1: %%
2: %% This is file `template-6s.tex',
3: %% generated with the docstrip utility.
4: %%
5: %% The original source files were:
6: %%
7: %% template.raw (with options: `6s')
8: %%
9: %% Template for the LaTeX class aipproc.
10: %%
11: %% (C) 1998,2000,2001 American Institute of Physics and Frank Mittelbach
12: %% All rights reserved
13: %%
14: %%
15: %% $Id: template.raw,v 1.11 2004/10/31 08:06:14 frank Exp $
16: %%
17:
18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
19: %% Please remove the next line of code if you
20: %% are satisfied that your installation is
21: %% complete and working.
22: %%
23: %% It is only there to help you in detecting
24: %% potential problems.
25: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
26:
27: \input{aipcheck}
28:
29: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
30: %% SELECT THE LAYOUT
31: %%
32: %% The class supports further options.
33: %% See aipguide.pdf for details.
34: %%
35: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
36:
37: \documentclass[
38: ,final % use final for the camera ready runs
39: %% ,draft % use draft while you are working on the paper
40: %% ,numberedheadings % uncomment this option for numbered sections
41: %% , % add further options here if necessary
42: ]
43: {aipproc}
44:
45: \layoutstyle{6x9}
46: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
47: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% command abbreviations %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
48: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
49: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
50: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
51: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
52: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
53: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}
54: \newcommand{\sr}{\stackrel}
55: \newcommand{\D}{\displaystyle}
56: \newcommand{\rr}[4]{#1, {\it #2 \/}{\bf #3} #4}
57: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
58: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% special symbols %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
59: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
60: \newcommand{\g}{\gamma}
61: \newcommand{\f}{\frac}
62: \newcommand{\hQ}{\hat{Q}}
63: \newcommand{\real}{{\mathcal R}{\mathrm e}}
64: \newcommand{\bra}{\langle}
65: \newcommand{\ket}{\rangle}
66: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
67: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% macros %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
68: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
69: \newcommand{\intc}[1]{{\int\frac{d#1}{2i\pi}}}
70: \newcommand\lr[1]{{\left({#1}\right)}}
71: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
72: %% FRONTMATTER
73: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
74:
75: \begin{document}
76:
77: \title{NLO BFKL tests using the proton structure function $F_2$ measured at HERA}
78:
79: \classification{}
80: \keywords {}
81:
82: \author{C. Royon}{
83: address={Service de physique des particules, CEA/Saclay,
84: 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette cedex, France \\ Fermilab, Batavia, USA}}
85: %%\author{<author2>}{
86: %% address={<common address for author2 and author3>}
87: %%}
88:
89: %%\author{<author3>}{
90: %% address={<common address for author2 and author3>}
91: %% ,altaddress={<author1 address>} % additional visiting address
92: %%}
93:
94: %%\footnote{%
95: %%URA 2306, unit{\'e} de recherche associ{\'e}e au CNRS.}
96:
97: \begin{abstract}
98: We propose a phenomenological study of the next-to-leading
99: Balitsky-Fadin-Kuraev-Lipatov
100: (BFKL) approach applied to the data on the proton structure
101: function $F_2$
102: measured at HERA in the small-$x_{Bj}$ region.
103: \end{abstract}
104:
105: \maketitle
106:
107: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
108: %% MAINMATTER
109: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
110:
111: \section{Introduction}
112:
113: Precise phenomenological tests of QCD evolution equations are one of the
114: main
115: goals of deep inelastic scattering phenomenology. For the
116: Dokshitzer-Gribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi
117: (DGLAP) evolution in $Q^2$
118: \cite{dglap}, it has
119: been possible
120: to test it in various ways with NLO (next-to-leading $\log Q^2$) and
121: now NNLO accuracy and
122: it works quite well in a large range of $Q^2$ and $x_{Bj}.$
123: Testing precisely the Balitsky-Fadin-Kuraev-Lipatov (BFKL)
124: evolution in energy \cite{bfkl} (or $x_{Bj}$) beyond leading order appears
125: more difficult.
126:
127:
128: The first experimental results from
129: HERA confirmed the existence of a strong rise of the proton structure
130: function $F_2$
131: with energy which, in the BFKL framework, can be well described by a simple
132: (3 parameters) LO-BFKL fit \cite{old}.
133: The main issue of Ref.\cite{old} was that not only the rise with energy but
134: also the scaling violations observed at small ${x_{Bj}}$ are encoded
135: in the BFKL framework through the $Q^2$ variation of the effective
136: anomalous dimension. However one was led \cite{old} to introduce an
137: effective but unphysical value of the strong coupling constant
138: $\alpha \sim .07-.09$
139: instead of
140: $\alpha \sim .2$ in the $Q^2$-range considered for HERA small-${x_{Bj}}$
141: physics, revealing the need for NLO corrections. Indeed, the
142: running of the strong coupling constant is not taken into account.
143:
144: In fact, the theoretical task of computing these corrections
145: appears to be quite hard. It is now in good progress but
146: still under completion. For the BFKL kernel, they have been
147: calculated after much efforts \cite{next}.
148: It was realized \cite{salam}
149: that the main problem comes from the existence of spurious singularities
150: brought together with the NLO corrections, which ought to be cancelled
151: by an appropriate resummation at all orders of the perturbative
152: expansion \cite{next, autres, lipatov}, resummation
153: required by consistency with the QCD renormalization group.
154:
155: \section{NLO BFKL phenomenology}
156:
157: \subsection{Saddle point approximation}
158: Following the successful BFKL-LO parametrisation of the proton structure
159: $F_2$ at HERA, we perform the same saddle point approximation as at LO using
160: $\chi_{NLO}$ given by resummed NLO BFKL kernels \cite{us}.
161: \begin{eqnarray}
162: F_2 = C e^{\alpha_{RGE} \chi_{eff} (\gamma_{c},
163: \alpha_{RGE}) Y} \left( Q^2/Q_0^2 \right)^{\gamma_{c}}
164: e^{- \frac{log^2 (Q/Q_0)}{2 \alpha_{RGE} \chi''_{eff}
165: (\gamma_{c},\alpha_{RGE}) Y}}
166: \end{eqnarray}
167: where $\gamma_C$ and $\chi_{eff}$ come directly from the properties of the NLO
168: BFKL equation if the small-x structure function is dominated by the perturbative
169: Green function:
170:
171: \begin{eqnarray}
172: \frac{d \chi_{eff}}{ d \gamma }(\gamma_C, \alpha_{RGE} (Q^2)) = 0 ~~~;~~~~
173: \chi_{eff} (\gamma, \alpha_{RGE} ) = \omega (\gamma, \alpha_{RGE}) /
174: \alpha_{RGE}.
175: \end{eqnarray}
176:
177: Instead of getting a 3-parameter formula like at LO (normalisation, $\alpha_S$,
178: and $Q_0$), we get only two free parameters at NLO since the value of $\alpha_S$
179: and its $Q^2$ evolution are imposed by the renormalisation group equations
180: (RGE). The delicate aspect of the problem comes for the fact that $\chi$ is now
181: scheme dependent.
182:
183: \subsection{Strategy for NLO fits}
184: The strategy for BFKL-NLO is the following \cite{us}:
185: \begin{itemize}
186: \item The first step is the knowledge of $\chi_{NLO}(\gamma, \omega, \alpha)$
187: from the BFKL equation and different resummation schemes
188: \item The second step is to use the implicit equation $\chi (\gamma, \omega) = \omega / \alpha$
189: to compute numerically $\omega$ as a function of $\gamma$ for different
190: schemes and values of $\alpha$
191: \item The third step is to determinate numerically the saddle point values $\gamma_C$
192: as a function of $\alpha$ as well as the values of $\chi$ and
193: $\chi ''$
194: \item The fourth step is to perform the BFKL-NLO fit to HERA $F_2$ data with two
195: free parameters $C$ and $Q_0^2$
196: \end{itemize}
197: Details about the numerical results can be found in Ref. \cite{us}.
198:
199: The results of the NLO BFKL fit
200: to the H1 and ZEUS data \cite{data} using the saddle point approximation for two
201: different schemes (CSS and S3, see Ref \cite{salam, autres}) are given in Fig 1
202: where the
203: data over theory ratio is displayed.
204:
205: %\begin{figure}
206: % \reflectbox{\includegraphics[height=.5\textheight]{table_q2_read_ratio}}
207: % \caption{Data/Theory ratios for the proton structure function $F_2$.
208: % The points show the results of the LO fit as a reference. The dashed (resp.
209: % dotted) lines show the results of the BFKL-NLO fits including the S3
210: % (resp. CCS) resummation.
211: % scheme}
212: %\end{figure}
213:
214: \begin{figure}[htb]
215: %\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
216: \includegraphics[width=12.5cm,clip=true]{table_q2_read_ratio.eps}
217: %\end{minipage}
218: \caption{Data/Theory ratios for the proton structure function $F_2$.
219: The points show the results of the LO fit as a reference. The dashed (resp.
220: dotted) lines show the results of the BFKL-NLO fits including the S3
221: (resp. CCS) resummation
222: scheme.}
223: \end{figure}
224:
225:
226: We see a big dicrepancy between data and theory especially at lower $Q^2$.
227: To understand further the reason of that discrepancy, we performed an analysis
228: in the Mellin space where the formulation of the BFKL NLO resummed kernels is
229: easier.
230:
231: \section{Analysis in Mellin space}
232: In this section we want to analyze in more detail the features of the
233: BFKL
234: parametrizations and in particular the reasons of the still quantitatively
235: unsatisfactory
236: results of the NLO fits. For this sake, it is important to come back to
237: the
238: key ingredient of our analysis, i.e. the dominance of the hard Pomeron
239: singularity expressed by the relation (2).
240: Equality (2) can be checked at NLO using the GRV98
241: \cite{GRV98}, MRS2001 \cite{MRS2001}, CTEQ6.1 \cite{CTEQ6.1} and ALLM
242: \cite{ALLM}
243: parametrisations. These four parametrisations give a fair description of
244: the
245: proton
246: structure functions measured by the H1 and ZEUS collaborations over a
247: wide
248: range of $x_{Bj}$ and $Q^2$, as well as fixed target experiment data. The
249: three first
250: parametrisations correspond to a DGLAP NLO evolution whereas the ALLM
251: one
252: corresponds to a Regge analysis of proton structure function
253: data.
254:
255:
256: We notice in Fig.2 that the linear property of relation
257: (2), namely for $\chi_{eff} (\gamma^*,\alpha_{RG})$ as a
258: function of $\omega$
259: is well verified. We indeed can describe
260: the GRV and MRS parametrisations using a linear fit with a good
261: precision. However
262: the predicted zero at the origin $\omega =0$ is not obtained, even if the
263: value at
264: the origin
265: remains small. The fit does not go through the origin and we would need to
266: add a constant term to the linear fit formula, and the slope is not equal
267: to $\alpha$. Small but sizeable
268: effects give phenomenological deviations from the expected theoretical
269: properties of the NLO kernels.
270:
271:
272:
273: \begin{figure}[htb]
274: %\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
275: \includegraphics[width=12.5cm,clip=true]{readchigam1_s3_paper_final_referee.eps}
276: %\end{minipage}
277: \caption{Test of $\chi(\omega,Q^2) $ for scheme $S3$. The
278: result for the
279: MRS parametrization is shown in black in the different bins in $Q^2$ together
280: with a linear fit, and the expectation if formula (2) is fulfilled. We notice
281: the discrepancy between the MRS result and formula (2). }
282: \end{figure}
283:
284:
285:
286: \section*{Acknowledgments}
287: There results come from a fruitful collaboration with R. Peschanski and L.
288: Schoeffel.
289:
290:
291: %\begin{figure}[htb]
292: %\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
293: %\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip=true]{Fig2a.eps}
294: %\end{minipage}
295: %\hspace{\fill}
296: %\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
297: %\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip=true]{Fig2b.eps}
298: %\end{minipage}
299: %\caption{Comparisons between the H1 (left plot) and ZEUS (right plot)
300: %forward-jet new data for $d\sigma/dx$ and the BFKL and saturation
301: %parametrizations.}
302: %\label{comp}\end{figure}
303:
304:
305: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
306: %% BACKMATTER
307: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
308:
309: %%\begin{theacknowledgments}
310:
311: %%\end{theacknowledgments}
312:
313: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
314: %% The bibliography can be prepared using the BibTeX program or
315: %% manually.
316: %%
317: %% The code below assumes that BibTeX is used. If the bibliography is
318: %% produced without BibTeX comment out the following lines and see the
319: %% aipguide.pdf for further information.
320: %%
321: %% For your convenience a manually coded example is appended
322: %% after the \end{document}
323: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
324:
325: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
326: %% You may have to change the BibTeX style below, depending on your
327: %% setup or preferences.
328: %%
329: %%
330: %% For The AIP proceedings layouts use either
331: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
332: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
333: \bibitem{dglap} G.Altarelli and G.Parisi,
334: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B126} 18C (1977) 298.
335: V.N.Gribov and L.N.Lipatov, {\it Sov. Journ. Nucl. Phys.} (1972) 438 and
336: 675.
337: Yu.L.Dokshitzer, {\it Sov. Phys. JETP.} {\bf 46} (1977) 641.
338:
339: \bibitem{bfkl}
340: L.N.Lipatov, {\it Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 23} (1976) 642;
341: V.S.Fadin, E.A.Kuraev and L.N.Lipatov, {\it Phys. lett.} {\bf B60}
342: (1975)
343: 50;
344: E.A.Kuraev, L.N.Lipatov and V.S.Fadin, {\it Sov.Phys.JETP} {\bf 44}
345: (1976)
346: 45,
347: {\bf 45} (1977) 199;
348: I.I.Balitsky and L.N.Lipatov, {\it Sov.J.Nucl.Phys.} {\bf 28} (1978)
349: 822.
350:
351:
352: \bibitem{old} \rr {H Navelet, R.Peschanski, Ch. Royon, S.Wallon} {\it
353: Phys. Lett.} {B385} {(1996) 357}. \rr {S.Munier,
354: R.Peschanski}{Nucl.Phys.}{B524}{(1998) 377}.
355:
356: \bibitem{salam} \rr{G.P. Salam}{JHEP 9807}{}{(1998) 019}
357:
358:
359: \bibitem{next}
360: V.S. Fadin and L.N. Lipatov, Phys. Lett. B429 (1998) 127; M.Ciafaloni,
361: Phys.
362: Lett.
363: B429
364: (1998) 363; M. Ciafaloni and G. Camici, Phys. Lett. B430 (1998) 349.
365:
366:
367: \bibitem{autres} \rr {M. Ciafaloni, D. Colferai, G.P.
368: Salam}{Phys.Rev.}{D60}{114036}, \rr {}{JHEP 9910}{}{(1999) 017};\\
369: \rr {M. Ciafaloni, D. Colferai, G.P.
370: Salam,A.M. Stasto}{Phys.Lett.}{B541}{(2002) 314}.
371:
372:
373: \bibitem{lipatov}
374: \rr {Stanley J. Brodsky, Victor S. Fadin, Victor T. Kim, Lev N. Lipatov,
375: Grigorii B. Pivovarov}{JETP Lett.}{70}{(1999) 155}.
376:
377: \bibitem{us} \rr {R.Peschanski, Ch. Royon, L.Schoffel} {Nucl. Phys.} {B716}
378: {(2005) 401}.
379:
380: \bibitem{data}
381: \rr
382: {H1 Collab., C. Adloff et al} {Eur.Phys.J.} {C21} {(2001) 33};
383:
\rr
384: {ZEUS Collab., S. Chekanov et al.} {Eur.Phys.J.} {C21} {(2001) 443}.
385:
386:
387: \bibitem{GRV98}
388: \rr
389: {M. Gluck, E. Reya, A. Vogt} {Eur.Phys.J.} {C5} {(1998) 461}, for
390: updated
391: parametrizations.
392:
393: \bibitem{MRS2001}
394: \rr
395: {A.D. Martin, R.G. Roberts, W.J. Stirling, R.S. Thorne} {Eur.Phys.J.} {C23}
396: {(2002)
397: 73}.
398:
399: \bibitem{CTEQ6.1}
400: \rr {D. Stump, J. Huston, J. Pumplin, W.-K. Tung, H.L. Lai,
401: S. Kuhlmann, J. F. Owens}
402: {
403: JHEP}{\bf 0310}{ (2003) 046}.
404:
405: \bibitem{ALLM}
406: \rr {H. Abramowicz, E. Levin, A. Levy, U. Maor}
407: {
408: Phys.\ Lett.\ B }{\bf 269}{(1991) 46}.
409:
410:
411:
412:
413: \end{thebibliography}
414:
415:
416: \end{document}
417:
418: \endinput
419: %%
420: %% End of file `template-6s.tex'.
421: