1: \input{aipcheck}
2: \documentclass[final,numberedheadings]{aipproc}
3: \usepackage{epsfig,latexsym}
4: \layoutstyle{6x9}
5:
6: \newcommand{\agt}{\,\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt \hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}} \raise 1pt
7: \hbox {$>$}\,}
8: \newcommand{\alt}{\,\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt \hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}} \raise 1pt
9: \hbox {$<$}\,}
10:
11: \begin{document}
12:
13: \title{Charmonium production in two-photon collisions at next-to-leading
14: order}
15:
16: \classification{12.38.Bx, 12.39.St, 13.66.Bc, 14.40.Gx}
17: \keywords {Nonrelativistic quantum chromodynamics, radiative corrections,
18: charmonium, two-photon scattering}
19:
20: \author{Bernd A. Kniehl}{
21: address={II. Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Hamburg,
22: Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany}
23: }
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26: We review recent results on the production of prompt charmonium in association
27: with a hadron jet or a prompt photon in two-photon collisions at
28: next-to-leading order in the factorization framework of nonrelativistic
29: quantum chromodynamics.
30: \end{abstract}
31:
32: \maketitle
33:
34: \section{Introduction}
35:
36: The factorization formalism of nonrelativistic quantum chromodynamics (NRQCD)
37: \cite{bbl} provides a rigorous theoretical framework for the description of
38: heavy-quarkonium production and decay that is renormalizable and predictive.
39: Theoretical predictions are decomposed into sums over products of
40: short-distance coefficients, which can be calculated perturbatively as
41: expansions in the strong-coupling constant $\alpha_s$, and long-distance
42: matrix elements (MEs), which are subject to relative-velocity ($v$) scaling
43: rules and must be extracted from experiment, and are so organized as double
44: expansions in $\alpha_s$ and $v$.
45: This formalism takes into account the complete structure of the
46: $Q\overline{Q}$ Fock space, which is spanned by the states
47: $n={}^{2S+1}L_J^{(a)}$ with definite spin $S$, orbital angular momentum
48: $L$, total angular momentum $J$, and color multiplicity $a=1,8$, and so
49: predicts the existence of color-octet (CO) processes in nature.
50:
51: The greatest triumph of the NRQCD factorization formalism was its ability to
52: correctly describe the cross section of inclusive charmonium hadroproduction
53: at the Tevatron, which exceeds the color-singlet-model prediction by more
54: than one order of magnitude.
55: In order to convincingly establish the phenomenological significance of the
56: CO processes, it is indispensable to identify them in other kinds of
57: high-energy experiments as well.
58: The verification of the NRQCD factorization hypothesis is presently hampered
59: both from the theoretical and experimental sides.
60: On the one hand, the theoretical predictions to be compared with existing
61: experimental data are, apart from very few exceptions, of lowest order (LO)
62: and thus suffer from considerable uncertainties.
63: The measurement of charmonium polarization at the Tevatron currently presents
64: a challenge for NRQCD factorization, but any conclusions are premature in the
65: absence of a full-fledged next-to-leading-order (NLO) analysis.
66: It is, therefore, mandatory to calculate the NLO corrections to the
67: hard-scattering cross sections and to include the composite operators that are
68: suppressed by higher powers in $v$.
69: Apart from the usual reduction of the renormalization and factorization scale
70: dependences, sizeable effects, e.g.\ due to the opening of new partonic
71: production channels, are expected at NLO.
72: On the other hand, the experimental errors are still rather sizeable.
73: The latter are being significantly reduced by HERA~II and run~II at the
74: Tevatron, and will be dramatically more so by the LHC and hopefully a future
75: $e^+e^-$ linear collider such as the TeV-Energy Superconducting Linear
76: Accelerator (TESLA), which is presently being designed and planned at DESY.
77:
78: Recently, $2\to2$ processes of heavy-quarkonium production were for the first
79: time studied at NLO in the NRQCD factorization formalism \cite{nlo,nlog}.
80: Specifically, the production of prompt charmonium, which is produced either
81: directly or through the decay of heavier charmonia, with finite transverse
82: momentum ($p_T$) in association with a hadron jet \cite{nlo} or a prompt
83: photon \cite{nlog} via direct photoproduction in two-photon collisions was
84: considered.
85: In this presentation, we review the most important conceptional issues and
86: phenomenological results of Refs.~\cite{nlo,nlog}, in Sections~\ref{sec:two}
87: and \ref{sec:three}, respectively.
88:
89: \section{Conceptional issues}
90: \label{sec:two}
91:
92: We focus attention on the process $\gamma\gamma\to J/\psi+X$, where $J/\psi$
93: is promptly produced at finite value of $p_T$ and $X$ is a purely hadronic
94: remainder.
95: Since the incoming photons can interact either directly with the quarks
96: participating in the hard-scattering process (direct photoproduction) or via
97: their quark and gluon content (resolved photoproduction), this process
98: receives contributions from the direct, single-resolved, and double-resolved
99: channels, which are formally of the same order in the perturbative expansion.
100: At LO, the bulk of the cross section is due to single-resolved photoproduction,
101: and the NRQCD prediction \cite{prl} based on the MEs determined from fits
102: \cite{prl} to Tevatron data nicely agrees with a recent measurement by the
103: DELPHI Collaboration at LEP2 \cite{delphi}.
104:
105: Here, we consider direct photoproduction at NLO \cite{nlo}.
106: At LO, there is only one partonic subprocess, namely
107: \begin{equation}
108: \gamma+\gamma\to c\overline{c}[{}^3\!S_1^{(8)}]+g.
109: \label{eq:lo}
110: \end{equation}
111: At NLO, virtual corrections to process~(\ref{eq:lo}) and
112: $\langle{\cal O}^H[{}^3\!S_1^{(8)}]\rangle$, where
113: $H=J/\psi,\chi_{cJ},\psi^\prime$, and real corrections to
114: \begin{eqnarray}
115: &\gamma+\gamma\to c\overline{c}[n]+g+g,\qquad
116: &n={}^3\!P_J^{(1)},{}^1\!S_0^{(8)},{}^3\!S_1^{(8)},{}^3\!P_J^{(8)},
117: \label{eq:gg}\\
118: &\gamma+\gamma\to c\overline{c}[n]+u+\overline{u},\qquad
119: &n={}^3\!S_1^{(8)},
120: \label{eq:uu}\\
121: &\gamma+\gamma\to c\overline{c}[n]+q+\overline{q},\qquad
122: &n={}^1\!S_0^{(8)},{}^3\!S_1^{(8)},{}^3\!P_J^{(8)},
123: \label{eq:qq}
124: \end{eqnarray}
125: where $u$ and $\overline{u}$ denote the Faddeev-Popov ghosts of the gluon,
126: contribute.
127:
128: The virtual corrections to process~(\ref{eq:lo}) receive contributions from
129: self-energy, triangle, box, and pentagon diagrams.
130: The self-energy and triangle diagrams are in general ultraviolet (UV)
131: divergent;
132: the triangle, box, and pentagon diagrams are in general infrared (IR)
133: divergent;
134: and the pentagon diagrams without three-gluon vertex also contain Coulomb
135: divergences.
136: As for the light-quark loops, the triangle diagrams vanish by Furry's theorem,
137: while the box diagrams form a finite subset.
138: The virtual corrections to $\langle{\cal O}^H[{}^3\!S_1^{(8)}]\rangle$ also
139: produce UV, IR, and Coulomb divergences.
140: The UV and IR divergences are extracted using dimensional regularization in
141: $d=4-2\epsilon$ space-time dimensions, leading to poles in $\epsilon_{\rm UV}$
142: and $\epsilon_{\rm IR}$, respectively, while the Coulomb singularities are
143: regularized by a small value of $v$.
144: The UV divergences are removed by the renormalization of
145: $\langle{\cal O}^H[{}^3\!S_1^{(8)}]\rangle$, $\alpha_s$,
146: the charm-quark mass and field, and the gluon field, which is performed in the
147: modified minimal-subtraction ($\overline{\rm MS}$) scheme for the former two
148: quantities, rendering them dependent on the renormalization scales $\lambda$
149: and $\mu$, respectively, and in the on-mass-shell scheme for the residual
150: three quantities.
151: The IR divergences cancel among the virtual and real corrections,
152: the wave-function renormalizations, and
153: $\langle{\cal O}^H[{}^3\!S_1^{(8)}]\rangle$.
154: The Coulomb divergences cancel between the virtual corrections and
155: $\langle{\cal O}^H[{}^3\!S_1^{(8)}]\rangle$.
156:
157: The real corrections are plagued by IR divergences, which come as collinear
158: divergences from the initial state and collinear and/or soft ones from the
159: final state.
160: They are identified by appropriately slicing the three-particle phase space
161: using small parameters $\delta_i$ and $\delta_f$, respectively.
162: The collinear and/or soft regions of phase space are integrated over
163: analytically in $d$ dimensions, while the hard region is integrated over
164: numerically in four dimensions.
165: The sum of these contributions is, to very good approximation, independent of
166: $\delta_i$ and $\delta_f$.
167: The initial-state collinear divergences are factorized at some factorization
168: scale $M$ and absorbed into the parton density functions (PDFs) of the $q$ and
169: $\overline{q}$ quarks inside the resolved photon.
170: The $M$ dependence thus introduced is approximately compensated by the LO
171: single-resolved contribution.
172:
173: Combining the contributions arising from the virtual corrections (vi), the
174: parameter and wave-function renormalization (ct), the operator redefinition
175: (op), the initial-state (is) and final-state (fs) collinear configurations,
176: the soft-gluon radiation (so), and the hard-parton emission (ha) as
177: \begin{eqnarray}
178: \lefteqn{d\sigma(\mu,\lambda,M)=
179: d\sigma_0(\mu,\lambda)[1
180: +\delta_{\rm vi}(\mu;\epsilon_{\rm UV},\epsilon_{\rm IR},v)
181: +\delta_{\rm ct}(\mu;\epsilon_{\rm UV},\epsilon_{\rm IR})
182: +\delta_{\rm op}(\mu,\lambda;\epsilon_{\rm IR},v)}\nonumber\\
183: &&{}+\delta_{\rm fs}(\mu;\epsilon_{\rm IR},\delta_f)]
184: +d\sigma_{\rm is}(\mu,\lambda,M;\delta_i)
185: +d\sigma_{\rm so}(\mu,\lambda;\epsilon_{\rm IR},\delta_f)
186: +d\sigma_{\rm ha}(\mu,\lambda;\delta_i,\delta_f),\quad
187: \label{eq:sum}
188: \end{eqnarray}
189: the regulators $\epsilon_{\rm UV}$, $\epsilon_{\rm IR}$, $v$, $\delta_i$, and
190: $\delta_f$ drop out and the $\mu$ and $\lambda$ dependences formally cancel up
191: to terms beyond NLO, while the $M$ dependence is unscreened at NLO.
192:
193: \section{Phenomenological results}
194: \label{sec:three}
195:
196: We consider two-photon collisions at TESLA operating at a center-of-mass
197: energy of 500~GeV, where the photons arise from electromagnetic initial-state
198: bremsstrahlung, with antitagging angle $\theta_{\rm max}=25$~mrad, and
199: beamstrahlung, with effective beamstrahlung parameter $\Upsilon=0.053$.
200: The $J/\psi$, $\chi_{cJ}$, and $\psi^\prime$ MEs are adopted from
201: Ref.~\cite{bkl} and the photon PDFs from Ref.~\cite{grs}.
202:
203: In Fig.~\ref{fig:xs}, we study $d^2\sigma/dp_Tdy$ (a) for rapidity $y=0$ as a
204: function of $p_T$ and (b) for $p_T=5$~GeV as a function of $y$, comparing the
205: LO (dashed lines) and NLO (solid lines) results of direct photoproduction with
206: the LO result of single-resolved photoproduction (dotted lines).
207: From Fig.~\ref{fig:xs}(a), we observe that, with increasing value of $p_T$,
208: the NLO result of direct photoproduction falls of considerably more slowly
209: than the LO one.
210: In fact, the QCD correction ($K$) factor, defined as the NLO to LO ratio,
211: rapidly increases with $p_T$, exceeding 10 for $p_T\agt10$~GeV.
212: This feature may be understood by observing that so-called
213: {\it fragmentation-prone} \cite{jb} partonic subprocesses start to contribute
214: to direct photoproduction at NLO, while they are absent at LO.
215: Such subprocesses contain a gluon with small virtuality, $q^2=4m_c^2$, that
216: splits into a $c\overline{c}$ pair in the Fock state $n={}^3\!S_1^{(8)}$ and
217: thus generally generate dominant contributions at $p_T\gg2m_c$ due to the
218: presence of a large gluon propagator.
219: In single-resolved photoproduction, a fragmentation-prone partonic subprocess
220: already contributes at LO.
221: This explains why the solid and dotted curves in Fig.~\ref{fig:xs}(a) run
222: parallel in the upper $p_T$ range.
223: At low values of $p_T$, the fragmentation-prone partonic subprocesses do not
224: matter, and the relative suppression of direct photoproduction is due to the
225: fact that, at LO, this is a pure CO process.
226:
227: \begin{figure}[ht]
228: \begin{tabular}{cc}
229: \parbox{0.45\textwidth}{
230: \epsfig{file=tesla.eps,width=0.45\textwidth,%
231: bbllx=0pt,bblly=0pt,bburx=530pt,bbury=513pt}
232: }
233: &
234: \parbox{0.45\textwidth}{
235: \epsfig{file=tesla.y1.eps,width=0.45\textwidth,%
236: bbllx=0pt,bblly=0pt,bburx=530pt,bbury=513pt}
237: }
238: \end{tabular}
239: \caption{LO single-resolved (dotted lines), LO direct (dashed lines), and NLO
240: direct (solid lines) contributions to $d^2\sigma/dp_Tdy$ (a) for $y=0$ as a
241: function of $p_T$ and (b) for $p_T=5$~GeV as a function of $y$.}
242: \label{fig:xs}
243: \end{figure}
244:
245: In the case of $\gamma\gamma\to J/\psi+X_\gamma$, where $X_\gamma$ contains a
246: prompt photon, the $K$ factor was found to decrease fast with increasing
247: value of $p_T$, falling below 01 for $p_T\agt14$~GeV~\cite{nlog}.
248:
249: \begin{theacknowledgments}
250: The author thanks M. Klasen, L.N. Mihaila, and M. Steinhauser for their
251: collaboration.
252: This work was supported in part by BMBF Grant No.\ 05~HT1GUA/4.
253: \end{theacknowledgments}
254:
255: \bibliographystyle{aipproc} % if natbib is available
256:
257: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
258:
259: \bibitem{bbl} G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, and G. P. Lepage,
260: \emph{Phys.\ Rev.\ D} \textbf{51}, 1125 (1995);
261: \textbf{55}, 5853(E) (1997).
262:
263: \bibitem{nlo} M. Klasen, B. A. Kniehl, L. N. Mihaila, and M. Steinhauser,
264: \emph{Nucl.\ Phys.\ B} \textbf{713}, 487 (2005).
265:
266: \bibitem{nlog} M. Klasen, B. A. Kniehl, L. N. Mihaila, and M. Steinhauser,
267: \emph{Phys.\ Rev.\ D} \textbf{71}, 014016 (2005).
268:
269: \bibitem{prl} M. Klasen, B. A. Kniehl, L. N. Mihaila, and M. Steinhauser,
270: \emph{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}\ \textbf{89}, 032001 (2002).
271: %R.M. Godbole, D. Indumathi, and M. Kr\"amer,
272: %\emph{Phys.\ Rev.\ D} \textbf{65}, 074003 (2002).
273:
274: \bibitem{bkl} E. Braaten, B. A. Kniehl, and J. Lee,
275: \emph{Phys.\ Rev.\ D} \textbf{62}, 094005 (2000).
276:
277: \bibitem{delphi} DELPHI Collaboration, J. Abdallah et al.,
278: \emph{Phys.\ Lett.\ B} \textbf{565}, 76 (2003).
279:
280: \bibitem{grs} M. Gl\"uck, E. Reya, and I. Schienbein,
281: \emph{Phys.\ Rev.\ D} \textbf{60}, 054019 (1999);
282: \textbf{62}, 019902(E) (1999).
283:
284: \bibitem{jb} B. A. Kniehl, C. P. Palisoc, and L. Zwirner,
285: \emph{Phys.\ Rev.\ D} \textbf{66}, 114002 (2002);
286: \textbf{69}, 115005 (2004).
287:
288: \end{thebibliography}
289: \end{document}
290: \endinput
291: