value of the cross section is even negative.
625: This unphysical fluctuation is not present in the LO calculation.
626:
627: An integration of the differential cross section over the photon
628: transverse energy higher than the minimal jet transverse energy,
629: $E_T^{\gamma} \ge E_{T,min}^{jet}$, leads to underestimated
630: predictions in NLO. However numerically this effect is not very important.
631:
632: To avoid theoretical instabilities, one can consider a cross section
633: averaged over some $E_T^{\gamma}$-bins, see fig.~\ref{fig:ptgamma}b.
634: Note, that the NLO predictions are well defined if one takes
635: the cross section integrated/averaged over $E_T^{\gamma}$
636: from $E_{T,min}^{jet} - \Delta$ to $E_{T,min}^{jet} + \Delta$,
637: if $\Delta$ is sufficiently large, say $\Delta > 0.3$ GeV.
638: So, the bins of a length 1 GeV presented in fig.~\ref{fig:ptgamma}b
639: are large enough to avoid errors due to the symmetric cuts.
640:
641: The cross section for $E_T^{\gamma}<E_{T,min}^{jet}$ is dominated
642: by the NLO corrections, since the LO contribution is suppressed by the
643: $E_T^{jet}$-cut (4.5 GeV $<E_T^{jet}$)
644: and by the isolation requirement (sec.~\ref{isol}).
645: We checked that the dependence on the
646: re\-normal\-ization/factor\-ization scale, $\mu$, is not strong:
647: variations of $\mu$ from $E_T^{\gamma}$ to $E_T^{\gamma}/2$ or $2E_T^{\gamma}$
648: lead to changes of the cross section less than
649: 3\% for $E_T^{\gamma}<E_{T,min}^{jet}$ and up to 5\%
650: for $E_T^{\gamma}>E_{T,min}^{jet}$.
651:
652: The NLO predictions for various $\mu$, and the LO predictions are also shown
653: in fig.~\ref{fig:jet}. In each presented here
654: bin the dependence on the choice of $\mu$ is less
655: than $\pm$5\% for both $E_T^{jet}$ and $\eta_{jet}$ distributions.
656: The cross section is suppressed for $E_T^{jet}$
657: close to or higher than the maximal transverse energy of the photon,
658: $E_{T,max}^{\gamma}=10$ GeV.
659: At negative $\eta_{jet}$ the LO predictions are higher by 14\%,
660: and at positive $\eta_{jet}$ they are lower than the NLO ones by 16-27\%.
661:
662: Since for $E_T^{\gamma}>E_{T,min}^{jet}$
663: the difference between LO and NLO is not larger than 27\% and the
664: variation of NLO results due to the variation
665: of the $\mu$ scale is small, up to 5\%, the calculation is stable, and
666: one can expect that the QCD corrections of higher orders
667: are not sizable. On the other hand, for $E_T^{\gamma}<E_{T,min}^{jet}$
668: the NLO corrections constitute almost 100\% of the
669: cross section, and the corrections of higher orders may change
670: predictions.
671:
672: In fig.~\ref{fig:etagamma} the results obtained using different
673: parton densities in the proton are shown. The predictions of
674: CTEQ6 (NLO)~\cite{Pumplin:2002vw} are 6\% higher than
675: the predictions of MRST2002 (NLO)~\cite{Martin:2002aw}. The
676: GRV (NLO)~\cite{Gluck:1995uf} densities
677: give results higher than MRST2002 by 5-7\% at negative $\eta_{\gamma}$,
678: and 3-5\% at positive $\eta_{\gamma}$. Differencies between CTEQ6
679: and GRV do not exceed 4\%.
680:
681: The comparison between different parton densities in the photon
682: is shown in fig.~\ref{fig:x} for the $x_{\gamma}^{obs}$ distribution,
683: where $x_{\gamma}^{obs}$ is defined as
684: \be
685: x_{\gamma}^{obs}=(E_T^{jet}e^{-\eta^{jet}}+E_T^{\gamma}e^{-\eta^{\gamma}})
686: /2yE_e ~.
687: \ee
688: The GS (NLO) parametrization~\cite{Gordon:1997pm} give predictions
689: lower than GRV (NLO)~\cite{Gluck:1992ee} by 20-36\%
690: for $x_{\gamma}^{obs}<0.9$. This large difference is due to
691: the charm threshold assumed in the GS parametrization
692: at large scale, $\mu^2 = 50$ GeV$^2$, much higher than
693: thresholds in other considered herein
694: parametrizations~\cite{Krawczyk:2001tz}.
695: The results obtained with use of AFG (NLO)~\cite{Aurenche:1994in}
696: and AFG02 (NLO)~\cite{afg02} are very similar, and only
697: the latter is shown in fig.~\ref{fig:x}. It gives predictions
698: up to 15\% lower than GRV for $x_{\gamma}^{obs}<0.9$. At
699: large-$x_{\gamma}^{obs}$ region, $x_{\gamma}^{obs}>0.9$, the
700: cross section is dominated by the contribution of processes
701: with direct initial photons, and the differences between
702: predictions of various parametrizations are small.
703: For the total cross section integrated over all $x_{\gamma}^{obs}$
704: values the difference between GRV and AFG02 (GS) is 4\% (16\% ).
705:
706: We have also compared predictions of GRV (LO)~\cite{Gluck:1992ee}
707: and the new CJKL (LO)~\cite{Cornet:2002iy} parton densities in the photon,
708: as well as predictions of DO (LO)~\cite{Duke:1982bj},
709: GRV (NLO)~\cite{Gluck:1993zx} and BFG (NLO)~\cite{Bourhis:1997yu}
710: fragmentation functions. The total LO cross section (within
711: the kinematic range considered by the H1 Collaboration)
712: for the GRV (LO) parametrization is higher than for CJKL (LO) by 3\%.
713: The isolation requirement reduce the contribution of processes
714: involving the resolved final photon~\cite{Krawczyk:2001tz},
715: so the dependence on the choice of fragmentation functions is weak, even if
716: the fragmentation functions differ considerably from one another.
717: The total cross sections obtained with DO and BFG (set I and set II)
718: are lower than the predictions of GRV by 2\% and 4\%, respectively.
719:
720: The GRV distributions for the proton, photon and fragmentation
721: have been used as a reference,
722: and each time only one parametrization has been changed
723: for a comparison. The differences observed in the total cross
724: section are not large (with an exception of the GS densities, which
725: give predictions considerably lower than the other densities
726: in the photon due to the specific treatment of the charm contribution).
727: However, the differences can be larger if
728: one changes simultaneously all the used distributions.
729: For instance predictions of the MRST, AFG02 and BFG set
730: are lower than the GRV predictions by about 11\% .
731:
732: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
733: \subsection{Comparing with H1 preliminary data
734: and with FGH predictions}\label{h1}
735: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
736:
737: The predictions shown in figs.~\ref{fig:ptgamma}-\ref{fig:x}
738: are in reasonable agreement with the preliminary
739: data of the H1 Collaboration~\cite{h12003,Lemrani:2003mj} (not shown),
740: although some differences
741: are present, especially for $E_T^{\gamma}$ values below 6.7 GeV
742: and for negative $\eta_{jet}$.
743:
744: For $5<E_T^{\gamma}<6.7$ GeV and for $\eta_{jet} < -0.3$
745: the NLO result are higher than the measured cross section by two standard
746: deviations. Smaller differences are also observed
747: at positive $\eta_{\gamma}$ values, where the predictions
748: tend to overshot the data.
749: In these kinematic ranges the predictions are in good
750: agreement with the preliminary data, if one takes the number of active
751: flavours $N_f=3$ instead of $N_f=4$~\footnote{The previous comparison
752: with the ZEUS data~\cite{Breitweg:1999su} for the $ep\ra e\gamma X$
753: reaction led to opposite conclusions: the predictions for
754: $N_f=3$ were too low in each kinematic range and better
755: agreement with data
756: was observed for $N_f=4$ and $N_f=5$~\cite{Krawczyk:2001tz}.},
757: but the scale $\mu=E_T^{\gamma}$,
758: for $E_T^{\gamma}$ above 5 GeV, seems to be too large
759: to neglect the charm contribution.
760:
761: Now, we make short comparison with the NLO predictions of Fontannaz,
762: Guillet and Heinrich (FGH)~\cite{Fontannaz:2001nq} presented
763: in~\cite{h12003,Lemrani:2003mj}.
764: The FGH calculation takes into account the QCD corrections to the
765: resolved-photon processes, which are not included in the
766: calculation presented herein (see sec.~\ref{nlo} and
767: ref.~\cite{Krawczyk:2001tz}).
768: They also use parton parametrizations different than the GRV ones used by us.
769:
770: In the considered kinematic range
771: the total cross section of FGH is about 6\% lower than our
772: predictions. However differences are larger for the differential
773: cross sections. For example, the FGH cross sections are lower
774: by about 20\% for $d\sigma /dE_T^{\gamma}$ and $d\sigma /d\eta^{jet}$
775: at $E_T^{\gamma}<6.7$ GeV and $\eta^{jet} < -0.3$,
776: respectively, and they give better agreement with the data.
777: On the other hand, our predictions for
778: $d\sigma /d\eta^{jet}$ ($d\sigma /dx_{\gamma}^{obs}$)
779: slightly better describes
780: the data at $\eta_{jet} > 1.6$ ($0.25<x_{\gamma}^{obs}<0.5$),
781: where FGH predictions are about 45\% (13\%) higher than ours.
782: In other kinematic ranges the differences between
783: calculations are not larger than $\pm$15\% (usually below 10\%),
784: and both calculations
785: lead to a similar description of the preliminary H1 data, although
786: the $d\sigma /dE_T^{jet}$ distribution of FGH is a bit
787: more flat and more consistent with data in shape.
788:
789: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
790: \section{Summary}\label{sum}
791: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
792:
793: We presented the results of the NLO calculation of the cross section
794: for the photoproduction of the prompt photon and prompt photon plus jet
795: at the $ep$ collider DESY HERA.
796:
797: A new exact calculation for the prompt photon production was performed.
798: We found that the predictions agree within 2\% with the results obtained
799: in the small cone approximation used in our previous
800: analysis~\cite{Krawczyk:2001tz}.
801:
802: The main aim of this paper was a detailed analysis of the
803: prompt photon plus jet production in NLO.
804: (In the previous analysis~\cite{Krawczyk:2001tz} we presented only the
805: LO predictions.) The dependence on the choice of parton distribution
806: functions was found to be of order 10\%.
807: The uncertainties due to the variation of the
808: renormalization/factorization scale are of order $\pm$ 5\%,
809: and it may indicate that the corrections of higher orders
810: are small. But for relatively low $E_T^{\gamma}$,
811: $E_T^{\gamma} < E_{T,min}^{jet}$, the NLO corrections
812: are very large while the LO contribution is suppressed,
813: and we expect that in this region the corrections
814: of higher orders could change the predictions.
815:
816: Our predictions are in reasonably agreement with the H1
817: preliminary data~\cite{h12003,Lemrani:2003mj},
818: nevertheless in some kinematic ranges there are discrepancies
819: up to two standard deviations.
820:
821: Differences between our predictions and the predictions
822: of Fontannaz, Guillet and Heinrich~\cite{Fontannaz:2001nq}
823: presented in~\cite{h12003,Lemrani:2003mj}
824: are usually below 10\%, but in some kinematic limits they are larger.
825: The largest differences, up to 45\% at large $\eta_{jet}$,
826: are seen for the $d\sigma /d\eta_{jet}$ distribution.
827: The experimental errors are too large to conclude which
828: calculation gives better description of the H1 preliminary data.
829:
830: ~\\
831:
832: {\bf Acknowledgments}
833:
834: We would like to thank S. Chekanov from the ZEUS Collaboration
835: and J. Gayler from the H1 Collaboration for helpful discussions.
836: We are also grateful to M. Fontannaz for providing fortran
837: subroutines computing the AFG, AFG02 and BFG parton distributions.
838: This work was partly supported by the European Community's
839: Human Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-2002-00311 EURIDICE.
840:
841: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
842: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
843: \appendix
844:
845: %~\\\\
846: \newpage
847: ~\\
848: {\Large\bf Appendix}
849: \section{The notation}\label{notation}
850: \begin{figure}[h]
851: \vskip 6.5cm\relax\noindent\hskip 0cm
852: \relax{\special{psfile=kreal-b.ps}}
853: \vspace{-0.5cm}
854: \caption{\small\sl An example of the $2\ra 3$ NLO process.
855: The omission of the final gluon gives the lowest order
856: Born diagram ($\gamma q\ra\gamma q$).}
857: \label{23}
858: \end{figure}
859: Here we introduce the notation which is used in Appendix~\ref{col}
860: and in sec.~\ref{pss}. There are two kinds of $2\ra 3$ partonic
861: processes:
862: \be
863: \gamma (q) + q(p) \ra \gamma (p_{\gamma}) + q(p_1) + g(p_2)
864: \makebox[0.5cm]{} {\rm (see\makebox[0.3cm]{} fig.~\ref{23}),}
865: \ee
866: and
867: \be
868: \gamma (q) + g(p) \ra \gamma (p_{\gamma}) + q(p_1) + \bar{q}(p_2).
869: \ee
870: The four-momenta of particles contributing to the processes
871: are given in brackets. Let us define variables $v$ and $w$:
872: \be
873: v=1+t/s\makebox[1cm]{,}w=-u/(t+s),
874: \ee
875: where
876: \be
877: s=(q+p)^2\makebox[1cm]{,}t=(q-p_{\gamma})^2\makebox[1.5cm]{and}
878: u=(p-p_{\gamma})^2.
879: \ee
880: The $v$ and $w$ variables are in the range $0<v<1$ and $0<w<1$.
881: Note, that for massless particles $(p_1+p_2)^2=sv(1-w)$, and
882: in the limit $(p_1+p_2)^2\ra 0$ one obtains $w\ra 1$
883: ($v$ can not be too low, since the final photon has large
884: transverse momentum). For the $2\ra 2$ processes $w=1$ by definition.
885:
886: \section{Cross sections of $2\ra 3$ processes
887: for collinear configurations}\label{col}
888:
889: In this Appendix we have collected analytical formulae for
890: the QCD corrections to the Born process
891: in the regions of the phase space labeled
892: as parts 2, 3 and 4 (sec.~\ref{pss}).
893: The formulae are derived with an assumption that parameter $\theta_{cut}$
894: ($R_{cut}$) is small, $0<\theta_{cut}\ll 1$ ($0<R_{cut}\ll 1$),
895: and all terms of order ${\mathcal{O}}(\theta_{cut}^n)$
896: (${\mathcal{O}}(R_{cut}^n)$)
897: are neglected for $n\ge 1$. All the collinear singularities are
898: factorized into appropriate parton distributions with use of the
899: dimensional regularization.
900:
901: The QCD corrections to the Born process have contributions from all
902: parts of the phase space:
903: \be
904: E_{\gamma}{d\sigma^{\gamma p\ra\gamma (jet) X}
905: \over d^3p_{\gamma}}_{| QCD~corr}=
906: \sum_{i=1,2,3,4,5}
907: E_{\gamma}{d\sigma^{\gamma p\ra\gamma (jet) X}_i
908: \over d^3p_{\gamma}}_{| QCD~corr}.
909: \ee
910: As explained in sec.~\ref{pss}, in parts 1 and 5 we use formulae
911: taken from ref.~\cite{Aurenche:1984hc}.
912: The corresponding cross sections for the $\gamma p\ra\gamma (jet) X$
913: reaction in parts 2, 3 and 4 consists of the contributions
914: of the $\gamma q\ra\gamma qg$ and
915: $\gamma g\ra\gamma q\bar{q}$ processes:
916: \bea
917: E_{\gamma}{d\sigma^{\gamma p\ra\gamma (jet) X}_{i}
918: \over d^3p_{\gamma}}_{| QCD~corr.} =
919: \nonumber
920: \eea
921: \be\label{sumi}
922: \makebox[0cm]{}
923: = \int_0^1 \theta(s+t+u)
924: \sum_{q=u,\bar{u}...}^{2N_f} \left [ f_{q/p}(x)
925: E_{\gamma}{d\sigma^{\gamma q\ra\gamma qg}_i\over d^3p_{\gamma}}+
926: f_{g/p}(x)
927: E_{\gamma}{d\sigma^{\gamma g\ra\gamma q\bar{q}}_i\over d^3p_{\gamma}}
928: \right ] dx ~,
929: \ee
930: where i= 2, 3 or 4 and the summation runs over all quarks' and antiquarks'
931: flavours.
932: We include $2 N_f$ flavours in $d\sigma^{\gamma g\ra\gamma q\bar{q}}_{2,3,4}$,
933: since there are $N_f$ possible pairs $q\bar{q}$, and in each
934: pair the quark or antiquark can be collinear to the initial electron,
935: initial proton or to the final photon.
936: The expressions for the partonic cross sections in parts 2, 3 and 4 are:
937: \be
938: E_{\gamma}{d\sigma^{\gamma q\ra\gamma qg}_2\over d^3p_{\gamma}}=
939: {1\over vws^2}
940: {\alpha\over 2\pi} P_{\gamma\ra q\bar{q}}(w,yE_e\theta_{cut})
941: |\bar{M}^{q\bar{q}\ra\gamma g}(v)|^2 ~,
942: \ee
943: \be
944: E_{\gamma}{d\sigma^{\gamma g\ra\gamma q\bar{q}}_2\over d^3p_{\gamma}}=
945: {1\over vws^2}
946: {\alpha\over 2\pi} P_{\gamma\ra q\bar{q}}(w,yE_e\theta_{cut})
947: |\bar{M}^{qg\ra\gamma q}(v)|^2 ~,
948: \ee
949: \be
950: E_{\gamma}{d\sigma^{\gamma q\ra\gamma qg}_3\over d^3p_{\gamma}}=
951: {1\over (1-v)s^2}
952: {\alpha_S\over 2\pi} P_{q\ra qg}({1-v\over 1-vw},xE_p\theta_{cut})
953: |\bar{M}^{\gamma q\ra\gamma q}(vw)|^2 ~,
954: \ee
955: \be
956: E_{\gamma}{d\sigma^{\gamma g\ra\gamma q\bar{q}}_3\over d^3p_{\gamma}}=
957: {1\over (1-v)s^2}
958: {\alpha_S\over 2\pi} P_{g\ra q\bar{q}}({1-v\over 1-vw},xE_p\theta_{cut})
959: |\bar{M}^{\gamma q\ra\gamma q}(vw)|^2 ~,
960: \ee
961: \newpage
962: \bea
963: E_{\gamma}{d\sigma^{\gamma q\ra\gamma qg}_4\over d^3p_{\gamma}}=
964: \nonumber
965: \eea
966: \be
967: \makebox[0cm]{}
968: ={1\over (1-v+vw)s^2}
969: {\alpha\over 2\pi} P_{q\ra\gamma q}(1-v+vw,E_T^{\gamma}R_{cut})
970: |\bar{M}^{\gamma q\ra qg}({vw\over 1-v+vw})|^2 ~,
971: \ee
972: \bea
973: E_{\gamma}{d\sigma^{\gamma g\ra\gamma q\bar{q}}_4\over d^3p_{\gamma}}=
974: \nonumber
975: \eea
976: \be
977: \makebox[0cm]{}
978: ={1\over (1-v+vw)s^2}
979: {\alpha\over 2\pi} P_{q\ra\gamma q}(1-v+vw,E_T^{\gamma}R_{cut})
980: |\bar{M}^{\gamma g\ra q\bar{q}}({vw\over 1-v+vw})|^2 ~,
981: \ee
982: where we have used the notation:
983: \be
984: P_{g\ra q\bar{q}}(z,E) = {1\over 2} \left\{
985: [z^2+(1-z)^2] \ln{(1-z)^2E^2\over \mu^2} +1 \right\} ~,
986: \ee
987: \be
988: P_{\gamma\ra q\bar{q}}(z,E) = 2 N_C e_q^2 P_{g\ra q\bar{q}}(z,E) ~,
989: \ee
990: \be
991: P_{q\ra qg}(z,E) = C_F \left\{
992: {1+z^2\over 1-z}\ln{(1-z)^2E^2\over \mu^2} +1-z \right\} ~,
993: \ee
994: \be
995: P_{q\ra\gamma q}(z,E) = e_q^2 \left\{
996: {1+(1-z)^2\over z}\ln{(1-z)^2E^2\over \mu^2} +z \right\} ~,
997: \ee
998:
999: \be
1000: |\bar{M}^{\gamma g\ra q\bar{q}}(v)|^2 =
1001: \alpha\alpha_S e_q^2 {v^2+(1-v)^2\over v(1-v)} ~,
1002: \ee
1003: \be
1004: |\bar{M}^{q\bar{q}\ra \gamma g}(v)|^2 =
1005: {2C_F\over N_C} |\bar{M}^{\gamma g\ra q\bar{q}}(v)|^2 ~,
1006: \ee
1007: \be
1008: |\bar{M}^{\gamma q\ra\gamma q}(v)|^2 =
1009: 2\alpha^2e_q^4{1+v^2\over v} ~,
1010: \ee
1011: \be
1012: |\bar{M}^{\gamma q\ra qg}(v)|^2 =
1013: {C_F\over e_q^2}{\alpha_S\over\alpha}
1014: |\bar{M}^{\gamma q\ra\gamma q}(1-v)|^2 ~,
1015: \ee
1016: \be
1017: |\bar{M}^{qg\ra\gamma q}(v)|^2 =
1018: {1\over 2 N_C e_q^2}{\alpha_S\over\alpha}
1019: |\bar{M}^{\gamma q\ra\gamma q}(1-v)|^2 ~.
1020: \ee
1021:
1022: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1023: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1024: \newpage
1025: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1026:
1027: \bibitem{Krawczyk:1998it}
1028: M.~Krawczyk and A.~Zembrzuski, in: A.~Astbury, D.~Axen, J.~Robinson (Eds.),
1029: Proceedings of the 29th Int. Conference on High Energy Physics,
1030: ICHEP'98, Vancouver, Canada, July 1998,
1031: World Scientific, 1999, p.895,
1032: %``NLO prediction for the photoproduction of the isolated photon at HERA,''
1033: %{\it Contribution to the XXIXth Int. Conference on High Energy
1034: %Physics, ICHEP'98, Vancouver, Canada, 1998, abstract 889}, IFT 98/12,
1035: arXiv:hep-ph/9810253.
1036: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810253;%%
1037:
1038: \bibitem{Krawczyk:2001tz}
1039: M.~Krawczyk and A.~Zembrzuski,
1040: %``Photoproduction of the isolated photon at DESY HERA in next-to-leading order QCD,''
1041: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 114017.
1042: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0105166].
1043: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105166;%%
1044:
1045: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% REVIEWS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1046:
1047: \bibitem{Klasen:2002xb}
1048: M.~Klasen,
1049: %``Theory of hard photoproduction,''
1050: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 74} (2002) 1221.
1051: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0206169].
1052: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206169;%%
1053:
1054: \bibitem{Krawczyk:2000mf}
1055: M.~Krawczyk, A.~Zembrzuski and M.~Staszel,
1056: %``Survey of present data on photon structure functions and resolved photon processes,''
1057: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 345} (2001) 265
1058: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0011083].
1059: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011083;%%
1060:
1061: \bibitem{Nisius:2000cv}
1062: R.~Nisius,
1063: %``The photon structure from deep inelastic electron photon scattering,''
1064: Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf 332} (2000) 165.
1065: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9912049;%%
1066:
1067: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% DATA %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1068:
1069: %\cite{Breitweg:1997pa}
1070: \bibitem{Breitweg:1997pa}
1071: J.~Breitweg {\it et al.} [ZEUS Collaboration],
1072: %``Observation of isolated high-E(T) photons in photoproduction at HERA,''
1073: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 413} (1997) 201.
1074: %[arXiv:hep-ex/9708038].
1075: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9708038
1076:
1077: %\cite{unknown:uj}
1078: \bibitem{unknown:uj}
1079: ZEUS Collaboration,
1080: %``Prompt Photon Processes In Photoproduction At Hera,''
1081: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=4076745}{SPIRES entry}
1082: prepared for 29th Int. Conference on High Energy Physics (ICHEP 98), Vancouver, Canada, July 1998.
1083:
1084: %\cite{Breitweg:1999su}
1085: \bibitem{Breitweg:1999su}
1086: J.~Breitweg {\it et al.} [ZEUS Collaboration],
1087: %``Measurement of inclusive prompt photon photoproduction at HERA,''
1088: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 472} (2000) 175.
1089: %[arXiv:hep-ex/9910045].
1090: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9910045
1091:
1092: %\cite{Chekanov:2001aq}
1093: \bibitem{Chekanov:2001aq}
1094: S.~Chekanov {\it et al.} [ZEUS Collaboration],
1095: %``Study of the effective transverse momentum of partons in the proton using prompt photons in photoproduction at HERA,''
1096: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 511} (2001) 19.
1097: %[arXiv:hep-ex/0104001].
1098: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0104001
1099:
1100: \bibitem{h12003}
1101: H1 Collaboration, submitted to the Int. Europhysics Conference on
1102: High Energy Physics, EPS03, July 2003, Aachen (Abstract 093), and
1103: to the XXI Int. Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions, LP03,
1104: August 2003, Fermilab.
1105:
1106: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% NON-ISOLATED %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1107:
1108: \bibitem{Bjorken:1969ja}
1109: J.~D.~Bjorken and E.~A.~Paschos,
1110: %``Inelastic Electron Proton And Gamma Proton Scattering, And The Structure Of The Nucleon,''
1111: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 185} (1969) 1975.
1112: %%CITATION = PHRVA,185,1975;%%
1113:
1114: \bibitem{Tu:1979vg}
1115: T.~s.~Tu and C.~m.~Wu,
1116: %``QCD Predictions For Gamma P Collisions With A Large P(T) Real Photon In The Final State,''
1117: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 156} (1979) 493.
1118: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B156,493;%%
1119:
1120: %\bibitem{Iguchi:1979mn}
1121: %K.~Iguchi, A.~Niegawa and Y.~Uranishi,
1122: %``Photon And Pion Productions At Large P(T) In Gamma P Collisions And Perturbative QCD,''
1123: %Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 63} (1980) 1711
1124: %[Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf 64} (1980) 361];
1125: %%CITATION = PTPKA,63,1711;%%
1126:
1127: \bibitem{Iguchi:1980dm}
1128: K.~Iguchi and A.~Niegawa,
1129: %``Photoproductions Of High P(T) Photons And Pions And Parton Transverse Momentum Effects,''
1130: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 64} (1980) 1093;
1131: %%CITATION = PTPKA,64,1093;%%
1132: %
1133: %\bibitem{Iguchi:1980jn}
1134: %K.~Iguchi and A.~Niegawa,
1135: %``Deep Inelastic Compton Scattering And Large P(T) Pion Photoproduction In QCD Hard Collision Model,''
1136: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 9} (1981) 135.
1137: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C9,135;%%
1138:
1139: \bibitem{Fontannaz:1982et}
1140: M.~Fontannaz and D.~Schiff,
1141: %``Revisiting The Deep Compton Effect,''
1142: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 14} (1982) 151.
1143: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C14,151;%%
1144:
1145: \bibitem{Duke:1982bj}
1146: D.~W.~Duke and J.~F.~Owens,
1147: %``Quantum Chromodynamics Corrections To Deep Inelastic Compton Scattering,''
1148: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 26} (1982) 1600
1149: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D26,1600;%
1150: [Erratum-ibid {\bf 28} (1983) 1227].
1151:
1152: \bibitem{Czechowski:1982tp}
1153: A.~Czechowski, M.~Krawczyk, T.~Hofmokl, A.~Jacholkowska and M.~Gorski,
1154: %``Deep Inelastic Compton Process And Large QCD Corrections,''
1155: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 19} (1983) 95.
1156: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C19,95;%%
1157:
1158: \bibitem{Aurenche:1984hc}
1159: P.~Aurenche, A.~Douiri, R.~Baier, M.~Fontannaz and D.~Schiff,
1160: %``The Deep Compton Scattering: Single Photon Spectrum And Photon - Hadron Correlations Beyond Leading Logarithms,''
1161: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 24} (1984) 309.
1162: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C24,309;%%
1163:
1164: \bibitem{Bawa:1988qs}
1165: A.~C.~Bawa and W.~J.~Stirling,
1166: %``Photoproduction Of Large Transverse Momentum Photons At Hera,''
1167: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 14} (1988) 1353.
1168: %%CITATION = JPHGB,G14,1353;%%
1169:
1170: \bibitem{Krawczyk:1990nq}
1171: M.~Krawczyk,
1172: %``Effects Of The Structure Of Photon In Deep Inelastic Compton Process At Hera,''
1173: Acta Physica Polonica B {\bf 21} (1990) 999.
1174: %%CITATION = APPOA,B21,999;%%
1175:
1176: \bibitem{Bawa:1991qx}
1177: A.~C.~Bawa, M.~Krawczyk and W.~J.~Stirling,
1178: %``Deep inelastic Compton scattering at the e p collider HERA,''
1179: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 50} (1991) 293.
1180: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C50,293;%%
1181:
1182: \bibitem{Bawa:1991gd}
1183: A.~C.~Bawa and M.~Krawczyk,
1184: %``Very energetic photons at HERA,''
1185: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 262} (1991) 492.
1186: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B262,492;%%
1187:
1188: \bibitem{Bawa:wu}
1189: A.~C.~Bawa and M.~Krawczyk,
1190: %``Probing The Structure Of Proton And Photon In Deep Inelastic Compton Process At Hera And LEP / LHC,''
1191: %IFT-17-91
1192: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?r=ift-17-91}{SPIRES entry}
1193: %{\it Prepared for Workshop on Physics at HERA, Hamburg, Germany, 29-30 Oct 1991}
1194: Proceedings ``Physics at HERA'', Hamburg 1991, p. 579, IFT-17-91.
1195:
1196: \bibitem{Aurenche:1992sb}
1197: P.~Aurenche, P.~Chiappetta, M.~Fontannaz, J.~P.~Guillet and E.~Pilon,
1198: %``Higher order QCD corrections to the photoproduction of a direct photon at HERA,''
1199: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 56} (1992) 589.
1200: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C56,589;%%
1201:
1202: \bibitem{Gordon:1994sm}
1203: L.~E.~Gordon and J.~K.~Storrow,
1204: %``Large p(T) prompt photon production at HERA,''
1205: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 63} (1994) 581.
1206: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C63,581;%%
1207:
1208: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ISOLATED %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1209:
1210: \bibitem{Gordon:1995km}
1211: L.~E.~Gordon and W.~Vogelsang,
1212: %``Isolated prompt photon production at HERA,''
1213: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52} (1995) 58;
1214: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D52,58;%%
1215: %
1216: %\bibitem{Gordon:1996xf}
1217: %L.~E.~Gordon and W.~Vogelsang,
1218: %``Isolated prompt photon production at HERA,''
1219: %talk presented
1220: %by W. Vogelsang at the Int. Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering
1221: %and Related Phenomena, Rome, Italy, April 1996,
1222: hep-ph/9606457.
1223: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9606457;%%
1224:
1225: \bibitem{Fontannaz:2001ek}
1226: M.~Fontannaz, J.~P.~Guillet and G.~Heinrich,
1227: %``Isolated prompt photon photoproduction at NLO,''
1228: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 21} (2001) 303
1229: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0105121].
1230: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105121;%%
1231:
1232: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ISOLATED + JET %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1233:
1234: \bibitem{Gordon:1998yt}
1235: L.~E.~Gordon,
1236: %``Prompt photon plus jet photoproduction at HERA at next-to-leading order in QCD,''
1237: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57} (1998) 235.
1238: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9707464;%%
1239:
1240: %\cite{Fontannaz:2001nq}
1241: \bibitem{Fontannaz:2001nq}
1242: M.~Fontannaz, J.~P.~Guillet and G.~Heinrich,
1243: %``Is a large intrinsic k(T) needed to describe photon + jet photoproduction at HERA?,''
1244: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 22} (2001) 303.
1245: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0107262].
1246: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107262;%%
1247:
1248: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ISOLATED in DIS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1249:
1250: \bibitem{Kramer:1998nb}
1251: G.~Kramer, D.~Michelsen and H.~Spiesberger,
1252: %``Production of hard photons and jets in deep inelastic lepton proton scattering at order O(alpha(s)),''
1253: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 5} (1998) 293;
1254: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712309;%%
1255: %
1256: %\bibitem{Gehrmann-DeRidder:1999wy}
1257: A.~Gehrmann-De Ridder, G.~Kramer and H.~Spiesberger,
1258: %``Photon plus jet production in large {$Q^2$} e p collisions at next-to-leading order {QCD},''
1259: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 459} (1999) 271;
1260: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903377;%%
1261: %
1262: %\bibitem{Gehrmann-DeRidder:1999yu}
1263: %A.~Gehrmann-De Ridder, G.~Kramer and H.~Spiesberger,
1264: %``Photon fragmentation in large-Q**2 e p collisions at next-to-leading order QCD,''
1265: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 11} (1999) 137;
1266: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907511;%%
1267: %
1268: %\bibitem{Gehrmann-DeRidder:2000ce}
1269: %A.~Gehrmann-De Ridder, G.~Kramer and H.~Spiesberger,
1270: %``Photon plus jet cross sections in deep inelastic e p collisions at order O(alpha**2 alpha(s)),''
1271: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 578} (2000) 326.
1272: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003082;%%
1273:
1274: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% DATA %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1275:
1276: \bibitem{h11997} H1 Collaboration, Abstract 265, submitted to the
1277: Int. Europhysics Conference
1278: on High Energy Physics, HEP97, Jerusalem, Israel, August 1997.
1279:
1280: \bibitem{Bussey2001}
1281: P.J. Bussey, talk given at the 9th Int. Workshop on Deep Inelastic
1282: Scattering, Bologna, Italy, 27 April - 1 May 2001;
1283: %
1284: see also
1285: %\bibitem{Bussey:2001xg}
1286: %P.~J.~Bussey [ZEUS Collaboration],
1287: %``Prompt photons in photoproduction at HERA,''
1288: arXiv:hep-ex/0107063.
1289: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0107063;%%
1290:
1291: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% PHOTON %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1292:
1293: \bibitem{Walsh:1973mz}
1294: T.~F.~Walsh and P.~M.~Zerwas,
1295: %``Two Photon Processes In The Parton Model,''
1296: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 44} (1973) 195;
1297: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B44,195;%%
1298: %
1299: %\bibitem{Witten:ju}
1300: E.~Witten,
1301: %``Anomalous Cross-Section For Photon - Photon Scattering In Gauge Theories,''
1302: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 120} (1977) 189;
1303: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B120,189;%%
1304: %
1305: %\bibitem{Bardeen:1978hg}
1306: W.~A.~Bardeen and A.~J.~Buras,
1307: %``Higher Order Asymptotic Freedom Corrections To Photon - Photon Scattering,''
1308: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 20} (1979) 166
1309: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 21} (1980) 2041].
1310: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D20,166;%%
1311:
1312: \bibitem{DeWitt:1978wn}
1313: R.~J.~DeWitt, L.~M.~Jones, J.~D.~Sullivan, D.~E.~Willen and H.~W.~Wyld,
1314: %``Anomalous Components Of The Photon Structure Functions,''
1315: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 19} (1979) 2046
1316: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 20} (1979) 1751].
1317: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D19,2046;%%
1318:
1319: \bibitem{Chyla:1999mw}
1320: J.~Ch\'yla,
1321: %``When semantics turns to substance: Reformulating QCD analysis of F2(gamma)(x,Q**2),''
1322: JHEP {\bf 0004} (2000) 007;
1323: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9911413].
1324: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911413;%%
1325: %
1326: %\bibitem{Chyla:1998xe}
1327: %J.~Chyla,
1328: %``Factorization scheme analysis of F2(gamma)(x,Q**2) and parton distribution functions of the photon,''
1329: arXiv:hep-ph/9811455;
1330: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811455;%%
1331: %
1332: %\bibitem{Chyla:2000ai}
1333: %J.~Chyla,
1334: %``Heavy quark production in gamma gamma collisions: A theoretical reappraisal,''
1335: arXiv:hep-ph/0010140;
1336: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010140;%%
1337: %
1338: %\bibitem{Chyla:2000jz}
1339: %J.~Chyla,
1340: %``QCD analysis of F2(gamma)(x,Q**2): An unconventional view,''
1341: arXiv:hep-ph/0010309.
1342: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010309;%%
1343:
1344: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% BOX %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1345:
1346: \bibitem{Combridge:1980sx}
1347: B.~L.~Combridge,
1348: %``Consequences Of The Photon - Gluon Induced Couplings Of QCD,''
1349: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 174} (1980) 243.
1350: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B174,243;%%
1351:
1352: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% EPA %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1353:
1354: \bibitem{vonWeizsacker:1934sx}
1355: C.~F.~von Weizs\"{a}cker,
1356: %``Radiation Emitted In Collisions Of Very Fast Electrons,''
1357: Z.\ Phys.\ {\bf 88} (1934) 612.
1358: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,88,612;%%
1359:
1360: \bibitem{Williams:1934ad}
1361: E.~J.~Williams,
1362: %``Nature Of The High-Energy Particles Of Penetrating Radiation And Status Of Ionization And Radiation Formulae,''
1363: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 45} (1934) 729.
1364: %%CITATION = PHRVA,45,729;%%
1365:
1366: %E.J. Williams, Kgl. Danske Vidensk. Selskab. Mat.-Fiz. Medd.
1367: %13 (1935) N4
1368:
1369: \bibitem{Budnev:1974de}
1370: V.~M.~Budnev, I.~F.~Ginzburg, G.~V.~Meledin and V.~G.~Serbo,
1371: %``The Two Photon Particle Production Mechanism. Physical Problems. Applications. Equivalent Photon Approximation,''
1372: Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf 15} (1975) 181.
1373: %%CITATION = PRPLC,15,181;%%
1374:
1375: \bibitem{Frixione:1993yw}
1376: S.~Frixione, M.~L.~Mangano, P.~Nason and G.~Ridolfi,
1377: %``Improving the Weizsacker-Williams approximation in electron - proton collisions,''
1378: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 319} (1993) 339.
1379: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9310350].
1380: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9310350;%%
1381:
1382: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% JET %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1383:
1384: %\cite{Ellis:tq}
1385: \bibitem{Ellis:tq}
1386: S.~D.~Ellis and D.~E.~Soper,
1387: %``Successive Combination Jet Algorithm For Hadron Collisions,''
1388: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48} (1993) 3160;
1389: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9305266].
1390: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9305266;%%
1391: %
1392: %\cite{Catani:1993hr}
1393: %\bibitem{Catani:1993hr}
1394: S.~Catani, Y.~L.~Dokshitzer, M.~H.~Seymour and B.~R.~Webber,
1395: %``Longitudinally invariant K(t) clustering algorithms for hadron-hadron collisions,''
1396: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 406} (1993) 187.
1397: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B406,187;%%
1398:
1399: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% NLO %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1400:
1401: \bibitem{jan} J. \.Zochowski, {\it ``The corrections of order
1402: $\alpha_S$ in Deep Inelastic Compton Scattering'', MS Thesis, 1992}.
1403:
1404: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ALPHA_S %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1405:
1406: \bibitem{Bethke:2002rv}
1407: S.~Bethke,
1408: %``alpha(s) 2002,''
1409: arXiv:hep-ex/0211012;
1410: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0211012
1411: %
1412: %\bibitem{Bethke:2000ai}
1413: %S.~Bethke,
1414: %``Determination of the QCD coupling alpha(s),''
1415: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 26} (2000) R27.
1416: %[arXiv:hep-ex/0004021].
1417: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0004021
1418:
1419: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% DENSITIES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1420:
1421: \bibitem{Gluck:1995uf}
1422: M.~Gl\"uck, E.~Reya and A.~Vogt,
1423: %``Dynamical parton distributions of the proton and small x physics,''
1424: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 67} (1995) 433.
1425: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C67,433;%%
1426:
1427: \bibitem{Gluck:1992ee}
1428: M.~Gl\"uck, E.~Reya and A.~Vogt,
1429: %``Parton structure of the photon beyond the leading order,''
1430: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 45} (1992) 3986;
1431: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D45,3986;%%
1432: %
1433: %\bibitem{Gluck:1992jc}
1434: %M.~Gl\"uck, E.~Reya and A.~Vogt,
1435: %``Photonic parton distributions,''
1436: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46} (1992) 1973.
1437: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D46,1973;%%
1438:
1439: \bibitem{Gluck:1993zx}
1440: M.~Gl\"uck, E.~Reya and A.~Vogt,
1441: %``Parton fragmentation into photons beyond the leading order,''
1442: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48} (1993) 116.
1443: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D48,116;%%
1444:
1445: \bibitem{Martin:2002aw}
1446: A.~D.~Martin, R.~G.~Roberts, W.~J.~Stirling and R.~S.~Thorne,
1447: %``Uncertainties of predictions from parton distributions. I: Experimental errors,''
1448: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 28} (2003) 455.
1449: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0211080].
1450: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211080;%%
1451:
1452: \bibitem{Pumplin:2002vw}
1453: J.~Pumplin, D.~R.~Stump, J.~Huston, H.~L.~Lai, P.~Nadolsky and W.~K.~Tung,
1454: %``New generation of parton distributions with uncertainties from global QCD analysis,''
1455: JHEP {\bf 0207} (2002) 012.
1456: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0201195].
1457: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201195;%%
1458:
1459: \bibitem{Aurenche:1994in}
1460: P.~Aurenche, J.~P.~Guillet and M.~Fontannaz,
1461: %``Parton distributions in the photon,''
1462: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 64} (1994) 621.
1463: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9406382].
1464: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9406382;%%
1465:
1466: \bibitem{afg02}
1467: P.~Aurenche, J.~P.~Guillet and M.~Fontannaz, 2002. This is a new version
1468: of the AFG parametrization~\cite{Aurenche:1994in}. Some informations
1469: about it can be found in the ref.~\cite{Fontannaz:2002nu}.
1470:
1471: \bibitem{Fontannaz:2002nu}
1472: M.~Fontannaz, J.~P.~Guillet and G.~Heinrich,
1473: %``A NLO calculation of the hadron-jet cross section in photoproduction reactions,''
1474: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 26} (2002) 209.
1475: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0206202].
1476: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206202;%%
1477:
1478: \bibitem{Gordon:1997pm}
1479: L.~E.~Gordon and J.~K.~Storrow,
1480: %``New parton distribution functions for the photon,''
1481: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 489} (1997) 405.
1482: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9607370;%%
1483:
1484: \bibitem{Cornet:2002iy}
1485: F.~Cornet, P.~Jankowski, M.~Krawczyk and A.~Lorca,
1486: %``A new 5 flavor LO analysis and parametrization of parton distributions in the real photon,''
1487: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68} (2003) 014010.
1488: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0212160].
1489: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212160;%%
1490:
1491: \bibitem{Bourhis:1997yu}
1492: L.~Bourhis, M.~Fontannaz and J.~P.~Guillet,
1493: %``Quark and gluon fragmentation functions into photons,''
1494: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 2} (1998) 529.
1495: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9704447].
1496: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704447;%%
1497:
1498: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1499:
1500: \bibitem{Jezuita-Dabrowska:bp}
1501: U.~Jezuita-D\c{a}browska and M.~Krawczyk,
1502: %``How Important Are The Longitudinal Virtual Photons In The Semi-Inclusive E P Processes?,''
1503: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 34} (2003) 3133;
1504: %%CITATION = APPOA,B34,3133;%%
1505: %
1506: %\bibitem{Jezuita-Dabrowska:2002jw}
1507: %U.~Jezuita-Dabrowska and M.~Krawczyk,
1508: %``Longitudinal virtual photons and the interference terms in ep collisions,''
1509: arXiv:hep-ph/0211112.
1510: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211112;%%
1511:
1512: \bibitem{ula} U. Jezuita-D\c{a}browska, {\it ``The polarization states
1513: of the virtual photon in $ep \rightarrow e\gamma X$ at the HERA collider'',
1514: MS Thesis, 1999}.
1515:
1516: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% DATA %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1517:
1518: \bibitem{Lemrani:2003mj}
1519: R.~Lemrani [H1 Collaboration],
1520: %``Prompt photon production at HERA,''
1521: arXiv:hep-ex/0308066.
1522: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0308066;%%
1523:
1524: \end{thebibliography}
1525:
1526: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1527: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1528:
1529: ~\newpage
1530: \vspace*{7.cm}
1531: \begin{figure}[ht]
1532: \vskip 17cm\relax\noindent\hskip -2cm
1533: \relax{\special{psfile=nojet.ptgamma.ps}}
1534: \vspace{-15.5cm}
1535: \vskip 24.5cm\relax\noindent\hskip -2cm
1536: \relax{\special{psfile=nojet.etagamma.ps}}
1537: \vspace{-16.cm}
1538: \caption{\small\sl The comparison between predictions
1539: obtained in the small cone approximation (dashed line) and exact
1540: ones (solid line)
1541: for the $ep\ra e\gamma X$ photoproduction.
1542: The $d\sigma /dE_T^{\gamma}$ (a) and
1543: $d\sigma /d\eta_{\gamma}$ (b) cross sections are shown.}
1544: \label{fig:nojet}
1545: \end{figure}
1546:
1547: \vspace*{7.cm}
1548: \begin{figure}[ht]
1549: \vskip 17cm\relax\noindent\hskip -2cm
1550: \relax{\special{psfile=ptgamma.ps}}
1551: \vspace{-15.5cm}
1552: \vskip 24.5cm\relax\noindent\hskip -2cm
1553: \relax{\special{psfile=ptgamma.bins.ps}}
1554: \vspace{-16.cm}
1555: \caption{\small\sl The differential cross section $d\sigma /dE_T^{\gamma}$
1556: (a) and the differential cross section $d\sigma /dE_T^{\gamma}$ averaged
1557: over $E_T^{\gamma}$-bins (b) for the $ep\ra e\gamma ~jet ~X$ process.
1558: The NLO predictions for $E_T^{\gamma}=\mu$ (a) and for $\mu$ between
1559: $E_T^{\gamma}/2$ and $2E_T^{\gamma}$ (b) are shown together with
1560: the LO predictions.}
1561: \label{fig:ptgamma}
1562: \end{figure}
1563:
1564: \vspace*{7.cm}
1565: \begin{figure}[ht]
1566: \vskip 17cm\relax\noindent\hskip -2cm
1567: \relax{\special{psfile=ptjet.ps}}
1568: \vspace{-15.5cm}
1569: \vskip 24.5cm\relax\noindent\hskip -2cm
1570: \relax{\special{psfile=etajet.ps}}
1571: \vspace{-16.cm}
1572: \caption{\small\sl
1573: The NLO predictions with $\mu$ between $E_T^{\gamma}/2$ and $2E_T^{\gamma}$
1574: and the LO predictions for $d\sigma /dE_T^{jet}$ (a) and $d\sigma /d\eta^{jet}$
1575: (b) distributions.}
1576: \label{fig:jet}
1577: \end{figure}
1578:
1579: \vspace*{7.5cm}
1580: \begin{figure}[ht]
1581: \vskip 17.cm\relax\noindent\hskip -2cm
1582: \relax{\special{psfile=etagamma.ps}}
1583: \vspace{-16cm}
1584: \caption{\small\sl The differential cross section $d\sigma /d\eta^{\gamma}$
1585: for GRV~\cite{Gluck:1995uf}, MRST2002~\cite{Martin:2002aw} and
1586: CTEQ6~\cite{Pumplin:2002vw} parton distributions in the proton.}
1587: \label{fig:etagamma}
1588: \end{figure}
1589:
1590: \vspace*{7.5cm}
1591: \begin{figure}[ht]
1592: \vskip 17.cm\relax\noindent\hskip -2cm
1593: \relax{\special{psfile=x.10bins.ps}}
1594: \vspace{-16cm}
1595: \caption{\small\sl The differential cross section $d\sigma /dx_{\gamma}^{obs}$
1596: for GRV~\cite{Gluck:1992ee}, GS~\cite{Gordon:1997pm}
1597: and AFG02~\cite{afg02} parton distributions in the photon.}
1598: \label{fig:x}
1599: \end{figure}
1600:
1601: \end{document}
1602:
1603: