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: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
57: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% special symbols %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
58: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
59: \newcommand{\g}{\gamma}
60: \newcommand{\f}{\frac}
61: \newcommand{\hQ}{\hat{Q}}
62: \newcommand{\real}{{\mathcal R}{\mathrm e}}
63: \newcommand{\bra}{\langle}
64: \newcommand{\ket}{\rangle}
65: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
66: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% macros %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
67: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
68: \newcommand{\intc}[1]{{\int\frac{d#1}{2i\pi}}}
69: \newcommand\lr[1]{{\left({#1}\right)}}
70: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
71: %% FRONTMATTER
72: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
73:
74: \begin{document}
75:
76: \title{Small-x effects in forward-jet production at HERA}
77:
78: \classification{}
79: \keywords {}
80:
81: \author{Cyrille Marquet}{
82: address={Service de physique th{\'e}orique, CEA/Saclay,
83: 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette cedex, France\\
84: URA 2306, unit{\'e} de recherche associ{\'e}e au CNRS
85: }}
86: %%\author{C. Royon}{
87: %% address={Service de physique des particules, CEA/Saclay,
88: %% 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette cedex, France.}}
89: %%\author{<author2>}{
90: %% address={<common address for author2 and author3>}
91: %%}
92:
93: %%\author{<author3>}{
94: %% address={<common address for author2 and author3>}
95: %% ,altaddress={<author1 address>} % additional visiting address
96: %%}
97:
98: %%\footnote{%
99: %%URA 2306, unit{\'e} de recherche associ{\'e}e au CNRS.}
100:
101: \begin{abstract}
102: We investigate small$-x$ effects in forward-jet production at HERA in the
103: two-hard-scale region $k_T\!\sim\!Q\!\gg\!\Lambda_{QCD}$. We show that, despite
104: describing
105: different energy regimes, both a BFKL parametrization and saturation
106: parametrizations describe well the H1 and ZEUS data for $d\sigma/dx$ published a
107: few years ago. This is confirmed when comparing the predictions to the latest
108: data.
109: \end{abstract}
110:
111: \maketitle
112:
113: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
114: %% MAINMATTER
115: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
116:
117: \section{Introduction}
118:
119: Forward-jet production is a process in which a virtual photon strongly interacts
120: with a proton and a jet is detected in the forward direction of the proton. The
121: virtuality of the photon $Q^2$ and the squared transverse momentum of the jet
122: $k_T^2$ are hard scales of about the same magnitude. In the Regge limit of
123: perturbative QCD, {\em i.e.} when the centre-of-mass energy in a collision is
124: much bigger than the fixed hard scales of the problem, the scattering amplitudes
125: grow with increasing energy as described by the BFKL equation~\cite{bfkl}. The
126: forward-jet measurement was originally proposed~\cite{dis} to test the BFKL
127: equation because, if the energy in the photon-proton collision $W$ is large
128: enough, it lies in the kinematic regime corresponding to the Regge limit
129: ($W^2\!\gg\!Q^2$).
130:
131: The question is whether the BFKL equation is relevant at the present energies,
132: or if usual perturbative QCD in the Bjorken limit is still sufficient to
133: describe the data. We adress that problem by computing the forward-jet
134: cross-section in the high-energy regime and by comparing the BFKL predictions
135: with the available data. We also adress the problem of saturation~\cite{glr}: it
136: is well-known that the BFKL growth is damped by saturation effects when energies
137: become too high and the scattering amplitudes approach the unitatity limit. We
138: implement saturation effects in a very simple way, inspired by the Golec-Biernat
139: and W\"usthoff approach~\cite{golec} and check the consistency with the data.
140:
141: \section{Formulation}
142:
143: The QCD cross-section for forward-jet production in a lepton-proton collision
144: reads
145: \be
146: \f{d^{(4)}\sigma}{dxdQ^2dx_Jdk_T^2}=\f{\alpha_{em}}{\pi xQ^2}
147: \left\{\lr{\f{d\sigma^{\g*p\!\rightarrow\!JX}_T}{dx_Jdk_T^2}
148: +\f{d\sigma^{\g*p\!\rightarrow\!JX}_L}{dx_Jdk_T^2}}(1-y)
149: +\f{d\sigma^{\g*p\!\rightarrow\!JX}_T}{dx_Jdk_T^2}\f{y^2}2\right\}\
150: ,\label{one}\ee
151: where $x$ and $y$ are the usual kinematic variables of deep inelastic
152: scattering and $Q^2$ is the virtuality of the intermediate photon that undergoes
153: the hadronic interaction.
154: $d\sigma^{\g*p\!\rightarrow\!JX}_{T,L}/dx_Jdk_T^2$ is
155: the cross-section for forward-jet production in the collision of this
156: transversally (T) or longitudinally (L) polarized virtual photon with the target
157: proton. $k_T$ is the jet transverse momentum and $x_J$ its longitudinal momentum
158: fraction with respect to the proton.
159:
160: Let us now consider the high-energy regime:
161: $x\!=\!\log(Q^2/(Q^2\!+\!W^2))\!\ll\!1.$
162: In an appropriate frame called the dipole
163: frame, the virtual photon undergoes the hadronic interaction via a fluctuation
164: into a colorless $q\bar q$ pair, a dipole. The squared wavefunctions
165: $\phi^\gamma_T$ and $\phi^\gamma_L$ describing the splitting of the virtual
166: photon onto a dipole are well-known. The dipole then interacts with the target
167: proton and one has the following factorization
168: \be
169: \f{d\sigma^{\g*p\!\rightarrow\!JX}_{T,L}}{dx_Jdk_T^2}=\int_0^\infty 2\pi rdr\
170: \phi_{T,L}^{\g}(r,Q)
171: \f{d\sigma_{q\bar q}}{dx_Jdk_T^2}(r)\ .\label{fact}\ee
172: $d\sigma_{q\bar q}(r)/dx_Jdk_T^2$ is the cross-section for forward-jet
173: production in the dipole-proton collision. The integration variable $r$
174: represents the size of the intermediate dipole.
175:
176: It was shown in~\cite{marq} that the emission of the forward jet can be
177: described through the interaction of an effective gluonic (gg) dipole:
178: \be
179: \f{d\sigma_{q\bar q}}{dx_Jdk_T^2}(r)=\f{\pi N_c}{16k_T^2}f_{eff}(x_J,k_T^2)
180: \int_0^\infty d\bar{r}\ J_0(k_T\bar{r})\ \f{\partial}{\partial
181: \bar{r}}\lr{\bar{r}
182: \f{\partial}{\partial \bar{r}}\ \sigma_{(q\bar q)(gg)}(r,\bar{r},Y)}
183: \label{fjdcs}\ee
184: with $Y\!=\!\log(x_J\!/\!x)$ the rapidity assumed very large.
185: $\sigma_{(q\bar q)(gg)}(r,\bar{r},Y)$ is the $q\bar q$ dipole (size $r$)-$gg$
186: dipole (size $\bar{r}$) total cross-section with rapidity Y. As usual, the
187: dipoles emerge as the effective degrees of freedom at high energies:
188: $\sigma_{(q\bar q)(gg)}$ contains any number of gluon exchanges and therefore
189: this formulation goes beyond $k_T-$factorization which assumes only a two-gluon
190: exchange. The effective parton distribution function $f_{eff}$ is given by:
191: $f_{eff}(x_J,k_T^2)=g(x_J,k_T^2)\!+\!C_F\lr{q(x_J,k_T^2)\!+\!\bar{q}(x_J,k_T^2)}
192: /N_c$ where $g$ (resp. $q$, $\bar{q}$) is the gluon (resp. quark, antiquark)
193: distribution function in the incident proton.
194:
195: \subsection{BFKL parametrization}
196:
197: The BFKL $q\bar q-$dipole $gg-$dipole cross-section reads
198: \be
199: \sigma^{BFKL}_{(q\bar q)(gg)}(r,\bar{r},Y)=2\pi\alpha_s^2r^2
200: \intc{\g}\lr{\f{\bar{r}}r}^{2\g}\
201: \f{\exp{\lr{\D\f{\alpha_sN_c}{\pi}\chi(\g)Y}}}{\g^2(1\!-\!\g)^2}
202: \label{sdd}
203: \ee
204: with the complex integral running along the
205: imaginary axis from $1/2\!-\!i\infty$ to $1/2\!+\!i\infty$ and
206: with the BFKL kernel given by
207: $\chi(\g)\!=\!2\psi(1)\!-\!\psi(1\!-\!\g)\!-\!\psi(\g)$
208: where $\psi(\g)$ is the logarithmic derivative of the Gamma function.
209: It comes about when the interaction between the $q\bar q-$dipole and the
210: $gg-$dipole is restricted to a two-gluon exchange. One can easily show, putting
211: (\ref{sdd}) in (\ref{fact}) and (\ref{fjdcs}), that this formulation is
212: equivalent to using $k_T-$factorization. We are going to perform a fit of the
213: parametrization (\ref{sdd}) to the data. The parameters are
214: $\lambda\!=\!4\alpha_sN_c\log(2)/\pi$ and a normalization.
215:
216: \begin{figure}[htb]
217: \begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
218: \includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip=true]{Fig1a.eps}
219: \end{minipage}
220: \hspace{\fill}
221: \begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
222: \includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip=true]{Fig1b.eps}
223: \end{minipage}
224: \caption{Fits to the H1 and ZEUS forward-jet old data for $d\sigma/dx.$ The left
225: plot shows the BFKL fit and the right plot shows one of the saturation fits
226: (called sat. in the text).}
227: \label{fits}
228: \end{figure}
229:
230: \subsection{Saturation parametrization}
231:
232: To take into account saturation effects, let us consider the following
233: parametrization:
234: \be
235: \sigma^{sat}_{(q\bar q)(gg)}(r,\bar{r},Y)=4\pi\alpha_s^2\sigma_0
236: \lr{1-\exp\lr{-\f{r_{\rm eff}^2(r,\bar{r})}{4R_0^2(Y)}}}\ .
237: \label{sigmadd}
238: \ee
239: The dipole-dipole {\it effective} radius $r^2_{\rm eff}(r,\bar{r})$ is defined
240: through the two-gluon exchange:
241: \be
242: 4\pi\alpha_s^2r^2_{\rm eff}(r,\bar{r})\equiv
243: \sigma^{BFKL}_{(q\bar q)(gg)}(r,\bar{r},0)
244: =4\pi\alpha_s^2\min(r^2\!,\bar{r}^2)\left\{1\!+\!\log
245: \frac{\max(r\!,\bar{r})}{\min(r\!,\bar{r})}\right\}\label{reff}\ee
246: while the saturation radius is parametrized by
247: $R_0(Y)\!=\!e^{-\f{\lambda}2\left(Y-Y_0\right)}/Q_0$ with $Q_0\!\equiv\!1\ GeV.$
248: The parameters for the fit are $\lambda,$ $Y_0$ and the normalization
249: $\sigma_0$.
250:
251: \section{Phenomenology}
252:
253: \begin{figure}[htb]
254: \begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
255: \includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip=true]{Fig2a.eps}
256: \end{minipage}
257: \hspace{\fill}
258: \begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
259: \includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip=true]{Fig2b.eps}
260: \end{minipage}
261: \caption{Comparisons between the H1 (left plot) and ZEUS (right plot)
262: forward-jet new data for $d\sigma/dx$ and the BFKL and saturation
263: parametrizations.}
264: \label{comp}\end{figure}
265:
266: To compare the cross-section (\ref{one}) with the data for $d\sigma/dx,$ the
267: three remaining integration are carried out taking into account the different
268: sets of cuts provided by the different experiments. Fits have been performed to
269: the old sets of data~\cite{h1,zeus} for the BFKL parametrization~\cite{fjets}
270: and the saturation parametrization~\cite{mpr}. With all $\chi^2$ values of about
271: 1, the BFKL fit gives $\lambda\!=\!0.430$ and the saturation fit shows two
272: $\chi^2$ minima for $(\lambda\!=\!0.402,Y_0\!=\!-0.82)$ (sat.) and
273: $(\lambda\!=\!0.370,Y_0\!=\!8.23)$ (weak sat.). The plots are shown on Fig1.
274: Despite describing
275: different energy regimes, both a BFKL parametrization and saturation
276: parametrizations describe well the data. The first saturation minima corresponds
277: to a strong saturation effect as, for typical values of $Y,$ the saturation
278: scale $1/R_0$ is 5 Gev which is the value of a typical $k_T.$ The second
279: saturation minima corresponds to small saturation effets and rather describes
280: BFKL physics.
281:
282: Let us now look at the new data~\cite{h1new,zeusnew} for $d\sigma/dx$ which go
283: to lower $x$. Without performing any new fit of the parameters, but rather by
284: taking the values already obtained, the three parametrizations describe very
285: well the new data, as shown on Fig2. One cannot really distinguish between the
286: three curves even if at small values of $x$, one starts to see the difference
287: between them. At the lowest values of $x,$ NLOQCD predictions are about a factor
288: 1.5 to 2.5 below the data depending on the experiment and the error bars.
289: However, it could be that adding a resolved-photon component to the NLO
290: predictions will pull them within the uncertainties which moderates the
291: conclusion that the BFKL resummation is needed to describe those data. The fact
292: that two saturation parametrizations are consistent with the data also asks for
293: further study.
294:
295: We intend to complete our analysis~\cite{inprep} by considering the other
296: measurements $d\sigma/dQ^2$ and $d\sigma/dk_T$ by ZEUS and
297: $d\sigma/dxdQ^2dk_T^2,$ by H1 and Mueller-Navelet jets~\cite{mnj} at Tevatron or
298: LHC. These could help clarifing the situation~\cite{marpes}.
299:
300: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
301: %% BACKMATTER
302: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
303:
304: %%\begin{theacknowledgments}
305:
306: %%\end{theacknowledgments}
307:
308: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
309: %% The bibliography can be prepared using the BibTeX program or
310: %% manually.
311: %%
312: %% The code below assumes that BibTeX is used. If the bibliography is
313: %% produced without BibTeX comment out the following lines and see the
314: %% aipguide.pdf for further information.
315: %%
316: %% For your convenience a manually coded example is appended
317: %% after the \end{document}
318: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
319:
320: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
321: %% You may have to change the BibTeX style below, depending on your
322: %% setup or preferences.
323: %%
324: %%
325: %% For The AIP proceedings layouts use either
326: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
327: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
328:
329: \bibitem{bfkl}
330: L. N. Lipatov, {\it Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 23}, (1976) 338;
331: E. A. Kuraev, L. N. Lipatov and V. S. Fadin,
332: {\it Sov. Phys. JETP} {\bf 45}, (1977) 199;
333: I. I. Balitsky and L. N. Lipatov,
334: {\it Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 28}, (1978) 822.
335:
336: \bibitem{dis}
337: A. H. Mueller, {\it Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.} {\bf B18C} (1990) 125;
338: {\it J. Phys.} {\bf G17} (1991) 1443.
339:
340: \bibitem{glr} L. V. Gribov, E. M. Levin and M. G. Ryskin, {\it Phys. Rep.}
341: {\bf 100} (1983) 1.
342:
343: \bibitem{golec}
344: K. Golec-Biernat and M. W\"usthoff, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D59} (1999) 014017;
345: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D60} (1999) 114023.
346:
347: \bibitem{marq}
348: C. Marquet {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B705} (2005) 319.
349:
350: \bibitem{h1}
351: H1 Collaboration, C. Adloff {\it et al}, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B538} (1999) 3.
352:
353: \bibitem{zeus}
354: ZEUS Collaboration, J. Breitweg {\it et al}, {\it Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C6} (1999)
355: 239.
356:
357: \bibitem{fjets}
358: J. G. Contreras, R. Peschanski and C. Royon, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D62} (2000)
359: 034006.
360:
361: \bibitem{mpr}
362: C. Marquet, R. Peschanski and C. Royon, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B599} (2004) 236.
363:
364: \bibitem{h1new}
365: A. Knutsson for the H1 Collaboration, these proceedings.
366:
367: \bibitem{zeusnew}
368: ZEUS Collaboration, hep-ex/0502029; N. Vlasov for the ZEUS collaboration, these
369: proceedings.
370:
371: \bibitem{inprep}
372: C. Marquet and C. Royon, in preparation.
373:
374: \bibitem{mnj}
375: A. H. Mueller and H. Navelet, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B282} (1987) 727.
376:
377: \bibitem{marpes}
378: C. Marquet and R. Peschanski, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B587} (2004) 201;
379: C. Marquet, hep-ph/0406111.
380:
381: \end{thebibliography}
382:
383:
384: \end{document}
385:
386: %%\endinput
387: %%
388: %% End of file `template-6s.tex'.
389: