1:
2: \documentstyle[12pt,epsfig]{article}
3: %\documentstyle[12pt,epsfig,psfig]{article}
4: \textwidth 16.5cm
5: \textheight 23.5cm
6: \topmargin -1cm
7: \oddsidemargin 6mm
8: \evensidemargin 6mm
9:
10: %
11: \def \simple {\baselineskip= \normalbaselineskip}
12: \def \medio {\baselineskip= 1.5 \normalbaselineskip}
13: \def \doble {\baselineskip= 2 \normalbaselineskip}
14: %
15: \def \as {\alpha_s}
16: \def \gl {\tilde{g}}
17: \def \ms {{\overline{\mbox{MS}}}}
18: \def \dr {{\overline{\mbox{DR}}}}
19: %
20: \newcommand{\cita} [1] {$^{\hbox{\scriptsize \cite{#1}}}$}
21: %
22: \newcommand{\prepr}[1] {\begin{flushright} {\bf #1}
23: \end{flushright} \vskip 1.5cm}
24: %
25: \newcommand{\titul}[1] {\begin{center}{\large\bf #1 } \end{center}\vskip 1.cm}
26: %
27: \newcommand{\autor}[1] {\begin {center} {\large \lineskip .5em #1 }
28: \end {center} }
29: %
30: \newcommand{\lugar}[1] {\begin{center} {\it #1} \end{center}}
31: %
32: \newcommand{\abstr}[1] {{\begin{center} \vskip .5cm {\bf Abstract
33: \vspace{0pt}} \end{center}}\begin{quote} #1
34: \end{quote}}
35: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
36: \newcommand{\z}{&&\hspace*{-1cm}}
37: \newcommand{\ep}{\varepsilon}
38: \newcommand{\aas}{\alpha_s}
39: \newcommand{\vph}{\varphi}
40: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
41: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
42: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
43: \begin{document}
44: \begin{titlepage}
45:
46: \begin{flushright} {
47: %4th version \\
48: %%\bf US-FT/11-99 \\
49: %March 2, 2004
50: %%July, 2002 \\ hep-ph/0207226
51: } \end{flushright}
52:
53: %\vskip 3.cm
54: \titul{ The
55: % contribution of off-shell gluons\\ to the
56: longitudinal structure function $F_L$:\\ perturbative QCD
57: and $k_T$-factorization \\ versus experimental data at fixed $W$
58: % and the unintegrated gluon distributions
59: }
60:
61: %
62: \autor{
63: A.V. Kotikov
64: \footnote{
65: %E-mail:kotikov@sunse.jinr.ru,
66: on leave of absence from the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research,
67: 141980 Dubna, Moscow region, Russia}
68: }
69: \lugar{
70: Institut f\"ur Theoretische Teilchenphysik\\
71: Universit\"at Karlsruhe\\
72: D-76128 Karlsruhe, Germany
73: %Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics\\
74: %Joint Institute for Nuclear Research\\
75: %141980 Dubna, Russia
76: }
77: %
78: %
79: \autor{A.V. Lipatov}
80: \lugar{Department of Physics \\
81: %M.V.
82: Lomonosov Moscow State University\\
83: 119899 Moscow, Russia}
84: \autor{N.P. Zotov}
85: \lugar{
86: %D.V.
87: Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics \\
88: %M.V.
89: Lomonosov Moscow State University\\
90: 119992 Moscow, Russia}
91: %
92: \abstr{
93: \medio
94: We use results for the structure function $F_L$
95: for a gluon target having nonzero transverse
96: momentum square at order $\alpha _s$, obtained in our previous paper,
97: to compare with recent H1 experimental data for $F_L$ at fixed $W$ values
98: and with collinear GRV predictions at LO and NLO approximation.
99:
100: \vskip 0.5cm
101:
102: PACS number(s): 13.60.Hb, 12.38.Bx, 13.15.Dk
103:
104: }
105: %
106: \end{titlepage}
107: \newpage
108:
109: \pagestyle{plain}
110: %\medio
111: %\section{Introduction} \indent
112:
113: The longitudinal structure function (SF) $F_L(x,Q^2)$
114: is a very sensitive QCD characteristic and is directly connected to the
115: gluon content of the proton.
116: It is equal to zero in the parton model with spin$-1/2$ partons
117: and has got nonzero values in the framework of perturbative Quantum
118: Chromodynamics.
119: The perturbative QCD, however, leads to a quite controversal results.
120: At the leading order (LO) approximation $F_L$ amounts to about $10\div 20
121: \%$ of the corresponding $F_2$ values at large
122: $Q^2$ range and, thus, it has got quite
123: large contributions at low $x$ range.
124: The next-to-leading order (NLO) corrections to the longitudinal
125: coefficient function are large and negative at small $x$
126: \cite{Neerven}-\cite{Rsmallx}
127: %\cite{Keller,Rsmallx}
128: and can lead to negative $F_L$ values at
129: low $x$ and low $Q^2$ values (see \cite{Rsmallx,Thorne02}).
130: Negative $F_L$ values demonstrate a limitations of the applicability of
131: perturbation theory and the necessity of a resummation procedure,
132: that leads to
133: coupling constant scale higher than $Q^2$
134: (see \cite{Rsmallx}, \cite{DoShi}-\cite{Salam}).
135:
136: The experimental extraction of $F_L$ data requires a
137: rather cumbersome procedure, especially at small values of $x$
138: (see \cite{1.5}, for example).
139: Recently, however, there have been presented
140: new precise preliminary H1 data \cite{H1rev} on the longitudinal SF
141: $F_L$,
142: which have probed the small-$x$ region $ 10^{-5} \leq x \leq 10^{-2}$.
143:
144: In this paper
145: the standard perturbative QCD formulas and also the so called
146: $k_T$-factorization approach \cite{CaCiHa}
147: based on Balitsky-Fadin-Kuraev-Lipatov (BFKL) dynamics \cite{BFKL}
148: (see also recent review \cite{Andersson} and references therein)
149: is used for the analysis of the above data.
150: The perturbative QCD approach is called hereafter as collinear
151: approximation and applied at LO and NLO levels using GRV
152: parameterizations for partion densities (see \cite{GRV}). The corresponding
153: coefficient functions are taken from the papers \cite{Guillen,Neerven}.
154:
155: In the framework of the $k_T$-factorization approach, which
156: is of primary consideration in our paper, a study of the
157: longitudinal SF $F_L$ has been done firstly in Ref. \cite{CaHa},
158: where the small $x$ asymptotics of $F_L$ has been obtained analytically
159: using the BFKL results for the Mellin transform of the
160: unintegrated gluon distribution and the longitudinal Wilson coefficient
161: functions for the full perturbative series has
162: been calculated at asymptotically small $x$ values.
163: In this note we follow a more phenomenological approach \cite{KLZ}
164: where we analyzed $F_L$ data in a broader range at small $x$ and, thus,
165: we use parameterizations
166: of the unintegrated gluon distribution function $\Phi_g(x,k^2_{\bot})$
167: (see Ref. \cite{Andersson}).
168:
169: A similar study has been already done
170: \footnote{Note that the studies of the $F_L$ structure function
171: in the framework of the $k_T$-factorization have been done also in
172: \cite{Blumlein93,BaKwSt}.}
173: in our paper \cite{KLZ} using previous H1 data \cite{H1FL97}.
174: The recent H1 preliminary experimental data \cite{H1rev} is essentially
175: more precise, that stimulates the present additional study.\\
176:
177: {\bf 1.}~
178: The unintegrated gluon distribution $\Phi_g(x,k^2_{\bot})$
179: ($f_g$ is the (integrated) gluon distribution in the proton multiplied
180: by $x$ and $k_{\bot}$ is the transverse part of the gluon 4-momentum
181: $k^{\mu}$)
182: \begin{eqnarray}
183: f_{g}(x,Q^2) ~=~ \int^{Q^2}dk^2_{\bot}
184: \, \Phi_g(x,k^2_{\bot})
185: ~~~~~\mbox{(hereafter }
186: ~k^2=-k^2_{\bot} \mbox{)}
187: \label{1}
188: \end{eqnarray}
189: is the basic dynamical quantity in
190: the $k_T$-factorization approach \footnote{
191: In our previous analysis \cite{KLPZ} we have shown
192: that the property
193: $k^2=-k^2_{\bot}$ leads to
194: the equality of the Bjorken $x$ value
195: in the standard renormalization-group approach
196: and in the Sudakov one.}.
197: It satisfies the BFKL equation \cite{BFKL}.
198:
199: Then, in the $k_T$-factorization
200: the SF $F_{2,L}(x,Q^2)$ are driven at small $x$ primarily
201: by gluons and are related in the following way to the unintegrated
202: distribution $\Phi_g(x,k^2_{\bot})$:
203: \begin{eqnarray}
204: F_{2,L}(x,Q^2) ~=~\int^1_{x} \frac{dz}{z} \int^{Q^2}
205: dk^2_{\bot} \sum_{i=u,d,s,c} e^2_i
206: \cdot \hat C^g_{2,L}(x/z,Q^2,m_i^2,k^2_{\bot})~ \Phi_g(z, k^2_{\bot}),
207: \label{d1}
208: \end{eqnarray}
209: where $e^2_i$ are charge squares of active quarks.
210:
211: The functions $\hat C^g_{2,L}(x,Q^2,m_i^2,k^2_{\bot})$
212: can be regarded as SF of the
213: off-shell gluons with virtuality $k^2_{\bot}$ (hereafter we call them
214: {\it hard structure functions } by analogy with similar
215: relations between cross-sections and hard
216: cross-sections). They are described by the sum of the quark
217: box (and crossed box) diagram contribution to the
218: photon-gluon interaction
219: (see, for example, Fig. 1 in \cite{KLPZ} and \cite{KLZ}). \\
220:
221: {\bf 2.}~
222: Notice that the $k^2_{\bot}$-integral in Eqs. (\ref{1}) and (\ref{d1})
223: can be divergent at lower limit,
224: at least for some parameterizations of $\Phi_g(x,k^2_{\bot})$.
225: To overcome the problem we change the low $Q^2$ asymptotics of
226: the QCD coupling constant within hard structure functions.
227: We apply here two models: the ``freezing'' procedure and
228: Shirkov-Solovtsov analytization.
229:
230: The ``freezing'' of the strong coupling constant is very popular
231: phenomenological model for infrared behavior of
232: %the strong coupling constant
233: $\as(Q^2)$.
234: The ``freezing'' can be done in the hard way and in the soft way.
235:
236: In the hard case (see \cite{NikoZa}, for example), the strong coupling
237: constant itself is modified: it is
238: taken to be constant at all $Q^2$ values less then some $Q^2_0$, i.e.
239: $\aas(Q^2)~=~ \aas(Q^2_0)$, if $Q^2 \leq Q^2_0$.
240:
241: In the soft case (see \cite{BaKwSt}, for example), the subject of
242: the modification is the argument of the strong coupling constant. It
243: contains the shift $Q^2 \to Q^2 + M^2$, where $M$ is an additional
244: scale, which strongly modifies the infrared $\alpha_s$ properties.
245: For massless produced quarks, $\rho$-meson mass $m_{\rho}$ is usually
246: taken
247: as the $M$ value, i.e. $M=m_{\rho}$.
248: In the case of massive quarks with mass $m_i$, the $M=2m_{i}$ value
249: is usually used.
250: Below we will use the soft version of ``freezing'' procedure.
251:
252: Shirkov and Solovtsov proposed \cite{ShiSo} a
253: procedure of analytization of the strong coupling constant $\as(Q^2)$,
254: which leads to a new strong analytical coupling constant $a_{an}(Q^2)$
255: having
256: nonstandard infrared properties. We are not in position to discuss here
257: theoretical
258: aspects of the procedure and use only the final formulae for the
259: analytical coupling constant $a_{an}(Q^2)$. They have the following form
260: %(hereafter $a_s(Q^2)= \aas(Q^2)/(4\pi)$
261:
262: \begin{eqnarray}
263: \frac{a_{an}(Q^2)}{4\pi} ~=~ \frac{1}{\beta_0}
264: \left[
265: \frac{1}{\ln(Q^2/\Lambda^2)} + \frac{\Lambda^2}{\Lambda^2-Q^2}
266: \right]
267: \label{cc:LO}
268: \end{eqnarray}
269: in the LO approximation and
270:
271: \begin{eqnarray}
272: \frac{a_{an}(Q^2)}{4\pi} ~=~ \frac{1}{\beta_0}
273: \left[
274: \frac{1}{\ln(Q^2/\Lambda^2) + b_1 \ln[1+ \ln(Q^2/\Lambda^2)/b_1]}
275: + \frac{1}{2} \, \frac{\Lambda^2}{\Lambda^2-Q^2} -
276: \frac{\Lambda^2}{Q^2} \, C_1
277: \right],
278: \label{cc:NLO1}
279: \end{eqnarray}
280: in the NLO approximation, where
281: $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$ are the two first terms in the
282: $\alpha_s$-expansion of $\beta$-function and $b_1=\beta_1/\beta^2_0$.
283: The constant $C_1=0.0354$ is very small.
284:
285: The first terms in the r.h.s. of Eqs. (\ref{cc:LO}) and (\ref{cc:NLO1})
286: are the standard LO and NLO representations for $\alpha_s(Q^2)$. The
287: additional terms modify its infrared properties.
288:
289: Note that numerically both infrared transformations, the ``freezing''
290: procedure and Shirkov-Solovtsov analytization, lead to very close results
291: %are very close each other
292: (see below Fig. 1 and also Ref. \cite{IllaKo} and discussion therein).
293:
294: \begin{figure}[htb]
295: \begin{center}
296: %\epsfig{figure= FLW-JB.eps,width=13cm,height=7cm}
297: %\epsfig{figure= FLW-JBL.eps,width=17cm,height=12cm}
298: \epsfig{figure= FLW-JBL.eps,width=17cm,height=13cm}
299: %\psfig{figure= FLW-JB.ps,width=13cm,height=7cm}
300: \end{center}
301: \caption{$Q^2$ dependence of $F_L(x, Q^2)$ (at fixed $W$ = 276 GeV).
302: The H1 preliminary, $e^+p$ and $e^-p$ experimental data are shown as
303: the black points, black and white squares, respectively (see \cite{H1rev}).
304: Theoretical curves obtained in the $k_T-$factorization approach
305: with the JB unintegrated gluon distribution: solid curve corresponds to
306: "frozen" coupling constant, dashed curve - analytical
307: coupling constant, dash-dotted - "frozen" argument of the
308: unintegrated gluon distribution function.}
309: \label{fig1}
310: \end{figure}
311:
312: {\bf 3.}~ As it was already noted above,
313: the purpose of the paper is to describe new preliminary
314: H1 experimental data
315: for the longitudinal SF $F_{L}(x,Q^2)$ using our
316: calculations of the hard SF
317: $\hat C^g_{2,L}(x,Q^2,m^2,k^2_{\bot})$ given in our previous study
318: \cite{KLPZ} and infrared modifications of
319: $\aas(Q^2)$, explained above.
320: For the unintegrated gluon distribution $\Phi (x, k^2_{\bot}, Q_0^2)$
321: we use the so called Blumlein's parametrization (JB)
322: \cite{Blumlein}.
323: %
324: Note that there are also several other popular parameterizations, which
325: give quite similar results excepting,
326: perhaps, the contributions from the small $k_{\bot}^2$-range:
327: $k_{\bot}^2 \leq 1$ GeV$^2$
328: (see Ref. \cite{Andersson} and references therein).
329:
330: The JB form depends strongly on the Pomeron intercept value.
331: In different models the Pomeron intercept
332: has different values (see \cite{Kaidalov}). So, in
333: our calculations we apply the H1 parameterization \cite{H1slope} based
334: on the corresponding H1 data, which
335: %These H1 data
336: are in good agreement with
337: perturbative QCD (see Refs. \cite{H1slope,KoPa03}).
338:
339:
340: We calculate the SF $F_L$ as the sum of two types of contributions:
341: the charm quark one $F^c_L$ and the light quark one $F^{l}_L$:
342: \bea
343: F_L ~=~ F^{l}_L + F^{c}_L
344: \label{nu1}
345: \eea
346:
347: For the $F^{l}_L$ part we use the massless limit of hard SF (see
348: \cite{KLPZ,KLZ}).
349: We always use $f=4$ in our fits, because our results depend very
350: weakly on the exact $f$ value (for similar results see
351: fits of experimental data in \cite{KriKo}
352: and discussions therein). The weak dependence comes from two basic
353: properties. Firstly, the charm part of $F_L$, $F_L^c$, is quite small at
354: the considered $Q^2$ values (see Ref. \cite{KLZ} for the $F_L^c$ study).
355: Secondly, the strong coupling constant very weakly depends on $f$
356: because of the corresponding relations between $\Lambda$ values at
357: different $f$ (see \cite{Chetyrkin}).
358:
359: \begin{figure}[htb]
360: \begin{center}
361: %\epsfig{figure= FLW-JB-GRV.eps,width=13cm,height=7cm}
362: \epsfig{figure= FLW-JB-GRVL.eps,width=17cm,height=12.5cm}
363: %\psfig{figure= FLW-JB-GRV2.ps,width=13cm,height=7cm}
364: \end{center}
365: \caption{$Q^2$ dependence of $F_L(x, Q^2)$ (at fixed $W$ = 276 GeV).
366: The experimental points are as in Fig. 1.
367: Solid curve is the result of the $k_T-$factorization approach
368: with the JB unintegrated gluon distribution and
369: "frozen" coupling constant, dashed curve - the GRV LO calculations,
370: dash-dotted curve - the GRV NLO calculations, dotted curve
371: - the result of the GRV LO calculations
372: with
373: %"frozen" coupling constant at
374: $\mu^2 = 127Q^2$.}
375: \label{fig2}
376: \end{figure}
377:
378: In Fig. 1 we show the SF $F_L$ with ``frozen'' and analytical
379: coupling constants, respectively, as a function of $Q^2$ for fixed
380: $W$ in comparison with H1 experimental data sets (see \cite{H1rev}).
381: The results are mostly coincide with each other. They are presented as
382: bold and
383: dashed curves, which cannot be really resolved in the figure.
384:
385: The dash-dotted curve shows the results obtained with ``frozen''
386: argument of the unintegrated gluon density.
387: The difference between the bold and dash-dotted
388: lines is not so big, that demonstrates the unimportance of the infrared
389: modifications of the density argument. Below we only restrict ourselves
390: only to the modification of the
391: argument in the strong coupling constant entering the hard structure
392: function.
393:
394:
395: Fig. 2 contains the same bold curve as Fig. 1 and shows also the
396: collinear results for $F_L$ values. We use the popular GRV
397: parameterizations \cite{GRV} at LO and NLO approximations.
398: The $k_T$-factorization results lie between the collinear ones, that
399: demonstrates clearly the particular resummation of high-order collinear
400: contributions at small $x$ values in the $k_T$-factorization approach.
401:
402: We also see exellent agreement between the experimental data and
403: collinear approach with GRV parton densities at NLO approximation. The
404: NLO corrections are large and negative and decrease the $F_L$ value
405: by an approximate factor of 2 at $Q^2 < 10$ GeV$^2$.
406:
407: In Figs. 1 and 2, our $k_T$-factorization
408: results are in good agreement with the data for large and small
409: parts of the $Q^2$ range. We have, however, some disagreement
410: between the data
411: and theoretical predictions at $Q^2 \sim 3$ GeV$^2$. The disagreement
412: exists in both cases: for collinear QCD approach at the LO
413: approximation
414: and for $k_T$-factorization.
415:
416: Comparing these results with Fig. 4 of Lobodzinska's talk in Ref.
417: \cite{H1rev} we conclude
418: that the disagreement comes from the usage of the LO approximation.
419: Unfortunately, at the moment in the $k_T$-factorization approach only
420: the LO terms are available. The calculation of the NLO corrections is
421: a very complicated problem (see \cite{Jung} and discussion therein).
422:
423:
424: A rough estimation of the NLO corrections in the $k_T$-factorization
425: approach can be done in the following way.
426: Consider first the BFKL approach. A popular resummation of the
427: NLO corrections is done in \cite{BFKLP} at some approximation. Ref.
428: \cite{BFKLP} demonstrates, that is
429: the basic effect of the NLO corrections, that is
430: the strong rise of the $\alpha_s$ argument from $Q^2$ to $Q^2_{eff} =
431: K \cdot Q^2$, where $K=127$, i.e. $K>>1$, which is in agreement with
432: \cite{Rsmallx}, \cite{DoShi} and \cite{Salam}.
433:
434: \begin{figure}[htb]
435: \begin{center}
436: %\epsfig{figure= FLW-MZ.eps,width=13cm,height=8cm}
437: \epsfig{figure= FLW-MZL.eps,width=17cm,height=13cm}
438: %\psfig{figure= FLW-MZ.ps,width=13cm,height=8cm}
439: \end{center}
440: \caption{$Q^2$ dependence of $F_L(x, Q^2)$ (at fixed $W$ = 276 GeV).
441: The experimental points are as in Fig. 1.
442: Solid curve is the result of the $k_T-$factorization approach
443: with the JB unintegrated gluon distribution and
444: %"frozen" coupling constant at
445: $\mu^2 = M_Z^2$, dashed curve - the GRV LO
446: calculations at $\mu^2 = M_Z^2$.}
447: \label{fig3}
448: \end{figure}
449:
450: The use of the effective argument $Q^2_{eff}$ in the DGLAP approach at LO
451: approximation leads to results which are very close to the ones
452: obtained in the case of
453: NLO approximation: see the dot-dashed and dotted curves in Fig. 2.
454: Thus, we hope that the effective
455: argument represents the basic effect of the NLO corrections in the
456: framework of the $k_T$-factorization, which in some
457: sense lies between the DGLAP
458: and BFKL approaches as it was noted above already.
459:
460: The necessity of large effective arguments is also demonstrated in
461: Fig. 3, where we show the $k_T$-factorization and collinear results for
462: nonrunning coupling constant. Its argument is fixed at $Q^2=M_Z^2$ giving
463: $\alpha_s \approx 0.118$ (see \cite{Bethke}), i.e. the considered argument is
464: larger than the most part of the $Q^2$-values of the considered
465: experimental data.
466: \footnote{The study is also initiated by
467: conversation with L.L\"onnblad, we thank him.}
468:
469: The results obtained in the $k_T$-factorization and collinear approaches
470: based on $Q^2_{eff}$ argument are presented in Fig. 4. In comparison
471: with the ones shown in Fig. 1, they are close to each other because the
472: effective argument
473: is essentially larger than the $Q^2$ value. There is very good agreement
474: between the experimental data and both theoretical approaches.
475:
476: Moreover, we also present in Fig.4 the $F_L$ results based on the
477: $R_{world}$-parameterization for the $R=\sigma_L/\sigma_T$ ratio (see
478: \cite{SLAC}) (because $F_L=F_2 R/(1+R)$),
479: improved in \cite{CCFR,CCFRr} for low $Q^2$ values and the
480: parameterization of $F_2$ data used in the our previous paper
481: \cite{KLZ}. The results are in good agreement with other
482: theoretical predictions as well as with experimental data.\\
483:
484: \begin{figure}[htb]
485: \begin{center}
486: %\epsfig{figure= FLW-127.eps,width=13cm,height=8cm}
487: \epsfig{figure= FLW-127L.eps,width=17cm,height=13cm}
488: %\psfig{figure= FLW-127N.ps,width=13cm,height=8cm}
489: \end{center}
490: \caption{$Q^2$ dependence of $F_L(x, Q^2)$ (at fixed $W$ = 276 GeV).
491: The experimental points are as in Fig. 1.
492: Solid curve is the result of the $k_T-$factorization approach
493: with the JB unintegrated gluon distribution and
494: %"frozen" coupling constant
495: at $\mu^2 = 127Q^2$, dashed curve - the GRV LO
496: calculations at $\mu^2 = 127Q^2$, dash-dotted curve - from the
497: $R_{world}$-parametrization.}
498: \label{fig4}
499: \end{figure}
500:
501:
502: {\bf 4.}~~{\it Resume}.
503: In the framework of $k_T$-factorization we have applied
504: the results of the calculation of the perturbative
505: parts for the structure functions $F_L$ and $F_L^c$
506: for a gluon target,
507: having nonzero momentum square, in the process
508: of photon-gluon fusion \cite{KLPZ, KLZ}
509: to the analysis of recent H1 preliminary data.
510: The perturbative QCD predictions are presented also at LO and NLO
511: approximations.
512:
513:
514: We have found very good agreement between the experimental data and
515: collinear results based on GRV parameterization at NLO approximation.
516: The LO collinear and $k_T$-factorization results show disagreement
517: with the data at some $Q^2$ values. We argued that the disagreement
518: comes from the absence of the NLO corrections in the framework of
519: the $k_T$-factorization.
520: We modeled these NLO corrections by
521: choosing large effective argument of the strong coupling constant and
522: argued for our choice.
523: The effective corrections significantly improve the agreement with the H1
524: data under consideration.\\
525:
526: \hspace{1cm}
527: {\bf Acknowledgements} \vspace{0.5cm}
528:
529: \normalsize{}
530:
531: We thank S.P. Baranov for careful reading of manuscript and useful
532: remarks.
533: The our study is supported in part by the RFBR grant.
534: % 02-02-17513.
535: One of the authors (A.V.K.) is supported in part by
536: Alexander von Humboldt fellowship.
537: A.V.L. is supported in part by INTAS YSF-2002 grant $N^o$ 399 and
538: "Dinastiya" Fundation.
539: N.P.Z. also acknowledge L. J\"onsson for discussion of the H1 data
540: \cite{H1rev} and the support of Crafoord Fundation (Sweden).
541:
542:
543:
544:
545: %\newpage
546:
547: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
548: %
549: \bibitem{Neerven} W.L. van Neerven and E.B. Zijlstra,
550: Phys. Lett. {\bf B272} (1991) 127;
551: E.B. Zijlstra and W.L. van Neerven, Phys. Lett. {\bf B273} (1991) 476,
552: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B383} (1992) 525.
553: %
554: \bibitem{KaKo} D.I. Kazakov and A.V. Kotikov,
555: Theor.Math.Phys. {\bf 73} (1987) 1264;
556: %%CITATION = TMPHA,73,1264;%%
557: Nucl.Phys. {\bf B307} (1988) 721;
558: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B307,721;%%
559: E: {\bf B345} (1990) 299.
560: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B345,299;%%
561: %
562: %
563: %\bibitem{KaKoFL} D.I. Kazakov and A.V. Kotikov,
564: Phys.Lett. {\bf B291} (1992) 171;
565: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B291,171;%%
566: D.I. Kazakov, A.V. Kotikov, G. Parente, O.A. Sampayo,
567: and J. Sanchez Guillen, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 65} (1990) 1535.
568: %%CITATION = PRLTA,65,1535;%%
569: %
570: %
571: \bibitem{Guillen} J. Sanchez Guillen, J. Miramontes, M. Miramontes,
572: G. Parente and O.A. Sampayo,
573: %et al.,
574: %J.C. Collins and R.K. Ellis,
575: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B353} (1991) 337.
576:
577: %
578: \bibitem{Keller} S. Keller, M. Miramontes, G. Parente, J. Sanchez-Guillen,
579: and O.A. Sampayo, Phys.Lett. {\bf B270} (1990) 61;
580: L.H. Orr and W.J. Stirling, Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf B66} (1991) 1673;
581: E. Berger and R. Meng, Phys.Lett. {\bf B304} (1993) 318.
582: %A.V. Kotikov, JETP Lett. {\bf 59} (1994) 1; Phys.Lett. {\bf B338} (1994) 349.
583: %%%CITATION = PHLTA,B338,349;%%
584: %
585: \bibitem{Rsmallx}
586: A.V. Kotikov, JETP Lett. {\bf 59} (1994) 1;
587: Phys. Lett. {\bf B338} (1994) 349.
588: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B338,349;%%
589: %
590: \bibitem{Thorne02} A.D. Martin, R.G. Roberts, W.J. Stirling
591: and R.S. Thorne,
592: %in: {\it Proc. of the Int.
593: %Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering} (2002), Cracow.
594: Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 23} (2002) 73.
595: %
596: %
597: \bibitem{DoShi}
598: Yu.L. Dokshitzer, D.V. Shirkov,
599: Z. Phys. {\bf C67} (1995) 449;
600: %
601: %
602: %\bibitem{Wong}
603: W.K.~Wong,
604: Phys.~Rev.~{\bf D54} (1996) 1094.
605: %
606: \bibitem{BFKLP} S.J. Brodsky, V.S. Fadin, V.T. Kim, L.N. Lipatov and G.B.
607: Pivovarov, JETP. Lett. {\bf 70} (1999) 155.
608: %
609: \bibitem{Salam} M. Ciafaloni, D. Colferai and G.P. Salam,
610: Phys. Rev. {\bf D60} (1999) 114036; JHEP {\bf 07} (2000) 054;
611: R.S. Thorne, Phys. Lett. {\bf B474} (2000) 372;
612: Phys. Rev. {\bf D60} (1999) 054031; {\bf D64} (2001) 074005;
613: G. Altarelli, R.D. Ball and S. Forte,
614: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B621} (2002) 359.
615: %
616: \bibitem{1.5}
617: A.M.Cooper-Sarkar, G.Ingelman, K.R.Long, R.G.Roberts and D.H.Saxon,
618: {\em Z.Phys.} {\bf C39} (1988) 281;
619: %
620: %\bibitem{BaGlKl}
621: L. Bauerdick, A. Glazov and M.Klein,
622: {\it in} Proc. of the Int. Workshop on Future Physics on HERA,
623: Hamburg, DESY (1996), p.77
624: (hep-ex/9609017).
625: %
626: \bibitem{H1rev}
627: E.M. Lobodzinska, hep-ph/0311180;
628: P. Newman, hep-ex/0312018.
629: %
630: \bibitem{CaCiHa} S. Catani, M. Ciafaloni and F. Hautmann,
631: %Phys. Lett. {\bf B242} (1990) 97;
632: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B366} (1991) 135;
633: %Nucl. Phys. B (Proc.Suppl.) {\bf 29A} (1992) 182;
634: %Preprint CERN - TH.6398/92,
635: in Proceeding of the Workshop on Physics at HERA
636: (Hamburg, 1991), v.2, p.690;
637: %
638: %\bibitem{CoEllis}
639: J.C. Collins and R.K. Ellis,
640: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B360} (1991) 3;
641: %
642: %\bibitem{LRSS}
643: E.M. Levin, M.G. Ryskin, Yu.M. Shabelskii and A.G. Shuvaev,
644: Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 53} (1991) 657.
645: %
646: \bibitem{BFKL} L.N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.
647: {\bf 23} (1976) 338;
648: E.A. Kuraev, L.N. Lipatov and V.S. Fadin, Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 44}
649: (1976) 443, {\bf 45} (1977) 199;
650: Ya.Ya. Balitzki and L.N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.
651: {\bf 28} (1978) 822;
652: L.N. Lipatov, Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 63} (1986) 904.
653: %
654: \bibitem{Andersson} Bo Andersson et al. (Small x Collaboration),
655: Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 25}, 77 (2002);
656: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204115;%%
657: J. Andersen et al. (Small x Collaboration), hep-ph/0312333.
658:
659: %
660: \bibitem{GRV} M. Gluck, E. Reya and A. Vogt,
661: Z. Phys. C {\bf 67} (1995) 433.
662: %
663: \bibitem{CaHa} S. Catani and F. Hautmann,
664: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B427} (1994) 475;
665: S. Catani, Preprint DFF 254-7-96 (hep-ph/9608310).
666: %
667: \bibitem{KLPZ} A.V. Kotikov, A. V. Lipatov, G. Parente and N.P. Zotov,
668: % Preprint US-FT/7-01 (hep-ph/0107135);
669: Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 26}, 51 (2002);
670: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107135;%%
671: {\it in} Proc. of the XVIth International Workshop
672: ``High Energy Physics and Quantum Field Theory``, Moscow, 2002, p.230
673: (hep-ph/0208195).
674: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208195;%%
675: %
676: \bibitem{KLZ}
677: A.V. Kotikov, A.V.~Lipatov and N.P.Zotov,
678: %hep-ph/0207226,
679: Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 27} (2003) 219;
680: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207226;%%
681: A.V. Kotikov, A.V.~Lipatov, G. Parente and N.P.Zotov,
682: {\it in} Proc. of the International School
683: ``Heavy Quark Physics`` (2002), Dubna (hep-ph/0304078).
684: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304078;%%
685: %
686: \bibitem{Blumlein93}
687: J. Blumlein, J. Phys. {\bf G19} (1993) 1623.
688: %
689: \bibitem{BaKwSt}
690: B.Badelek, J.Kwiecinski and A. Stasto, Z. Phys. {\bf C74} (1997) 297.
691: %
692: \bibitem{H1FL97} H1 Collab.: S. Aid et al.,
693: Phys.Lett. {\bf B393} (1997) 452;
694: %
695: %
696: %\bibitem{Gogi} H1 Collab.,
697: N. Gogitidze, J. Phys. {\bf G28} (2002) 751 (hep-ph/0201047).
698: %
699: %
700: \bibitem{NikoZa}
701: N.N.Nikolaev and B.M. Zakharov, Z. Phys. {\bf C49} (1991) 607;
702: {\bf C53} (1992) 331.
703: %
704: %
705: \bibitem{ShiSo}
706: D.V.Shirkov and L.I. Solovtsov, Phys. Rev. Lett {\bf 79} (1997) 1209;
707: Theor. Math. Phys. {\bf 120} (1999) 1220.
708: %Teor.Mat.Fiz.120:482-510,1999
709: %
710: \bibitem{IllaKo} A.Yu. Illarionov and A.V. Kotikov, work in progress.
711: %
712: \bibitem{Blumlein} J. Blumlein,
713: Preprints DESY 95-121 (hep-ph/9506403).
714: %
715: %
716: \bibitem{Kaidalov} A.B. Kaidalov, In 'At the frontier of particle physics'
717: ed. by M. Shifman, vol. 1, pp. 603-636 (hep-ph/0103011);
718: A. Capella, A. Kaidalov, C. Merino and J. Tran Thanh Van,
719: Phys. Lett. {\bf B337} (1994) 358.
720: %
721: %
722: \bibitem{H1slope} H1 Collab.: C. Adloff et al.,
723: Phys. Lett. {\bf B520} (2001) 183.
724: %
725: %
726: \bibitem{KoPa03} A.V. Kotikov and G. Parente,
727: JETP {\bf 97} (2003) 859.
728: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207276;%%
729: %
730: %
731: %
732: \bibitem{KriKo}
733: V.G. Krivokhijine and A.V. Kotikov, JINR preprint E2-2001-190
734: (hep-ph/0108224);
735: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108224;%%
736: Acta Phys. Slov. {\bf 52} (2002) 227.
737: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207222;%%
738: %(hep-ph/0207222).
739: %
740: \bibitem{Chetyrkin}
741: W. Marciano, Phys. Rev. {\bf D29} (1984) 580;
742: K.G.~Chetyrkin, B.A. Kniehl and M.~Steinhauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}
743: (1997) 2184.
744: %
745: \bibitem{Jung} H. Jung, Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 79} (1999) 429;
746: hep-ph/9908497, hep-ph/0312066.
747: %
748: \bibitem{Bethke}
749: S. Bethke, J. Phys. { \bf C26} (2000) R27.
750: %
751: \bibitem{SLAC} SLAC Collab., L.W. Whitlow et al.,
752: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B250} (1990) 193.
753: %
754: \bibitem{CCFR} U.K. Yang et al., J. Phys. {\bf G22} (1996) 775;
755: A. Bodek,
756: {\it in} Proc. of the 4th Int. Workshop on Deep Inelastic
757: Scattering, DIS96 (1996), Rome, p.213;
758: A. Bodek, S. Rock, and U.K. Yang, Univ. Rochester preprint, UR-1355, 1995.
759: %
760: \bibitem{CCFRr} CCFR/NuTeV Collab.: U.K. Yang et al.,
761: Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 87} (2001) 251802;\\
762: %Preprint UR-1614, ER/40685/952
763: %{\it in} Proc. Int. Conferencee on High Energy Physics (2000) Osaka, Japan
764: %(hep-ex/010104040);\\
765: CCFR/NuTeV Collab.: A. Bodek, {\it in} Proc. of the 9th Int. Workshop
766: on Deep Inelastic
767: Scattering, DIS 2001 (2001), Bologna (hep-ex/00105067).
768: %
769: \end{thebibliography}
770: \end{document}
771:
772: