1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: % INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING %
3: % %
4: % `Preparing an article for publication in an Institute of Physics %
5: % Publishing journal using LaTeX' %
6: % %
7: % LaTeX source code `ioplau2e.tex' used to generate `author %
8: % guidelines', the documentation explaining and demonstrating use %
9: % of the Institute of Physics Publishing LaTeX preprint files %
10: % `iopart.cls, iopart12.clo and iopart10.clo'. %
11: % %
12: % `ioplau2e.tex' itself uses LaTeX with `iopart.cls' %
13: % %
14: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
15: %
16: %
17: % First we have a character check
18: %
19: % ! exclamation mark " double quote
20: % # hash ` opening quote (grave)
21: % & ampersand ' closing quote (acute)
22: % $ dollar % percent
23: % ( open parenthesis ) close paren.
24: % - hyphen = equals sign
25: % | vertical bar ~ tilde
26: % @ at sign _ underscore
27: % { open curly brace } close curly
28: % [ open square ] close square bracket
29: % + plus sign ; semi-colon
30: % * asterisk : colon
31: % < open angle bracket > close angle
32: % , comma . full stop
33: % ? question mark / forward slash
34: % \ backslash ^ circumflex
35: %
36: % ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
37: % abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
38: % 1234567890
39: %
40: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
41: %
42:
43: \documentclass[12pt]{iopart}
44: % Uncomment next line if AMS fonts required
45: %\usepackage{iopams}
46:
47: \usepackage{graphicx}
48:
49:
50: \newcommand{\BQ}{\begin{equation}}
51: \newcommand{\EQ}{\end{equation}}
52: \newcommand{\BQA}{\begin{eqnarray}}
53: \newcommand{\EQA}{\end{eqnarray}}
54: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{eqnarray}}
55: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}}
56: \newcommand{\NN}{\nonumber \\}
57: \newcommand{\del}{\partial}
58: \newcommand{\Path}{{\rm P}\,}
59: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{\left.\left\vert #1 \right. \right\rangle}
60: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\left\langle\left. #1 \right\vert\right.}
61: \newcommand{\ketrm}[1]{\vert {\rm #1} \rangle} % for |phys>
62: \newcommand{\brarm}[1]{\langle {\rm #1} \vert} % for <phys|
63: \newcommand{\V}{\widetilde V}
64: \newcommand{\x}{x_\perp}
65: \newcommand{\y}{y_\perp}
66: \newcommand{\z}{z_\perp}
67: \newcommand{\q}{q_\perp}
68: \newcommand{\kk}{k_\perp}
69: \newcommand{\N}{{\mathcal N}_\tau}
70: \newcommand{\bm}[1]{{\bf #1}}
71: \newcommand{\rr}{r_\perp}
72: \def\simge{\mathrel{%
73: \rlap{\raise 0.511ex \hbox{$>$}}{\lower 0.511ex \hbox{$\sim$}}}}
74: \def\simle{\mathrel{
75: \rlap{\raise 0.511ex \hbox{$<$}}{\lower 0.511ex \hbox{$\sim$}}}}
76:
77:
78: \begin{document}
79: \begin{flushright}
80: SPhT-T04/034
81: \end{flushright}
82:
83: \vspace*{-6mm}
84: \title[CGC and BFKL in DIS at small $x$]
85: {Color Glass Condensate and BFKL dynamics\\ in deep inelastic scattering
86: at small $x$}
87: \vspace*{-2mm}
88: \author{Kazunori Itakura}%\footnote{{\tt itakura@spht.saclay.cea.fr}}}
89: \vspace*{-2mm}
90: \address{Service de Physique Th\'eorique, CEA Saclay,
91: F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France}
92:
93: \begin{abstract}
94: The proton structure function $F_2(x,Q^2)$
95: for $x\le 10^{-2}$ and $0.045\le Q^2 \le 45\,{\rm GeV}^2$,
96: measured in the deep inelastic scattering at HERA,
97: can be well described within the framework of the Color Glass Condensate.
98: \end{abstract}
99: %\maketitle
100: \vspace*{-0.7cm}
101: \section{Introduction}
102: \vspace*{-3mm}
103: There has been a surge of theoretical and experimental interest
104: in the ``Color Glass Condensate (CGC)" which appears in
105: the new perturbative regime of QCD relevant for high energy
106: scattering \cite{Review}. This new state is characterized by
107: high density gluons whose longitudinal momenta are very
108: small compared to the total momentum of the parent hadron
109: (such gluons are called ``small-$x$" gluons since
110: the ratio of the momenta is denoted as $x$).
111: The gluon density is typically as large as ${\cal O}(1/\alpha_s)$,
112: and cannot be too large (``saturated") so that the
113: unitarity of physical cross sections is ensured.
114:
115: Recent rapid
116: theoretical progress in understanding the physics of CGC is
117: triggered by the experiments currently investigated at HERA
118: (DESY) and RHIC (BNL). The relevant process at HERA is the deep
119: inelastic scattering (DIS) of an electron
120: off a proton, while at RHIC it is more complicated Au-Au or
121: deuteron-Au collision.
122: These two apparently different experiments
123: (different in complexity and energy) are nevertheless closely
124: related to each other in the context of CGC through the
125: ``{\it universality}" of the hadron/nucleus wavefunctions or the
126: gluon distributions.
127: %Of course,
128: %there is universality in the standard sense: once we determine
129: %the parton distributions, we can apply them to various scattering
130: %processes.
131: Here we mean differently by the word ``universality'' than in
132: the usual sense. Namely, in the saturated regime at
133: high energy, the gluon distributions of the proton and nucleus are
134: both described by the
135: {\it same function} of the ratio of the transverse momentum
136: of gluons $\kk$ to the {\it saturation momentum} $Q_s$,
137: which is the (inverse of) typical transverse size of gluons
138: (for more explanations,
139: see for example, Refs.~\cite{IIT,SAT}).
140: %measured by some external probes.
141: Therefore, one will be able to 'translate' the HERA physics
142: for protons into the RHIC physics for gold nuclei.
143: Furthermore, the saturation scales in two experiments
144: are accidentally of the same order because of its particular dependencies
145: upon $x$ and the atomic number $A$, i.e.,
146: $Q_s^2(A,x)\propto A^{1/3}(1/x)^\lambda\sim (A/x)^{0.3}$.
147: Indeed, at HERA, $A=1$ and $x\sim 10^{-4}$ while at RHIC, $A\simeq 200$
148: and typically $x\sim 10^{-2}$. This fact also strengthens
149: the importance of understanding the HERA physics in relation
150: to the RHIC physics. In this talk, I will show that the recent HERA data
151: \cite{New_HERA} at small-$x$ with not so large $Q^2$ is consistent
152: with the current picture of the CGC (for more detail, see Ref.~\cite{IIM}),
153: which, according to the discussion above,
154: suggests the importance of CGC at RHIC.
155:
156:
157:
158: \section{DIS at small $x$ and previous fits with saturation models}
159: \vspace*{-3mm}
160: DIS at small-$x$ looks simple in the ``dipole picture" which leads to
161: an intuitively understandable factorization formula. The scattering
162: between the virtual photon $\gamma^*$ (emitted from the projectile
163: electron) and the proton is seen as the dissociation of $\gamma^*$
164: into a quark-antiquark pair (the ``color dipole'') followed by the
165: interaction of this dipole with the color fields in the
166: proton. Then one can write the $F_2$ structure function as
167: \be\label{sigmagamma}
168: F_2(x,Q^2)= \frac{Q^2}{4 \pi^2 \alpha_{\rm em}}\,
169: \sum_{T,L}\int dz\,d^2{\bm r}\,|\Psi_{T,L}(z,{\bm r},Q^2)|^2\,
170: \sigma_{\rm dipole}(x,{\bm r}),\,\,\,\,\ee
171: where, $\Psi_{T,L}$ are the light-cone wavefunctions of $\gamma^*$
172: with transverse, or longitudinal, polarization,
173: %computable within QED. Furthermore,
174: and $\sigma_{\rm dipole}(x,{\bm r})$ is the cross-section
175: for dipole--proton scattering (for a dipole of transverse size ${\bm r}$),
176: containing all the information about hadronic interactions such as
177: the unitarization or saturation effects.
178:
179: A simple parametrization for $\sigma_{\rm dipole}(x,{\bm r})$
180: which has qualitatively plausible behaviors like color transparency
181: and saturation effects was first proposed by
182: Golec-Biernat and W\"usthoff (GBW) \cite{GBW}.
183: They used a very simple function
184: $\sigma_{\rm dipole}(x,{\bm r})=
185: \sigma_0\, (1 - {\rm e}^{-{\bm r}^2 Q_s^2(x)/4})$
186: with only three parameters
187: $\sigma_0$ (a hadronic cross-section), $x_0$ and $\lambda$ for
188: the saturation momentum $Q_s^2 (x)= (x_0/x)^\lambda$ GeV$^2$, and
189: managed to provide rather good fits to the (old) HERA data for
190: $x \le 10^{-2}$ and all $Q^2$. This success was quite impressive
191: by itself since it suggested the relevance of saturation physics
192: in the HERA data, but at the same time required more serious theoretical
193: effort towards understanding the HERA data with the saturation picture
194: better rooted in QCD. In fact, there is no kinematical
195: regime in which the GBW model can be (strictly) justified from
196: QCD, and the GBW model must be improved with the information
197: of QCD, or replaced by other QCD-based parametrization.
198: So far, there are several attempts to improve the GBW model
199: \cite{BGBK,KT}, but they mostly focused upon improving
200: the behavior of the fit at large $Q^2$, by including DGLAP
201: dynamics. On the other hand, we know that the BFKL dynamics, rather than
202: DGLAP, should be the right physics in the transition regime towards
203: saturation. This BFKL physics was not addressed so far, and we will
204: focus on the regime with not too large $Q^2$ where the BFKL and
205: saturation physics should be more relevant, and will present a
206: new analysis of the HERA data, which is rather orthogonal to the
207: previous attempts to improve the GBW model.
208:
209:
210: \section{The CGC fit \cite{IIM}}
211: \vspace*{-3mm}
212: We restrict ourselves to the kinematical range where one expects
213: important high density effects --- namely, $x\le 10^{-2}$
214: and $Q^2 < 50\,{\rm GeV}^2$ ---,
215: and show that the data in this range are consistent with our present
216: understanding of CGC (BFKL evolution and saturation).
217: The upper limit % of $50\,{\rm GeV}^2$
218: on $Q^2$ has been chosen large enough to include a significant
219: number of ``perturbative'' data points, but low enough to
220: justify the emphasis on BFKL, rather than DGLAP, evolution.
221: Within this kinematical range, we shall provide a reasonable fit
222: (which we call the ``CGC fit'')
223: %($\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.} \simeq 0.8-0.9$)
224: to the new HERA data for $F_2$ based on a simple, analytic,
225: formula for the dipole scattering amplitude.
226:
227:
228:
229: \begin{figure}%[htb]
230: \begin{center}%\hspace*{25mm}
231: \includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{f2.eps}\hspace*{-5mm}
232: \includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{f2highq2.eps}
233: \vspace*{-0.7cm}
234: \end{center}
235: \caption[]{The $F_2$ structure function as a function of $x$
236: in bins of $Q^2$ for $Q^2\le 15\, {\rm GeV}^2$ (left) and
237: for $Q^2>15\, {\rm GeV}^2$ (right).
238: The experimental points are the latest
239: data from the H1 and ZEUS collaborations \cite{New_HERA}.
240: The full line shows the result of the CGC fit with
241: ${\mathcal N}_0=0.7$ to the ZEUS data for $x\leq 10^{-2}$ and
242: $Q^2\leq 45\ \mbox{GeV}^2$.
243: The dashed line shows the predictions of the pure BFKL part of the fit
244: (no saturation). In the bins with $Q^2\geq 60\, {\rm GeV}^2$,
245: the CGC fit is extrapolated outside of the range of the fit.}
246: \end{figure}
247:
248:
249:
250:
251: The dipole cross-section in the CGC fit reads
252: $\sigma_{\rm dipole}(x,{\bm r})=2\pi R^2 {\mathcal N}(rQ_s,Y)$, where
253: the dipole scattering amplitude ${\mathcal N}(rQ_s,Y)$ is constructed
254: by smooth interpolation between two limiting solutions to
255: the non-linear evolution equations in QCD \cite{BKW,PI}:
256: the solution to the BFKL equation with saturation boundary
257: \cite{EIM02,MT02,DT02} for small dipole sizes,
258: $r\ll 1/Q_s(x)$, and the Levin-Tuchin law \cite{LT99,SAT} for
259: larger dipoles, $r\gg 1/Q_s(x)$.
260: Namely,
261: \vspace*{-0.6cm}
262: \be\label{NFIT}
263: {\mathcal N}(rQ_s,Y)
264: &=&{\mathcal N}_0\, \left(\frac{{r} Q_s}
265: {2}\right)^
266: %\big(rQ_s/2\big)^
267: {2\big\{\gamma_s +
268: \frac{\ln(2/rQ_s)}{\kappa \lambda Y}\big\}}\,\,\quad{\rm for}\quad rQ_s\le 2,
269: \nonumber\\
270: {\mathcal N}(rQ_s,Y)&=& 1 - {\rm e}^{-a\ln^2(b\, rQ_s)}\qquad\quad\qquad
271: {\rm for}\quad rQ_s > 2,
272: \ee
273: where $Y=\ln(1/x)$, $Q_s\equiv Q_s(x) = (x_0/x)^{\lambda/2}$ GeV,
274: and we have defined $Q_s$ in such a way that
275: ${\mathcal N}(rQ_s,Y)={\mathcal N}_0$ for $rQ_s=2$.
276: The coefficients $a$ and $b$ are
277: determined uniquely from the continuity of
278: ${\mathcal N}(rQ_s,Y)$ at $rQ_s=2$.
279: In the first line, $\gamma_s=0.63$ (or more strictly, $1-\gamma_s$)
280: is the anomalous dimension, and $\kappa=\chi"(\gamma_s)/\chi'(\gamma_s)
281: \simeq 9.9$ is the diffusion coefficient. The anomalous dimension gives
282: the geometric scaling \cite{geometric,EIM02,MT02}, while the second
283: "diffusion" term in the power (the term depending upon $\kappa$) brings
284: in scaling violations.
285: The overall factor ${\mathcal N}_0$ %in the first line of Eq.~(\ref{NFIT})
286: is ambiguous, reflecting an ambiguity in the definition of $Q_s$.
287: But the results of the fit do not change largely by changing
288: ${\mathcal N}_0$. % between $0.5$ and $0.9$.
289: The saturation exponent $\lambda$ is computable in QCD
290: (known up to the renormalization-group-improved NLO BFKL)
291: \cite{EIM02,MT02,DT02},
292: but we treat $\lambda$ as a free parameter since the results are
293: sensitive to its precise value.
294: We work with three quarks of equal mass $m_q$ and
295: use the same photon wavefunctions $\Psi_{T,L}$
296: as in Refs.~\cite{GBW,BGBK,KT}.
297: Thus, the only free parameters of the CGC fit are $R$, $x_0$ and $\lambda$,
298: which are the same as in the GBW model ($\sigma_0=2\pi R^2$).
299:
300: The CGC fit has been performed for the $F_2$ data at ZEUS \cite{New_HERA}
301: with $x\leq 10^{-2}$ and $Q^2$ between 0.045 and 45 $\mbox{GeV}^2$
302: (156 data points). In Fig. 1, the results of the fit are plotted
303: against the data for ${\mathcal N}_0=0.7$ and $m_q=140$ MeV.
304: The three parameters are determined to be $R=0.641\, $fm,
305: $x_0=0.267\times 10^{-4}$ and $\lambda=0.253$ with $\chi^2/$d.o.f.$\, =0.81$.
306: We also show (with dashed line) the prediction of the BFKL
307: calculation without saturation, as obtained by extrapolating the
308: formula in the first line of Eq.~(\ref{NFIT}) to arbitrarily
309: large $rQ_s$.
310: This pure BFKL fit shows a too strong increase with $1/x$ at small $Q^2$.
311: On the other hand, the complete fit, including saturation, works
312: remarkably well even at the lowest values of $Q^2$ that we have included.
313: Note also that the value $\lambda=0.25$ determined from the fit
314: is in good agreement with the theoretical result \cite{DT02}.
315: We have done the fit separately with the pure scaling part,
316: and found that the fit becomes worse. This means that
317: the ``diffusion'' term which violates the geometric scaling
318: is crucial to fit the HERA data. This is not surprising because
319: this term effectively changes the anomalous dimension from its BFKL
320: value $\gamma_s=0.63$ (for relatively large dipole sizes $\simle 1/Q_s$)
321: to the DGLAP value $\gamma=1$ (for small dipole sizes), and thus
322: partially simulates the DGLAP dynamics. However, as is evident from
323: the figure, there is a deviation between the CGC fit and the data
324: at high $Q^2$ and not so small $x$. This is again not surprising
325: simply because this regime is outside the range of validity of the
326: CGC fit, which does not include the DGLAP physics (in its right form)
327: nor valence quark dynamics.
328:
329:
330:
331: \section*{Acknowledgments}
332: \vspace*{-3mm}
333: The author would like to thank Edmond Iancu and Stephane Munier
334: for the collaboration whose results are presented in the talk.\\
335:
336: \vspace*{-3mm}
337:
338:
339: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
340:
341: \bibitem{Review}For a review, see for example, E.~Iancu and R. Venugopalan,
342: {\it "The Color Glass Condensate and High Energy Scattering in QCD"},
343: hep-ph/0303204.
344: %Published in {\it Quark-Gluon Plasma 3},
345: %Eds. R. C. Hwa and X.-N. Wang, World Scientific, 2003.
346:
347:
348:
349:
350: \bibitem{IIT}E. Iancu, K. Itakura, and D. Triantafyllopoulos,
351: {\it "Cronin effect and high $p_\perp$ suppression in the nuclear
352: gluon distribution at small $x$"}, hep-ph/0403103.
353:
354:
355:
356:
357: \bibitem{SAT}
358: E.~Iancu and L.~McLerran, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B510} (2001) 145.
359:
360:
361:
362: \bibitem{New_HERA}
363: ZEUS Collab., J. Breitweg et al., {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B487} (2000) 53;
364: ZEUS Collab., S. Chekanov et al., {\it Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C21} (2001) 443;
365: H1 Collab., C. Adloff et al., {\it Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C21} (2001) 33.
366:
367: \bibitem{IIM}E. Iancu, K. Itakura, and S. Munier, {\it "Saturation and BFKL dynamics in the HERA data at small $x$"}, hep-ph/0310338, to appear in Phys. Lett. B.
368:
369: \bibitem{GBW}
370: K. Golec-Biernat and M. W\"usthoff, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D59} (1999)
371: 014017; {\it ibid.} {\bf D60} (1999) 114023.
372:
373: \bibitem{BGBK}
374: J. Bartels, K. Golec-Biernat, and H. Kowalski,
375: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D66} (2002) 014001.
376:
377: \bibitem{KT} H.~Kowalski and D.~Teaney, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 114005.
378:
379:
380:
381: \bibitem{BKW}
382: I.~Balitsky, {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}\ {\bf B463} (1996) 99;
383: Yu. V. Kovchegov, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D60} (1999) 034008.
384:
385:
386: \bibitem{PI}
387: E.~Iancu, A.~Leonidov, and L.~McLerran,
388: {\it Nucl. Phys.}~{\bf A692} (2001) 583;
389: {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B510} (2001) 133;
390: E.~Ferreiro, E.~Iancu, A.~Leonidov and L.~McLerran,
391: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A703} (2002) 489.
392:
393:
394:
395: \bibitem{EIM02}
396: E.~Iancu, K. Itakura, and L. McLerran, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A708} (2002)
397: 327.
398:
399: \bibitem{MT02}
400: A. H. Mueller and D.N. Triantafyllopoulos,
401: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B640} (2002) 331.
402:
403: \bibitem{DT02}
404: D.N. Triantafyllopoulos, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B648} (2003) 293.
405:
406:
407:
408:
409: \bibitem{LT99} E.~Levin and K.~Tuchin,
410: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B573} (2000) 833.
411:
412:
413:
414:
415: \bibitem{geometric}
416: A.M.~Sta\'sto, K.~Golec-Biernat, and J.~Kwieci\'nski,
417: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 86} (2001) 596.
418:
419:
420:
421: \end{thebibliography}
422:
423:
424:
425:
426:
427: \end{document}
428:
429: