1: \input{aipcheck}
2: \documentclass[final,numberedheadings]{aipproc}
3: \usepackage{epsfig,latexsym}
4: \layoutstyle{6x9}
5: \begin{document}
6:
7: \title{\boldmath
8: Inclusive electroproduction of light hadrons with large $p_T$ at
9: next-to-leading order
10: \unboldmath}
11:
12: \classification{12.38.Bx, 12.39.St, 13.87.Fh, 14.40.Aq}
13: \keywords {Quantum chromodynamics, parton model, radiative corrections,
14: inclusive hadron production, deep-inelastic scattering}
15:
16: \author{Bernd A. Kniehl}{
17: address={II. Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Hamburg,
18: Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany}
19: }
20:
21: \begin{abstract}
22: We review recent results on the inclusive electroproduction of light hadrons
23: at next-to-leading order in the parton model of quantum chromodynamics
24: implemented with fragmentation functions and present updated predictions for
25: HERA experiments based on the new AKK set.
26: \end{abstract}
27:
28: \maketitle
29:
30: \section{Introduction}
31:
32: In the framework of the parton model of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the
33: inclusive production of single hadrons is described by means of fragmentation
34: functions (FFs) $D_a^h(x,\mu)$.
35: At lowest order (LO), the value of $D_a^h(x,\mu)$ corresponds to the
36: probability for the parton $a$ produced at short distance $1/\mu$ to form a
37: jet that includes the hadron $h$ carrying the fraction $x$ of the longitudinal
38: momentum of $a$.
39: Analogously, incoming hadrons and resolved photons are represented by
40: (non-perturbative) parton density functions (PDFs) $F_{a/h}(x,\mu)$.
41: Unfortunately, it is not yet possible to calculate the FFs from first
42: principles, in particular for hadrons with masses smaller than or comparable
43: to the asymptotic scale parameter $\Lambda$.
44: However, given their $x$ dependence at some energy scale $\mu$, the evolution
45: with $\mu$ may be computed perturbatively in QCD using the timelike
46: Dokshitzer-Gribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi (DGLAP) equations.
47: Moreover, the factorization theorem guarantees that the $D_a^h(x,\mu)$
48: functions are independent of the process in which they have been determined
49: and represent a universal property of $h$.
50: This entitles us to transfer information on how $a$ hadronizes to $h$ in a
51: well-defined quantitative way from $e^+e^-$ annihilation, where the
52: measurements are usually most precise, to other kinds of experiments, such as
53: photo-, lepto-, and hadroproduction.
54: Recently, FFs for light charged hadrons with complete quark flavour separation
55: were determined through a global fit to $e^+e^-$ data from LEP, PEP, and SLC
56: \cite{akk} thereby improving a previous analysis \cite{kkp}.
57:
58: \begin{figure}[t]
59: \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{pm.eps}
60: \caption{Parton-model representation of $ep\to eh+X$.}
61: \label{fig:pm}
62: \end{figure}
63: The QCD-improved parton model should be particularly well applicable to the
64: inclusive production of light hadrons carrying large transverse momenta
65: ($p_T$) in deep-inelastic lepton-hadron scattering (DIS) with large photon
66: virtuality ($Q^2$) due to the presence of two hard mass scales, with
67: $Q^2,p_T^2\gg\Lambda^2$.
68: In Fig.~\ref{fig:pm}, this process is represented in the parton-model picture.
69: The hard-scattering (HS) cross sections, which include colored quarks and/or
70: gluons in the initial and final states, are computed in perturbative QCD.
71: They were evaluated at LO more than 25 years ago \cite{Mendez:zx}.
72: Recently, the next-to-leading-order (NLO) analysis was performed independently
73: by three groups \cite{Aurenche:2003by,kkm,Daleo:2004pn}.
74: A comparison between Refs.~\cite{kkm,Daleo:2004pn} using identical input
75: yielded agreement within the numerical accuracy.
76:
77: The cross section of $e^+p\to e^+\pi^0+X$ in DIS was measured in various
78: distributions with high precision by the H1 Collaboration at HERA in the
79: forward region, close to the proton remnant \cite{Adloff:1999zx,Aktas:2004rb}.
80: This measurement reaches down to rather low values of Bjorken's variable
81: $x_B=Q^2/(2P\!\cdot\!q)$, where $P$ and $q$ are the proton and virtual-photon
82: four-momenta, respectively, and $Q^2=-q^2$, so that the validity of the
83: DGLAP evolution might be challenged by Balitsky-Fadin-Kuraev-Lipatov (BFKL)
84: dynamics.
85:
86: In Ref.~\cite{kkm}, the H1 data \cite{Adloff:1999zx,Aktas:2004rb} were
87: compared with NLO predictions evaluated with the KKP FFs \cite{kkp}.
88: In Section~\ref{sec:two}, we present an update of this comparison based on the
89: new AKK FFs \cite{akk}.
90: Our conclusions are summarized in Section~\ref{sec:three}.
91:
92: \section{Comparison with H1 data}
93: \label{sec:two}
94:
95: We work in the modified minimal-subtraction ($\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$)
96: renormalization and factorization scheme with $n_f=5$ massless quark flavors
97: and identify the renormalization and factorization scales by choosing
98: $\mu^2=\xi[Q^2+(p_T^\ast)^2]/2$, where the asterisk labels quantities in the
99: $\gamma^\ast p$ center-of-mass (c.m.) frame and $\xi$ is varied between 1/2
100: and 2 about the default value 1 to estimate the theoretical uncertainty.
101: At NLO (LO), we employ set CTEQ6M (CTEQ6L1) of proton PDFs
102: \cite{Pumplin:2002vw}, the NLO (LO) set of AKK FFs \cite{akk}, and the
103: two-loop (one-loop) formula for the strong-coupling constant
104: $\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)$ with $\Lambda^{(5)}=226$~MeV (165~MeV)
105: \cite{Pumplin:2002vw}.
106:
107: \begin{figure}[t]
108: \begin{tabular}{cc}
109: \includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{dptAKK.eps} &
110: \includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{dEQqAKK.eps} \\
111: (a) & (b) \\
112: \includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{dxBjorken.eps} &
113: \includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{dQqAKK.eps} \\
114: (c) & (d)
115: \end{tabular}
116: \caption{H1 data on (a) $d\sigma/dp_T^*$, (b) $d\sigma/dx_E$, and (c)
117: $d\sigma/dx_B$ for $2<Q^2<4.5$~GeV$^2$, $4.5<Q^2<15$~GeV$^2$, or
118: $15<Q^2<70$~GeV$^2$, and on (d) $d\sigma/dQ^2$ from Refs.~\cite{Adloff:1999zx}
119: (open circles) and \cite{Aktas:2004rb} (solid circles) are compared with our
120: default LO (dashed histograms) and NLO (solid histograms) predictions
121: including theoretical uncertainties (shaded bands).
122: The QCD-correction ($K$) factors are also shown.}
123: \label{fig:xs}
124: \end{figure}
125: The H1 data \cite{Adloff:1999zx,Aktas:2004rb} were taken in DIS of positrons
126: with energy $E_e=27.6$~GeV on protons with energy $E_p=820$~GeV in the
127: laboratory frame, yielding a c.m.\ energy of $\sqrt S=2\sqrt{E_eE_p}=301$~GeV.
128: The DIS phase space was restricted to $0.1<y<0.6$ and $2<Q^2<70$~GeV$^2$,
129: where $y=Q^2/(x_BS)$.
130: The $\pi^0$ mesons were detected within the acceptance cuts $p_T^*>2.5$~GeV,
131: $5^\circ<\theta<25^\circ$, and $x_E>0.01$, where $\theta$ is their angle with
132: respect to the proton flight direction and $E=x_E E_p$ is their energy in the
133: laboratory frame.
134: The comparisons with the our updated LO and NLO predictions are displayed in
135: Figs.~\ref{fig:xs}(a)--(d).
136:
137: \section{Conclusions}
138: \label{sec:three}
139:
140: We calculated the cross section of $ep\to e\pi^0+X$ in DIS for finite values
141: of $p_T^*$ at LO and NLO in the parton model of QCD \cite{kkm} using the new
142: AKK FFs \cite{akk} and compared it with a precise measurement by the H1
143: Collaboration at HERA \cite{Adloff:1999zx,Aktas:2004rb}.
144:
145: We found that our LO predictions always significantly fell short of the H1
146: data and often exhibited deviating shapes.
147: However, the situation dramatically improved as we proceeded to NLO, where our
148: default predictions, endowed with theoretical uncertainties estimated by
149: moderate unphysical-scale variations, led to a satisfactory description of the
150: H1 data in the preponderant part of the accessed phase space.
151: In other words, we encountered $K$ factors much in excess of unity, except
152: towards the regime of asymptotic freedom characterized by large values of
153: $p_T^*$ and/or $Q^2$.
154: This was unavoidably accompanied by considerable theoretical uncertainties.
155: Both features suggest that a reliable interpretation of the H1 data within the
156: QCD-improved parton model ultimately necessitates a full
157: next-to-next-to-leading-order analysis, which is presently out of reach,
158: however.
159: For the time being, we conclude that the successful comparison of the H1 data
160: with our NLO predictions provides a useful test of the universality and the
161: scaling violations of the FFs, which are guaranteed by the factorization
162: theorem and are ruled by the DGLAP evolution equations, respectively.
163:
164: Significant deviations between the H1 data and our NLO predictions only
165: occurred in certain corners of phase space, namely in the photoproduction
166: limit $Q^2\to0$, where resolved virtual photons are expected to contribute,
167: and in the limit $\eta\to\infty$ of the pseudorapidity
168: $\eta=-\ln[\tan(\theta/2)]$, where fracture functions are supposed to enter
169: the stage.
170: Both refinements were not included in our analysis.
171: Interestingly, distinctive deviations could not be observed towards the lowest
172: $x_B$ values probed, which indicates that the realm of BFKL dynamics has not
173: actually been accessed yet.
174:
175: \begin{theacknowledgments}
176: The author thanks G. Kramer and M. Maniatis for their collaboration.
177: This work was supported in part by BMBF Grant No.\ 05~HT1GUA/4.
178: \end{theacknowledgments}
179:
180: \bibliographystyle{aipproc} % if natbib is available
181:
182: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
183:
184: \bibitem{akk} S.~Albino, B.~A.~Kniehl, and G.~Kramer,
185: Report No.\ DESY~05-022 and hep-ph/0502188, \emph{Nucl.\ Phys.\ B} (in press).
186:
187: \bibitem{kkp} B.~A.~Kniehl, G.~Kramer, and B.~P\"otter,
188: \emph{Nucl.\ Phys.\ B} \textbf{582}, 514 (2000);
189: \emph{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}\ \textbf{85}, 5288 (2000);
190: \emph{Nucl.\ Phys.\ B} \textbf{597}, 337 (2001).
191:
192: \bibitem{Mendez:zx} A.~Mendez,
193: \emph{Nucl.\ Phys.\ B} \textbf{145}, 199 (1978).
194:
195: \bibitem{Aurenche:2003by}
196: P.~Aurenche, R.~Basu, M.~Fontannaz, and R.~M.~Godbole,
197: \emph{Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C} \textbf{34}, 277 (2004).
198:
199: \bibitem{kkm} B.~A.~Kniehl, G.~Kramer, and M.~Maniatis,
200: \emph{Nucl.\ Phys.\ B} \textbf{711}, 345 (2005);
201: \textbf{720}, 231(E) (2005).
202:
203: \bibitem{Daleo:2004pn} A.~Daleo, D.~de Florian, and R.~Sassot,
204: \emph{Phys.\ Rev.\ D} \textbf{71}, 034013 (2005);
205: R.~Sassot, in these proceedings.
206:
207: \bibitem{Adloff:1999zx} H1 Collaboration, C.~Adloff et al.,
208: \emph{Phys.\ Lett.\ B} \textbf{462}, 440 (1999).
209:
210: \bibitem{Aktas:2004rb} H1 Collaboration, A.~Aktas et al.,
211: \emph{Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C} \textbf{36}, 441 (2004).
212:
213: \bibitem{Pumplin:2002vw} J.~Pumplin, D.~R.~Stump, J.~Huston, H.-L.~Lai,
214: P.~Nadolsky, and W.-K.~Tung,
215: \emph{JHEP} \textbf{0207}, 012 (2002).
216:
217: \end{thebibliography}
218: \end{document}
219: \endinput
220: