1:
2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3: % Latex File
4: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5: %\documentclass[aps,preprint,showpacs]{revtex4}
6: %\documentclass[aps,draft,showpacs]{revtex4}
7: \documentclass[aps,twocolumn,showpacs,floatfix]{revtex4}
8:
9: %\documentclass[12pt]{article}
10: %\documentclass[12pt]{article}
11: \usepackage{amssymb,epsfig}
12: %\usepackage{showkeys}
13:
14: %\usepackage{psfrag}
15:
16:
17: %%%%%%%%%%%%% OVERALL LAYOUT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
18:
19:
20:
21: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0pt}
22: %\setlength{\textwidth}{15.8cm}
23: \setlength{\textwidth}{16.1cm}
24: \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.5in}
25: \setlength{\textheight}{23.5cm}
26: \addtolength{\jot}{5pt}
27: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-3pt}
28: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
29: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.05}
30: %\renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
31: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
32: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
33:
34: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
35: %
36: \newcommand{\beq}[1]{
37: %\marginpar{\small\textsf{#1}}
38: \begin{equation}\label{#1}}
39: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
40: %
41: \newcommand{\bea}[1]{
42: %\marginpar{\small\textsf{#1}}
43: \begin{eqnarray}\label{#1}}
44: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
45: %
46: \newcommand\re[1]{(\ref{#1})}
47: %
48: %\def \e {\mathop{\rm e}\nolimits}
49:
50: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
51:
52: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
53: \begin{document}
54:
55: %\draft
56:
57: \title{Exclusive diffractive electroproduction of dijets
58: in collinear factorization}
59:
60: \author{V.~M.~Braun\\}
61:
62: \affiliation{Institut f{\"u}r Theoretische Physik, Universit{\"a}t
63: Regensburg, D-93040 Regensburg, Germany }
64:
65:
66: \author{D.~Yu.~Ivanov\\}
67:
68: \affiliation{Sobolev Institute of Mathematics,
69: 630090 Novosibirsk, Russia }
70:
71: \date{\today}
72:
73:
74:
75: \begin{abstract}
76: Exclusive electroproduction of hard dijets can be described within the
77: collinear factorization. This process has clear experimental signature and
78: provides one with an interesting alternative venue to test QCD description
79: of hard diffractive processes and extract information on generalized
80: nucleon parton distributions. In this work we present detailed leading-order
81: QCD calculations of the relevant cross sections,
82: including longitudinal momentum fraction distribution of the dijets
83: and their azimuthal angle dependence.
84: \end{abstract}
85:
86: \pacs{12.39.Hg, 12.39.St}
87:
88: %\tighten
89:
90: %\narrowtext
91:
92: \maketitle
93:
94:
95: \section{Introduction}
96:
97:
98: The QCD description of hard diffraction presents an interesting challenge
99: at the crossroads of soft and hard physics and appeals for a synthesis
100: of various theoretical approaches. In particular diffractive exclusive dijet
101: production in deep-inelastic lepton-nucleon scattering
102: has attracted considerable
103: attention~\cite{NNN,BLW96,BELW96,LMSSS99}.
104: This process can intuitively be visualized as the incident virtual
105: photon disintegration into a quark-antiquark pair with large and opposite
106: transverse momenta
107: \beq{process}
108: e(l) \, p(p)\,\to \,e(l^\prime)\, q(q_1)\,\bar q(q_2) \, p(p^\prime)\,.
109: \eeq
110: %
111: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
112: \begin{figure}[t]
113: \centerline{\epsfysize3.7cm\epsffile{kinematics.eps}}
114: \caption[]{\small
115: Kinematics of hard diffractive dijet production
116: }
117: \label{kinematics}
118: \end{figure}
119: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
120: %
121: Here $l$, $l'$ and $p$, $p'$ are the initial and the final momenta of the
122: lepton and the nucleon, respectively, while $q_1$ and $q_2$ are the jet
123: momenta which to the tree level accuracy can be identified with
124: the momenta of the outgoing quark and antiquark, see Fig.~\ref{kinematics}.
125: In the following discussion
126: we will use conventional variables
127: \bea{Q2}
128: q=l-l^\prime \, , \quad q^2=-Q^2\, , \nonumber\\
129: x_{Bj}=\frac{Q^2}{2(p\cdot q)} \, ,
130: \quad y=\frac{(q \cdot p)}{(l\cdot p)} \,
131: \eea
132: and neglect the proton mass whenever it is possible.
133:
134:
135: Our interest to the reaction in (\ref{process}) is twofold. First, this
136: process provides one with a sensitive probe of the generalized gluon parton
137: distribution (GPD) in the nucleon \cite{Diehl03,Belitsky:2005qn}, see e.g. \cite{GKM98}.
138: In this quality, the dijet production with
139: large invariant mass is complementary to e.g. exclusive $\rho$-meson production
140: and may offer some advantages because it is likely to be
141: less affected by higher twist effects. Second, a quantitative understanding of dijet
142: electroproduction is imperative in order to address more ambitious
143: and theoretically more challenging cases of hard dijet production by incident
144: pions \cite{FMS93,NSS,BISS01,Chernyak01,E791,Ashery02}
145: and real photons~\cite{Ashery02,BGISS02}.
146: Another very important extension is exclusive dijet production in pp collisions,
147: where one can study many aspects relevant for exclusive diffractive Higgs
148: production~\cite{Khoze:2001xm}.
149: In the future, there might also be an
150: interesting opportunity to study spin asymmetries in dijet production at eRHIC
151: accelerator, see e.g.~\cite{Goloskokov:2004br}.
152:
153: In theory, {\em exclusive} dijet production is defined as the process in which
154: the invariant energy $M^2$ deposited in the two narrow angular regions (jet cones),
155: $M^2=(q_1+q_2)^2$, almost coincides with the total invariant mass
156: $M^2_{\rm diff} = (p+q-p')^2$ of the diffractively produced system,
157: $M^2 \ge (1-\epsilon) M^2_{\rm diff}$, with $\epsilon\ll 1$ serving as an infrared cutoff.
158: %Experimental verification of especially the latter condition is very difficult
159: %However, since as a rule the final state proton
160: %is not detected, $p'$ cannot be measured directly and
161: %verification of this condition in such experiments is not feasible.
162: In existing experiments,
163: diffractive events are usually defined by the presence of large rapidity gaps
164: in the hadronic final state, and main observation that trigged the interest to
165: hard diffraction has been that the probability of large rapidity gaps is not
166: exponentially suppressed. Somewhat imprecisely, we will refer to dijet production
167: under the condition of a large rapidity gap in the hadronic final state as
168: {\em inclusive} production. There are arguments that inclusive diffraction production of
169: dijets with large invariant mass is dominated by processes like the one shown
170: in Fig.~\ref{kinematics}b with a gluon (gluons)
171: emitted from the gluon ladder (pomeron)
172: in the $t$-channel.
173: The gluon in Fig.~\ref{kinematics}b
174: is emitted preferably in the central rapidity region,
175: which corresponds to the case $M_{\rm diff}^2 \gg M^2$.
176:
177: The experimental distinction between exclusive and inclusive dijets
178: proves to be an intricate problem. One possibility to make such a separation would be
179: to study the corresponding event shapes, for example, by imposing a suitable cutoff in
180: the heavy jet mass. Another proposal \cite{E791} is to identify
181: the exclusive dijet final state by requiring that the jet transverse momenta are compensated
182: to a high accuracy within the diffractive cone and making some additional
183: cuts. This approach seems to work for the case of coherent
184: dijet production from nuclei by incident pions, and for photoproduction the corresponding
185: experimental program is proposed for HERA \cite{Ashery02}.
186:
187: The dijet electroproduction at high $Q^2$ offers itself as
188: the simplest process of this kind,
189: in which QCD collinear factorization can be established and allows
190: one to make well defined and stable predictions for the exclusive
191: dijet longitudinal momentum
192: fraction distributions as well as the dependence on the azimuthal angle between the jet and the
193: lepton planes;
194: these distributions can be used to test the separation of exclusive dijets from the
195: inclusive sample. The purpose of this paper is to work out the necessary cross sections
196: and present detailed calculations for HERA kinematics. A similar program was suggested in
197: Ref.~\cite{BELW96} where a different theoretical approach
198: based on $k_t$-factorization was used.
199: Our calculation is also similar to \cite{LMSSS99} where hard exclusive
200: meson pair production has been considered. A comparison of this earlier works with our results
201: is done below in the text.
202:
203:
204: Throughout this paper we will work in a reference frame where the virtual
205: photon and the proton collide back-to-back. We will neglect proton mass
206: whenever possible, $p^2=p'^2\to 0$, and choose the (almost) light-like
207: incident proton momentum $p_\mu$ to be in ``plus'' direction.
208: It is convenient to introduce another light-like vector in ``minus'' direction:
209: \beq{q'}
210: q^\prime_\mu=q_\mu+x_{Bj}p_\mu \, , \quad
211: q^{\prime \,\, 2}=0\, , \quad
212: (q^\prime \cdot p)=(q\cdot p) \,,
213: \eeq
214: so that e.g. the lepton momenta can be decomposed in the two light-cone components
215: $\sim p,q'$ and the orthogonal plane:
216: \bea{ll}
217: &&
218: l_\mu=\frac{1}{y}q^\prime_\mu +\frac{(1-y)x_{Bj}}{y}p_\mu+l_{\perp\mu}
219: \, ,\nonumber \\
220: &&
221: l_\mu^\prime=\frac{1-y}{y}q^\prime_\mu
222: +\frac{x_{Bj}}{y}p_\mu+l_{\perp\mu}\, ,
223: \nonumber \\
224: &&
225: l_\perp^{2}=\frac{1-y}{y^2}Q^2 \,.
226: \eea
227: Note that $l_\perp^{2}$ is defined as the square of the transverse plane vector, i.e. with opposite
228: sign compared to the square of the corresponding four-vector.
229:
230: {}Further, let $W$ be the invariant c.m. energy of the virtual photon-proton
231: scattering subprocess
232: \beq{ph}
233: \gamma^*(q)\, p(p)\to q(q_1)\,\bar q(q_2)\, p(p^\prime) \,,
234: \eeq
235: i.e. $s_{\gamma^*p}=(q+p)^2=W^2$. We define
236: \begin{eqnarray}
237: &&
238: \Delta=p^\prime -p \, , \ \ P=\frac{p+p^\prime}{2} \, , \ \ t=\Delta^2 \, ,
239: \nonumber \\
240: &&
241: (q-\Delta )^2=M^2 \, , \ \ x_{Bj} =\frac{Q^2}{W^2+Q^2} \, .
242: \label{not1}
243: \end{eqnarray}
244: To our approximation $M^2=(q_1+q_2)^2$ is an invariant mass of the diffractively produced
245: system.
246:
247:
248: \section{Kinematics of exclusive dijet production}
249:
250:
251: We introduce two light-like vectors
252: \begin{equation}
253: n_{+}^2=n_{-}^2=0 \, , \ \ n_+ n_- = 1 \,
254: \label{not2}
255: \end{equation}
256: in such a way that
257: \bea{not4}
258: p &=& (1+\xi)W n_+ \equiv p_+\,,
259: \nonumber\\
260: q' &=& \frac{Q^2+W^2}{2W(1+\xi)}\, n_- \equiv q'_-\,,
261: \eea
262: where $\xi$ is the usual asymmetry parameter \cite{Diehl03} which defines,
263: in the scaling limit, the plus component of the momentum transfer
264: \beq{xi}
265: \xi =\frac{p_+ - p'_+}{p_++p'_+}\,.
266: %= \frac{x_{Bj}}{2-x_{Bj}}\,.
267: \eeq
268: Any four-vector $a^\mu$ is decomposed as
269: \beq{not3}
270: a^\mu=a^+n_+^\mu+a^-n_-^\mu+a^\mu_\perp \, , \ \ a^2=2\, a^+a^- - a_\perp^2 \, .
271: \eeq
272: Then, in particular
273: \bea{not33}
274: q &=& \frac{Q^2+W^2}{2W(1+\xi)}\, n_- - W(1+\xi)x_{Bj}\, n_+\,,
275: \nonumber \\
276: p^\prime &=& (1-\xi)W n_+
277: +\frac{\Delta_\perp^2}{2(1-\xi)W}\, n_- +\Delta_\perp \,.
278: \eea
279: We consider the case when jet transverse momenta are compensated,
280: $(q_1+q_2)_\perp=-\Delta_\perp=0$ so that the last two terms in the
281: second equation in (\ref{not33}) can be dropped.
282: The momenta of the dijets can be written as
283: \bea{dj}
284: q_1&=&z\, \frac{Q^2+W^2}{2W(1+\xi)}\, n_-
285: \nonumber \\
286: &&
287: + \frac{q_\perp^{2}+m^2}{z Q^2}
288: W(1+\xi)x_{Bj}\, n_+ + q_\perp\,,
289: \nonumber \\
290: q_2&=&\bar z \,\frac{Q^2+W^2}{2W(1+\xi)}\, n_-
291: \nonumber \\
292: &&
293: + \frac{q_\perp^{2}+m^2}
294: {\bar z
295: Q^2}
296: W(1+\xi)x_{Bj}\, n_+ -q_\perp\,,
297: \eea
298: where $m$ is the quark mass and $z$ is the relative
299: longitudinal ``minus'' momentum fraction carried by the quark jet.
300: Here and below we use a shorthand notation
301: $$\bar z=1-z\,.$$
302:
303: The dijet invariant mass equals
304: \beq{}
305: (q_1+q_2)^2=M^2=\frac{q_\perp^{2}+m^2}{z\bar z}
306: \eeq
307: and the asymmetry parameter
308: \beq{xi1}
309: \frac{2\xi}{1+\xi}=\frac{Q^2+M^2}{Q^2+W^2}\, .
310: \eeq
311: {}For future convenience we introduce the notation
312: \beq{mu}
313: \mu^2=m^2+z \bar z\,Q^2\, ,
314: \eeq
315: and the parameter
316: \beq{beta}
317: \beta=\frac{\mu^2}{q_\perp^{2}+\mu^2} = \frac{Q^2+\frac{m^2}{z\bar z}}{M^2+Q^2}\ ,
318: \eeq
319: which for light quark jets $m\to 0$ coincides with the conventional $\beta$-parameter
320: used in the description of diffractive deep inelastic scattering, see e.g. \cite{H1}.
321:
322: We will calculate the distributions in the angle between the electron
323: scattering and the jets planes, cf. \cite{BELW96,Diehl:1996st}.
324: In order to define this angle we introduce two transverse unit vectors
325: \bea{exy}
326: e_x&=&(0,1,0,0)\, ,
327: \nonumber \\
328: e_y&=&(0,0,1,0)\, ,
329: \eea
330: in such a way that the incident lepton transverse momentum (\ref{ll}) is in $x$-direction,
331: $l_\perp=|l_\perp|e_x$, and the quark jet transverse momentum equals to
332: $q_\perp=|q_\perp|(e_x \cos\phi+e_y\sin\phi)$, see Fig.~\ref{fig:phi}.
333:
334:
335: The deep inelastic differential cross section is written as
336: \bea{Xsec}
337: d\sigma&=&(2\pi)^4\delta^4(l+p-l^\prime-q_1-q_2-p^\prime)
338: \nonumber \\
339: &&
340: \times\frac{|M|^2}{4(l\cdot
341: p)}\frac{d^3l^\prime d^3q_1 d^3q_2 d^3p^\prime}{(2\pi)^{12} 2l^\prime_0
342: 2q_{1,0}2q_{2,0}2p^\prime_0} \, .
343: \eea
344:
345:
346:
347: %
348: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE 2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
349: \begin{figure}[ht]
350: \centerline{\epsfysize4.4cm\epsffile{phinew.eps}}
351: \caption[]{\small
352: The azimuthal angle $\phi$ is defined as the angle between the two planes:
353: one formed by the lepton momenta $l, l'$ and the other one by the
354: jet momenta $q_1, q_2$.
355: %Definition of the azimuthal angle $\phi$.
356: %The picture corresponds to the
357: %so-called photon-pomeron c.m. frame used in \cite{BELW96}. In this frame
358: %$\vec{q}_1$ and $\vec{q}_2$ have the same length and
359: %$\vec{q}= - x_{\mathbb P} \vec{p}$ where $x_{\mathbb P}= 2\xi/(1+\xi)$.
360: }
361: \label{fig:phi}
362: \end{figure}
363: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
364: %
365:
366:
367: The amplitude $M$ can be expressed in terms of the amplitude of the photon-nucleon scattering.
368: In the Feynman gauge we have
369: \beq{eampl}
370: M=\frac{\sqrt{4\pi\alpha_{em}}}{Q^2}\bar u(l^\prime)\gamma^\mu u(l)
371: g_{\mu\nu}M_{\gamma^*}^\nu \, .
372: \eeq
373: and using gauge invariance can replace
374: the $g_{\mu\nu}$ tensor by the sum of projections on the different possible
375: polarization vectors of the virtual photon:
376: \beq{gmunu}
377: g^{\mu\nu}\to e_L^\mu e_L^\nu - \sum_{\lambda=x,y}e_{T,\lambda}^\mu
378: e_{T,\lambda}^\nu
379: \eeq
380:
381: In what follows we use the longitudinal polarization vector
382: \bea{eL}
383: e_L=\frac{Q^2+W^2}{2 W Q (1+\xi)}\, n_-
384: + \frac{W}{Q}(1+\xi)x_{Bj}\, n_+ \, ,
385: \eea
386: and define the transverse polarization vectors as
387: \bea{tr}
388: e_T&=&0\cdot n_+ +0\cdot n_- +e_\perp \, ,
389: \nonumber \\
390: e_{T,x}&=&e_x \,,
391: \nonumber \\
392: e_{T,y}&=&e_y \,.
393: \eea
394: Accordingly, we define the photon subprocess amplitudes for different polarizations
395: as
396: \beq{amplph}
397: {\cal A}_{L}=M_{\gamma^*}^\mu e_{L,\mu} \, , \quad
398: {\cal A}_{T}=M_{\gamma^*}^\mu e_{T,\mu}
399: \eeq
400: and
401: \beq{amplphxy}
402: {\cal A}_{T}^x=M_{\gamma^*}^\mu e_{x,\mu} \, , \quad
403: {\cal A}_{T}^y=M_{\gamma^*}^\mu e_{y,\mu}
404: \eeq
405:
406:
407:
408:
409:
410: It is not difficult to show that
411: \beq{d3lprm}
412: \frac{d^3l^\prime}{2l^\prime_0}=\frac{1}{4}dy dQ^2 d\phi_{l^\prime}
413: \eeq
414: and the cross section of interest takes the form
415: \begin{widetext}
416: \bea{crX}
417: (2\pi)\frac{d\sigma}{dydQ^2d\phi_{l^\prime}}&=&
418: \frac{\alpha_{em}}{\pi Q^2 y}
419: \Big[
420: \frac{4-4y+y^2}{4}|{\cal A}_{T}^x|^2+\frac{y^2}{4}|{\cal
421: A}_{T}^y|^2+(1-y)|{\cal A}_{L}|^2
422: +(2-y)\sqrt{1-y}Re\left({\cal A}^x_{T}{\cal A}_{L}^*\right)
423: \Big]
424: \nonumber\\&&{}\times\frac{dz d\phi dq_\perp^2 }{2^9\pi^4z\bar
425: z(W^2+Q^2)(W^2-M^2)}\frac{d\Delta_\perp^2
426: d\phi_{p^\prime}}{2\pi}\,.
427: \eea
428: \end{widetext}
429: Here $\phi_{p^\prime}$ is the azimuthal angle for the outgoing nucleon. The corresponding
430: integration is trivial so that the factor $d\phi_{p^\prime}/{2\pi}$ can be replaced by unity
431: for all practical purposes. In the numerical calculation described below we assume the behavior
432: $d\sigma/d \Delta_\perp^2 \sim \exp[-b \Delta_\perp^2]$ with the universal slope $b=5$~GeV$^2$.
433:
434:
435:
436:
437:
438: \section{Calculation of the amplitudes}
439:
440: In this work we calculate the necessary amplitudes to leading order in perturbation
441: theory using collinear factorization. The corresponding diagrams are shown in
442: Fig.~\ref{fig:gluon} and Fig.~\ref{fig:quark} for the gluon and quark contributions,
443: respectively. In both cases the addition of symmetric diagrams with the permutation
444: of the quark and the antiquark is understood.
445: %
446: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE 3 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
447: \begin{figure}[t]
448: \centerline{\epsfysize3.2cm\epsffile{gluon.eps}}
449: \caption[]{\small
450: Gluon contribution to the hard exclusive dijet production
451: }
452: \label{fig:gluon}
453: \end{figure}
454: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
455: %
456: %
457: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE 4 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
458: \begin{figure}[t]
459: \centerline{\epsfysize3.2cm\epsffile{quark.eps}}
460: \caption[]{\small
461: Quark contribution to the hard exclusive dijet production
462: }
463: \label{fig:quark}
464: \end{figure}
465: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
466: %
467:
468:
469: In the framework of collinear factorization, the necessary hadronic input is
470: parametrized in terms of generalized parton distributions (GPDs).
471: GPDs are defined as matrix elements of light-ray quark
472: and gluon operators sandwiched between nucleon (proton) states with
473: different momenta~\cite{Diehl03, Belitsky:2005qn}:
474: \bea{GPDs}
475: \lefteqn{F^q (x,\xi,\Delta^2)=}
476: \nonumber\\
477: &=&\frac{1}{2}\! \int\! \frac{d\lambda}{2\pi} e^{i x (P z)}
478: \langle
479: p^\prime |\bar q \! \left(-\frac{z}{2}\right)\!\! \not \! n_-
480: q\! \left(\frac{z}{2}\right)\!
481: |p\rangle|_{z=\lambda n_-}
482: \nonumber \\
483: &=&
484: \frac{1}{2(Pn_- )}\biggl[
485: {\cal H}^q (x,\xi,\Delta^2)\, \bar u(p^\prime)\not \! n_- u(p)
486: \nonumber \\
487: &&
488: \left.{}
489: +{\cal E}^q (x,\xi,\Delta^2)\, \bar
490: u(p^\prime)\frac{i\sigma^{\alpha\beta}n_{-\alpha}\Delta_\beta}{2\,m_N}
491: u(p) \right] \, ,
492: \nonumber\\
493: \lefteqn{F^g (x,\xi,\Delta^2)=}
494: \nonumber\\
495: &=&\frac{1}{(Pn_-)}\int\frac{d\lambda}{2\pi} e^{i x (P z)}\,
496: n_{-\alpha}n_{-\beta}
497: \nonumber \\
498: &&\times
499: \langle
500: p^\prime |G^{\alpha\mu} \left(-\frac{z}{2}\right)
501: G^{\beta}_\mu \left(\frac{z}{2}\right)
502: |p\rangle|_{z=\lambda n_-}
503: \nonumber \\
504: &=&
505: \frac{1}{2(Pn_- )}\Bigl[
506: {\cal H}^g (x,\xi,\Delta^2)\, \bar u(p^\prime)\not \! n_- u(p)
507: \nonumber \\
508: &&
509: +
510: {\cal E}^g (x,\xi,\Delta^2)\, \bar
511: u(p^\prime)\frac{i\sigma^{\alpha\beta}n_{-\alpha}\Delta_\beta}{2\,m_N}
512: u(p)
513: \Bigr] \, .
514: \eea
515: Here $u(p)$ and $\bar u(p')$ are the nucleon spinors.
516: In both cases insertion of the path-ordered gauge factor between the
517: field operators is implied.
518: The momentum fraction $x$, $-1\leq x\leq 1$, parametrizes parton momenta
519: with respect to the symmetric momentum $P=(p+p^\prime)/2$.
520: In the forward limit, $p^\prime=p$, the contributions proportional to
521: the functions ${\cal E}^q (x,\xi,\Delta^2)$ and ${\cal E}^g (x,\xi,\Delta^2)$ vanish,
522: whereas
523: the distributions ${\cal H}^q (x,\xi,\Delta^2)$ and ${\cal H}^g (x,\xi,\Delta^2)$ reduce
524: to the ordinary quark and gluon densities:
525: \bea{reduct}
526: {\cal H}^q (x,0,0)&=&q(x) \ \ \mbox{for} \ \ x>0 \, ,
527: \nonumber \\
528: {\cal H}^q (x,0,0)&=&-\bar q(-x) \ \ \mbox{for} \ \ x<0 \, ;
529: \nonumber \\
530: {\cal H}^g (x,0,0)&=&\, x \, g(x) \ \ \mbox{for} \ \ x>0 \, .
531: \eea
532: Note that the gluon GPD is an even function of $x$,
533: ${\cal H}^g (x,\xi,\Delta^2)={\cal H}^g(-x,\xi,\Delta^2)$.
534:
535:
536: The calculation is relatively straightforward so that we omit the details.
537: The $\gamma^*N$ scattering amplitude for the longitudinal photon polarization
538: can be written as
539: %
540: %%%%%%%%%%%% BEGIN WIDETEXT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
541: %
542: \begin{widetext}
543: %
544: \bea{long}
545: {\cal A}^g_{\gamma_L}&=&-\frac{4\pi \alpha_s\sqrt{4\pi\alpha_{em}}\,e_q\,
546: \delta_{ij}}
547: {N_c}\frac{z\bar z \,Q\,W}{[q_\perp^{2}+\mu^2]^2}\,
548: \bar u(q_1)\!
549: \not \!n_+ v(q_2) \left(I_L^g+2C_FI_L^q \right) \, ,
550: \eea
551: where
552: \bea{IL}
553: I_L^g &=&
554: \int\limits^1_{-1}dx F^g(x,\xi,\Delta^2)
555: \left(
556: \frac{2\xi\,\bar \beta}{(x+\xi-i\epsilon)^2}
557: +\frac{2\xi\,\bar \beta}{(x-\xi+i\epsilon)^2}
558: -\frac{2\xi(1-2\beta)}{(x+\xi-i\epsilon)(x-\xi+i\epsilon)}
559: \right) \, ,
560: \nonumber \\
561: I_L^q&=&\int\limits^1_{-1}dx F^q(x,\xi,\Delta^2)
562: \left(
563: \frac{2\xi \bar z}{(x+\xi-i\epsilon)}+\frac{2\xi z}{(x-\xi+i\epsilon)}
564: \right) \, .
565: \eea
566: We denote $\bar \beta=1-\beta$, $u(q_1),v(q_2)$ are the quark spinors and $\delta_{ik}$ stands
567: for the colors of the outgoing quarks, $C_F=(N_c^2-1)/2N_c$ where
568: $N_c=3$ for QCD.
569: {}For the transverse photon polarization we obtain
570: \bea{trans}
571: {\cal A}_{\gamma_T}&=&-\frac{2\pi
572: \alpha_s\sqrt{4\pi\alpha_{em}}\,e_q\,\delta_{ij} }
573: {N_c}\frac{W}{[q_\perp^{2}+\mu^2]^2}\Big\{
574: - \bar u(q_1) \left[m \!\not\! e_\perp
575: \right]\! \not \!n_+ v(q_2) I_L^g
576: \nonumber \\
577: &&
578: +
579: \bar u(q_1)\! \not\! q_\perp\!\!\not\! e_\perp
580: \! \not \!n_+ v(q_2)\big(2C_F I_T^{q_1}+\bar z I_T^g \big)+
581: \bar u(q_1)\! \not\! e_\perp
582: \!\!\not\!
583: q_\perp
584: \! \not \!n_+ v(q_2)
585: \big(2C_F I_T^{q_2}- z I_T^g \big)
586: \Big\}\, ,
587: \eea
588: %
589: with
590: %
591: \bea{IT}
592: I_T^g &=& \int\limits^1_{-1}dx F^g(x,\xi,\Delta^2)
593: \left(
594: \frac{\xi(1-2\beta)}{(x+\xi-i\epsilon)^2}
595: +\frac{\xi(1-2\beta)}{(x-\xi+i\epsilon)^2}
596: +\frac{4\xi \beta}{(x+\xi-i\epsilon)(x-\xi+i\epsilon)}
597: \right)\, ,
598: \nonumber \\
599: I_T^{q_1} &=& \int\limits^1_{-1}dx F^q(x,\xi,\Delta^2)
600: \left(\frac{2\xi z\bar z}{(x-\xi+i\epsilon)}
601: -\frac{2\xi \beta \bar z^2}{\bar \beta (x+\xi-i\epsilon)}
602: +\frac{2\xi \bar z^2}{\bar \beta (x-\xi(1-2\beta )-i\epsilon)}
603: \right)\, ,
604: \nonumber \\
605: I_T^{q_2} &=& \int\limits^1_{-1}dx F^q(x,\xi,\Delta^2)
606: \left(
607: \frac{2\xi \beta z^2}{ \bar \beta (x-\xi+i\epsilon)}-\frac{2\xi z\bar z}
608: {(x+\xi-i\epsilon)}
609: -\frac{2\xi z^2}{\bar \beta (x+\xi(1-2\beta )+i\epsilon)}
610: \right) \, .
611: \eea
612: In both cases the expressions are written for one quark flavor. The quark mass corrections
613: have been omitted for quark contributions, cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:quark}, and only have
614: to be taken into account in the charm- or eventually beauty-quark production in
615: the gluon contributions shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:gluon}. Note that for heavy quark jets our
616: definition of the $\beta$-parameter (\ref{beta}) differs somewhat from the
617: conventional $\beta$-parameter used in the description of diffraction scattering.
618:
619: Using the virtual photon amplitudes given in (\ref{long}) and (\ref{trans})
620: we calculate the dijet cross section, summed over helicities and color of the
621: produced $(q\bar q)$ pair:
622: \beq{crX1}
623: \frac{d\sigma}{dydQ^2}=
624: \frac{\alpha_{em}}{\pi Q^2 y}
625: \left[
626: \frac{1+(1-y)^2}{2}d\sigma_T-2(1-y)\cos 2\phi\, d\sigma_{TT}
627: +(1-y)d\sigma_L
628: -(2-y)\sqrt{1-y}\cos \phi \, d\sigma_{LT}
629: \right]
630: \eeq
631: %\end{widetext}
632: %
633: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% END WIDETEXT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
634: %
635: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE 5 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
636: \begin{figure*}[ht]
637: \centerline{\epsfysize5.0cm\epsffile{LCqzCM.eps}
638: \epsfysize5.0cm\epsffile{LCqz1CM.eps} }
639: \caption[]{\small
640: Longitudinal momentum fraction distribution of the dijets, summed over all
641: quark flavors $q=u,d,s,c$. The three curves correspond to
642: different minimum dijet transverse momenta; from above to below: $q_0=1.25, 1.5, 1.75$~GeV.
643: The solid and the dashed curves correspond to a model for the
644: generalized parton distribution based on the leading-order
645: CTEQ6L and MRST2001LO leading-order parton distributions, respectively.
646: The results shown on panel a) correspond to the calculation with a cutoff
647: $Q^2/(Q^2+M^2)>0.5$, whereas the ones shown on panel b) are calculated without such a cutoff.
648: In the latter case we take $Q^2>10$~GeV$^2$.
649: }
650: \label{z-distr}
651: \end{figure*}
652: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
653: %
654: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE 6 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
655: \begin{figure*}[ht]
656: \centerline{\epsfysize5.0cm\epsffile{LCqphiCM.eps}
657: \epsfysize5.0cm\epsffile{LCqphi1CM.eps} }
658: \caption[]{\small
659: Azimuthal angle distribution of the dijets, $q_\perp > 1.25$~GeV, summed over all
660: quark flavors $q=u,d,s,c$. Identification of the panels and curves is the same as
661: in Fig.~\ref{z-distr}, see also text.
662: }
663: \label{phi-distr}
664: \end{figure*}
665: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
666: %
667: \noindent
668: where
669: \bea{dsigmas}
670: d\sigma_T &= & \Big[
671: \frac{m^2}{q_\perp^2}|I_L^g|^2+ |\bar z I_T^g
672: +2C_F I_T^{q_1}|^2 +|z I_T^g-2C_F
673: I_T^{q_2}|^2 \Big]d\sigma\, ,
674: \nonumber \\
675: d\sigma_{TT}&=& Re\, \Big[
676: (\bar z I_T^g+2C_F I_T^{q_1})(z I_T^g-2C_F
677: I_T^{q_2})^* \Big]d\sigma \, ,
678: \nonumber \\
679: d\sigma_{L}&=&
680: 4(z\bar z)^2\frac{Q^2}{q_\perp^2}|I_L^g+2C_F I_L^q|^2 d\sigma \, ,
681: \nonumber \\
682: d\sigma_{LT}&=&2(z\bar z)\frac{Q}{q_\perp}\, Re\Big[(I_L^g+2C_F
683: I_L^q)
684: ((1-2z)I_T^g+2C_F(I_T^{q_1}+I_T^{q_2}))^*\Big] d\sigma
685: \eea
686: %
687: \end{widetext}
688: %
689: and
690: %\bea{dsa}
691: %d\sigma&=&
692: %\frac{\alpha_{em}\alpha_s^2 e_q^2 }
693: %{16\pi N_c}
694: %\frac{(2W^2+Q^2-M^2)^2}{4(W^2+Q^2)(W^2-M^2)}
695: %\nonumber\\
696: %&&{}\times
697: %\frac{q_\perp^{2}\, dq_\perp^2 d\Delta_\perp^2 dz d\phi}
698: %{(q_\perp^{2}+\mu^2)^4} \, .
699: %\eea
700: \bea{dsa}
701: d\sigma&=&
702: \frac{\alpha_{em}\alpha_s^2 e_q^2 }
703: {16\pi N_c(1-\xi^2)}
704: %\frac{(2W^2+Q^2-M^2)^2}{4(W^2+Q^2)(W^2-M^2)}
705: %\nonumber\\
706: %&&{}\times
707: \frac{q_\perp^{2}\, dq_\perp^2 d\Delta_\perp^2 dz d\phi}
708: {(q_\perp^{2}+\mu^2)^4} \, .
709: \eea
710:
711: The same cross section in the $k_\perp$-factorization approach
712: of Ref.~\cite{BLW96} can be recovered by neglecting the
713: double-pole terms in $I^g_L$, $I^g_T$, in (\ref{IL}), (\ref{IT}),
714: taking into account the imaginary part only
715: \bea{Bartels}
716: I^g_L &\to& i\pi \cdot 2 (1-2\beta)F^g(\xi,\xi,\Delta^2)\,,
717: \nonumber\\
718: I^g_T &\to& - i\pi \cdot 4 \beta F^g(\xi,\xi,\Delta^2)\,,
719: \eea
720: and also neglecting the quark mass and quark contributions altogether.
721: The result coincides with the expression given
722: in \cite{BELW96}, except for the sign in the last term
723: in (\ref{crX1}) $\sim \cos\phi$. Our sign agrees with an independent
724: calculation in \cite{Diehl:1996st} in a kind of a two-gluon exchange model.
725: (To be precise, our definition of $\phi$ differs in sign from the definition used in
726: \cite{Diehl:1996st}.)
727:
728:
729: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
730: \section{Numerical results}
731: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
732:
733:
734: %
735: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE 7 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
736: \begin{figure*}[ht]
737: \centerline{\epsfysize5.0cm\epsffile{CqzCM.eps}
738: \epsfysize5.0cm\epsffile{Cqz1CM.eps} }
739: \caption[]{\small
740: Same as in Fig.~\ref{z-distr}, but for charmed quark dijets only.
741: }
742: \label{z-distr-c}
743: \end{figure*}
744: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
745: %
746: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE 8 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
747: \begin{figure*}[ht]
748: \centerline{\epsfysize5.0cm\epsffile{CqphiCM.eps}
749: \epsfysize5.0cm\epsffile{Cqphi1CM.eps} }
750: \caption[]{\small
751: Same as in Fig.~\ref{phi-distr}, but for charmed quark dijets only.
752: }
753: \label{phi-distr-c}
754: \end{figure*}
755: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
756: %
757:
758: The numerical results presented below are calculated using a model for the generalized
759: parton distributions that is based on CTEQ6L \cite{CTEQ6} (solid curves) and MRST2001LO
760: \cite{MRST} (dashed curves)
761: leading-order parton distributions at the scale 4~GeV$^2$.
762: {} For our analysis we neglect the contributions of ${\cal E}^q$ and ${\cal E}^g$, see
763: (\ref{GPDs}), since their contributions is expected to be minor in the HERA energy range.
764: The ${\cal H}^q$ and ${\cal H}^g$ distributions are modeled using the parametrization in terms
765: of the so-called double distributions using an ansatz proposed in \cite{Radyushkin:1998es} with profile
766: functions chosen to be $\pi(x,y)=6y(1-x-y)(1-x)^{-3}$ for quarks and
767: $\pi(x,y)=30y^2(1-x-y)^2(1-x)^{-5}$ for gluons.
768: We use the two-loop running QCD coupling
769: corresponding to the value $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.1165$. For the scale of the running coupling we take
770: $m^2+q^2_\perp +z\bar zQ^2$ for the c-quark, and $q^2_\perp +z\bar zQ^2$ for
771: the light quark production.
772: The charm quark mass is taken
773: to be $m_c=1.25$~GeV. We plot one-dimensional differential cross sections obtained by
774: integrating (\ref{crX1}) over the remaining variables. The distributions over the longitudinal
775: momentum fraction of the dijets (``$z$-distributions'') are shown for the integral over
776: all azimuthal angles, $0 <\phi <2\pi$, whereas for the azimuthal angle distributions
777: (``$\phi$-distributions'') we integrate in the range $0.1 < z < 0.9$.
778: We take integration limits in the deep-inelastic $y$-variable $0.1 < y < 0.4$ which roughly
779: corresponds to the energy interval $W = 100\div 200$~GeV. We also integrate over the dijet transverse
780: momenta $q_\perp^{2}>q_0^2$ with three choices for the cutoff: $q_0=1.25, 1.5, 1.75$~GeV,
781: and over $Q^2$ in the range $Q^2 = 10\div 500$~GeV$^2$. In addition, we introduce a
782: cutoff on the invariant dijet mass $M^2 < Q^2$ alias for the diffractive
783: DIS $\beta$-parameter
784: $$\beta^{\rm DDIS}= Q^2/(Q^2+M^2)>0.5$$
785: (cf. (\ref{beta})),
786: which is supposed to facilitate the extraction of the exclusive diffractive dijet cross section
787: experimentally. Indeed, in the region of large $\beta^{\rm DDIS}$
788: radiation of an additional gluon (gluons) in the final state, as shown in
789: Fig.1b, represents a radiative correction ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$ to the main
790: process, the $q\bar q$ pair production. At the same time, for small $\beta^{\rm DDIS}$
791: radiation of gluons is enhanced by large logarithms of the energy and
792: is numerically very important. It leads to events which
793: have a topology of inclusive diffractive dijet production. In this case
794: a special experimental procedure is needed to isolate the exclusive contribution.
795: %We find that $\beta^{\rm DDIS}>0.5$
796: %condition has a considerable impact on the shape of the $z$-distributions.
797: %On the other hand, the shape of the azimuthal angle distributions is almost not affected.
798: %cf. Fig.~\ref{phi-distr}.
799: Last but not least, it is worthwhile to mention that all calculations in this work
800: refer to the parton-level
801: cross sections, hadronization effects are not taken into account.
802: We also average over the quark and the
803: antiquark jets, since their distinction is very difficult experimentally. With this averaging,
804: the last term $\sim \sigma_{LT}$ in (\ref{crX1}) drops out.
805:
806:
807: %
808: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE 9 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
809: \begin{figure*}[ht]
810: \centerline{\epsfysize5.0cm\epsffile{LCqLCM.eps}
811: \epsfysize5.0cm\epsffile{LCqL1CM.eps}
812: }
813: \caption[]{\small
814: Longitudinal momentum fraction distribution of the dijets with transverse
815: momentum $q_\perp > 1.5$~GeV, summed over all
816: quark flavors $q=u,d,s,c$ (the two upper curves). The contribution of the longitudinal photon
817: polarization
818: is shown separately (the two lower curves). The calculation is made with (panel a)) and without
819: (panel b)) a cutoff $\beta^{\rm DDIS}= Q^2/(Q^2+M^2)>0.5$.
820: The solid and dashed curves correspond to the CTEQ6L and MRST2001LO parametrizations,
821: respectively.
822: }
823:
824: \label{long-distr}
825: \end{figure*}
826: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
827: %
828:
829:
830: The longitudinal momentum fraction and the azimuthal angle distributions of the dijets,
831: summed over all quark flavors $q=u,d,s,c$, are shown
832: in Fig.~\ref{z-distr} and Fig.~\ref{phi-distr},
833: respectively. Note that the $z$-distributions are affected strongly by the cutoff
834: $\beta^{\rm DDIS} >0.5$~\cite{foot1},
835: while the $\phi$-distributions remain qualitatively the same.
836: This effect is easy to understand and is
837: due to a strong kinematic suppression of small $z\to 0$ and large $z\to 1$
838: longitudinal momentum regions that correspond to large masses of the diffractively produced
839: system. The difference between the solid and the dashed curves is mainly in the absolute
840: normalization and it arises because of the different small-$x$ behavior of the CTEQ6L and MRST2001LO
841: gluon distributions.
842:
843: We expect that the accuracy of our calculation is mainly limited by the size
844: of the next-to-leading order (NLO) corrections.
845: E.g. for vector meson electroproduction
846: the NLO corrections were found to be large \cite{ISK04}.
847: The uncertainties involved in the modeling of
848: generalized (off-forward) parton distributions are probably less important in the HERA
849: energy range that we consider in this work.
850:
851: The same distributions are plotted in Fig.~\ref{z-distr-c} and Fig.~\ref{phi-distr-c} for the
852: contributions of $c$-quark jets separately. Note that
853: the cutoff $\beta^{\rm DDIS} > 0.5$ leads to a dramatic
854: reduction of the cross section in this case,
855: so that the $c$-quark contribution to the distributions in
856: Fig.~\ref{z-distr}a and Fig.~\ref{phi-distr}a is rather small.
857:
858:
859: %
860: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE 10 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
861: \begin{figure}[ht]
862: \centerline{\epsfysize4.7cm\epsffile{LCqyyCM.eps} }
863: \caption[]{\small
864: The $y$-distribution of the dijets, $y\, d\sigma/dy$, summed over all
865: quark flavors $q=u,d,s,c$.
866: The calculation is made with a cutoff $Q^2/(Q^2+M^2)>0.5$.
867: Identification of the curves is the same as in Fig.~\ref{z-distr},
868: see also text.
869: }
870: \label{y-distr}
871: \end{figure}
872: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
873: %
874:
875: %
876: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE 11 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
877: \begin{figure}[ht]
878: \centerline{\epsfysize4.7cm\epsffile{lqz1GQ.eps} }
879: \caption[]{\small
880: The longitudinal momentum fraction distribution of the dijets
881: with transverse
882: momentum $q_\perp > 1.25$~GeV
883: summed over light quark flavors $q=u,d,s$.
884: The contributions of the gluon and the quark GPDs are shown by the dashed
885: and the dash-dotted curves, respectively. The sum of all contributions
886: including the quark-gluon interference terms
887: is shown by the solid curve.
888: The calculation is made with a cutoff $\beta^{\rm DDIS} > 0.5$
889: and CTEQ6L parton distributions.
890: }
891: \label{quark-gluon}
892: \end{figure}
893: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
894: %
895:
896:
897:
898: As it can be expected, the dijet production is dominated by the contribution of transverse photon
899: polarization, $d\sigma_T$ in Eq.~(\ref{crX1}). The contribution of the longitudinal
900: polarization, $d\sigma_L$, is shown separately in Fig.~\ref{long-distr} for the case
901: $q_\perp >1.5$~GeV. It is seen that the relative weight of the
902: longitudinal contribution is effectively enhanced
903: by the cutoff $\beta^{\rm DDIS} > 0.5$ (since $d\sigma_T$ is peaked at small and large $z$ and
904: is strongly suppressed in the end point regions by the cutoff).
905:
906:
907: %
908: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE 12 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
909: \begin{figure}[ht]
910: \centerline{\epsfysize4.7cm\epsffile{lqLGQ.eps}
911: }
912: \caption[]{\small
913: Longitudinal momentum fraction distribution of the dijets with transverse
914: momentum $q_\perp > 1.5$~GeV, summed over all
915: quark flavors $q=u,d,s,c$.
916: The full calculation (solid curves) is compared with the result that includes
917: the contribution of the gluon GPD only (dashed curves).
918: The two lower curves show the longitudinal
919: contribution separately.
920: The calculation is made with
921: a cutoff $\beta^{\rm DDIS} >0.5$ and uses CTEQ6L
922: parton distributions.
923: }
924: \label{long-distrGQ}
925: \end{figure}
926: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
927: %
928:
929:
930:
931: %
932: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE 13 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
933: \begin{figure*}[ht]
934: \centerline{\epsfysize5.0cm\epsffile{lq2pT.eps}
935: \epsfysize5.0cm\epsffile{lq2pL.eps}
936: }
937: \caption[]{\small
938: The absolute values of $I_T^g$ (left panel) and $I_L^g$ (right panel) calculated
939: for $\xi=0.001$ and using the CTEQ6L parametrization for the gluon GPD for different
940: values of $\beta$ (\ref{beta}). The dashed curves represent the
941: contributions of the double pole terms, see text.
942: }
943:
944: \label{2poles}
945: \end{figure*}
946: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
947: %
948:
949:
950: %
951: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE 14 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
952: \begin{figure*}[ht]
953: \centerline{\epsfysize5.0cm\epsffile{lqzIm.eps}\epsfysize5.0cm\epsffile{lqzIm1.eps}
954: }
955: \caption[]{\small
956: Longitudinal momentum fraction distribution of the dijets, summed over the
957: light quark flavors $q=u,d,s$. The three pair of curves correspond to
958: different minimum dijet transverse momenta, from above to below: $q_0=1.25,
959: 1.5, 1.75$~GeV.
960: The solid and the dashed curves correspond to calculations when both the
961: imaginary and the real part of the amplitude and when
962: only the imaginary part of the amplitude is taken into account, respectively.
963: The results shown on panel a) correspond to the calculation with a cutoff
964: $\beta^{\rm DDIS} > 0.5$, whereas the ones shown on panel b)
965: are calculated without such a cutoff.
966: In the latter case we take $Q^2>10$~GeV$^2$.
967: }
968:
969: \label{ima-part}
970: \end{figure*}
971: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
972: %
973:
974:
975: In addition, in Fig.~\ref{y-distr} we show the $y$-distribution of the cross section, integrated
976: over the longitudinal momentum fraction of the jets, and over the azimuthal angle.
977: This plot represent, essentially, the energy dependence of the cross section of virtual
978: photon proton scattering (\ref{ph}). In the
979: considered kinematic range we find a steep rise $\sigma_{\gamma^*p}\sim (W^2)^{0.24\div
980: 0.26}$ which is typical for hard diffractive processes.
981:
982:
983: {}Finally, let us compare our results with the ones obtained earlier in \cite{BLW96,BELW96}
984: within the $k_t$-factorization framework.
985: Qualitatively, both collinear factorization and $k_t$-factorization approaches
986: lead to similar predictions: in particular the same overall $Q^2$-scaling,
987: strong energy dependence of the virtual photon proton scattering and the
988: prediction that jets prefer a direction perpendicular to the electron plane.
989: This is not surprising since both techniques coincide
990: in the double logarithmic approximation, see (\ref{Bartels}).
991: The direct comparison of numerical
992: predictions is difficult due to different cuts used and also different
993: parameterizations for the input gluon parton distributions. It seems, however, that our cross
994: sections tend to be roughly factor of two smaller than the ones reported in \cite{BLW96,BELW96}.
995:
996:
997: Beyond the double logarithmic approximation there are differences.
998: %There are also some differences in the longitudinal momentum fraction distributions.
999: In collinear factorization quark GPD contributes together with gluon GPD
1000: at the leading order.
1001: It turns out that the quark GPD contribution to the amplitude is
1002: quite significant. However, we find
1003: (as a representative example, see Fig.~\ref{quark-gluon})
1004: that it interferes destructively with the gluon GPD contribution
1005: and, as the result, the contribution of quark GPD to the cross section
1006: cancels to a large extent with the gluon-quark GPDs interference term. Remarkably,
1007: this cancellation does not affect much the shape of different distributions,
1008: and only results in a moderate increase of the cross section, as compared to
1009: the calculation with only the gluon GPD taken into account.
1010: One noticeable exception is the longitudinal contribution
1011: to the cross section calculated with a $\beta^{\rm DDIS}$ cutoff. As
1012: seen in Fig.~\ref{long-distrGQ}, neglecting quark GPD contribution underestimates
1013: the longitudinal cross section by more than a factor two.
1014: %This destructive interference leads to a considerable suppression of the cross section,
1015: %especially at the end points $z\to0$, $z\to1$.
1016:
1017: Another difference and a distinct feature of the collinear factorization approach
1018: is the appearance of double poles in the coefficient functions for the gluon contributions
1019: to both the transverse (\ref{IT}) and the longitudinal (\ref{IL}) amplitudes.
1020: Such double-pole terms have no counterparts in the $k_t$
1021: factorization approach.
1022: In Fig.~\ref{2poles} we show absolute values of $I^g_T$ and $I^g_L$
1023: as defined in Eqs.~(\ref{IT}) and (\ref{IL}), respectively,
1024: calculated for a typical value
1025: of the asymmetry parameter
1026: $\xi=0.001$ (\ref{xi}) and for different values of the $\beta$-parameter (\ref{beta}).
1027: The double pole contributions (shown by dashed curves) are important in the regions where the
1028: main single-pole terms
1029: vanish: at small $\beta$ for the transverse amplitude and at $\beta\sim
1030: 0.5$ for the longitudinal amplitude.
1031:
1032: It is known that at large energies (small $x$) the amplitudes are
1033: predominantly imaginary. Also in our case the imaginary part of the amplitude
1034: dominates the dijet cross section.
1035: We find however, see Fig.~\ref{ima-part},
1036: that the contribution of the real part is quite sizable close to the end points,
1037: $z\to 0$ or $z\to 1$, and especially in the case of the
1038: calculation without a $\beta^{\rm DDIS}$--cutoff.
1039:
1040:
1041:
1042: \section{Summary and conclusions}
1043:
1044: We have presented a detailed analysis of exclusive diffractive
1045: dijet production with large transverse momenta in the framework of
1046: QCD collinear factorization. The calculation is done in leading order
1047: in the strong coupling. We derived the expressions for the amplitudes for the $q\bar q$ pair
1048: production by the virtual photon both for the transverse and
1049: the longitudinal polarizations and used these results for an extensive
1050: numerical study of the differential cross section for HERA kinematics.
1051: We have checked that our results for the amplitude
1052: are equivalent in the massless quark limit
1053: to the ones obtained in \cite{LMSSS99} (where no separation into the
1054: transverse and longitudinal contributions is made and different notation used for
1055: the GPDs). In the double
1056: logarithmic limit our result agrees (except for the sign of $\sim \cos\phi$ term in
1057: (\ref{crX1})) with the one obtained in the $k_t$ factorization approach
1058: \cite{BELW96}.
1059:
1060: Experimentally, main challenge in the study of hard dijet production
1061: is the necessity to have a clean separation between the exclusive and
1062: inclusive channels. Since topology of the event is different in these two cases, such a separation
1063: should be possible to achieve using appropriate cuts. The most
1064: practical possibility at present is probably to limit the study of diffractive
1065: dijet electroproduction to the kinematic region of large
1066: $\beta^{\rm DDIS}$, say $\beta^{\rm DDIS}>0.5$,
1067: where the exclusive $q\bar q$ production represents the main contribution
1068: and radiation of an additional gluon (gluons) in the final state is suppressed.
1069: Our estimates indicate that in the region $\beta^{\rm DDIS}>0.5$
1070: the cross section remains sufficiently large and we hope that
1071: such an analysis can be done at HERA. As first noted in \cite{BELW96}, the
1072: azimuthal angle distribution of the dijets can be used to check the separation
1073: of the exclusive sample: exclusive jets prefer a direction
1074: perpendicular to the electron scattering plane whereas in the inclusive case the
1075: distribution is peaked in this plane. We find that the azimuthal angle distribution is stable
1076: to various cuts and is not very sensitive to the input GPDs, so it can indeed
1077: be used as a useful trigger.
1078:
1079: Though quark GPDs contribute significantly to the amplitude,
1080: we observe a large cancellation between the square of the quark
1081: contribution and the gluon-quark GPDs interference term in the cross section.
1082: As the result, both the magnitude of the cross section and the shape of different
1083: distributions appear to be not very sensitive to the presence of quark GPD
1084: contributions (in the studied energy range).
1085: This finding further strengthens the existing expectations (see e.g. \cite{GKM98})
1086: that exclusive diffractive dijet production may offer an interesting possibility to
1087: constrain the generalized gluon parton distribution at small $x_B$.
1088:
1089: \section*{Acknowledgements}
1090:
1091: We are grateful to D.~Ashery for the questions that initiated this work
1092: and valuable correspondence.
1093: Our special thanks are due to M.~Diehl for reading the manuscript and important remarks.
1094: D.I. also thanks the QCD theory group of the University of Regensburg for warm hospitality.
1095: Work of D.I. was partially supported by grants RFBR-05-02-16211, NSh-2339.2003.2 and by
1096: the DFG grant 436RUS113/754/0-1 ``Hard diffractive processes in QCD''.
1097: %
1098:
1099:
1100:
1101:
1102:
1103: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1104:
1105:
1106: \bibitem{H1}
1107: C.~Adloff {\it et al.} [H1 Collaboration],
1108: %``Diffractive dijet production at HERA,''
1109: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 6}, 421 (1999).
1110: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9808013;%%
1111: %
1112: \bibitem{NNN}
1113: N.~N.~Nikolaev and B.~G.~Zakharov,
1114: %`Splitting the pomeron into two jets: A Novel process at HERA,''
1115: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 332}, 177 (1994).
1116: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9403281;%%
1117: %
1118: \bibitem{BLW96}
1119: J.~Bartels, H.~Lotter and M.~Wusthoff,
1120: %`Quark-Antiquark Production in DIS Diffractive Dissociation,''
1121: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 379}, 239 (1996)
1122: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 382}, 449 (1996)].
1123: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9602363;%%
1124: %
1125: \bibitem{BELW96}
1126: J.~Bartels, C.~Ewerz, H.~Lotter and M.~Wusthoff,
1127: %`Azimuthal Distribution of Quark-Antiquark Jets in DIS Diffractive
1128: %Dissociation,''
1129: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 386},389 (1996).
1130: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9605356;%%
1131: %
1132: \bibitem{LMSSS99}
1133: B.~Lehmann-Dronke, M.~Maul, S.~Schaefer, E.~Stein and A.~Schafer,
1134: %``Diffractive charged meson pair production,''
1135: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 457}, 207 (1999).
1136: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9901283;%%
1137: %
1138: \bibitem{Diehl03}
1139: M.~Diehl,
1140: %``Generalized parton distributions,''
1141: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 388}, 41 (2003).
1142: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307382;%%
1143: %
1144: \bibitem{Belitsky:2005qn}
1145: A.~V.~Belitsky and A.~V.~Radyushkin,
1146: %`Unraveling hadron structure with generalized parton distributions,''
1147: arXiv:hep-ph/0504030.
1148: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504030;%%
1149: %
1150: \bibitem{GKM98}
1151: K.~Golec-Biernat, J.~Kwiecinski and A.~D.~Martin,
1152: %`Diffractive dijet photoproduction as a probe of the off-diagonal gluon
1153: %distribution,''
1154: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 094001 (1998).
1155: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803464;%%
1156: %
1157: \bibitem{NSS}
1158: N.~N.~Nikolaev, W.~Schafer and G.~Schwiete,
1159: %``Coherent production of hard dijets on nuclei in QCD,''
1160: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 014020 (2001).
1161: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009038;%%
1162: %
1163: \bibitem{BISS01}
1164: V.~M.~Braun, D.~Yu.~Ivanov, A.~Schafer and L.~Szymanowski,
1165: %``QCD factorization for the pion diffractive dissociation to two jets,''
1166: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 509}, 43 (2001);
1167: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103275;%%
1168: %V.~M.~Braun, D.~Yu.~Ivanov, A.~Schafer and L.~Szymanowski,
1169: %``Towards the theory of coherent hard dijet production on hadrons and
1170: %nuclei,''
1171: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 638}, 111 (2002).
1172: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204191;%%
1173: %
1174: \bibitem{Chernyak01}
1175: V.~Chernyak,
1176: %``Does the E791 experiment have measured the pion wave function profile?,''
1177: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 516}, 116 (2001);
1178: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103295;%%
1179: V.~L.~Chernyak and A.~G.~Grozin,
1180: %``Calculation of the cross section for the pion diffractive dissociation into
1181: %two jets,''
1182: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 517}, 119 (2001).
1183: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106162;%%
1184: %
1185: \bibitem{E791}
1186: E.~M.~Aitala {\it et al.} [E791 Collaboration],
1187: %``Direct measurement of the pion valence quark momentum distribution,
1188: %the pion light-cone wave function squared,''
1189: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86}, 4768 (2001).
1190: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0010043;%%
1191: %
1192: \bibitem{Ashery02}
1193: D.~Ashery [E791 Collaboration],
1194: %``Measurement of light-cone wave functions by diffractive dissociation,''
1195: arXiv:hep-ex/0205011.
1196: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0205011;%%
1197: %
1198: \bibitem{FMS93}
1199: L.~Frankfurt, G.~A.~Miller and M.~Strikman,
1200: %``Coherent nuclear diffractive production of mini - jets:
1201: %Illuminating color transparency,''
1202: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 304} (1993) 1.
1203: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9305228;%%
1204: %
1205: \bibitem{BGISS02}
1206: V.~M.~Braun, S.~Gottwald, D.~Yu.~Ivanov, A.~Schafer and L.~Szymanowski,
1207: %``Exclusive photoproduction of hard dijets and magnetic susceptibility of QCD
1208: %vacuum,''
1209: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89}, 172001 (2002).
1210: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206305;%%
1211: %
1212: \bibitem{Khoze:2001xm}
1213: V.~A.~Khoze, A.~D.~Martin and M.~G.~Ryskin,
1214: %``Prospects for new physics observations in diffractive processes at the LHC
1215: %and Tevatron,''
1216: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 23}, 311 (2002)
1217: [arXiv:hep-ph/0111078].
1218: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111078;%%
1219: %
1220: \bibitem{Goloskokov:2004br}
1221: S.~V.~Goloskokov,
1222: %pin effects in diffractive Q anti-Q production at eRHIC,''
1223: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 034011 (2004).
1224: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404147;%%
1225: %
1226: \bibitem{Diehl:1996st}
1227: M.~Diehl,
1228: %``Azimuthal angles in diffractive e p collisions,''
1229: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 76}, 499 (1997).
1230: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9610430;%%
1231: %
1232: \bibitem{LMRT97}
1233: E.~M.~Levin, A.~D.~Martin, M.~G.~Ryskin and T.~Teubner,
1234: %`Diffractive open charm production at HERA,''
1235: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 74}, 671 (1997).
1236: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9606443;%%
1237: %
1238: %\bibitem{Freund:2002qf}
1239: %A.~Freund, M.~McDermott and M.~Strikman,
1240: %`Modelling generalized parton distributions to describe deeply virtual
1241: %Compton scattering data,''
1242: %Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 036001 (2003).
1243: %
1244: \bibitem{CTEQ6}
1245: J.~Pumplin, D.~R.~Stump, J.~Huston, H.~L.~Lai, P.~Nadolsky and W.~K.~Tung,
1246: %``New generation of parton distributions with uncertainties from global QCD
1247: %analysis,''
1248: JHEP {\bf 0207}, 012 (2002)
1249: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201195;%%
1250: %
1251: \bibitem{MRST}
1252: A.~D.~Martin, R.~G.~Roberts, W.~J.~Stirling and R.~S.~Thorne,
1253: %``NNLO global parton analysis,''
1254: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 531}, 216 (2002).
1255: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201127;%%
1256:
1257: %\cite{Radyushkin:1998es}
1258: \bibitem{Radyushkin:1998es}
1259: A.~V.~Radyushkin,
1260: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 014030 (1999).
1261: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9805342;%%
1262:
1263: \bibitem{foot1}
1264: In the case $q_0=1.25$ and in the region $z\sim 1/2$ the
1265: cutoff $\beta^{\rm DDIS}>0.5$ is not effective since we assume, in any case, that
1266: $Q^2\geq 10\,\mbox{GeV}^2$. For this reason the corresponding cross sections shown on
1267: both panels have similar magnitude and shape in the central region.
1268:
1269:
1270: \bibitem{ISK04}
1271: D.~Yu.~Ivanov, L.~Szymanowski and G.~Krasnikov,
1272: %``Vector meson electroproduction at next-to-leading order,''
1273: JETP Lett.\ {\bf 80}, 226 (2004)
1274: [Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 80}, 255 (2004)];
1275: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407207;%%
1276: D.~Yu.~Ivanov, A.~Schafer, L.~Szymanowski and G.~Krasnikov,
1277: %``Exclusive photoproduction of a heavy vector meson in QCD,''
1278: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 34}, 297 (2004).
1279: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0401131;%%
1280:
1281:
1282:
1283: \end{thebibliography}
1284:
1285: \end{document}
1286:
1287: %\cite{Goloskokov:2004br}
1288: \bibitem{Goloskokov:2004br}
1289: A.~S.~V.~Goloskokov,
1290: %pin effects in diffractive Q anti-Q production at eRHIC,''
1291: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 034011 (2004)
1292: [arXiv:hep-ph/0404147].
1293: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404147;%%
1294:
1295:
1296:
1297:
1298:
1299: