1: \documentclass[cits]{PoS}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3:
4: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{eqnarray}}
5: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}}
6: \newcommand{\jp}{$ \psi $}
7: \newcommand{\dd}[2]{$ #1 \overline #2 $}
8: \newcommand\ie {{\it i.e.}}
9: \newcommand\eg {{\it e.g.}}
10: \newcommand\pt{p_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle T}}
11: \newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134}
12: \newcommand{\AmS}{{\protect\the\textfont2
13: A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}
14:
15:
16: \title{QCD Predictions for Charm and Bottom Production at RHIC}
17:
18: \ShortTitle{QCD Predictions for Charm and Bottom Production at RHIC}
19:
20: \author{\speaker{Matteo Cacciari}\thanks{In collaboration with
21: Paolo Nason and Ramona Vogt.}\\
22: LPTHE - Universit\'e P. et M. Curie, France\\
23: E-mail: \email{cacciari@lpthe.jussieu.fr}}
24:
25: %\author{Another Author\\
26: % Affiliation\\
27: % E-mail: \email{...}}
28: \abstract{
29: We present up-to-date QCD predictions for open charm and bottom production at
30: RHIC in nucleon-nucleon collisions at $\sqrt{S} = 200$~GeV. The electron
31: spectrum resulting from heavy flavor decays is also evaluated for
32: direct comparison to the PHENIX and STAR data. These predictions seek to
33: establish a rigorous benchmark, including the theoretical uncertainties,
34: against which nuclear collision data can be compared to obtain evidence for
35: nuclear effects.
36: }
37:
38:
39: %\dedicated{SSSS}
40:
41: \FullConference{International Europhysics Conference on High Energy Physics\\
42: July 21st - 27th 2005\\
43: Lisboa, Portugal}
44:
45: \begin{document}
46:
47: The PHENIX~\cite{Adler:2005fy} and
48: STAR~\cite{Adams:2004fc,Tai:2004bf} Collaborations at the Relativistic Heavy Ion
49: Collider (RHIC) have recently presented data for production of heavy quarks in
50: $pp$ and d+Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}} = 200$ GeV, both in the form of explicitly
51: reconstructed $D$ mesons, and as an electron spectrum from semi-leptonic
52: decay of
53: the heavy hadrons. These data must be compared to QCD predictions,
54: to establish the extent to which they can be successfully described, before moving
55: forward and trying to determine the presence of dense matter effects in
56: nucleus-nucleus collisions.
57:
58:
59: Recent improvements in heavy quark production theory and experimental
60: measurements at colliders, especially for bottom production, have shown
61: that the perturbative QCD framework works rather well,
62: see Refs.~\cite{Cacciari:2004ur}, provided a number of
63: precautions are taken in performing the phenomenological analysis and the
64: proper modern tools are employed. In particular, the advantages of comparing
65: the theoretical prediction and the data directly at the level of
66: the experimental observables have been clearly outlined.
67:
68: The purpose of this work is to repeat these analysis for RHIC, and to
69: provide therefore a benchmark prediction against which the data can be compared.
70:
71: We calculate the transverse momentum ($\pt$) distributions of
72: charm and bottom quarks, the charm and bottom hadron distributions
73: resulting from fragmentation and,
74: finally, the electrons produced in semi-leptonic decays of the hadrons
75: \cite{Cacciari:2005rk}. Theoretical
76: uncertainties, estimated as extensively as possible, constitute an
77: intrinsic component of the prediction.
78: Our final result is thus not a single curve, but rather an
79: uncertainty band which has a reasonably large probability of containing
80: the `true' theoretical prediction.
81:
82: The theoretical prediction of the electron spectrum includes
83: three main components: the $\pt$ and rapidity
84: distributions of the heavy quark $Q$ in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{S} =
85: 200$~GeV, calculated in perturbative QCD; fragmentation of the
86: heavy quarks into heavy hadrons, $H_Q$, described by
87: phenomenological input extracted from $e^+e^-$ data; and the decay of
88: $H_Q$ into electrons according to spectra available from other
89: measurements. This
90: cross section is schematically written as
91: \begin{eqnarray}
92: \frac{E d^3\sigma(e)}{dp^3} &=& \frac{E_Q d^3\sigma(Q)}{dp^3_Q} \otimes
93: D(Q\to H_Q) \otimes f(H_Q \to e)
94: \nonumber
95: \end{eqnarray}
96: where the symbol $\otimes$ denotes a generic convolution.
97: %The electron decay
98: %spectrum, $f(H_Q \to e)$, accounts for the branching ratios.
99:
100: The distribution $E d^3\sigma(Q)/dp^3_Q$ is evaluated at Fixed-Order plus
101: Next-to-Leading-Log (FONLL) level, implemented in Ref.~\cite{Cacciari:1998it}.
102: In addition to including the full fixed-order NLO
103: result~\cite{Nason:1987xz}, the FONLL calculation also
104: resums~\cite{Cacciari:1993mq} large perturbative terms proportional to
105: $\alpha_s^n\log^k(\pt/m)$ to all orders with next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL)
106: accuracy (i.e. $k=n,\,n-1$) where $m$ is the heavy quark mass. The perturbative
107: parameters are $m$ and the value of the strong coupling,
108: $\alpha_s$. We take $m_c = 1.5$~GeV and $m_b = 4.75$~GeV as central values
109: and vary the masses in the range $1.3< m_c <1.7$ GeV for charm and $4.5<m_b<
110: 5$ GeV for bottom to estimate the mass uncertainties. The five-flavor QCD scale
111: is the CTEQ6M value, $\Lambda^{(5)} = 0.226$ GeV.
112: The perturbative calculation also depends on the
113: factorization ($\mu_F$) and renormalization ($\mu_R$) scales. The
114: scale sensitivity is a measure of the
115: perturbative uncertainty. We take
116: $\mu_{R,F} = \mu_0 = \sqrt{\pt^2 + m^2}$ as the central value and vary
117: the two scales independently within a `fiducial' region defined by $\mu_{R,F}
118: = \xi_{R,F}\mu_0$ with $0.5 \le \xi_{R,F} \le 2$ and $0.5 \le \xi_R/\xi_F \le
119: 2$ so that $\{(\xi_R,\xi_F)\}$ =
120: \{(1,1), (2,2), (0.5,0.5), (1,0.5), (2,1), (0.5,1), (1,2)\}. The envelope
121: containing the resulting curves defines the uncertainty. The
122: mass and scale uncertainties are then added in quadrature.
123: These inputs lead to a FONLL total $c\bar c$ cross section in
124: $pp$ collisions of $\sigma_{c\bar c}^{\rm FONLL} = 256^{+400}_{-146}$~$\mu$b
125: at $\sqrt{S} = 200$~GeV, and to a total $b\bar b$ cross section of
126: $1.87^{+0.99}_{-0.67}$~$\mu$b.
127:
128: % The theoretical uncertainty is evaluated as described
129: % above. The corresponding NLO prediction is $244^{+381}_{-134}$~$\mu$b.
130: % The predictions in Ref.~\cite{Vogt:2001nh}, using $m_c = 1.2$~GeV and
131: % $\mu_R = \mu_F = 2\sqrt{\pt^2 + m^2}$ gives
132: % $\sigma_{c\bar c}^{\rm NLO} = 427$~$\mu$b, within the uncertainties.
133: % Since the FONLL and NLO calculations tend to coincide at small $\pt$, which
134: % dominates the total cross section, the two results are very
135: % similar.
136: % Thus the two calculations are equivalent at the total cross section level,
137: % within the large perturbative uncertainties. The total cross
138: % section for bottom production is $\sigma_{b\bar b}^{\rm FONLL} =
139: % 1.87^{+0.99}_{-0.67}$~$\mu$b.
140:
141: \begin{figure}[t]
142: \begin{center}
143: \includegraphics[height=5cm]{cD.ps}~~~~~~
144: \includegraphics[height=5cm]{bB.ps}
145: %\includegraphics[height=5cm]{cD.jpg}~~~~~~
146: %\includegraphics[height=5cm]{bB.jpg}
147: \caption{\label{qQ} Left-hand side: The theoretical uncertainty bands for
148: $c$ quark and $D$ meson $p_T$ distributions in $pp$ collisions
149: at $\sqrt{S} = 200$~GeV, using BR($c \to D$) = 1. The
150: final~\cite{Adams:2004fc} and preliminary~\protect\cite{Tai:2004bf}
151: STAR d+Au data (scaled to $pp$ using $N_{\rm bin}$ =
152: 7.5)
153: are also shown. Right-hand side: The same for $b$ quarks and $B$
154: mesons.
155: }
156: \end{center}
157: \end{figure}
158:
159: The fragmentation functions, $D(c\to D)$ and $D(b\to B)$, where $D$ and $B$
160: indicate a generic admixture of charm and bottom hadrons, are consistently
161: extracted from $e^+e^-$ data in the context of
162: FONLL~\cite{Cacciari:2002pa,Cacciari:2005uk}.
163: Using the Peterson {\it et al.} fragmentation
164: function, with standard parameter choices $\epsilon_c
165: \simeq
166: 0.06 \pm 0.03$ and $\epsilon_b \simeq 0.006 \pm 0.003$, does not provide
167: a valid description of fragmentation in FONLL, since the hadronization is too
168: soft. In fact, Ref.~\cite{Cacciari:2002pa} showed
169: that replacing the Peterson fragmentation description with an appropriate
170: one constitutes one of the main improvements
171: which help reconcile the bottom transverse momentum distribution measured at
172: the Tevatron with the theoretical prediction.
173:
174: The measured spectra for primary $B\to e$ and $D \to e$ decays are modeled and
175: assumed to be equal for all bottom and charm hadrons, respectively.
176: The contribution of
177: electrons from secondary $B$ decays, $B\to D\to e$, was also included but is
178: mostly negligible.
179: % was obtained
180: % by convoluting the $D\to e$ spectrum with a parton-model prediction of
181: % $b\to c$ decay. The resulting electron spectrum is very soft, giving a
182: % negligible contribution to the total.
183: The decay spectra are normalized using the branching ratios
184: for bottom and charm hadron mixtures:
185: BR$(B\to e) = 10.86 \pm 0.35$\%, BR$(D\to e) = 10.3 \pm 1.2$\%,
186: and BR$(B\to D\to e) = 9.6 \pm 0.6$\%.
187:
188: The left-hand side of Fig.~\ref{qQ}
189: shows the theoretical uncertainty bands for $c$ quarks and $D$ mesons,
190: obtained by summing the mass and scale uncertainties
191: in quadrature. The band is broader at low
192: $\pt$ due to the large value of $\alpha_s$ and the behavior of the CTEQ6M
193: parton densities at low
194: scales as well as the increased sensitivity of the cross section to the
195: charm quark mass.
196: % The rather hard
197: % fragmentation function causes the $D$ meson and $c$ quark bands to
198: % separate only at $\pt > 9$~GeV.
199: % The right-hand side of Fig.~\ref{qQ} shows the same results for $b$ quarks and
200: % $B$ mesons. The even harder $b\to B$ fragmentation
201: % function causes the two bands to partially overlap until
202: % $\pt \simeq 20$~GeV.
203:
204: Figure~\ref{electrons}
205: compares the RHIC data to the total uncertainty band for
206: $D\to e$, $B \to e$ and $B\to D \to e$ decays to electrons. The
207: upper and lower limits of the
208: band are obtained by summing the upper and lower limits for each component.
209: It is worth noting that, while for the central parameter
210: sets, the $B \to e$ decays begin to dominate the $D \to e$ decays
211: at $\pt \simeq 4$~GeV, a comparison of the individual bands (not shown)
212: shows that the crossover may
213: occur over a rather broad range of electron $\pt$. The relative $c$ and $b$
214: decay contributions may play an important part in understanding the electron
215: $R_{AA}$ in nucleus-nucleus collisions
216: %\cite{STARaa,PHENIXaa}
217: which seems to
218: suggest strong energy loss effects on heavy flavors \cite{Magda,Nestor}.
219:
220: \begin{figure}[t]
221: \begin{center}
222: \includegraphics[height=5cm]{electrons.eps}
223: %\includegraphics[height=5cm]{electrons.jpg}
224: \caption{\label{electrons}
225: The final prediction for the
226: theoretical uncertainty band of the electron spectrum from charm and
227: bottom in $pp$ collisions.
228: Data from PHENIX~\protect\cite{Adler:2005fy}
229: and STAR (final~\protect\cite{Adams:2004fc} and preliminary~\protect\cite{Tai:2004bf})
230: are also shown.}
231: \end{center}
232: \end{figure}
233:
234:
235: In conclusion, we have performed a phenomenological analysis of heavy quark
236: production in $\sqrt{S} = 200$~GeV $pp$ collisions at RHIC. The
237: results are presented in the form of a theoretical uncertainty band for the
238: transverse momentum distribution of either bare charm (bottom), $D$ ($B$)
239: mesons, or electrons originating from the decay of charm and bottom hadrons.
240: This band stems, at the perturbative level, from a next-to-leading order result
241: improved by next-to-leading log resummation at large transverse momenta.
242: These result should
243: not be multiplied by any $K$ factor before comparison with data. Rather,
244: agreement within the uncertainties of the measurements will support the
245: applicability of standard QCD calculations to heavy quark production at RHIC.
246: Alternatively, a significant disagreement will suggest the need to complement
247: this evaluation with further ingredients.
248:
249: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
250:
251: %\cite{Adler:2005fy}
252: \bibitem{Adler:2005fy}
253: S.~S.~Adler {\it et al.} [PHENIX Collaboration],
254: %``Single electrons from heavy flavor decays in p + p collisions at s**(1/2) =
255: %200-GeV,''
256: arXiv:hep-ex/0508034.
257: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0508034;%%
258:
259:
260: %%\cite{Kelly:2004qw}
261: %\bibitem{Kelly:2004qw}
262: %S.~S. Adler {\it et al.} [PHENIX Collaboration],
263: %%``The PHENIX measurement of heavy flavor via single electrons in p p, d - Au,
264: %%and Au - Au collisions at s(NN)**(1/2) = 200-GeV,''
265: %arXiv:hep-ex/0508034.
266: %%%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0403057;%%
267:
268:
269: %\cite{Adams:2004fc}
270: \bibitem{Adams:2004fc}
271: J.~Adams {\it et al.} [STAR Collaboration],
272: %``Open charm yields in d + Au collisions at s(NN)**(1/2) = 200-GeV,''
273: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 94} (2005) 062301
274: [arXiv:nucl-ex/0407006].
275: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0407006;%%
276:
277:
278: %\cite{Tai:2004bf}
279: \bibitem{Tai:2004bf}
280: A.~Tai [STAR Collaboration],
281: %``Measurement of open charm production in d + Au collisions at s(NN)**(1/2) =
282: %200-GeV,''
283: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 30} (2004) S809
284: [arXiv:nucl-ex/0404029].
285: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0404029;%%
286:
287: %\cite{Cacciari:2004ur}
288: \bibitem{Cacciari:2004ur}
289: %\cite{Mangano:2004xr}
290: %\bibitem{Mangano:2004xr}
291: M.~L.~Mangano,
292: arXiv:hep-ph/0411020;
293: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411020;%%
294: M.~Cacciari,
295: arXiv:hep-ph/0407187.
296: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407187;%%
297: %
298:
299: %\cite{Cacciari:2005rk}
300: \bibitem{Cacciari:2005rk}
301: M.~Cacciari, P.~Nason and R.~Vogt,
302: %``QCD predictions for charm and bottom production at RHIC,''
303: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95} (2005) 122001
304: [arXiv:hep-ph/0502203].
305: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0502203;%%
306:
307:
308: %\cite{Cacciari:1998it}
309: \bibitem{Cacciari:1998it}
310: M.~Cacciari, M.~Greco and P.~Nason,
311: %``The p(T) spectrum in heavy-flavour hadroproduction,''
312: JHEP {\bf 9805} (1998) 007
313: [arXiv:hep-ph/9803400];
314: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803400;%%
315: %\cite{Cacciari:2001td}
316: %\bibitem{Cacciari:2001td}
317: M.~Cacciari, S.~Frixione and P.~Nason,
318: %``The p(T) spectrum in heavy-flavor photoproduction,''
319: JHEP {\bf 0103} (2001) 006
320: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102134].
321: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102134;%%
322:
323: %\cite{Nason:1987xz}
324: \bibitem{Nason:1987xz}
325: P.~Nason, S.~Dawson and R.~K.~Ellis,
326: %``The Total Cross-Section For The Production Of Heavy Quarks In Hadronic
327: %Collisions,''
328: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 303} (1988) 607;
329: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B303,607;%%
330: %\cite{Nason:1989zy}
331: %\bibitem{Nason:1989zy}
332: P.~Nason, S.~Dawson and R.~K.~Ellis,
333: %``The One Particle Inclusive Differential Cross-Section For Heavy Quark
334: %Production In Hadronic Collisions,''
335: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 327} (1989) 49
336: [Erratum \ B {\bf 335} (1990) 260];
337: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B327,49;%%
338: %\cite{Beenakker:1990ma}
339: %\bibitem{Beenakker:1990ma}
340: W.~Beenakker, W.~L.~van Neerven, R.~Meng, G.~A.~Schuler and J.~Smith,
341: %``QCD Corrections To Heavy Quark Production In Hadron Hadron Collisions,''
342: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 351} (1991) 507.
343: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B351,507;%%
344:
345: %\cite{Cacciari:1993mq}
346: \bibitem{Cacciari:1993mq}
347: M.~Cacciari and M.~Greco,
348: %``Large p(T) hadroproduction of heavy quarks,''
349: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 421} (1994) 530
350: [arXiv:hep-ph/9311260].
351: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9311260;%%
352:
353: %\cite{Vogt:2001nh}
354: % \bibitem{Vogt:2001nh}
355: % R.~Vogt,
356: % %``The A dependence of open charm and bottom production,''
357: % Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ E {\bf 12} (2003) 211
358: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0111271].
359: % %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111271;%%
360:
361: %\cite{Cacciari:2002pa}
362: \bibitem{Cacciari:2002pa}
363: M.~Cacciari and P.~Nason,
364: %``Is there a significant excess in bottom hadroproduction at the Tevatron?,''
365: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89} (2002) 122003
366: [arXiv:hep-ph/0204025].
367: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204025;%%
368:
369: %\cite{Cacciari:2005uk}
370: \bibitem{Cacciari:2005uk}
371: M.~Cacciari, P.~Nason and C.~Oleari,
372: %``A study of heavy flavoured meson fragmentation functions in e+ e-
373: %annihilation,''
374: arXiv:hep-ph/0510032.
375: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0510032;%%
376:
377: % %\cite{Peterson:1982ak}
378: % \bibitem{Peterson:1982ak}
379: % C.~Peterson, D.~Schlatter, I.~Schmitt and P.~M.~Zerwas,
380: % %``Scaling Violations In Inclusive E+ E- Annihilation Spectra,''
381: % Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 27} (1983) 105.
382: % %%CITATION = PHRVA,D27,105;%%
383:
384: % %\cite{Eidelman:2004wy}
385: % \bibitem{Eidelman:2004wy}
386: % S.~Eidelman {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group Collaboration],
387: % %``Review of particle physics,''
388: % Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 592} (2004) 1.
389: % %%CITATION = PHLTA,B592,1;%%
390:
391: %\bibitem{STARaa} J. Bielcik [STAR Collaboration], these proceedings.
392:
393: %\bibitem{PHENIXaa} S. A. Butsyk [PHENIX Collaboration], these proceedings.
394:
395: %\bibitem{Magda} M. Djordjevic, these proceedings.
396: %\cite{Djordjevic:2005db}
397: \bibitem{Magda}
398: M.~Djordjevic, M.~Gyulassy, R.~Vogt and S.~Wicks,
399: %``Influence of bottom quark jet quenching on single electron tomography of Au
400: %+ Au,''
401: arXiv:nucl-th/0507019.
402: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 0507019;%%
403:
404: %\cite{Armesto:2005mz}
405: \bibitem{Nestor}
406: N.~Armesto, M.~Cacciari, A.~Dainese, C.~A.~Salgado and U.~A.~Wiedemann,
407: %``How sensitive are high-p(T) electron spectra at RHIC to heavy quark energy
408: %loss?,''
409: arXiv:hep-ph/0511257.
410: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0511257;%%
411: %\bibitem{Nestor} N. Armesto, these proceedings.
412: \end{thebibliography}
413:
414: \end{document}
415:
416:
417:
418: