1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: \chapter{Isolated photon plus jet production}\label{jet}
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4:
5: The partons produced in hard processes (Figs. \ref{figborn}-\ref{fig23},
6: \ref{figsingi}-\ref{figbox}) are not observed experimentally,
7: since they recombine into colorless jets. In previous parts of the work,
8: the predictions for the prompt photon production were discussed
9: and the presented cross sections were integrated over partons/jets
10: momenta. Now, the isolated photon
11: %\PP
12: \underline{plus jet} production is studied for limited
13: ranges of both photon and jet rapidities and transverse energies.
14: Such a process with two objects observed in the final state can be
15: a source of more detailed information concerning the dynamics
16: of the interaction.
17:
18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
19: \section{Jet algorithm}
20: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
21:
22: As it was discussed in Chapter~\ref{nlo} and in Sec. \ref{Sapprox},
23: in the calculation
24: we deal with $2\ra 2$ and $2\ra 3$ hard processes.
25: In $2\ra 2$ processes (\ref{223}) the jet originates from the parton $d$
26: and the momentum of the jet can be identified with the momentum of this parton.
27:
28: Two partons, $d_1$ and $d_2$, produced in $2\ra 3$ processes (\ref{23eq})
29: may lead to two separate jets or they may form one jet. The number of
30: observed jets and their momenta depend on the jet definition.
31: In this work the inclusive $k_T$-jet finding
32: algorithm~\cite{Ellis:tq,Catani:1993hr}
33: is applied in accordance with the jet definition used in the
34: H1 Collaboration measurements \cite{unknown:2004uv}.
35:
36: Since in the presented calculation there are no more than two partons
37: forming the jet or jets,
38: the algorithm becomes very simple. If the distance between the partons,
39: $R_{12}$, defined as
40: \be
41: R_{12}=\sqrt{(\eta^{d_1}-\eta^{d_2})^2+(\phi^{d_1}-\phi^{d_2})^2} ~,
42: \label{Rjet}
43: \ee
44: is larger than an arbitrary parameter $R_J$,
45: then two separate jets arise with transverse energies, rapidities,
46: and azimuthal angles of the $d_i$-partons:
47: \be
48: E_T^{jet_i}=E_T^{d_i}\makebox[1cm]{,}
49: \eta^{jet_i}=\eta^{d_i}\makebox[1cm]{,}
50: \phi^{jet_i}=\phi^{d_i}\makebox[1cm]{,}
51: i=1, ~2.\nonumber
52: \ee
53: For $R_{12} < R_J$ both partons are treated as components of
54: one jet with
55: \be
56: E_T^{jet}=E_T^{d_1}+E_T^{d_2} ,\label{jaE}
57: \ee
58: \be
59: \eta^{jet}=(E_T^{d_1}\eta^{d_1}+E_T^{d_2}\eta^{d_2})/E_T^{jet}\label{jan} ,
60: \ee
61: \be
62: \phi^{jet}=(E_T^{d_1}\phi^{d_1}+E_T^{d_2}\phi^{d_2})/E_T^{jet}\label{jap} .
63: \ee
64:
65: The algorithm can be easily applied in numerical calculations using
66: the phase space slicing (Sec. \ref{pss}). In the first part of the phase
67: space, where $w\sim 1$, the kinematics is the same as in $2\ra 2$ processes.
68: In part 2 (3, 4) one parton moves parallel to the initial electron
69: (initial proton, final photon) and it, for sufficiently small $\theta_{cut}$
70: ($\theta_{cut}$, $R_{cut}$), does not enter the cone defining the jet,
71: so the jet consists (on the partonic level) of the second
72: parton alone. In part 5 one or two jets may arise
73: depending on the value of $R_{12}$ (\ref{Rjet}).
74:
75: % ZEUS:
76: %
77: % The $k_T$-clustering algorithm with $R_J=1$ will be used in this
78: % dissertation everythere where the cross section for a jet production
79: % is considered unless explicity stated otherwise. Another choice of the
80: % jet definition will be applied for comparison with the ZEUS Collaboration
81: % measurement presented at the Vancouver Conferencion~\cite{}, where the
82: % cone algorithm~\cite{cone} was used.
83: %
84: % In the cone algorithm the $d_i$-partons form one jet if the distance
85: % between
86: % each parton and the jet axis defined in Eqs.~\ref{jaE}-\ref{jap}
87: % is less than $R_J$:
88: % \bea
89: % \sqrt{(\eta^{d_i}-\eta^{jet})^2+(\phi^{d_i}-\phi^{jet})^2} < R_J
90: % \makebox[1cm]{,} i=1,2.
91: % \eea
92:
93: Following experimental analyses \cite{unknown:2004uv},
94: $R_J=1$ is used in our numerical calculations.
95:
96: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
97: \section{Numerical results and discussion}\label{Sjet:res}
98: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
99:
100: %\PP
101: We perform numerical calculations in kinematic regions as used in
102: experimental analysis.
103: There are two publications of the ZEUS Collaboration presenting results
104: of measurements of the isolated photon plus jet photoproduction
105: at the HERA collider~\cite{Breitweg:1997pa,Chekanov:2001aq}.
106: In the first paper~\cite{Breitweg:1997pa}
107: the cross section integrated over some kinematic range
108: is given. The aim of the second one~\cite{Chekanov:2001aq} was to study
109: transverse momentum of partons in the proton, and no results
110: for cross sections were presented (distributions of events,
111: not corrected for the detector
112: effects, were shown). There is also a conference paper of the ZEUS
113: Collaboration where data for a differential cross section for the
114: isolated photon plus a jet photoproduction are given, however these data
115: are still preliminary \cite{unknown:uj}.
116:
117: In the new paper of the H1 Collaboration~\cite{unknown:2004uv}
118: (see also~\cite{Lemrani:thesis}), the
119: photoproduction data
120: for the isolated final photon ($\epsilon =0.1$ and $R=1$)
121: with the initial energies $E_e=27.6$ GeV and $E_p=920$ GeV
122: are presented for various
123: differential cross sections of both $ep\ra e\gamma X$ (considered
124: in Chapter~\ref{isol}) and $ep\ra e\gamma ~jet ~X$ processes.
125: Herein, the predictions for the kinematic limits as in \cite{unknown:2004uv}
126: are compared with these recent final data.
127: The cross sections are integrated over $0.2<y<0.7$, and
128: $-1<\eta^{\gamma}<0.9$ and/or $5<E_T^{\gamma}<10$~GeV
129: with the jet rapidity and jet transverse energy in the
130: range $-1<\eta^{jet}<2.3$ and 4.5 GeV $<E_T^{jet}$, respectively.
131: If two jets are found within the above region, that
132: with higher $E_T^{jet}$ is taken.
133: Other parameters are specified in Sec. \ref{det}.
134:
135: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
136: \subsection{Asymmetric cuts}\label{ressym}
137: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
138:
139: As it is discussed in~\cite{Fontannaz:2001nq}, the symmetric
140: cuts for the photon and the jet transverse energy,
141: $E_{T,min}^{jet}=E_{T,min}^{\gamma}$,
142: lead to unphysical
143: results in next-to-leading or higher orders of calculations
144: due to constraints imposed on soft gluons
145: (see also \cite{Aurenche:1997im,Frixione:1997ks,Catani:1997xc}).
146: We have decided to study this effect for the cross section
147: as a function the photon transverse energy,
148: %\PP
149: % (Fig.~\ref{fig:ptgamma}),
150: not analyzed in~\cite{Fontannaz:2001nq}.
151: This
152: %method happend to be very useful since it
153: allows to understand
154: the effect of the symmetric cuts in more details.
155: The results of this study was first presented in our paper
156: \cite{Zembrzuski:2003nu}.
157: Next, similar study of the effect of the symmetric cuts
158: was
159: %\PP
160: presented in~\cite{Fontannaz:2003yn}.
161:
162: %\PP
163: Our findings are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:ptgamma}a,b.
164: We study the dependence of the NLO predictions on the photon
165: transverse energy
166: %is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ptgamma}a,
167: in the $E_T^{\gamma}$-range wider than
168: the range considered by the H1 Collaboration.
169: At $E_T^{\gamma}$ values close to the minimal jet transverse energy,
170: $E_{T,min}^{jet} = 4.5$ GeV, the NLO differential cross section
171: has a discontinuity, see Fig.~\ref{fig:ptgamma}a.
172: For $(E_T^{\gamma})_-\ra 4.5$ GeV the cross section has
173: a strong maximum while a minimum for $(E_T^{\gamma})_+\ra 4.5$ GeV.
174: In the minimum the value of the cross section is even negative.
175: This unphysical fluctuation is due to processes with soft gluons:
176: large terms corresponding to the soft gluon emission and the virtual
177: gluon exchange do not cancel properly if the photon transverse
178: energy is close to the minimal transverse energy of the jet,
179: because some of this terms corresponds to $E_T^{\gamma}$ slightly below
180: %\PP and above
181: the cut-off $E_{T,min}^{jet}$
182: and the other correspond to $E_T^{\gamma}$
183: slightly above $E_{T,min}^{jet}$.
184:
185: \begin{figure}[t]
186: \vskip 24.5cm\relax\noindent\hskip -2cm
187: \relax{\special{psfile=ptgamma.symmetric.ps}}
188: \vspace{-15.5cm}
189: \vskip 24.3cm\relax\noindent\hskip -2cm
190: \relax{\special{psfile=ptgamma.bins.ps}}
191: \vspace{-16.cm}
192: \caption{\small\sl The differential cross section $d\sigma /dE_T^{\gamma}$
193: (a) and the differential cross section $d\sigma /dE_T^{\gamma}$ averaged
194: over $E_T^{\gamma}$-bins (b) for the $ep\ra e\gamma ~jet ~X$ process.
195: The NLO predictions for $E_T^{\gamma}=\mu$ (a) and for $\mu$ between
196: $E_T^{\gamma}/2$ and $2E_T^{\gamma}$ (b) are shown.}
197: \label{fig:ptgamma}
198: \end{figure}
199:
200: However,
201: if we integrate the cross section over some $E_T^{\gamma}$-bins
202: then this fluctuation disappears.
203: % we found that
204: %to avoid theoretical instabilities, one could consider a cross section
205: %averaged over some $E_T^{\gamma}$-bins.
206: As it is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ptgamma}b,
207: the NLO predictions are well defined if one takes
208: the cross section integrated
209: over $E_T^{\gamma}$
210: from $E_{T,min}^{jet} - \Delta$ to $E_{T,min}^{jet} + \Delta$,
211: provided that $\Delta$ is sufficiently large in the comparison with
212: the gap in Fig.~\ref{fig:ptgamma}a, say $\Delta > 0.3$ GeV.
213: So, the bins of a length 1 GeV presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:ptgamma}b
214: are large enough to avoid errors corresponding to the fluctuation
215: around $E_T^{\gamma}=E_{T,min}^{jet}$.
216:
217: An integration of the differential cross section
218: (Fig.~\ref{fig:ptgamma}a) over the photon
219: transverse energy higher than the minimal jet transverse energy,
220: $E_T^{\gamma} \ge E_{T,min}^{jet}$ (symmetric cuts),
221: leads to underestimated
222: predictions in NLO. However numerically this effect is not very important,
223: being at level of roughly 5\% if the integration is performed
224: in the range from $E_T^{\gamma} = E_{T,min}^{jet} =4.5$ GeV to
225: $E_T^{\gamma} = 10$ GeV.
226:
227: Note that in the previous measurements
228: \cite{Breitweg:1997pa,unknown:uj,Chekanov:2001aq}
229: the symmetric cuts
230: %\PP
231: $E_T^{\gamma} > 5$ GeV
232: and $E_T^{jet} > 5$ GeV were used, while in the new
233: H1 analysis \cite{unknown:2004uv} the asymmetric cuts
234: %\PP
235: $E_T^{\gamma} > 5$ GeV
236: and $E_T^{jet} > 4.5$ are taken. This latter choice of cuts
237: allows to avoid the theoretical errors
238: in QCD calculations and is applied in calculations presented in next
239: sections (Sec. \ref{res}-\ref{fgh}).
240:
241: It is worth mentioning
242: that the cross section for $E_T^{\gamma}<E_{T,min}^{jet}$
243: (Fig.~\ref{fig:ptgamma}a) is dominated
244: by the contribution due to the
245: $2\ra 3$ processes in the $\mathcal{O}$$(\alpha_S)$
246: corrections (Figs. \ref{figreal}, \ref{fig23}), since
247: the contributions of the $2\ra 2$ processes (Figs. \ref{figborn},
248: \ref{figsingi}-\ref{figbox})
249: are suppressed by the requirement
250: $E_T^{jet}>E_{T,min}^{jet}$ and by the isolation.
251: For $E_T^{\gamma}<E_{T,min}^{jet}/(1+\epsilon)\approx 4$~GeV the $2\ra 2$
252: processes do not contribute at all. On the other hand, for larger
253: $E_T^{jet}$, say $E_T^{jet}>5$~GeV, the contribution of
254: $\mathcal{O}$$(\alpha_S)$ corrections
255: is very small, see Tab. \ref{tab1}.
256:
257: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
258: \subsection{Theoretical uncertainties}\label{res}
259: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
260: \begin{figure}[th]
261: \vskip 24.5cm\relax\noindent\hskip -2cm
262: \relax{\special{psfile=ptjet.ps}}
263: \vspace{-16cm}
264: %\caption{\small\sl The }
265: %\label{fig:ptjet}
266: %\end{figure}
267: %
268: %\begin{figure}[ht]
269: \vskip 24.8cm\relax\noindent\hskip -2cm
270: \relax{\special{psfile=etajet.ps}}
271: \vspace{-16cm}
272: \caption{\small\sl The cross section $d\sigma /dE_T^{jet}$ (a)
273: and $d\sigma /d\eta^{jet}$ (b) for $\mu =0.5\cdot E_T^{\gamma}$
274: (dashed-dotted lines), $\mu = E_T^{\gamma}$ (solid lines) and
275: $\mu =2\cdot E_T^{\gamma}$ (dashed lines). The H1 Collaboration data
276: \cite{unknown:2004uv} are shown for comparison.}
277: \label{fig:etajet}
278: \end{figure}
279:
280: \subsubsection{\boldmath $\mu$}
281:
282: The dependence of the considered cross sections on the
283: choice of the
284: re\-normal\-ization/ factor\-ization scale, $\mu$, is not strong:
285: variations of $\mu$ from $E_T^{\gamma}$ to $E_T^{\gamma}/2$ or $2E_T^{\gamma}$
286: lead to changes of the cross section less than
287: 3\% for $E_T^{\gamma}<E_{T,min}^{jet}$ and up to 5\%
288: for $E_T^{\gamma}>E_{T,min}^{jet}$ (Fig. \ref{fig:ptgamma}b).
289: The predictions for various $\mu$ are also shown
290: in Fig. \ref{fig:etajet}.
291: In each presented here bin the dependence on the choice of $\mu$ is less
292: than $\pm$5\% for both $E_T^{jet}$ (Fig. \ref{fig:etajet}a) and
293: $\eta_{jet}$ (Fig. \ref{fig:etajet}b) distributions.
294: The total cross section integrated over the kinematic range considered by
295: the H1 Collaboration \cite{unknown:2004uv} vary by $\pm$ 3.4\%.
296: Since the effect of the variation of the
297: $\mu$ scale is not large, the calculation seems to be stable, and
298: one can expect that the contributions of higher orders
299: are not sizable.
300:
301: \begin{figure}[th]
302: \vskip 24.5cm\relax\noindent\hskip -2cm
303: \relax{\special{psfile=etagamma.ps}}
304: \vspace{-16cm}
305: \caption{\small\sl The cross section $d\sigma /d\eta^{\gamma}$ for
306: MRST2002$^p$ (NLO)~\cite{Martin:2002aw} (dotted line),
307: GRV$^p$ (NLO)~\cite{Gluck:1995uf} (solid line) and
308: CTEQ6$^p$ (NLO)~\cite{Pumplin:2002vw} (dashed line) parton densities in the
309: proton used with GRV$^{\gamma, frag}$ (NLO)~\cite{Gluck:1992ee,Gluck:1993zx}
310: densities in the photon and fragmentation functions. The H1 Collaboration
311: data \cite{unknown:2004uv} are also shown.}
312: \label{fig:etagamma}
313: \end{figure}
314:
315: \subsubsection{\boldmath $f_p$}
316:
317: Next, we have checked the sensitivity to the choice of parametrizations.
318: In Fig.~\ref{fig:etagamma} the results obtained using different
319: parton densities in the proton are shown. The predictions of
320: CTEQ6$^p$ (NLO)~\cite{Pumplin:2002vw} are 6\% higher than
321: the predictions of MRST2002$^p$ (NLO)~\cite{Martin:2002aw}. The
322: GRV$^p$ (NLO)~\cite{Gluck:1995uf} densities
323: give results higher than MRST2002$^p$ by 5-7\% at negative $\eta_{\gamma}$,
324: and 3-5\% at positive $\eta_{\gamma}$. Differencies between CTEQ6$^p$
325: and GRV$^p$ do not exceed 4\%.
326:
327: \subsubsection{\boldmath $f_{\gamma}$}
328:
329: The most important variables for testing the structure
330: of colliding particles are the fractional momenta of partons
331: in these particles. Below we consider the distribution of
332: the fractional momentum in the photon,
333: %\PP
334: however since the theoretical
335: variable $x_{\gamma}$ is not a good observable, in experimental analyses
336: some estimations of $x_{\gamma}$ are used instead.
337: %\PP
338: We consider here the observable $x_{\gamma}^{obs}$, which
339: is defined as \cite{Breitweg:1997pa,h12003}
340: \footnote{The variable $x_{\gamma}^{obs}$
341: is equal to the ``theoretical'' one, $x_{\gamma}$, for $2\ra 2$ processes with
342: the direct final photon. For the processes with a larger number of partons
343: in the final state and for the processes with the parton-to-photon
344: fragmentation, the $x_{\gamma}$ and $x_{\gamma}^{obs}$ differ.}:
345: \be
346: x_{\gamma}^{obs}=(E_T^{jet}e^{-\eta^{jet}}+E_T^{\gamma}e^{-\eta^{\gamma}})
347: /2yE_e .
348: %= [(E^{jet}-p_z^{jet})+(E^{\gamma}-p_z^{\gamma})] /2yE_e .
349: \ee
350: In Fig.~\ref{fig:x} the $x_{\gamma}^{obs}$ distributions are shown
351: for different parton densities in the photon.
352: The GS$^{\gamma}$ (NLO) parametrization~\cite{Gordon:1997pm} give predictions
353: lower than GRV$^{\gamma}$ (NLO)~\cite{Gluck:1992ee} by 20-36\%
354: for $x_{\gamma}^{obs}<0.9$. This large difference is due to
355: the specific treatment of the charm contribution
356: in the GS parametrization (see Sec. \ref{results2}).
357: The results obtained with use of AFG$^{\gamma}$ (NLO)~\cite{Aurenche:1994in}
358: and AFG02$^{\gamma}$ (NLO)~\cite{Fontannaz:2002nu} are very similar, and only
359: the latter is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:x}. It gives predictions
360: up to 15\% lower than GRV$^{\gamma}$ for $x_{\gamma}^{obs}<0.9$. At
361: large-$x_{\gamma}^{obs}$ region, $x_{\gamma}^{obs}>0.9$, the
362: cross section is dominated by the contribution of processes
363: with the direct initial photons, and the differences between
364: predictions obtained using various parametrizations are small.
365: For the total cross section integrated over all $x_{\gamma}^{obs}$,
366: within the considered range of $y$, $\eta^{\gamma}$, $E_T^{\gamma}$,
367: $\eta^{jet}$ and $E_T^{jet}$, the difference between results based on
368: GRV$^{\gamma}$ and AFG02$^{\gamma}$ (G$^{\gamma}$S) is 4\% (16\% ).
369: \begin{figure}[t]
370: \vskip 24.5cm\relax\noindent\hskip -2cm
371: \relax{\special{psfile=x.10bins.ps}}
372: \vspace{-16cm}
373: \caption{\small\sl The cross section $d\sigma /dx_{\gamma}^{obs}$
374: for GRV$^{\gamma}$ (NLO)~\cite{Gluck:1992ee} (solid line),
375: AFG02$^{\gamma}$ (NLO)~\cite{Fontannaz:2002nu} (dashed line) and
376: GS$^{\gamma}$ \cite{Gordon:1997pm} (dotted line) parton densities in the
377: photon used with GRV$^{p, frag}$ (NLO) \cite{Gluck:1995uf,Gluck:1993zx}
378: densities in the proton and fragmentation functions.}
379: \label{fig:x}
380: \end{figure}
381:
382: Note, that there are new LO \cite{Cornet:2002iy,Cornet:2003ry,Cornet:2004ng}
383: and NLO \cite{Cornet:2004nb} parametrizations of the real photon
384: structure with a special treatment of heavy quark contributions.
385: For the first time for the photon they use the ACOT$_{\chi}$ scheme introduced
386: previously for the proton \cite{Tung:2001mv} and include the newest
387: $F_2^{\gamma}$ data, never used in constructing
388: other parametrizations for the photon.
389: We have compared the results obtained using the LO parametrization
390: of Cornet, Jankowski, Krawczyk and Lorca
391: (CJKL$^{\gamma}$)~\cite{Cornet:2002iy} with results obtained using
392: GRV$^{\gamma}$(LO) \cite{Gluck:1992ee}.
393: Despite the fact that parton densities in both
394: parametrizations differ considerably, they lead to similar results
395: for the prompt photon production at HERA. Predictions for
396: CJKL$^{\gamma}$(LO) are about 3\% lower than the predictions for
397: GRV$^{\gamma}$(LO) (in this comparison the $\mathcal{O}$$(\alpha_S)$
398: corrections
399: were not taken into account and the GRV$^p$(LO)~\cite{Gluck:1995uf}
400: densities in the proton were used).
401:
402: \subsubsection{\boldmath $D_{\gamma}$}
403:
404: We have also compared predictions of DO$^{frag}$ (LO)~\cite{Duke:1982bj},
405: GRV$^{frag}$ (NLO)~\cite{Gluck:1993zx} and BFG$^{frag}$
406: (NLO)~\cite{Bourhis:1997yu} fragmentation functions.
407: The isolation requirement reduces the contribution of processes
408: involving the resolved final photon (Sec. \ref{results1}, Tabs.
409: \ref{tab1}, \ref{tab2}),
410: so the dependence on the choice of fragmentation functions is weak, even if
411: the fragmentation functions differ considerably from one another.
412: The total cross sections for the isolated photon plus jet production
413: obtained with DO$^{frag}$ and BFG$^{frag}$ (set I and set II)
414: are lower than the predictions of GRV$^{frag}$ by 2\% and 4\%, respectively.
415:
416: \subsubsection{\boldmath $f_p$, $f_{\gamma}$, $D_{\gamma}$}
417:
418: The GRV distributions for the proton \cite{Gluck:1995uf},
419: photon \cite{Gluck:1992ee} and fragmentation \cite{Gluck:1993zx}
420: have been used as a reference in calculations discussed above,
421: and while performing the comparison each time only one parametrization has
422: been changed. The differences observed in the total cross
423: section (i.e. in the cross section integrated within the considered
424: kinematic range) are not large (with an exception of the GS densities, which
425: give predictions considerably lower than the other densities
426: in the photon, as we discussed before).
427: However, the differences can be larger if
428: one changes simultaneously all the used distributions.
429: For instance predictions of the MRST1999$^p$ \cite{Martin:1999ww},
430: AFG$^{\gamma}$ \cite{Aurenche:1994in} and BFG$^{frag}$ \cite{Bourhis:1997yu}
431: set~\footnote{These parametrizations are used for comparison with
432: the H1 data and with the FGH predictions in Secs. \ref{Sisol:h1},
433: \ref{Sisol:fgh}, \ref{h1} and \ref{fgh}.}
434: are lower than the GRV$^{p,\gamma ,frag} $predictions by 10\% on average.
435: The comparison between both results is presented in Fig.
436: \ref{fig:ptgamma.param}.
437: The differences are large, up to 13\%, for
438: $E_T^{\gamma}
439: \begin{minipage}[t]{10pt} \raisebox{3pt}{$<$} \makebox[-17pt]{}
440: \raisebox{-3pt}{$\sim$}\end{minipage}
441: 7.5$ GeV, while for higher $E_T^{\gamma}$ both sets of parton densities
442: give predictions relatively close to each other and differences are
443: below 6\%.
444:
445: \begin{figure}[ht]
446: \vskip 24.5cm\relax\noindent\hskip -2cm
447: \relax{\special{psfile=ptgamma.param.ps}}
448: \vspace{-16cm}
449: \caption{\small\sl The cross section $d\sigma /dE_T^{\gamma}$ averaged over
450: bins corresponding to the H1 Collaboration data \cite{unknown:2004uv}.
451: The predictions are obtained using GRV$^{p,\gamma,frag}$
452: \cite{Gluck:1995uf,Gluck:1992ee,Gluck:1993zx} (solid line) and
453: MRST1999$^p$ \cite{Martin:1999ww}, AFG$^{\gamma}$ \cite{Aurenche:1994in},
454: BFG$^{frag}$ \cite{Bourhis:1997yu} (dashed line) parton densities.}
455: \label{fig:ptgamma.param}
456: \end{figure}
457:
458: \begin{figure}[ht]
459: \vskip 24.5cm\relax\noindent\hskip -2cm
460: \relax{\special{psfile=ptgamma.nf.ps}}
461: \vspace{-16cm}
462: \caption{\small\sl The cross section $d\sigma /dE_T^{\gamma}$ obtained with
463: GRV$^{p,\gamma,frag}$ \cite{Gluck:1995uf,Gluck:1992ee,Gluck:1993zx}
464: parametrizations for $N_f$= 3 (dashed line), 4 (solid line) and 5
465: (dotted line). The H1 Collaboration data \cite{unknown:2004uv} are shown.}
466: \label{fig:ptgamma.nf}
467: \end{figure}
468:
469: \subsubsection{\boldmath $N_f$}
470:
471: In the calculation the renormalization/factorization
472: scale $\mu = E_T^{\gamma}$ is used for $E_T^{\gamma}$ between 5 and
473: 10 GeV (with exception of Fig. \ref{fig:ptgamma}, where a wider rage of
474: $E_T^{\gamma}$ is shown).
475: It is a standard assumption
476: that the number of active massless flavours at this scale
477: is $N_f=4$ \cite{Gordon:1995km}-\cite{Fontannaz:2003yn}.
478: For a comparison, in Fig.
479: \ref{fig:ptgamma.nf} the results obtained with $N_f=3$ and $N_f=5$
480: are also shown.
481: The contribution of the bottom quark is very small and the
482: results for $N_f=4$ and $N_f=5$ are similar.
483: Differences between these two results are much smaller than the
484: standard deviations of the H1 data \cite{unknown:2004uv} which
485: are also presented in Fig. \ref{fig:ptgamma.nf}.
486: On the other hand,
487: the contribution of the charm quark is large:
488: the results obtained using $N_f=3$ are about 35\% below
489: the predictions for $N_f=4$.
490: Neglecting of the charm mass may lead to a slight overestimation
491: of the production rate, especially in the box contribution which is
492: particularly sensitive to the change from $N_f=3$ to $N_f=4$.
493: However we do not expect that an improved treatment of the charm
494: contribution
495: would change our results qualitatively, since the energy
496: $\mu = E_T^{\gamma}\ge 5$ GeV is several times larger than the charm mass.
497:
498: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
499: \subsection{Comparison with the H1 data}\label{h1}
500: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
501:
502: The QCD results for the photon plus jet production
503: shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:etajet}, \ref{fig:etagamma},
504: \ref{fig:ptgamma.param} and \ref{fig:ptgamma.nf}
505: are in reasonable agreement with the
506: data of the H1 Collaboration~\cite{unknown:2004uv}
507: although some discrepancies
508: are present, especially for $\eta_{jet}<-0.3$ (Fig. \ref{fig:etajet})
509: and for the $E_T^{\gamma}$ distribution (Figs. \ref{fig:ptgamma.param},
510: \ref{fig:ptgamma.nf}).
511:
512: However, according to~\cite{unknown:2004uv}, for the realistic
513: comparison with the data, the pure perturbative QCD calculations
514: should be corrected for effects of hadronization and multiple
515: interactions (h.c.+m.i.),
516: %\PP
517: as discussed in Sec. \ref{Sisol:h1}. Such a comparison was performed by the
518: H1 Collaboration \cite{unknown:2004uv}, see
519: Figs. \ref{fig4cdh1} and \ref{fig5h1}, where
520: the predictions of Zembrzuski and Krawczyk (K\&Z) \cite{Zembrzuski:2003nu}
521: (dotted lines) corrected for h.c.+m.i. are presented
522: together with the H1 Collaboration data
523: \cite{unknown:2004uv} and with predictions of Fontannaz, Guillet and Heinrich
524: (FGH) \cite{Fontannaz:2001ek,Fontannaz:2001nq}.
525: \begin{figure}[t]
526: \vskip 9.2cm\relax\noindent\hskip -1cm
527: \relax{\special{psfile=4cd-scaled-lw-ab.eps}}
528: \vspace{0cm}
529: \caption{\small\sl As in Fig.~\ref{fig4abh1} for the
530: $ep\ra e\gamma ~jet ~X$ process. The additional cuts for the jet are:
531: $E_T^{jet}>4.5$ GeV and $-1<\eta^{jet}<2.3$.
532: The figure is taken from \cite{unknown:2004uv}.}
533: \label{fig4cdh1}
534: \end{figure}
535: To show the size of
536: the corrections, the FGH NLO results are plotted without (dashed lines)
537: and with (solid lines) h.c.+m.i~\footnote{See footnote $^{\ref{foot}}$
538: in Sec. \ref{Sisol:h1}.}.
539: Both K\&Z and FGH predictions are obtained using the
540: MRST1999$^p$ \cite{Martin:1999ww}, AFG$^{\gamma}$
541: \cite{Aurenche:1994in} and BFG$^{frag}$ \cite{Bourhis:1997yu}
542: parton parametrizations.
543:
544: \begin{figure}[ht]
545: \vskip 18.5cm\relax\noindent\hskip -1cm
546: \relax{\special{psfile=5-scaled-lw.eps}}
547: \vspace{-0.5cm}
548: \caption{\small\sl As in Fig.~\ref{fig4cdh1} for
549: $d\sigma /dE_T^{jet}$ (a) $d\sigma /d\eta^{jet}$ (b)
550: $d\sigma /dx_{\gamma}^{LO}$ (c) and $d\sigma /dx_p^{LO}$ (d) cross sections.
551: The figure is taken from \cite{unknown:2004uv}.}
552: \label{fig5h1}
553: \end{figure}
554:
555: The K\&Z and FGH calculations for the $ep\ra e\gamma ~jet ~X$ process
556: give somewhat better description of the data than in the case of
557: the $ep\ra e\gamma X$ process (Sec. \ref{pssres}). The agreement is seen
558: in most bins in Figs. \ref{fig4cdh1} and \ref{fig5h1}, especially when
559: one takes into account on the one hand the uncertainties
560: of h.c.+m.i. corrections and
561: on the other hand the theoretical
562: uncertainties due to the variation of the $\mu$ scale ($\pm 5\%$)
563: and to the choice of parton densities ($\sim 10\%$) (Sec. \ref{res}).
564: Nevertheless, the K\&Z and FGH predictions tend to underestimate
565: the H1 data. In some kinematic ranges the
566: data are 1-2 standard deviations above the
567: K\&Z predictions e.g. for $6.7<E_T^{\gamma}<9.2$ GeV
568: (Fig. \ref{fig4cdh1}a) and $0.3<\eta_{jet} < 1.6$ (Fig. \ref{fig5h1}b).
569:
570: In Figs. \ref{fig5h1}c,d the cross sections
571: $d\sigma /dx_{\gamma}^{LO}$ and $d\sigma /dx_p^{LO}$ are shown, where
572: $x_{\gamma}^{LO}$ and $x_p^{LO}$ are defined as follows
573: \cite{unknown:2004uv}~\footnote{For
574: $2\ra 2$ processes the experimental variables $x_{\gamma}^{LO}$ and $x_p^{LO}$
575: are equal to corresponding theoretical variables
576: multiplied by $z$ (defined in Sec. \ref{Snon:x}):
577: $x_{\gamma}^{LO}$=$z\cdot x_{\gamma}$,
578: $x_p^{LO}$=$z\cdot x_p$.}:
579: \bea
580: x_{\gamma}^{LO}=E_T^{\gamma}(e^{-\eta^{jet}}+e^{-\eta^{\gamma}})/2yE_e,
581: \\
582: x_{p}^{LO}=E_T^{\gamma}(e^{-\eta^{jet}}+e^{-\eta^{\gamma}})/2E_p.
583: \eea
584: The K\&Z predictions are 1-1.5 standard deviations below the data
585: for $x_{\gamma}^{LO} < 0.85$ (Fig. \ref{fig5h1}c).
586: Note, that better agreement is
587: obtained if GRV$^{p,\gamma,frag}$
588: \cite{Gluck:1995uf,Gluck:1992ee,Gluck:1993zx} parametrizations are
589: used (not shown in Fig. \ref{fig5h1} which is taken from the H1 paper),
590: since they give predictions 18\% higher than
591: MRST1999$^p$, AFG$^{\gamma}$
592: and BFG$^{frag}$ at $x_{\gamma}^{LO} < 0.85 $
593: (at $x_{\gamma}^{LO} > 0.85 $ the difference is 4\%).
594:
595: At $x_p^{LO} > 0.012$ ($x_p^{LO} < 0.0034$) the K\&Z predictions are
596: 2 standard deviations below (above) the data (Fig. \ref{fig5h1}d).
597: An implementation of GRV$^{p,\gamma,frag}$
598: densities does not improve the description of the data (not shown).
599:
600: The H1 Collaboration has also presented the cross sections
601: $d\sigma /dp_{\perp}$~\cite{unknown:2004uv}, where $p_{\perp}$
602: is the component of the photon momentum perpendicular to the
603: scattering plane (see~\cite{unknown:2004uv} for the precise definition).
604: For $p_{\perp}\ne 0$ the $2\ra 2$ processes give no
605: contribution,
606: so the cross section is sensitive to higher order processes only.
607: For $x_{\gamma}^{LO}>0.85$ the cross section is dominated by
608: $\mathcal{O}$$(\alpha_S)$
609: corrections to the processes with direct initial and final
610: photons, which are included in NLO in our calculation, and the data
611: are in reasonable agreement with K\&Z predictions.
612: On the other hand, for $x_{\gamma}^{LO}<0.85$
613: the cross section is dominated by $\mathcal{O}$$(\alpha_S)$
614: corrections to the processes
615: with resolved photons.
616: These contributions are not included in the K\&Z calculation,
617: so our predictions by definition
618: can not describe such data.
619:
620: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
621: \subsection{Comparison with other QCD predictions (FGH)}\label{fgh}
622: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
623:
624: The calculation of Fontannaz, Guillet and Heinrich
625: (FGH) \cite{Fontannaz:2001ek,Fontannaz:2001nq}
626: takes into account the $\mathcal{O}$$(\alpha_S)$ corrections to the
627: resolved photon processes, which are not included in the
628: calculation presented in this work (Chapter \ref{nlo}, Sec. \ref{Sisol:fgh}).
629: In the considered kinematic range for the photon
630: %\PP
631: \underline{plus jet} production
632: the total cross section of FGH is about 4\% higher than our
633: predictions, so the total contribution of $\mathcal{O}$$(\alpha_S)$
634: corrections to the resolved
635: photon processes is relatively small.
636:
637: The K\&Z and FGH results shown in Fig. \ref{fig4cdh1}b
638: differ by 5\% or less in the whole range of $\eta^{\gamma}$.
639: The differences are larger for other differential
640: cross sections (Figs. \ref{fig4cdh1}a, \ref{fig5h1}).
641: At $E_T^{\gamma}>6.7$ GeV the FGH predictions are about 13\% higher,
642: while at $5<E_T^{\gamma}<5.8$~GeV they are 7\% lower than
643: predictions of K\&Z (Fig. \ref{fig4cdh1}a)
644: The largest differences are for $1<\eta^{jet}<1.6$ and $1.6<\eta^{jet}<2.3$,
645: where the FGH predictions are above K\&Z by 33\% and 63\%, respectively.
646: Despite these divergences, both calculations
647: lead to a similar description of the H1 data
648: shown in Figs. \ref{fig4cdh1} and \ref{fig5h1}.
649:
650: Note that the FGH predictions are closer to the H1 data
651: than the K\&Z predictions for $d\sigma /dp_{\perp}$ with
652: $x_{\gamma}^{LO}<0.85$~\cite{unknown:2004uv}, since
653: we do not include processes which contribute in this region
654: (Sec. \ref{h1}).