1: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
2: \hoffset=-1cm
3: \voffset=-1cm
4: \textwidth=15.5cm
5: \textheight=22cm
6:
7: \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
8: \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
9:
10:
11: \usepackage{epsfig}
12: \newcommand{\lsim}{\,{\buildrel < \over {_\sim}}\,}
13: \newcommand{\gsim}{\,{\buildrel > \over {_\sim}}\,}
14:
15: \newcommand{\ptD}{p_T^{\scriptscriptstyle D}}
16: \newcommand{\shat}{{\hat s}}
17: \newcommand{\that}{{\hat t}}
18: \newcommand{\uhat}{{\hat u}}
19:
20: \begin{document}
21:
22: \begin{titlepage}
23: \begin{flushright}
24: HIP-2004-06/TH\\
25: LBNL-54671\\
26: hep-ph/0403098
27: \end{flushright}
28: \vfill
29: \begin{centering}
30:
31: {\bf $D$ MESON ENHANCEMENT IN $pp$ COLLISIONS AT THE LHC
32: DUE TO NONLINEAR GLUON EVOLUTION}
33:
34: \vspace{0.5cm}
35: A. Dainese\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}\setcounter{footnote}{0}\footnote{andrea.dainese@pd.infn.it},
36: \\
37: \vspace{0.15cm}
38:
39: {\em \small University of Padova and INFN, via Marzolo 8, 35131 Padova, Italy}
40: \vspace{0.3cm}
41:
42: R. Vogt\footnote{vogt@lbl.gov}, \\
43: \vspace{0.15cm}
44:
45: {\em \small
46: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA \\
47: Physics Department, University of California, Davis, CA 95616,
48: USA}
49: \vspace{0.3cm}
50:
51: M. Bondila\footnote{mariana.bondila@phys.jyu.fi},
52: K.J. Eskola\footnote{kari.eskola@phys.jyu.fi}, and
53: V.J. Kolhinen\footnote{vesa.kolhinen@phys.jyu.fi} \\
54: \vspace{0.15cm}
55:
56: {\em \small Department of Physics,
57: P.O. Box 35, FIN-40014 University of Jyv\"askyl\"a, Finland \\
58: Helsinki Institute of Physics,
59: P.O. Box 64, FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland}
60:
61: \vspace{1cm}
62: {\bf Abstract} \\
63: \end{centering}
64:
65: When nonlinear effects on the gluon evolution are included with constraints
66: from HERA, the gluon distribution in the free proton is enhanced at low
67: momentum fractions, $x \, \lsim \,
68: 0.01$, and low scales, $Q^2\lsim 10$ GeV$^2$,
69: relative to standard, DGLAP-evolved, gluon distributions. Consequently, such
70: gluon distributions can enhance charm production in $pp$ collisions at center
71: of mass energy 14 TeV by up to a factor of five at midrapidity,
72: $y\sim0$, and transverse momentum
73: $p_T\rightarrow0$ in the most optimistic case.
74: We show that most of this enhancement survives hadronization into $D$ mesons.
75: Assuming the same
76: enhancement at leading and next-to-leading order, we show that
77: the $D$ enhancement may be measured by $D^0$ reconstruction in the $K^-\pi^+$
78: decay channel with the ALICE detector.
79:
80: \vspace{0.3cm}\noindent
81:
82: \vfill
83: \end{titlepage}
84:
85: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
86:
87: \section{Introduction}
88:
89: The parton distribution functions, PDFs, of the free proton are
90: determined through global fits obtained using the leading-order, LO,
91: next-to-leading order, NLO, or even next-to-next-to-leading order, NNLO,
92: formulation of the Dokshitzer, Gribov, Lipatov, Altarelli and Parisi, DGLAP,
93: scale evolution equations~\cite{DGLAP}.
94: In particular, the HERA data on the proton structure function $F_2(x,Q^2)$
95: \cite{HERA} as a function of Bjorken-$x$ and
96: squared momentum transfer $Q^2$, and, especially, the $Q^2$ slope,
97: $\partial F_2(x,Q^2)/\partial \ln Q^2$, in the
98: small-$x$, $3\times 10^{-5}\, \lsim x \lsim \,5\times 10^{-3}$,
99: and small-$Q^2$ region, $1.5 \, \lsim Q^2 \lsim 10$~GeV$^2$,
100: set rather stringent constraints on the small-$x$ gluon
101: distributions. The agreement of the global fits with the measured
102: $F_2(x,Q^2)$ is, in general, very good but certain problems arise.
103: When the small-$x$ and small-$Q^2$ region is included in the DGLAP fits,
104: they are not as good as the excellent ones obtained at larger values of $x$
105: and $Q^2$~\cite{MRS03}. In addition, some NLO gluon distributions
106: \cite{MRST2001} become negative at small $x$ for $Q^2$ on the order of a few
107: GeV$^2$.
108:
109: The kernels of the DGLAP equations only describe splitting of one parton into
110: two or more so that the resulting equations are linear in the PDFs. This
111: ignores the fact that, at low $Q^2$, the small-$x$ gluon density may increase
112: to the point where gluon fusion becomes significant. These fusions generate
113: nonlinearities in the evolution equations. The first nonlinear corrections,
114: the GLRMQ terms, were derived by Gribov, Levin and Ryskin and also
115: by Mueller and Qiu~\cite{GLRMQ}. Eventually, at even smaller $x$ and $Q^2$,
116: nonlinearities are expected to dominate the evolution to all orders. This
117: fully nonlinear region, where both the linear DGLAP evolution and the
118: GLRMQ-corrected DGLAP evolution are inapplicable, is the gluon saturation
119: region, see e.g. Ref.~\cite{EHKQSinHPC}.
120:
121: Outside the saturation region, incorporating the nonlinearities may improve
122: the global fits when the small-$x$ and $Q^2$ regions are included.
123: Recent work in Ref.~\cite{EHKQS}, where the LO DGLAP evolution equations
124: were supplemented by the GLRMQ terms, showed that the nonlinearly-evolved PDFs
125: reproduce the HERA $F_2$ measurements at $x \, \gsim \, 3\times 10^{-5}$ and
126: $Q^2\, \gsim \, 1.5\,{\rm GeV}^2$~\cite{HERA} equally well or even better
127: than the conventional LO PDFs such as CTEQ6L~\cite{CTEQ6}. The
128: nonlinearly-evolved gluon distributions at $Q^2\, \lsim \, 10$ GeV$^2$ and
129: $x\, \lsim \, 0.01$, however, were clearly enhanced relative to CTEQ6L and
130: CTEQ61L~\cite{cteq61}. As shown in Fig.~1 of Ref.~\cite{EKV2}, the enhancement
131: arises because the nonlinear evolution is slower than DGLAP alone.
132: At higher $x$ and $Q^2$ the nonlinear and linear evolution of the
133: gluon distributions should become very similar to fit the same data.
134: An enhancement can also be expected at NLO.
135: However, since the NLO small-$x$ gluon distributions are typically reduced
136: relative to LO, at NLO the enhancement may be smaller than at LO~\cite{MRS03}.
137:
138: Since the same HERA data can be reproduced by linear evolution starting from
139: a relatively flat gluon distribution and by nonlinear evolution with
140: clearly enhanced small-$x$ gluons, other observables are necessary
141: to probe the effects of the nonlinearities. In Ref.~\cite{EKV2},
142: charm production in $pp$ collisions at the LHC was suggested as a
143: promising candidate process. Due to gluon dominance of charm production
144: and the small values of $x$ and $Q^2$ probed, $x \approx 2 \times 10^{-4}$ and
145: $Q^2 \approx 1.69 - 6$ GeV$^2$ at midrapidity and
146: transverse momentum\footnote{Here we use $p_T$ for the transverse
147: momentum of the charm quark and $\ptD$ for the transverse momentum of the
148: $D$ meson.}
149: $p_T \approx 0$, charm production at
150: the LHC is sensitive to the gluon enhancement. The resulting charm
151: enhancement was quantified in Ref.~\cite{EKV2} by the LO ratios
152: of the differential cross sections computed with the nonlinearly-evolved
153: EHKQS PDFs~\cite{EHKQS}, obtained from DGLAP+GLRMQ evolution,
154: relative to the DGLAP-evolved CTEQ61L PDFs.
155:
156: The enhancement of the nonlinearly-evolved gluons increases as $x$ and $Q^2$
157: decrease. Consequently, the charm enhancement increases with center of mass
158: energy, $\sqrt{s}$. Thus the maximum enhancement at the LHC will be at
159: $\sqrt s = 14$~TeV and small charm quark transverse momentum.
160: The sensitivity of the charm
161: enhancement to the value of the charm quark mass, $m_c$,
162: as well as to the choice of the factorization, $Q_F^2$,
163: and renormalization, $Q_R^2$, scales was studied in Ref.~\cite{EKV2}
164: assuming
165: $Q^2 = Q_F^2 = Q_R^2 \propto m_T^2$, the charm transverse mass squared,
166: $m_T^2 = p_T^2 + m_c^2$. For the most significant charm enhancement, $m_c$ and
167: $Q^2/m_T^2$ should both be small. A comparison of the
168: NLO total cross sections with low energy data shows that the data prefer such
169: small $m_c$ and $Q^2$
170: combinations~\cite{HPC,rvww02}. The
171: smallest scales and thus the largest enhancement are obtained with
172: $m_c=1.3$~GeV and $Q^2=m_T^2$.
173: In this case, the ratio of the inclusive
174: differential cross section, $d^3\sigma/dp_T dy dy_2$, computed with
175: EHKQS set 1 relative to CTEQ61L is greater than 5 for rapidities
176: $|y, y_2|\, \lsim \, 2$ where $y$ and $y_2$ are the $c$ and $\overline c$
177: rapidities, respectively.
178:
179: In Ref.~\cite{EKV2}, the enhancement was described only for charm production.
180: Neither its subsequent hadronization to $D$ mesons nor its decay and detection
181: were considered.
182: In this paper, we address these issues to determine whether the
183: charm enhancement survives hadronization and $D$ decay. At the LHC, the ALICE
184: detector~\cite{aliceTP}
185: is perhaps in the best position for measuring such an enhancement
186: since it is capable of reconstructing $D^0$ hadronic decays down to very low
187: transverse momentum.
188:
189: We first consider how much of the LO charm enhancement survives in the final
190: state $D$ meson distributions.
191: Charm quarks are hadronized using the PYTHIA string
192: fragmentation model~\cite{pythia}. We show that, for the most optimistic case
193: with a factor of five charm enhancement for $p_T \rightarrow 0$,
194: the $D$ enhancement is a factor of three for
195: $\ptD \rightarrow 0$.
196:
197: Since the ALICE detector allows direct measurement of the $D$ meson $p_T$
198: distribution through $D^0$ reconstruction in the $K^- \pi^+$ decay
199: channel, we then determine whether or not the surviving $D$ enhancement can be
200: detected above the expected
201: experimental statistical and systematic uncertainties.
202: To determine realistic statistical uncertainties, we calculate the NLO cross
203: section in the way most compatible with our LO enhancement, as described below.
204: Then, using the error analysis
205: developed by one of us (A.D.) in Ref.~\cite{thesisAD}, we demonstrate that
206: detection of the enhancement is possible.
207:
208: Finally, we consider whether NLO charm cross sections,
209: calculated with linearly-evolved PDFs and different
210: combinations of $m_c$, $Q_F^2$ and $Q_R^2$,
211: can mimic the charm enhancement. Our
212: results show that this is unlikely.
213:
214: This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we describe our charm
215: calculations and define how the NLO cross section most compatible with the
216: LO enhancement is computed. Hadronization and reconstruction of $D^0$ mesons
217: are considered in Sections 3 and 4, respectively, along with a discussion of
218: the experimental uncertainties. We then generate ``data'' based on the
219: enhanced cross sections and the experimental uncertainties. These data are
220: then compared to compatible NLO calculations to learn whether the enhancement
221: is measurable for a unique set of parameters in Section 5. We conclude in
222: Section 6.
223:
224: \section{Charm enhancement from nonlinear PDF evolution}
225:
226: According to collinear factorization, the inclusive differential charm
227: hadroproduction cross sections at high energies can be written as
228: \begin{eqnarray}
229: d\sigma_{pp\rightarrow c \overline c X}(\sqrt s,m_c,Q_R^2,Q_F^2)
230: &=&
231: \sum_{i,j=q,\overline q,g}
232: f_i(x_1,Q_F^2)\otimes f_j(x_2,Q_F^2) \nonumber \\
233: && \otimes \, d\hat \sigma_{ij\rightarrow c \overline c \{k\}}
234: (\alpha_s(Q_R^2),Q_F^2,m_c,x_1,x_2),
235: \label{sigcc}
236: \end{eqnarray}
237: where $d\hat \sigma_{ij\rightarrow c \overline c\{k\} }$ is the perturbative
238: partonic hard part, calculable as a power series in the strong
239: coupling $\alpha_s(Q_R^2)$.
240: The proton PDFs for each parton $i(j)$ at fractional momentum $x_1 (x_2)$
241: and factorization scale $Q_F^2$
242: are denoted by $f_i(x,Q_F^2)$. At LO,
243: where $d\hat\sigma \propto \alpha_s^2(Q_R^2)$, only the subprocesses
244: $gg\rightarrow c\overline c$ and $q\overline q\rightarrow c\overline c$
245: are allowed~\cite{COMBRIDGE} so that $\{k\}=0$. At NLO,
246: where $d\hat \sigma \propto \alpha_s^3(Q_R^2)$,
247: subprocesses where $\{k\}\ne0$, e.g.\
248: $gg\rightarrow c\overline c g$ and $gq\rightarrow c\overline c q$ contribute.
249: The $g q$ channel, new at NLO, only contributes
250: a few percent of the total cross section.
251:
252: The charm production enhancement studied here and in
253: Ref.~\cite{EKV2} results from the nonlinearly-evolved EHKQS
254: PDFs\footnote{These PDFs are available at www.urhic.phys.jyu.fi.} where the
255: gluon distribution is enhanced
256: for $x \, \lsim \, 0.01$ at the few-GeV scales. The EHKQS
257: PDFs were constructed in Ref.~\cite{EHKQS} using CTEQ5L
258: \cite{CTEQ5} and CTEQ6L as baselines with the HERA data
259: \cite{HERA} as constraints. The EHKQS sets have initial scale
260: $Q_0^2 = 1.4$~GeV$^2$ and a
261: four-flavor $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ value of $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^{(4)} =
262: 0.192$~GeV. Following Ref.~\cite{EKV2}, we quantify
263: the charm enhancement against charm production computed with the
264: CTEQ61L LO PDFs where the data were fit with the one-loop $\alpha_s$.
265: The CTEQ61L set takes $Q_0^2 = 1.69$~GeV$^2$ and
266: $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^{(4)} = 0.215$~GeV. For consistency, we
267: calculate $\alpha_s$ at one loop with the appropriate value of
268: $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^{(4)}$ for each set.
269:
270: Previously~\cite{EKV2}, we worked at LO only since the
271: EHKQS sets are evolved according to the LO DGLAP+GLRMQ
272: equations
273: using a one-loop evaluation of $\alpha_s$.
274: Thus these LO distributions should generally not be mixed
275: with NLO matrix elements and the two-loop $\alpha_s$. However, the charm quark
276: total cross section is increased and the
277: $p_T$ distribution is broadened at NLO relative to LO~\cite{RVkfac}.
278: Thus, to determine whether or not the enhancement is experimentally measurable,
279: we must go beyond the ratio presented in Ref.~\cite{EKV2}. To accomplish this,
280: we assume that the enhancement will be the same at NLO as at LO and
281: employ a NLO cross section closest to the calculation of the enhancement
282: in Ref.~\cite{EKV2}.
283:
284: As described in Ref.~\cite{RVkfac}, the theoretical $K$ factor may be
285: defined in more than one way, depending on how the LO contribution to the
286: cross section is calculated. In all cases, the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$
287: contribution to cross section is calculated using NLO PDFs and the two-loop
288: evaluation of $\alpha_s$. If the LO contribution is also calculated using
289: NLO PDFs and a two-loop $\alpha_s$, this is the ``standard NLO'' cross section.
290: It is used in most NLO codes, both in the global analyses of the NLO PDFs and
291: in evaluations of cross sections and rates \cite{RVkfac}. The $K$ factor
292: formed when taking the ratio of the ``standard NLO'' cross section to the
293: LO cross section with the NLO PDFs \cite{RVkfac}, $K_0^{(1)}$,
294: indicates the convergence of
295: terms in a fixed-order calculation \cite{klmv_cc}.
296: On the other hand, if the LO
297: contribution to the total NLO cross section employs LO PDFs and the one-loop
298: $\alpha_s$, we
299: have a cross section which we refer to here as ``alternative NLO''.
300: The $K$ factor calculated taking the ratio of the ``alternative NLO'' cross section to the
301: LO cross section with LO PDFs \cite{RVkfac}, $K_2^{(1)}$, indicates the
302: convergence of the hadronic cross section toward a result. If $K_0^{(1)} >
303: K_2^{(1)}$, convergence of the hadronic cross section is more likely
304: \cite{klmv_cc}. This is indeed the case for charm production \cite{RVkfac}.
305: We also note that $K_2^{(1)}$ is a much weaker function of energy than
306: $K_0^{(1)}$.
307: Since, in the absence of nonlinear NLO PDFs,
308: the ``alternative NLO'' cross section is more consistent with
309: the enhancement calculated in Ref.~\cite{EKV2}, we use this cross section to
310: calculate the NLO $D$ meson rates and $p_T$ spectra. We note also that,
311: in both cases, the $p_T$ distributions have the same slope even though
312: $K_2^{(1)}$, for the alternative NLO cross section, is somewhat smaller.
313: Thus, using a non-standard NLO calculation will not change the slope of the
314: $p_T$ distributions, distorting the result.
315:
316: The LO and NLO calculations used to obtain the full NLO result in
317: both cases can be defined by modification of Eq.~(\ref{sigcc}). For
318: simplicity, we drop the dependence of the cross section on
319: $\sqrt{s}$, $m_c$, $Q_F^2$ and $Q_R^2$
320: on the left-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{sigcc}) in the following.
321: We thus define the full LO charm production cross section as
322: \begin{eqnarray}
323: d\sigma_{\rm LO}^{\rm 1L} =
324: \sum_{i,j=q,\overline q,g}
325: f_i^{\rm LO}(x_1,Q_F^2)\otimes f_j^{\rm LO}(x_2,Q_F^2)
326: \otimes d\hat \sigma^{\rm LO}_{ij\rightarrow c \overline c}
327: (\alpha_s^{\rm 1L}(Q_R^2),x_1,x_2)
328: \label{sigflo}
329: \end{eqnarray}
330: where the superscript ``LO'' on $d\hat \sigma_{ij\rightarrow c \overline c}$
331: indicates the use of the
332: LO matrix elements while the superscript ``1L'' indicates that the
333: one-loop expression of $\alpha_s$ is used. The LO cross section typically used
334: in NLO codes employs the NLO PDFs and the two-loop (2L) $\alpha_s$ so that
335: \begin{eqnarray}
336: d\sigma_{\rm LO}^{\rm 2L} =
337: \sum_{i,j=q,\overline q,g}
338: f_i^{\rm NLO}(x_1,Q_F^2)\otimes f_j^{\rm NLO}(x_2,Q_F^2)
339: \otimes d\hat \sigma^{\rm LO}_{ij\rightarrow c \overline c}
340: (\alpha_s^{\rm 2L}(Q_R^2),x_1,x_2) \, \, .
341: \label{signlolo}
342: \end{eqnarray}
343: In either case, the NLO contribution, ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ for heavy
344: quark production, is
345: \begin{eqnarray}
346: d\sigma_{{\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)} =
347: \sum_{i,j=q,\overline q,g}
348: f_i^{\rm NLO}(x_1,Q_F^2)\otimes f_j^{\rm NLO}(x_2,Q_F^2)
349: \otimes \hspace{-0.3cm}\sum_{k=0,q,\overline q,g} d\hat
350: \sigma^{\rm NLO}_{ij\rightarrow c \overline c k}(\alpha_s^{\rm
351: 2L}(Q_R^2),Q_F^2,x_1,x_2)
352: \label{signlocont}
353: \end{eqnarray}
354: where the superscript ``NLO'' on $d\hat \sigma_{ij\rightarrow c \overline c k}$
355: indicates the use of the NLO matrix elements. The additional sum over $k$ in
356: Eq.~(\ref{signlocont}) includes the virtual, $k=0$, and real, $k = q$,
357: $\overline q$ or $g$ depending on $i$ and $j$, NLO corrections.
358: In the calculations of $d\sigma_{\rm LO}^{\rm 2L}$ and
359: $d\sigma_{{\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)}$, we use the value of $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^{(4)}$
360: given for the NLO PDFs and work in the ${\overline {\rm MS}}$ scheme.
361: The standard NLO cross section is then
362: \begin{eqnarray}
363: d\sigma_{\rm NLO}^{\rm std} = d\sigma_{\rm LO}^{\rm 2L} +
364: d\sigma_{{\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)} \, \,
365: \label{nlostd}
366: \end{eqnarray}
367: while our ``alternative NLO'' cross section is defined as
368: \begin{eqnarray}
369: d\sigma_{\rm NLO}^{\rm alt} = d\sigma_{\rm LO}^{\rm 1L} +
370: d\sigma_{{\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)} \, \, .
371: \label{nloalt}
372: \end{eqnarray}
373: Since the enhancement in Ref.~\cite{EKV2} was defined using $d\sigma_{\rm
374: LO}^{\rm 1L}$ only, the best we can do is to
375: use the alternative NLO cross section in our analysis, as described below.
376:
377: We now discuss how the enhancement is taken into account in the context of the
378: NLO computation.
379: We calculate the LO inclusive charm $p_T$ distribution,
380: $d^{2}\sigma/dp_Tdy$, with the detected charm (anticharm) quark in the
381: rapidity interval $\Delta y$ with $|y|<1$,
382: motivated by
383: the pseudorapidity acceptance of the ALICE tracking barrel, $|\eta|<0.9$.
384: The rapidity, $y_2$, of the undetected anticharm (charm) quark is integrated
385: over. The charm enhancement factor
386: $R(p_T,\Delta y)$ is then
387: \begin{eqnarray}
388: R(p_T,\Delta y) = \frac
389: { \displaystyle \int_{\Delta y} dy \int dy_2
390: \frac{d^3 \sigma({\scriptstyle \rm EHKQS})}{dp_T dy dy_2}}
391: {\displaystyle \int_{\Delta y} dy\int dy_2
392: \frac{d^3 \sigma({\scriptstyle \rm CTEQ61L})}{dp_T dy dy_2}} \, \, .
393: \label{rofpt}
394: \end{eqnarray}
395: Numerically, this ratio is very close to
396: $R(p_T,y,y_2)$, computed in Ref.~\cite{EKV2}, as seen by a comparison of
397: $R(p_T,\Delta y)$ in Fig.~\ref{fig1} with Fig.~2 of Ref.~\cite{EKV2}.
398:
399: Next, we assume that the enhancement calculated at LO is the
400: same when calculated at NLO. This is a rather strong assumption but,
401: until the nonlinear evolution has been completely analyzed to NLO, it
402: is the only reasonable assumption we can make to test whether the enhancement
403: can be detected with ALICE which will measure the physical $\ptD$ distribution.
404: The alternative
405: NLO cross section is therefore the closest in spirit to the LO
406: computation in Ref.~\cite{EKV2}. Thus, the enhanced NLO charm
407: $p_T$ distribution is
408: \begin{eqnarray}
409: R(p_T,\Delta y) \, \,d\sigma_{\rm NLO}^{\rm alt}(\Delta y)/dp_T \, \, .
410: \label{rnloalt}
411: \end{eqnarray}
412:
413: In our calculations, we use values of the charm quark mass and scale
414: that have been fit to the total cross section data using standard NLO
415: calculations. The best agreement with the total cross section data is
416: obtained with $m_c = 1.2$~GeV and $Q^2 = 4m_c^2$ for
417: DGLAP-evolved NLO PDFs such as CTEQ6M~\cite{cteq61} and MRST
418: \cite{mrst}. Nearly equivalent agreement may be obtained with $m_c =
419: 1.3$~GeV and $Q^2 = m_c^2$~\cite{HPC,rvww02}.
420: Agreement with the fixed-target total
421: cross sections can only be achieved with higher $m_c$ by
422: making the factorization scale, $Q_F^2$, larger than the renormalization
423: scale, $Q_R^2$. Using a lower value of $Q_R^2$ increases the cross section by
424: inflating $\alpha_s$. If $Q_F^2 \leq Q_0^2$,
425: the PDFs are unconstrained in $Q^2$ and are thus unreliable.
426: We keep $Q_F^2 = Q_R^2$ since all typical PDFs are fit using this assumption.
427: Thus we limit
428: ourselves to relatively small values of $m_c$ to obtain agreement with
429: the total cross section data.
430:
431: We note that while $m_c$ is the only relevant scale in the
432: total cross section, $m_T$ is used instead of
433: $m_c$ in the calculations of $R$ and $d\sigma_{\rm NLO}^{\rm alt}(\Delta
434: y)/dp_T$ to control $p_T$-dependent logarithms at NLO
435: \cite{EKV2}. Our main results
436: are then based on the inputs that give the best agreement with the total cross
437: section data, $m_c = 1.2$~GeV and $Q^2 = 4m_T^2$ as well as $m_c =
438: 1.3$~GeV and $Q^2 = m_T^2$. These two choices will form the baseline results
439: against which other parameter choices will be compared to see if the
440: enhancement can be detected.
441:
442: \section{From charm to $D$ enhancement}
443:
444: Previously~\cite{EKV2}, we did not include parton intrinsic transverse
445: momentum, $k_T$, broadening or fragmentation.
446: Since the effect of intrinsic $k_T$ is quite small at
447: LHC energies, on the order of 10\% or less~\cite{HPC}, we have not
448: included intrinsic $k_T$ in our calculations.
449: To make a more realistic $D$ meson distribution, we have
450: modified the charm $p_T$ distribution by the heavy quark
451: string fragmentation in PYTHIA~\cite{pythia},
452: as explained below.
453: The resulting $D$ distribution is significantly harder
454: than that obtained using the Peterson fragmentation function~\cite{pete}.
455:
456: We first show how the $p_T$-dependent enhancement, calculated for the
457: charm quark, is reflected in the $D$ meson $p_T$ distribution. Charm
458: events in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 14$~TeV are generated using
459: PYTHIA (default settings) with the requirement that one of the quarks
460: is in the interval $|y|<1$. The charm quarks are hadronized using the
461: default string model. Since $c$ and $\overline c$ quarks fragment to
462: $D$ and $\overline D$ mesons\footnote{Here $D \equiv D^+, D^0$.},
463: respectively, in each event related $(c,D)$ and
464: $(\overline{c},\overline{D})$ pairs can easily be
465: identified\footnote{Events containing charm baryons were rejected.}.
466: These pairs are reweighted to match an arbitrary NLO charm quark $p_T$
467: distribution, $dN^c_{\rm NLO}/dp_T$. If $dN^c_{\rm PYTHIA}/dp_T$ is
468: the charm $p_T$ distribution given by PYTHIA, each $(c,D)$ pair is
469: assigned the weight
470: \begin{equation}
471: \mathcal{W}(p_T) = \frac{dN^c_{\rm NLO}/dp_T}
472: {dN^c_{\rm PYTHIA}/dp_T} \, \,
473: \end{equation}
474: where $p_T$ is the transverse momentum of the charm quark of the pair.
475: Therefore, the reweighted final-state $D$ distribution
476: corresponds to the one that would be obtained by applying string fragmentation
477: to the NLO $c$-quark distribution.
478:
479: In Fig.~\ref{fig1} we compare the enhancement factor $R$, calculated in
480: Eq.~(\ref{rofpt}) for $c$ quarks and $D$ mesons generated from the weighted
481: PYTHIA charm distributions. The two cases described previously,
482: $m_c=1.2$~GeV, $Q^2=4m_T^2$ (left-hand side) and $m_c=1.3$~GeV, $Q^2=m_T^2$
483: (right-hand side) are considered. In both cases, the enhancement survives
484: after fragmentation. It is interesting to note that the $D$
485: enhancement is somewhat lower than that of the charm: in the most optimistic
486: case, the factor of five charm enhancement has reduced to a factor of three for
487: the $D$ mesons. This occurs because, for a given
488: $\ptD$, the $D$ spectrum receives contributions from charm quarks with
489: $p_T \, \gsim \, \ptD$, where the charm enhancement is smaller.
490: The $D$ enhancement also vanishes with increasing transverse momenta, like
491: the charm enhancement.
492:
493: \begin{figure}[t]
494: \centering\includegraphics[width=15cm]{Fig1.eps}
495: \caption[]{\small Enhancement factor $R(p_T,\Delta y)$ for charm quarks
496: (dashed histogram) and for \mbox{$D~(\equiv D^+,D^0)$}
497: mesons (solid histogram), obtained
498: after PYTHIA string fragmentation. The left-hand side shows the result for
499: $m_c = 1.2$~GeV and
500: $Q^2 = 4m_T^2$ while the right-hand side is the result for $m_c = 1.3$~GeV and
501: $Q^2 = m_T^2$.
502: }
503: \label{fig1}
504: \end{figure}
505:
506: \section{$D^0$ reconstruction in $pp$ collisions with ALICE}
507:
508: The transverse momentum distribution of $D^0$ mesons produced at central
509: rapidity, $|y|<1$, can be directly measured from the exclusive
510: reconstruction of $D^0\to K^-\pi^+$ decays (and charge conjugates)
511: in the Inner Tracking System (ITS), Time Projection Chamber (TPC) and
512: Time Of Flight (TOF) detectors of the ALICE barrel,
513: $|\eta|<0.9$~\cite{aliceTP}.
514: The main feature of the $D^0$ decay topology is the presence of two tracks
515: displaced
516: from the interaction point by, on average, 50~$\mu$m, for
517: $\ptD\simeq 0.5$~GeV, to 120~$\mu$m, for $\ptD\gsim 5$~GeV.
518: Such displacement can be resolved with the ALICE tracking detectors
519: and thus a
520: large fraction of the combinatorial background in the $K^\mp \pi^\pm$ invariant
521: mass distribution can be rejected.
522: The low value of the magnetic field, 0.4~T, and the
523: $K/\pi$ separation in the TOF detector extend
524: the $D^0$ measurement down to $\ptD \sim 0$. The analysis strategy
525: and the pertinent selection cuts were studied with a realistic, detailed
526: simulation of the detector geometry and response, including the main
527: background sources~\cite{thesisAD,D0jpg}.
528:
529: The expected ALICE performance for $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=14$~TeV
530: is summarized in Fig.~\ref{fig2} where the estimated relative uncertainties
531: are reported as a function of $\ptD$. The main contributions to the
532: $p_T$-dependent systematic error (triangles)
533: are the detector acceptance and reconstruction
534: efficiency corrections (squares), $\simeq 10\%$,
535: and the correction for feed-down from
536: bottom decays, $B\rightarrow D^0+X$ (open circles), $\simeq 8\%$.
537: The latter is estimated based on the present $70-80$\%
538: theoretical uncertainty in the $b \overline b$
539: cross section at LHC energies~\cite{yrepHVQ}. However, we expect this
540: uncertainty to be significantly reduced by the measurement of $B$ decays to
541: single electrons, $B\to e^\pm+X$, in ALICE~\cite{yrepHVQ}.
542: The $p_T$-independent systematic
543: error introduced by normalization to the
544: $pp$ inelastic cross section (inverted triangles)
545: is also reported. This cross section will be
546: measured by the TOTEM experiment~\cite{totem} with an $\simeq 5\%$ uncertainty.
547:
548: The statistical error corresponding to $10^9$ minimum-bias $pp$ events (filled
549: circles), an $\approx 9$ month run with a luminosity of $\approx 5 \times
550: 10^{30}~{\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$, is smaller than or on the order of the
551: $p_T$-dependent systematic error up to $\ptD\simeq 24~{\rm GeV}$ for the
552: alternative NLO cross section calculated using $m_c=1.2$~GeV, $Q^2=4m_T^2$ and
553: the CTEQ6 PDFs with no enhancement. The relative
554: statistical error depends on the charm cross section, as we now explain.
555: For a given $D^0$ $\ptD$ or $\ptD$ range, the statistical error is the error on
556: the number of real $D^0$ ($\overline D^0$) mesons in the $K^\mp \pi^\pm$
557: invariant mass distribution, the signal, ${\rm S}(\ptD)$.
558: The error is equal to
559: $\sqrt{{\rm S}(\ptD) + {\rm B}(\ptD)}/{\rm S}(\ptD)$ where ${\rm B}(\ptD)$
560: is the
561: number of background candidates in the $D^0$ mass region. Then, at low $\ptD$,
562: the error is $\approx \sqrt{{\rm B}(\ptD)}/{\rm S}(\ptD) \propto
563: 1/(d\sigma_{\scriptscriptstyle D}/d\ptD)$
564: since the invariant mass distribution is dominated by
565: combinatorial background. At high $\ptD$, the background is negligible and
566: the error becomes $\approx 1/\sqrt{{\rm S}(\ptD)} \propto
567: 1/\sqrt{d\sigma_{\scriptscriptstyle D}/d\ptD}$.
568: In our subsequent results, the statistical errors are
569: calculated taking this cross section dependence into account.
570:
571: \begin{figure}[!t]
572: \centering\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{Fig2.eps}
573: \caption[]{\small Estimated relative uncertainties on the measurement of the
574: $D^0$ differential cross section in $pp$ collisions at the LHC
575: with ALICE~\cite{thesisAD}.
576: Statistical uncertainties correspond to $10^9$ minimum-bias
577: $pp$ events (an $\approx 9$ month run with a luminosity of $\approx 5 \times
578: 10^{30}~{\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$).
579: }
580: \label{fig2}
581: \end{figure}
582:
583: \section{Sensitivity to the enhancement}
584:
585: Figure~\ref{fig3} shows the double-differential $D^0$ cross section,
586: $d^2\sigma_{\scriptscriptstyle D}/d\ptD dy$,
587: in $|y|<1$ as a function of the transverse momentum.
588: The points represent
589: the expected ``data'' measured by ALICE, obtained from the
590: alternative NLO cross section scaled by the enhancement factor
591: $R(p_T,\Delta y)$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{rofpt}), and modified by string
592: fragmentation. The solid and dashed curves are obtained by applying string
593: fragmentation to the alternative NLO and standard
594: NLO $c\overline c$ cross sections, respectively.
595: Thus, the ``data'' points include the enhancement while the curves do not.
596: The horizontal error bars indicate the bin
597: width, the vertical error bars represent the statistical error and the shaded
598: band gives the $p_T$-dependent systematic error. The 5\% $p_T$-independent
599: systematic error on
600: the normalization is not shown. The left-hand side shows the results for
601: $m_c = 1.2$~GeV and $Q^2 = 4m_T^2$ while the right-hand side shows those for
602: $m_c = 1.3$~GeV and $Q^2 = m_T^2$.
603: The standard NLO cross section, Eq.~(\ref{nlostd}), and the
604: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^3)$ contribution to the alternative
605: NLO cross section, Eq.~(\ref{signlocont}), were calculated
606: using the HVQMNR code~\cite{MNR} with
607: CTEQ6M and $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^{(4)}
608: = 0.326$ GeV. The LO contribution to the
609: alternative NLO cross section, Eq.~(\ref{sigflo}), was calculated using the
610: CTEQ61L PDFs. Fragmentation was included as described in Section~3.
611: The enhancement, the difference between the data and the solid
612: curve visible for $\ptD \, \lsim \, 3$~GeV, is more
613: pronounced for the larger mass and lower scale, shown on the right-hand side
614: of Fig.~\ref{fig3}.
615:
616: \begin{figure}[!t]
617: \centering\includegraphics[width=15cm]{Fig3.eps}
618: \caption[]{\small Comparison of the simulated ALICE data generated from
619: $R(p_T,\Delta y)
620: d\sigma_{\rm NLO}^{\rm alt}$ with the alternative (solid) and standard (dashed)
621: NLO calculations. The effect of string fragmentation is included in the
622: ``data'' points as well as in the curves.
623: The left-hand side shows the result for $m_c = 1.2$~GeV and
624: $Q^2 = 4m_T^2$ while the right-hand side is the result for $m_c = 1.3$~GeV and
625: $Q^2 = m_T^2$.
626: The error bars on the data represent the statistical
627: error and the shaded band represents the $p_T$-dependent systematic error.
628: The 5\% normalization error is not shown.
629: }
630: \label{fig3}
631: \end{figure}
632:
633: There is a significant difference between the alternative and standard NLO
634: distributions. Part of the difference is due to the one- and two-loop
635: evaluations of $\alpha_s$ since $\alpha_s^{\rm 2L} < \alpha_s^{\rm 1L}$.
636: This decrease will in turn reduce the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$
637: contribution to the alternative NLO
638: result relative to the LO component of Eq.~(\ref{sigflo}).
639: In addition, the standard NLO
640: cross section would be reduced overall relative to a calculation with the
641: same $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^{(4)}$ at LO and NLO. However, these factors alone
642: cannot explain the rather large difference between the standard and
643: alternative NLO cross sections at low $\ptD$. The most important contribution
644: is the large differences between the LO and NLO gluon distributions,
645: especially at low
646: scales. The slope of the CTEQ61L gluon distribution at $Q^2 = 1.69$~GeV$^2$
647: with $x$ is very small until $x > 0.01$. On the other hand, the CTEQ6M gluon
648: $x$ slope is large and has the opposite sign relative to CTEQ61L
649: for $x < 0.04$. The ratio of the two sets at $x \approx
650: 10^{-5}$ is very large, CTEQ61L/CTEQ6M $\approx 100$. At $Q^2 = 5.76$~GeV$^2$,
651: the scale corresponding to $4m_c^2$ with $m_c = 1.2$~GeV, this ratio decreases
652: to a factor of two. We note that at fixed-target energies, $\sqrt{s} \leq
653: 40$~GeV, the standard and
654: alternative NLO results are indistinguishable from each other since the
655: LO and NLO gluon
656: distributions are rather similar in this relatively high $x$ region, $0.05 \leq
657: x \leq 0.1$.
658:
659: In order to address the question of the experimental sensitivity to the
660: effect of nonlinear gluon evolution on low-$p_T$ charm production, we
661: consider, as a function of $\ptD$,
662: the ratio of the simulated data, including the enhancement,
663: to alternative NLO calculations using a range of $m_c$ and $Q^2$
664: along with PYTHIA string fragmentation. We denote this ratio as
665: ``Data/Theory''. Thus, given the
666: measured $D^0$ $p_T$ distribution,
667: we try to reproduce this result with NLO calculations employing
668: recent linearly-evolved PDFs and tuning $m_c$ and
669: $Q^2$. We note that these parameters are not really free but are bounded by
670: the range $1.2\, \lsim \, m_c \, \lsim \, 1.8$~GeV and $1\, \lsim \,
671: Q^2/m_T^2\, \lsim \, 4$, as
672: described in Section 2 and in Ref.~\cite{EKV2}.
673:
674: Since the enhancement has disappeared
675: for $\ptD \, \gsim \, 5$~GeV,
676: we refer to this unenhanced region as high $\ptD$.
677: The $\ptD$ region below 5~GeV,
678: where the enhancement is important, is referred
679: to as low $\ptD$. If no set of parameters can
680: describe both the high- and low-$\ptD$ components
681: of the distribution equally
682: well, and, if
683: the set that best reproduces the high-$\ptD$ part underestimates the low-$\ptD$
684: part, this would be a strong indication of the presence of nonlinear effects.
685:
686: The Data/Theory plots are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig4}.
687: The points with the statistical (vertical bars) and $p_T$-dependent systematic
688: (shaded region) error correspond to the data of Fig.~\ref{fig3},
689: including the enhancement, divided by themselves, depicting the sensitivity
690: to the theory calculations. The black squares on
691: the right-hand sides of the lines ${\rm Data/Theory=1}$
692: represent the 5\% $p_T$-independent error
693: on the ratio coming from the cross section normalization. As clearly shown
694: in Fig.~\ref{fig2}, this error is,
695: however, negligible with respect to the present estimates of the
696: other systematic uncertainties ($\simeq 13\%$).
697:
698: \begin{figure}[!t]
699: \centering\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Fig4.eps}
700: \caption[]{\small Ratio of the generated ALICE data relative to
701: calculations of the alternative NLO cross sections with several sets of
702: parameters
703: and PYTHIA string fragmentation.
704: The left-hand side shows the result for $m_c = 1.2$~GeV and
705: $Q^2 = 4m_T^2$ while the right-hand side is the result for $m_c = 1.3$~GeV and
706: $Q^2 = m_T^2$.
707: }
708: \label{fig4}
709: \end{figure}
710:
711: On the left-hand side, the thick solid curve with $m_c =
712: 1.2$~GeV and $Q^2 = 4m_T^2$ best agrees with the high-$\ptD$ ratio by
713: construction since $R \approx 1$ at large $\ptD$.
714: It also shows the effect of the enhancement
715: well beyond the error band for $\ptD\, \lsim \, 2$~GeV.
716: Better agreement with the data over the entire $\ptD$
717: range can be achieved only
718: by choosing a charm quark mass lower than 1.2~GeV, below the nominal range of
719: charm masses, as illustrated by the dashed curve for $m_c=1.1$~GeV.
720: Higher masses with $Q^2 = 4m_T^2$ produce much larger
721: Data/Theory ratios than the input distribution. Choosing e.g.\ $m_c = 1.8$~GeV
722: (not shown) would give
723: a larger Data/Theory ratio than the $m_c = 1.5$~GeV result (dot-dashed curve).
724: The ratio with $m_c =
725: 1.3$~GeV and $Q^2 = m_T^2$ (dot-dot-dashed curve) gives a much larger
726: ratio at low $\ptD$ and drops
727: below the data for $\ptD > 8$~GeV.
728:
729: We have checked how the results change when the
730: renormalization and factorization scales are separated. When $m_c = 1.3$~GeV,
731: $Q_R^2 = m_T^2$ and $Q_F^2 = 4m_T^2$, the faster evolution of the higher
732: $Q_F^2$ and the larger $\alpha_s(Q_R^2)$ resulting from the lower $Q_R^2$
733: leads to reasonable agreement between data and theory at low $\ptD$.
734: However, at
735: high $\ptD$, the theory distribution is harder so that the Data/Theory
736: ratio drops below the error band for $\ptD > 2$ GeV. On the other hand,
737: when $m_c = 1.3$~GeV, $Q_R^2 = 4m_T^2$ and $Q_F^2 = m_T^2$, the theory
738: cross section is reduced relative to the data and the Data/Theory ratio is
739: above the error band over all $\ptD$.
740:
741: We also present the ratio using the MRST
742: parton densities (MRST2001 LO~\cite{MRST2001} in Eq.~(\ref{sigflo}) and
743: MRST2002 NLO~\cite{MRSTNNLO} in Eq.~(\ref{signlocont}))
744: with $m_c = 1.2$~GeV and $Q^2 = 4m_T^2$. We find that this
745: result, the thin solid curve,
746: also agrees reasonably well with the CTEQ6 results shown in the thick solid
747: curve for the same $m_c$ and $Q^2$. Thus, the enhancement seems to be
748: rather independent of the PDF.
749: The CTEQ61L and the MRST2001 LO distributions are similar at low $x$,
750: suggesting that PDFs based on this MRST set would produce an enhancement
751: like that of Ref.~\cite{EKV2}. However, the MRST2002 NLO and CTEQ6M NLO gluon
752: distributions are very different at low $x$. The MRST2002 NLO gluon
753: distribution is negative at low scales while the CTEQ6M gluon distribution
754: goes to zero as $x\rightarrow 0$.
755: Thus the effects of nonlinear evolution at NLO could be
756: considerably different.
757:
758: On the right-hand side of Fig.~\ref{fig4}, with $m_c = 1.3$~GeV and $Q^2 =
759: m_T^2$, the thick solid curve,
760: employing the same parameters as the data,
761: gives the best agreement at high $\ptD$.
762: We note that even though the results with $Q^2 = 4m_T^2$ and
763: $m_c \leq 1.3$~GeV lie closer to the data at low $\ptD$ and within the
764: combined statistical and systematic error at higher $\ptD$,
765: the curves with these parameters have the wrong slopes for
766: $\ptD\lsim 8$~GeV.
767: The systematic errors are more likely to shift the data points up or down
768: as a whole rather than twist the $\ptD$ shape. The statistical sensitivity
769: is expected to be good enough to distinguish the difference in curvature.
770: Varying $Q_F^2$ and $Q_R^2$ separately results in similarly poor
771: agreement as that noted for $m_c = 1.2$~GeV and $Q^2 = 4m_T^2$.
772: Finally, the results obtained with the MRST PDFs, shown in the thin
773: solid line,
774: do not alter the conclusions already drawn for CTEQ6.
775:
776: \section{Conclusions}
777:
778: With constraints from HERA, the nonlinear DGLAP+GLRMQ evolution
779: at LO leads to an enhancement of the free proton gluon distributions at
780: $x \, \lsim
781: \, 0.01$ and $Q^2\, \lsim \, 10$~GeV$^2$ relative to DGLAP-evolved LO sets
782: such as CTEQ61L. Consequently, charm
783: hadroproduction at $\sqrt{s}\, \gsim \, 1$~TeV
784: should be larger than expected from
785: DGLAP-evolved PDFs alone~\cite{EKV2}. In this paper, we have studied whether
786: the EHKQS gluon distributions~\cite{EHKQS} could generate an observable $D$
787: meson enhancement in $pp$ collisions at the LHC.
788: Since larger $x$ values are probed at lower energy colliders, the
789: enhancement described here would be reduced. At RHIC, $\sqrt{s}=200$~GeV,
790: the effect is too small to be reliably observed. However, $D$ mesurements
791: at the Tevatron, $\sqrt{s}=1.96$~TeV, may allow to detect an enhancement
792: if the minimum $\ptD$ was lowerd to $\approx 1$~GeV.
793:
794: In order to consider more realistic $\ptD$ distributions and yields, we have
795: calculated the NLO contribution to charm production
796: using the HVQMNR code~\cite{MNR}.
797: Since the LO EHKQS PDFs cannot be used consistently with the NLO matrix
798: elements, we assume the charm enhancement is the same at LO and NLO.
799: We note that nonlinear effects on the NLO gluon
800: distributions may be smaller than at LO, thus reducing the NLO charm
801: enhancement. Therefore, our results may be considered upper limits of the NLO
802: $D$ enhancement. Note also that if NLO DGLAP+GLRMQ PDFs
803: that fit the small-$x$ and small-$Q^2$ HERA data were available,
804: it would be possible to base our analysis on the standard NLO charm
805: cross section instead of the ``alternative NLO'' result defined in
806: Eq.~(\ref{nloalt}).
807: Improved gluon distributions at low $x$ and
808: $Q^2$ may make the standard and alternative NLO results more similar at high
809: energies, as they are at lower $\sqrt{s}$ where $x$ is larger.
810:
811: Using the EHKQS LO PDFs and LO matrix elements for charm quark
812: production and PYTHIA string fragmentation for $D$ meson hadronization, we
813: have demonstrated that more than half of the charm enhancement relative to
814: calculations with the CTEQ61L LO PDFs indeed survives to the $D$ mesons. In
815: the most optimistic case, $m_c=1.3$ GeV and $Q^2=m_T^2$, the factor of five
816: charm enhancement at $|y|\le 1$ and $p_T\to 0$
817: is reduced to a factor of three at $\ptD\to 0$.
818: For larger values of $m_c$ and $Q^2$, the charm enhancement is smaller
819: because the gluon enhancement due to nonlinear evolution
820: decreases with increasing $Q^2$.
821:
822: The $D$ meson enhancement, however, drops rapidly with transverse momentum
823: so that for $\ptD\sim 5$ GeV it is only a few percent. Therefore, $D$
824: measurement capability at small $\ptD$ is necessary to verify the effect
825: experimentally. The ALICE detector can do this through direct $D^0$
826: reconstruction in the $K^-\pi^+$ decay channel. We have demonstrated, using the
827: error analysis of Ref.~\cite{thesisAD}, that, in the most optimistic
828: case, the enhancement can be detected above the experimental statistical and
829: systematic errors. The sensitivity of the $D$ enhancement to the scale
830: has also been considered and we have shown that when the charm
831: mass is somewhat smaller,
832: $m_c=1.2$ GeV, but the scale is larger, $Q^2=4m_T^2$, it is more difficult to
833: detect the enhancement over the experimental uncertainties.
834: The ALICE sensitivity to $D$ meson production at very low transverse momentum
835: may further improve by combining the $D^0\to K^-\pi^+$ measurement with
836: those of $D^+ \to K^- \pi^+ \pi^+$ and $D^0\to K^-\pi^+\rho^0$.
837: A fast-simulation feasibility study of $D^+ \to K^- \pi^+ \pi^+$
838: reconstruction~\cite{aliceitstdr} indicates that a
839: performance similar to that of $D^0\to K^-\pi^+$ could be achieved. More
840: detailed analyses, currently in progress, will assess the low-$\ptD$ reach
841: of this channel.
842:
843: \bigskip\bigskip
844: \noindent {\bf Acknowledgments:}
845: The work of A.D. and M.B. was carried out within the ALICE Collaboration,
846: of which they are members, and using the software framework developed by
847: the off-line project. A.D. and M.B. acknowledge the ALICE off-line
848: group and the Physics Coordinator ${\rm K.~\check{S}afa\check{r}}$\'ik
849: for support and useful discussions.
850: The work of R.V. was supported in part by the Director, Office of
851: Energy Research, Division of Nuclear Physics of the Office of High
852: Energy and Nuclear Physics of the U. S. Department of Energy under
853: Contract Number DE-AC03-76SF00098.
854: K.J.E. and V.J.K. gratefully acknowledge the financial support
855: from the Academy of Finland, projects 50338, 80385 and 206024.
856:
857: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
858:
859: \bibitem{DGLAP}
860: %\cite{Dokshitzer:sg}
861: %\bibitem{Dokshitzer:sg}
862: Y.~L.~Dokshitzer,
863: %``Calculation Of The Structure Functions For Deep Inelastic
864: %Scattering And E+ E- Annihilation ``By Perturbation Theory In Quantum
865: %Chromodynamics'', (in Russian).
866: Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf 46} (1977) 641
867: [Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 73} (1977) 1216];
868: %%CITATION = SPHJA,46,641;%%
869: %\cite{Gribov:ri}
870: %\bibitem{Gribov:ri}
871: V.~N.~Gribov and L.~N.~Lipatov,
872: %``Deep Inelastic E P Scattering In Perturbation Theory,''
873: Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 15} (1972) 781
874: [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 15} (1972) 438];
875: %%CITATION = YAFIA,15,781;%%
876: %\cite{Gribov:rt}
877: %\bibitem{Gribov:rt}
878: V.~N.~Gribov and L.~N.~Lipatov,
879: %``E+ E- Pair Annihilation And Deep Inelastic E P Scattering In Perturbation Theory,''
880: Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 15} (1972) 1218
881: [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 15} (1972) 675];
882: %%CITATION = YAFIA,15,1218;%%
883: %\cite{Altarelli:1977zs}
884: %\bibitem{Altarelli:1977zs}
885: G.~Altarelli and G.~Parisi,
886: %``Asymptotic Freedom In Parton Language,''
887: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 126} (1977) 298.
888: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B126,298;%%
889:
890: % Yu. Dokshitzer, Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 46} (1977) 641;
891: % V.N.~Gribov and L.N.~Lipatov, Sov. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 15} (1972) 438, 675;
892: % G.~Altarelli, G.~Parisi, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B126} (1977) 298.
893:
894: \bibitem{HERA}
895: %\bibitem{Adloff:2000qk}
896: C.~Adloff {\it et al.} [H1 Collaboration],
897: %``Deep-inelastic inclusive e p scattering at low x and a determination of alpha(s),''
898: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 21} (2001) 33
899: [arXiv:hep-ex/0012053].
900: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0012053;%%
901:
902: \bibitem{MRS03}
903: %\bibitem{Martin:2003sk}
904: A.~D.~Martin, R.~G.~Roberts, W.~J.~Stirling and R.~S.~Thorne,
905: %``Uncertainties of predictions from parton distributions. II: Theoretical errors,''
906: arXiv:hep-ph/0308087.
907: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308087;%%
908:
909: \bibitem{MRST2001}
910: %\bibitem{Martin:2001es}
911: A.~D.~Martin, R.~G.~Roberts, W.~J.~Stirling and R.~S.~Thorne,
912: %``MRST2001: Partons and alpha(s) from precise deep inelastic scattering
913: %and Tevatron jet %data,'' %%% AD
914: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 23} (2002) 73
915: [arXiv:hep-ph/0110215].
916: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110215;%%
917:
918: \bibitem{GLRMQ}
919: %\cite{Gribov:ac}
920: %\bibitem{Gribov:ac}
921: L.~V.~Gribov, E.~M.~Levin and M.~G.~Ryskin,
922: %``Singlet Structure Function At Small X: Unitarization Of Gluon Ladders,''
923: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 188} (1981) 555;
924: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B188,555;%%
925: %\cite{Gribov:tu}
926: %\bibitem{Gribov:tu}
927: L.~V.~Gribov, E.~M.~Levin and M.~G.~Ryskin,
928: %``Semihard Processes In QCD,''
929: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 100} (1983) 1;
930: %%CITATION = PRPLC,100,1;%%
931: %\bibitem{MQ}
932: %\cite{Mueller:wy}
933: %\bibitem{Mueller:wy}
934: A.~H.~Mueller and J.~w.~Qiu,
935: %``Gluon Recombination And Shadowing At Small Values Of X,''
936: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 268} (1986) 427.
937: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B268,427;%%
938:
939: %\cite{Eskola:2003gc}
940: %\bibitem{Eskola:2003gc}
941: \bibitem{EHKQSinHPC}
942: K.~J.~Eskola, H.~Honkanen, V.~J.~Kolhinen, J.~w.~Qiu and C.~A.~Salgado,
943: %``Nonlinear corrections to the DGLAP equations: Looking for the saturation limits,''
944: arXiv:hep-ph/0302185, in
945: %\bibitem{Accardi:2003be}
946: A.~Accardi {\it et al.},
947: ``Hard probes in heavy ion collisions at the LHC: PDFs, shadowing
948: and $pA$ collisions,'' ed. K.J. Eskola, arXiv:hep-ph/0308248.
949: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308248;%%
950: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302185;%%
951:
952: \bibitem{EHKQS}
953: %\bibitem{Eskola:2002yc}
954: K.~J.~Eskola, H.~Honkanen, V.~J.~Kolhinen, J.~w.~Qiu and C.~A.~Salgado,
955: %``Nonlinear corrections to the DGLAP equations in view of the HERA data,''
956: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 660} (2003) 211
957: [arXiv:hep-ph/0211239].
958: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211239;%%
959:
960: \bibitem{CTEQ6}
961: %\cite{Pumplin:2002vw}
962: %\bibitem{Pumplin:2002vw}
963: J.~Pumplin, D.~R.~Stump, J.~Huston, H.~L.~Lai, P.~Nadolsky and W.~K.~Tung,
964: %``New generation of parton distributions with uncertainties from global QCD analysis,''
965: JHEP {\bf 0207} (2002) 012
966: [arXiv:hep-ph/0201195].
967: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201195;%%
968:
969: \bibitem{cteq61}
970: %\cite{Stump:2003yu}
971: %\bibitem{Stump:2003yu}
972: D.~Stump, J.~Huston, J.~Pumplin, W.~K.~Tung, H.~L.~Lai, S.~Kuhlmann and J.~F.~Owens,
973: %``Inclusive jet production, parton distributions, and the search for new physics,''
974: arXiv:hep-ph/0303013.
975: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303013;%%
976:
977: \bibitem{EKV2}
978: %\cite{Eskola:2003fk}
979: %\bibitem{Eskola:2003fk}
980: K.~J.~Eskola, V.~J.~Kolhinen and R.~Vogt,
981: %``Enhancement of charm quark production due to nonlinear corrections to the
982: %DGLAP equations,''
983: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 582} (2004) 157
984: [arXiv:hep-ph/0310111].
985:
986: \bibitem{HPC}
987: %\cite{Vogt:2001nh}
988: %\bibitem{Vogt:2001nh}
989: R.~Vogt [Hard Probe Collaboration],
990: %``The A dependence of open charm and bottom production,''
991: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ E {\bf 12} (2003) 211
992: [arXiv:hep-ph/0111271].
993: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111271;%%
994:
995: \bibitem{rvww02}
996: R. Vogt, in proceedings of the {\it 18$^{\rm th}$ Winter Workshop on Nuclear
997: Dynamics}, edited by R. Bellwied {\it et al.}, Nassau, The Bahamas, 2002,
998: p. 253.
999:
1000: \bibitem{aliceTP}
1001: ALICE Detector, Technical Proposal, CERN/LHCC 95-71.
1002:
1003: \bibitem{pythia}
1004: %\cite{Sjostrand:2000wi}
1005: %\bibitem{Sjostrand:2000wi}
1006: T.~Sj\"ostrand, P.~Ed\'en, C.~Friberg, L.~L\"onnblad, G.~Miu, S.~Mrenna
1007: and E.~Norrbin,
1008: %``High-energy-physics event generation with PYTHIA 6.1,''
1009: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 135} (2001) 238
1010: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010017].
1011: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010017;%%
1012:
1013: \bibitem{thesisAD}
1014: A.~Dainese, Ph.D. Thesis, arXiv:nucl-ex/0311004.
1015:
1016: \bibitem{COMBRIDGE}
1017: %\cite{Combridge:1978kx}
1018: %\bibitem{Combridge:1978kx}
1019: B.~L.~Combridge,
1020: %``Associated Production Of Heavy Flavor States In P P
1021: %And Anti-P P Interactions: Some QCD %Estimates,'' %%% AD
1022: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 151} (1979) 429;
1023: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B151,429;%%
1024: R.K. Ellis, in {\it Physics at the 100 GeV Scale},
1025: Proc. of the 17$^{\rm th}$ SLAC Summer Institute, Stanford, California, 1989,
1026: edited by E.C. Brennan (SLAC Report No. 361) 45.
1027:
1028: %\bibitem{Lai:1999wy}
1029: \bibitem{CTEQ5}
1030: H.~L.~Lai {\it et al.} [CTEQ Collaboration],
1031: %``Global {QCD} analysis of parton structure of the nucleon: CTEQ5 parton distributions,''
1032: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 12} (2000) 375
1033: [arXiv:hep-ph/9903282].
1034: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903282;%%
1035:
1036: \bibitem{RVkfac}
1037: %\cite{Vogt:2002eu}
1038: %\bibitem{Vogt:2002eu}
1039: R.~Vogt,
1040: %``What is the real K factor?,''
1041: Heavy Ion Phys.\ {\bf 17} (2003) 75
1042: [arXiv:hep-ph/0207359].
1043: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207359;%%
1044:
1045: \bibitem{klmv_cc}
1046: N.~Kidonakis, E.~Laenen, S.~Moch and R.~Vogt, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}
1047: (2003) 074037.
1048:
1049: \bibitem{mrst}
1050: %\cite{Martin:1998sq}
1051: %\bibitem{Martin:1998sq}
1052: A.~D.~Martin, R.~G.~Roberts, W.~J.~Stirling and R.~S.~Thorne,
1053: %``Parton distributions: A new global analysis,''
1054: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 4} (1998) 463
1055: [arXiv:hep-ph/9803445];
1056: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803445;%%
1057: %\cite{Martin:1998np}
1058: %\bibitem{Martin:1998np}
1059: A.~D.~Martin, R.~G.~Roberts, W.~J.~Stirling and R.~S.~Thorne,
1060: %``Scheme dependence, leading order and higher twist studies of MRST partons,''
1061: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 443} (1998) 301
1062: [arXiv:hep-ph/9808371].
1063: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808371;%%
1064:
1065: \bibitem{pete}
1066: C. Peterson, D. Schlatter, I. Schmitt and P. Zerwas, %%% AD
1067: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 27} (1983) 105. %%% AD
1068:
1069: \bibitem{D0jpg}
1070: N.~Carrer, A.~Dainese and R.~Turrisi, J.~Phys.~G~{\bf 29} (2003) 575. %%% AD
1071:
1072: \bibitem{yrepHVQ}
1073: M.~Bedjidian {\it et al.},
1074: ``Hard Probes in Heavy Ion Collisions at the LHC:
1075: Heavy Flavor Physics'', eds. R. Vogt and S. Frixione,
1076: arXiv:hep-ph/0311048. %%% AD
1077:
1078: \bibitem{totem}
1079: TOTEM, Total cross section, elastic scattering and diffractive dissociation
1080: at the LHC: Technical Proposal, CERN-LHCC-99-007; LHCC-P-5 (1999).
1081:
1082: \bibitem{MNR}
1083: M.~Mangano, P.~Nason and G.~Ridolfi, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 373} (1992) 295. %%% AD
1084:
1085: \bibitem{MRSTNNLO}
1086: %\cite{Martin:2002dr}
1087: %\bibitem{Martin:2002dr}
1088: A.~D.~Martin, R.~G.~Roberts, W.~J.~Stirling and R.~S.~Thorne,
1089: %``NNLO global parton analysis,''
1090: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 531} (2002) 216
1091: [arXiv:hep-ph/0201127].
1092: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201127;%%
1093:
1094: \bibitem{aliceitstdr}
1095: ALICE Inner Tracking System, Technical Design Report, CERN/LHCC 99-12.
1096:
1097:
1098: \end{thebibliography}
1099:
1100: \end{document}
1101:
1102:
1103:
1104: