1: \documentclass[aps,prd,preprint,groupedaddress]{revtex4}

2: 

3: \usepackage{epsfig}

4: \usepackage{graphics}

5: 

6: \begin{document}

7: 

8: %\preprint{DESY~06-019\hfill ISSN 0418-9833}

9: 

10: \boldmath

11: \title{\vskip-3cm{\baselineskip14pt

12: \centerline{\normalsize\rm DESY 06-019\hfill ISSN 0418-9833}

13: \centerline{\normalsize\rm hep-ph/0602179\hfill}

14: \centerline{\normalsize\rm February 2006\hfill}}

15: \vskip1.5cm

16: Charmonium Production at High Energy in the $k_T$-Factorization

17: Approach}

18: \unboldmath

19: 

20: \author{\firstname{B.A.} \surname{Kniehl}}

21: \email{kniehl@desy.de}

22: 

23: \author{\firstname{D.V.} \surname{Vasin}}

24: \email{dmitriy.vasin@desy.de}

25: \thanks{on leave from Department of Physics, Samara State University,

26: Ac.~ Pavlov St.~1, 443011 Samara, Russia}

27: 

28: \affiliation{{II.} Institut f\" ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\" at Hamburg,

29: Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany}

30: 

31: \author{\firstname{V.A.} \surname{Saleev}}

32: \email{saleev@ssu.samara.ru}

33: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Samara State University,

34: Ac.~ Pavlov St.~1, 443011 Samara, Russia}

35: 

36: \begin{abstract}

37: We study charmonium production at high-energy colliders (Tevatron, HERA, and

38: LEP2) in the framework of the $k_T$-factorization approach and the

39: factorization formalism of non-relativistic quantum chromodynamics at leading

40: order in the strong-coupling constant $\alpha_s$ and the relative velocity $v$.

41: The transverse-momentum distributions of direct and prompt $J/\psi$-meson

42: production measured at the Fermilab Tevatron are fitted to obtain the

43: non-perturbative long-distance matrix elements for different choices of

44: unintegrated gluon distribution functions in the proton.

45: Using the matrix elements thus obtained, we predict charmonium production

46: rates in $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma p$, and deep-inelastic $ep$ collisions

47: including the contributions from both direct and resolved photons.

48: The results are compared with the known ones obtained in the conventional

49: parton model and with recent experimental data from HERA and LEP2.

50: \end{abstract}

51: 

52: \pacs{12.38.-t,12.40.Nn,13.85.Ni,14.40.Gx}

53: 

54: \maketitle

55: 

56: \section{Introduction}

57: 

58: Charmonium production at high energies has provided a useful laboratory for

59: testing the high-energy limit of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) as well as the

60: interplay of perturbative and non-perturbative phenomena in QCD.

61: The factorization formalism of non-relativistic QCD (NRQCD) \cite{NRQCD} is a

62: theoretical framework for the description of heavy-quarkonium production and

63: decay.

64: The factorization hypothesis of NRQCD assumes the separation of the effects of

65: long and short distances in heavy-quarkonium production.

66: NRQCD is organized as a perturbative expansion in two small parameters, the

67: strong-coupling constant $\alpha_s$ and the relative velocity $v$ of the heavy

68: quarks.

69: 

70: The phenomenology of strong interactions at high energies exhibits a dominant

71: role of gluon interactions in quarkonium production.

72: In the conventional parton model \cite{PartonModel}, the initial-state gluon

73: dynamics is controlled by the Dokshitzer-Gribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi

74: (DGLAP) evolution equation \cite{DGLAP}.

75: In this approach, it is assumed that $S > \mu^2 \gg \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2$,

76: where $\sqrt{S}$ is the invariant collision energy, $\mu$ is the typical

77: energy scale of the hard interaction, and $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ is the

78: asymptotic scale parameter.

79: In this way, the DGLAP evolution equation takes into account only one big

80: logarithm, namely $\ln(\mu/\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$.

81: In fact, the collinear approximation is used, and the transverse momenta of

82: the incoming gluons are neglected.

83: 

84: In the high-energy limit, the contribution from the partonic

85: subprocesses involving $t$-channel gluon exchanges to the total

86: cross section can become dominant. The summation of the large

87: logarithms $\ln(\sqrt{S}/\mu)$ in the evolution equation can then

88: be more important than the one of the $\ln(\mu/\Lambda_{\rm

89: QCD})$ terms. In this case, the non-collinear gluon dynamics is

90: described by the Balitsky-Fadin-Kuraev-Lipatov (BFKL) evolution

91: equation \cite{BFKL}. In the region under consideration, the

92: transverse momenta ($k_T$) of the incoming gluons and their

93: off-shell properties can no longer be neglected, and we deal with

94: reggeized $t$-channel gluons. The theoretical framework for this

95: kind of high-energy phenomenology is the so-called

96: $k_T$-factorization approach \cite{KTGribov,KTCollins}, which can

97: be based on effective quantum field theory implemented with the

98: non-abelian gauge-invariant action, as was suggested a few years

99: ago~\cite{KTLipatov}.

100: 

101: This paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sec:two}, the

102: $k_T$-factorization approach is briefly reviewed and compared

103: with the collinear parton model. The NRQCD formalism applied to

104: heavy-quarkonium production is briefly recapitulated in

105: Sec.~\ref{sec:three}. In Sec.~\ref{sec:four}, we present in

106: analytic form the squared amplitudes for $S$- and $P$-wave

107: quarkonium production via the fusion of reggeized gluons at

108: leading order (LO) in $\alpha_s$ and $v$. In Sec.~\ref{sec:five},

109: we perform fits to the transverse-momentum ($p_T$) distributions

110: of inclusive charmonium production measured at the Fermilab

111: Tevatron to obtain numerical values for the non-perturbative

112: matrix elements (NMEs) of the NRQCD factorization formalism. In

113: Secs.~\ref{sec:six} and \ref{sec:seven}, we compare our

114: theoretical predictions with recent experimental data of

115: charmonium production in $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma p$, and

116: deep-inelastic $ep$ scattering at the DESY HERA and CERN LEP2

117: colliders. Section~\ref{sec:eight} contains our conclusions.

118: 

119: \boldmath

120: \section{\label{sec:two}The $k_T$-factorization approach}

121: \unboldmath

122: 

123: In the phenomenology of strong interactions at high energies, it

124: is necessary to describe the QCD evolution of the gluon

125: distribution functions of the colliding particles starting from

126: some scale $\mu_0$, which controls the non-perturbative regime,

127: to the typical scale $\mu$ of the hard-scattering processes,

128: which is typically of the order of the transverse mass

129: $M_T=\sqrt{M^2+|{\bf p}_T|^2}$ of the produced particle (or

130: hadron jet) with (invariant) mass $M$ and transverse two-momentum

131: ${\bf p}_T$. In the region of very high energies, the typical

132: ratio $x=\mu/\sqrt{S}$ becomes very small, $x\ll1$. This leads to

133: large logarithmic contributions of the type $[\alpha_s

134: \ln(1/x)]^n$, which need to be resummed. This is conveniently

135: done by adopting the high-energy factorization scheme, which also

136: known as the $k_T$-factorization approach, in which the incoming

137: $t$-channel gluons have a finite transverse two-momentum ${\bf

138: k}_T$ and are off mass shell. This implies the notion of an

139: unintegrated gluon distribution function $\Phi(x,|{\bf

140: k}_T|^2,\mu^2)$. The resummation is then implemented by the BFKL

141: evolution equation \cite{BFKL}.

142: 

143: Effective Feynman rules for processes involving incoming off-shell gluons were

144: provided in Ref.~\cite{KTCollins}.

145: The special trick is to choose the polarization four-vector of the incoming

146: gluon as

147: %

148: \begin{equation}

149: \varepsilon^\mu(k_T)=\frac{k_T^\mu}{|{\bf

150: k}_T|},\label{eq:pol}

151: \end{equation}

152: %

153: where $k_T^\mu=(0,{\bf k}_T,0)$ is the transverse four-momentum of the gluon.

154: %, with $k_T^2=-|{\bf k}_T|^2$.

155: In the case of gluon-gluon fusion, the four-momenta of the incoming gluons can

156: be written as

157: %

158: \begin{eqnarray}

159: k_1^\mu=x_1P_1^\mu+k_{1T}^\mu,

160: \nonumber\\

161: k_2^\mu=x_2P_2^\mu+k_{2T}^\mu,

162: \end{eqnarray}

163: %

164: where $P_1^\mu=(\sqrt{S}/2)(1,0,0,1)$ and $P_2^\mu=(\sqrt{S}/2)(1,0,0,-1)$ are

165: the four-momenta of the colliding protons in the center-of-mass frame.

166: In the following, we shall also use the short-hand notation $p_T=|{\bf p}_T|$

167: etc.\ for the absolute of the transverse two-momentum.

168: 

169: In Ref.~\cite{KTLipatovFadin}, the incoming off-shell gluons are considered

170: as Reggeons (or reggeized gluons), which are interacting with quarks and

171: on-shell Yang-Mills gluons in a specific way.

172: Recently, in Ref.~\cite{KTAntonov}, the Feynman rules for the effective field

173: theory based on the non-abelian gauge-invariant action \cite{KTLipatov} were

174: derived for the vertices $RRg$, $Rgg$, $RRgg$, $Rggg$, and $RRggg$, where $R$

175: is an off-shell reggeized gluon and $g$ is an on-shell Yang-Mills gluon.

176: The interaction of a reggeized gluon with a quark is mediated via the

177: transition vertex $Rg$.

178: For the relevant LO amplitudes, which are calculated below, both approaches

179: \cite{KTCollins,KTLipatovFadin} give the same answers.

180: As was shown in Ref.~\cite{PRD2003}, the effective vertex $RRg$

181: \cite{KTLipatovFadin} can be obtained using the prescription

182: \cite{KTCollins} for the off-shell gluon polarization four-vector of

183: Eq.~(\ref{eq:pol}).

184: 

185: In the $k_T$-factorization approach, which is based on the high-energy limit

186: of QCD, the hadronic cross section of quarkonium (${\cal H}$) production

187: through the process

188: %

189: \begin{equation}

190: p + p \to {\cal H} + X \label{eq:ppHX}

191: \end{equation}

192: %

193: and the partonic cross section for the reggeized-gluon fusion subprocess

194: %

195: \begin{equation}

196: R + R \to {\cal H} + X\label{eq:RRHX}

197: \end{equation}

198: %

199: are related as

200: %

201: \begin{eqnarray}

202: \lefteqn{d\sigma^{\mathrm{KT}}(p + p \to {\cal H} + X, S)= \int{\frac{d

203: x_1}{x_1}} \int{d|{\bf k}_{1T}|^2}\int{\frac{d \varphi_1}{2

204: \pi}}\Phi(x_1,|{\bf k}_{1T}|^2,\mu^2)}

205: \nonumber\\

206: &\times&\int{\frac{d x_2}{x_2}} \int{d|{\bf

207: k}_{2T}|^2}\int{\frac{d \varphi_2}{2 \pi}}\Phi(x_2,|{\bf

208: k}_{2T}|^2,\mu^2) d\hat \sigma(R + R \to {\cal H} + X, {\bf

209: k}_{1T},{\bf k}_{2T}, \hat s), \label{eq:KT}

210: \end{eqnarray}

211: %

212: where $\hat s = x_1 x_2 S - ({\bf k}_{1T}+{\bf k}_{2T})^2$, $x_{1,2}$ are the

213: fractions of the proton momenta passed on to the reggeized gluons, and

214: $\varphi_{1,2}$ are the angles enclosed between ${\bf k}_{1,2T}$ and the

215: transverse momentum ${\bf p}_T$ of ${\cal H}$, which we take to point along

216: the $x$ axis.

217: 

218: In our numerical calculations, we use the unintegrated gluon distribution

219: functions by Bl\"umlein (JB) \cite{JB}, by Jung and Salam (JS) \cite{JS}, and

220: by Kimber, Martin, and Ryskin (KMR) \cite{KMR}.

221: A direct comparison between different unintegrated gluon distributions as

222: functions of $x$, $|{\bf k}_T|^2$, and $\mu^2$ may be found in

223: Ref.~\cite{PLB2002}.

224: Note, that the JB version is based on the BFKL evolution equation \cite{BFKL}.

225: On the contrary, the JS and KMR versions were obtained using the more

226: complicated Catani-Ciafaloni-Fiorani-Marchesini (CCFM) evolution equation

227: \cite{CCFM}, which takes into account both large logarithms of the types

228: $\ln(1/x)$ and $\ln(\mu/\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$.

229: 

230: For $\mu\gg \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ and not too small $x=\mu/\sqrt{S}$, the

231: collinear approximation of the conventional parton model is recovered.

232: In the collinear parton model, the hadronic cross section

233: $d\sigma(p + p \to {\cal H} + X, S)$ and the relevant partonic cross section

234: $d\hat \sigma(g + g \to {\cal H} + X, \hat s)$ are related as

235: \begin{equation}

236: d\sigma^{\rm PM}(p + p \to {\cal H} + X, S)=\int dx_1\, G(x_1,\mu^2) \int

237: dx_2\, G(x_2,\mu^2)d \hat \sigma(g + g \to {\cal H} + X,\hat s),

238: \label{eq:PM}

239: \end{equation}

240: where $\hat s=x_1 x_2 S$ and $G(x,\mu^2)$ is the collinear gluon

241: distribution function of the proton, which satisfies the DGLAP \cite{DGLAP}

242: evolution equation.

243: The collinear and the unintegrated gluon distribution functions are formally

244: related as

245: \begin{equation}

246: x G(x,\mu^2)=\int_0^{\mu^2}{d|{\bf k}_{T}|^2}\,\Phi(x,|{\bf

247: k}_{T}|^2,\mu^2),

248: \end{equation}

249: so that the normalizations of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:KT}) and (\ref{eq:PM}) agree.

250: 

251: \section{\label{sec:three}NRQCD formalism}

252: 

253: In the framework of the NRQCD factorization approach \cite{NRQCD}, the

254: cross section of heavy-quarkonium production via a partonic subprocess

255: $a + b \to {\cal H} + X$ may be presented as a sum of terms in

256: which the effects of long and short distances are factorized as

257: %

258: \begin{equation}

259: d\hat \sigma (a + b \to {\cal H} + X)=\sum_n

260: d\hat \sigma (a + b \to Q\bar Q[n] + X)\langle{\cal O}^{\cal H}[n]\rangle,

261: \end{equation}

262: %

263: where $n$ denotes the set of color, spin, orbital and total angular momentum

264: quantum numbers of the $Q\bar Q$ pair and the four-momentum of the latter is

265: assumed to be equal to the one of the physical quarkonium state ${\cal H}$.

266: The cross section $d\hat \sigma (a + b \to Q\bar Q[n] + X)$ can be calculated

267: in perturbative QCD as an expansion in $\alpha_s$ using the non-relativistic

268: approximation for the relative motion of the heavy quarks in the $Q\bar Q$

269: pair.

270: The non-perturbative transition of the $Q\bar Q$ pair into ${\cal H}$ is

271: described by the NMEs $\langle {\cal O}^{\cal H}[n]\rangle$, which can be

272: extracted from experimental data.

273: 

274: To LO in $v$, we need to include the $c\bar c$ Fock states

275: $n = {^3S}_1^{(1)}, {^3S}_1^{(8)}, {^1S}_0^{(8)}, {^3P}_J^{(8)}$ if

276: ${\cal H} = J/\psi, \psi^\prime$ and

277: $n = {^3P}_J^{(1)}, {^3S}_1^{(8)}$ if ${\cal H} = \chi_{cJ}$, where $J=0,1,2$.

278: Their NMEs satisfy the multiplicity relations

279: \begin{eqnarray}

280: \langle{\cal

281: O}^{\psi(nS)}[^3P_J^{(8)}]\rangle&=&(2J+1)\langle{\cal

282: O}^{\psi(nS)}[^3P_0^{(8)}]\rangle,\nonumber\\

283: \langle{\cal

284: O}^{\chi_{cJ}}[^3P_J^{(1)}]\rangle&=&(2J+1)\langle{\cal

285: O}^{\chi_{c0}}[^3P_0^{(1)}]\rangle,\nonumber\\

286: \langle{\cal

287: O}^{\chi_{cJ}}[^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle&=&(2J+1)\langle{\cal

288: O}^{\chi_{c0}}[^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle,

289: \end{eqnarray}

290: which follow to LO in $v$ from heavy-quark spin symmetry.

291: For example, in the case of $J/\psi$ production, the wave function of the

292: physical orthocharmonium state can be presented as a superposition of the Fock

293: states:

294: %

295: \begin{eqnarray}

296: |J/\psi \rangle&=&{\cal O}(v^0)|c\bar c [^3S_1^{(1)}]\rangle+{\cal

297: O}(v^1)|c\bar c [^3P_J^{(8)}]g\rangle +{\cal

298: O}(v^2)|c\bar c [^3S_1^{(1,8)}]gg\rangle

299: \nonumber\\

300: &&{}+{\cal O}(v^2)|c\bar c

301: [^1S_0^{(8)}]g\rangle+\cdots,\label{eq:JPsi}

302: \end{eqnarray}

303: %

304: where we use usual spectroscopic notation for the angular-momentum quantum

305: numbers of the $Q\bar Q$ pair and the index in parentheses $(1,8)$ denotes the

306: color state, either color singlet or color octet.

307: The color-singlet model (CSM) \cite{CSM} only takes into account the first

308: term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:JPsi}), which is of order $v^0$.

309: In this case, the NME $\langle{\cal O}^{J/\psi}[^3 S_1^{(1)}]\rangle$ is

310: directly related to the $J/\psi$ wave function at the origin $\Psi(0)$, which

311: can be calculated in the framework of the quark potential model \cite{QPM}, as

312: %

313: \begin{equation}

314: \langle {\cal O}^{J/\psi}[^3S_1^{(1)}]\rangle=2N_c(2J+1)|\Psi (0)|^2,

315: \end{equation}

316: %

317: where $N_c=3$ and $J=1$.

318: Similarly, the color-singlet $P$-wave NME reads

319: \begin{equation}

320: \langle{\cal O}^{\chi_{cJ}}[^3

321: P_J^{(1)}]\rangle=2N_c(2J+1)|\Psi^\prime(0)|^2,

322: \end{equation}

323: where $\Psi^\prime(0)$ is the derivative of the $\chi_{cJ}$ wave function at

324: the origin.

325: 

326: In the general case, the partonic cross section of quarkonium production

327: receives from the $Q\bar Q$ Fock state $n={}^{2S+1}L_J^{(1,8)}$ the

328: contribution \cite{NRQCD,Maltoni}

329: \begin{equation}

330: d\hat \sigma (a + b \to Q\bar Q[{}^{2S+1}L_J^{(1,8)}] \to {\cal

331: H})=d\hat \sigma (a + b \to Q\bar

332: Q[^{2S+1}L_J^{(1,8)}])\frac{\langle {\cal O}^{\cal

333: H}[^{2S+1}L_J^{(1,8)}]\rangle}{N_\mathrm{col}N_\mathrm{pol}},

334: \end{equation}

335: where $N_\mathrm{col}=2 N_c$ for the color-singlet state,

336: $N_\mathrm{col}=N_c^2-1$ for the color-octet state, and $N_\mathrm{pol}=2J+1$.

337: The partonic cross section of $Q\bar Q$ production is defined as

338: \begin{equation}

339: d\hat\sigma(a + b \to Q\bar

340: Q[^{2S+1}L_J^{(1,8)}])=\frac{1}{I}\overline{|{\cal A}(a + b

341: \to Q\bar Q[^{2S+1}L_J^{(1,8)}])|^2}d\Phi,

342: \end{equation}

343: where $I$ is the flux factor of the incoming particles, which is taken as in

344: the collinear parton model \cite{KTCollins} (for example,

345: $I= 2 x_1 x_2 S$ for process~(\ref{eq:RRHX})),

346: ${\cal A}(a + b \to Q\bar Q[^{2S+1}L_J^{(1,8)}])$ is the production amplitude,

347: the bar indicates average (summation) over initial-state (final-state)

348: spins and colors, and $d\Phi$ is the phase space volume of the outgoing

349: particles.

350: This convention implies that the cross section in the $k_T$-factorization

351: approach is normalized approximately to the cross section for on-shell gluons

352: when ${\bf k}_{1T}={\bf k}_{2T}={\bf0}$.

353: 

354: The production amplitude ${\cal A}(a + b \to Q\bar Q[^{2S+1}L_J^{(1,8)}])$ can

355: be obtained from the one for an unspecified $Q\bar Q$ state,

356: ${\cal A}(a + b \to Q\bar Q)$, by the application of appropriate projectors.

357: The projectors on the spin-zero and spin-one states read \cite{Guberina}:

358: \begin{eqnarray}

359: \Pi_0&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{8m^3}}\left(\frac{\hat p}{2}-\hat

360: q-m\right)\gamma_5\left(\frac{\hat p}{2}+\hat q+m\right),

361: \nonumber\\

362: \Pi_1^\alpha&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{8m^3}}\left(\frac{\hat p}{2}-\hat

363: q-m\right)\gamma^\alpha\left(\frac{\hat p}{2}+\hat

364: q+m\right),

365: \end{eqnarray}

366: respectively, where $\hat p=\gamma^\mu p_\mu$, $p^\mu$ is the four-momentum of

367: the $Q\bar Q$ pair, $q^\mu$ is the four-momentum of the relative motion,

368: $m=M/2$ is the mass of the quark $Q$, and $M$ is the mass of the quarkonium

369: state ${\cal H}$.

370: In our numerical calculations, we use $m_c=1.55$ GeV.

371: The projection operators for the color-singlet and color-octet states read:

372: \begin{eqnarray}

373: C_1=\frac{\delta_{ij}}{\sqrt{N_c}},\nonumber\\

374: C_8=\sqrt{2}T^a_{ij},

375: \end{eqnarray}

376: respectively, where $T^a$ with $a=1,\ldots,N_c^2-1$ are the generators of the

377: color gauge group SU(3).

378: To obtain the projection on a state with orbital-angular-momentum quantum

379: number $L$, we need to take $L$ times the derivative with respect to $q$ and

380: then put $q=0$.

381: For the processes discussed here, we have

382: \begin{eqnarray}

383: {\cal A}(a + b \to Q\bar Q[^1S_0^{(1,8)}])&=&\mbox{Tr}\left[

384: C_{1,8}\Pi_0{\cal A}(a + b \to Q\bar Q)\right]_{q=0},

385: \nonumber\\

386: {\cal A}(a + b \to Q\bar Q [^3S_1^{(1,8)}])&=&\mbox{Tr}\left[

387: C_{1,8}\Pi_1^\alpha{\cal

388: A}(a + b \to Q\bar Q)\varepsilon_\alpha(p)\right]_{q=0},

389: \nonumber\\

390: {\cal A}(a + b \to Q\bar Q

391: [^3P_J^{(1,8)}])&=&\frac{d}{dq_\beta}\mbox{Tr}\left[

392: C_{1,8}\Pi_1^\alpha{\cal A}(a + b \to Q\bar Q

393: )\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}(p)\right]_{q=0},

394: \end{eqnarray}

395: where $\varepsilon_\alpha(p)$ is the polarization four-vector of a spin-one

396: particle with four-momentum $p^\mu$ and mass $M=p^2$ and

397: $\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}(p)$ is its counterpart for a spin-two particle.

398: For the ${}^3 S_1$ state, the polarization sum reads

399: \begin{equation}

400: \sum_{J_z}\varepsilon_\alpha(p)\varepsilon^*_{\alpha^\prime}(p)

401: ={\cal P}_{\alpha\alpha^\prime}(p)

402: =-g_{\alpha\alpha^\prime}+\frac{p_\alpha p_{\alpha^\prime}}{M^2}.

403: \end{equation}

404: For the ${}^3 P_J$ states with $J=0,1,2$, we have

405: \begin{eqnarray}

406: \varepsilon^{(0)}_{\alpha\beta}(p)

407: \varepsilon^{(0)*}_{\alpha^\prime\beta^\prime}(p)&=&

408: \frac{1}{3}{\cal P}_{\alpha\beta}(p)

409: {\cal P}_{\alpha^\prime\beta^\prime}(p),

410: \nonumber\\

411: \sum_{J_z}\varepsilon^{(1)}_{\alpha\beta}(p)

412: \varepsilon^{(1)*}_{\alpha^\prime\beta^\prime}(p)&=&

413: \frac{1}{2}\left[{\cal P}_{\alpha\alpha^\prime}(p){\cal

414: P}_{\beta\beta^\prime}(p)-{\cal P}_{\alpha\beta^\prime}(p){\cal

415: P}_{\alpha^\prime\beta}(p)\right],

416: \nonumber\\

417: \sum_{J_z}\varepsilon^{(2)}_{\alpha\beta}(p)

418: \varepsilon^{(2)*}_{\alpha^\prime\beta^\prime}(p)&=&

419: \frac{1}{2}\left[{\cal P}_{\alpha\alpha^\prime}(p){\cal

420: P}_{\beta\beta^\prime}(p)+{\cal P}_{\alpha\beta^\prime}(p){\cal

421: P}_{\alpha^\prime\beta}(p)\right]-\frac{1}{3}{\cal P}_{\alpha\beta}{\cal

422: P}_{\alpha^\prime\beta^\prime}(p).

423: \end{eqnarray}

424: 

425: The subprocesses relevant for our analysis read:

426: $R + R\to Q\bar Q$, $R + R \to Q\overline{Q} + g$,

427: $R + \gamma \to Q\overline{Q}$, $R+ \gamma \to Q\overline{Q} + g$,

428: $R + e \to e + Q\overline{Q}$, and $R + e \to e + Q\overline{Q} + g$.

429: 

430: \section{\label{sec:four}Charmonium production by reggeized gluons}

431: 

432: In this section, we obtain the squared amplitudes for inclusive

433: charmonium production via the fusion of two reggeized gluons or a

434: reggeized gluon and a real or virtual photon in the framework of

435: NRQCD. We work at LO in $\alpha_s$ and $v$ and consider the

436: following partonic subprocesses:

437: \begin{eqnarray}

438: R + R &\to& {\cal H} [{^3P}_J^{(1)},{^3S}_1^{(8)},{^1S}_0^{(8)},{^3P}_J^{(8)}],

439: \label{eq:RRtoH}\\

440: R + R &\to& {\cal H} [{^3S}_1^{(1)}] + g,

441: \label{eq:RRtoHG}\\

442: R+\gamma &\to&  {\cal H} [{^3S}_1^{(8)},{^1S}_0^{(8)},{^3P}_J^{(8)}],

443: \label{eq:FRtoH}\\

444: R+\gamma &\to& {\cal H} [{^3S}_1^{(1)}] + g,

445: \label{eq:FRtoHG}\\

446: R + e &\to&  e + {\cal H} [{^3S}_1^{(8)},{^1S}_0^{(8)},{^3P}_J^{(8)}],

447: \label{eq:eRtoH}\\

448: R + e &\to& e + {\cal H} [{^3S}_1^{(1)}] + g.

449: \label{eq:eRtoHG}

450: \end{eqnarray}

451: Notice that, in the collinear parton model, subprocesses (\ref{eq:RRtoH}),

452: (\ref{eq:FRtoH}), and (\ref{eq:eRtoH}) only contribute for $p_T\approx 0$.

453: Therefore, to LO in the collinear parton model, we need to take into account

454: the corresponding subprocesses with an additional hard gluon in the final

455: state, for example $g + g \to {\cal H}[^3S_1^{(8)}] + g$.

456: The amplitudes of these color-octet subprocesses, after replacing $g\to R$ in

457: the initial state, are of next-to-leading order (NLO) in the

458: $k_T$-factorization approach and suffer from infrared divergences, in contrast

459: to the subprocesses (\ref{eq:RRtoHG}) and (\ref{eq:FRtoHG}) in the

460: color-singlet channel.

461: The analysis of NLO contributions to inclusive charmonium production by

462: reggeized gluon-gluon fusion in the $k_T$-factorization approach is beyond the

463: scope of this paper and needs a separate investigation.

464: 

465: The phenomenological procedure, adopted in Ref.~\cite{CDFBaranov}, to

466: regularize infrared divergences due to propagators getting on-shell with the

467: help of some cut parameter, which is unknown a priori, is likely to be

468: problematic.

469: The analysis of NLO corrections in the $k_T$-factorization approach is

470: currently an open issue, which has been consistently solved only in part,

471: {\it e.g.}\ in Ref. \cite{Ostrovsky}, where NLO corrections to the subprocess

472: $R + R \to g$ were studied.

473: 

474: According to the prescription of Ref.~\cite{KTCollins}, the amplitude of

475: $R + R \to c + \bar c (+ g)$ is related to the one of

476: $g + g \to c + \bar c (+ g)$ by

477: \begin{equation}

478: {\cal A}(R + R \to c + \bar c (+ g))=\varepsilon^\mu(k_1)

479: \varepsilon^\nu(k_2){\cal A}_{\mu\nu}(g + g \to c + \bar c (+g)),

480: \label{eq:RRcc}

481: \end{equation}

482: where $\varepsilon^\mu(k_1)$ and $\varepsilon^\mu(k_2)$ are defined according

483: to Eq.~(\ref{eq:pol}).

484: Analogous relations hold for $R + \gamma \to c + \bar c (+ g)$ and

485: $R + e\to e + c + \bar c (+ g)$.

486: The amplitudes of the relevant QCD subprocesses $g + g \to c + \bar c (+ g)$,

487: $g + \gamma \to c + \bar c (+ g)$, and $g + e \to e+ c + \bar c (+ g)$ are

488: evaluated using the conventional Feynman rules of QCD.

489: 

490: We now present and discuss our results for the squared amplitudes of

491: subprocesses~(\ref{eq:RRtoH}) and (\ref{eq:RRtoHG}), contributing to

492: hadroproduction.

493: In the case of the $2\to1$ subprocesses~(\ref{eq:RRtoH}), we obtain

494: \begin{eqnarray}

495: \overline{|{\cal A}(R + R \to {\cal H}[^3P_0^{(1)}]|^2}

496: &=&\frac{8}{3}\pi^2 \alpha_s^2\frac{\langle{\cal

497: O}^{\cal H}[^3P_0^{(1)}]\rangle}{M^5}

498: F^{[^3P_0]}(t_1,t_2,\varphi),

499: %\label{eq:vgvgChic03p01}

500: \nonumber\\

501: \overline{|{\cal A}(R + R \to {\cal H}[^3P_1^{(1)}]|^2}

502: &=&\frac{16}{3}\pi^2 \alpha_s^2\frac{\langle{\cal

503: O}^{\cal H}[^3P_1^{(1)}]\rangle}{M^5}

504: F^{[^3P_1]}(t_1,t_2,\varphi),

505: %\label{eq:vgvgChic13p11}

506: \nonumber\\

507: \overline{|{\cal A}(R + R \to {\cal H}[^3P_2^{(1)}]|^2}

508: &=&\frac{32}{45}\pi^2

509: \alpha_s^2\frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal H}[^3P_2^{(1)}]\rangle}{M^5}

510: F^{[^3P_2]}(t_1,t_2,\varphi),

511: %\label{eq:vgvgChic23p21}

512: \nonumber\\

513: \overline{|{\cal A}(R + R \to {\cal H}[^3S_1^{(8)}]|^2}

514: &=&\frac{1}{2}\pi^2\alpha_s^2\frac{\langle{\cal

515: O}^{\cal H}[^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle}{M^3}

516: F^{[^3S_1]}(t_1,t_2,\varphi),

517: \nonumber\\

518: \overline{|{\cal A}(R + R \to {\cal H}[^1S_0^{(8)}]|^2}

519: &=&\frac{5}{12}\pi^2\alpha_s^2\frac{\langle{\cal

520: O}^{\cal H}[^1S_0^{(8)}]\rangle}{M^3}

521: F^{[^1S_0]}(t_1,t_2,\varphi),

522: %\label{eq:vgvgJPsi1s08}

523: \nonumber\\

524: \overline{|{\cal A}(R + R \to {\cal H}[^3P_0^{(8)}]|^2}

525: &=&5 \pi^2

526: \alpha_s^2\frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal H}[^3P_0^{(8)}]\rangle}{M^5}

527: F^{[^3P_0]}(t_1,t_2,\varphi),

528: %\label{eq:vgvgJPsi3p08}

529: \nonumber\\

530: \overline{|{\cal A}(R + R \to {\cal H}[^3P_1^{(8)}]|^2}

531: &=&10 \pi^2

532: \alpha_s^2\frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal H}[^3P_1^{(8)}]\rangle}{M^5}

533: F^{[^3P_1]}(t_1,t_2,\varphi),

534: %\label{eq:vgvgJPsi3p18}

535: \nonumber\\

536: \overline{|{\cal A}(R + R \to {\cal H}[^3P_2^{(8)}]|^2}

537: &=&\frac{4}{3}\pi^2 \alpha_s^2\frac{\langle{\cal

538: O}^{\cal H}[^3P_2^{(8)}]\rangle}{M^5}

539: F^{[^3P_2]}(t_1,t_2,\varphi),

540: \label{eq:vgvgJPsi3p28}

541: \end{eqnarray}

542: where

543: \begin{eqnarray}

544: F^{[^3S_1]}(t_1,t_2,\varphi)

545: &=&\frac{\left( M^2 + |{\bf p}_T|^{2}\right)

546: \left[ (t_1+t_2)^2 + M^2 \left(t_1+t_2-2\sqrt{t_1 t_2}

547: \cos\varphi\right)\right]}{(M^2+t_1+t_2)^2},

548: \nonumber\\

549: F^{[^1S_0]}(t_1,t_2,\varphi)

550: &=&2 \frac{M^2}{(M^2+t_1+t_2)^2}

551: \left(M^2+|{\bf p}_T|^{2}\right)^2\sin^2{\varphi},

552: \nonumber\\

553: F^{[^3P_0]}(t_1,t_2,\varphi)

554: &=&\frac{2}{9}\,\frac{M^2

555: \left(M^2 + |{\bf p}_T|^2 \right)^2\left[(3 M^2 +t_1+t_2)

556: \cos{\varphi} + 2\sqrt{t_1 t_2}\right]^2}{(M^2 + t_1 + t_2)^4},

557: \nonumber\\

558: F^{[^3P_1]}(t_1,t_2,\varphi)

559: &=&\frac{2}{9}\,\frac{M^2

560: \left(M^2 + |{\bf p}_T|^2 \right)^2

561: \left[(t_1+t_2)^2 \sin^2{\varphi} + M^2 \left(t_1+t_2-2\sqrt{t_1

562: t_2}\cos{\varphi}\right)\right]}{(M^2 + t_1 + t_2)^4},

563: \nonumber\\

564: F^{[^3P_2]}(t_1,t_2,\varphi)

565: &=&\frac{1}{3}\,

566: \frac{M^2}{(M^2+t_1+t_2)^4} \left(M^2+|{\bf p}_T|^2\right)^2 \left\{3 M^4 +

567: 3M^2(t_1+t_2)+4t_1 t_2 \right.

568: \nonumber\\

569: &&{}+\left.

570: (t_1+t_2)^2\cos^2{\varphi}+2 \sqrt{t_1 t_2}\left[3

571: M^2 +2 (t_1+t_2)\right]\cos{\varphi}\right\}.

572: \end{eqnarray}

573: Here ${\bf p}_T={\bf k}_{1T}+{\bf k}_{2T}$,

574: $t_{1,2}= |{\bf k}_{{1,2}T}|^2$, and $\varphi=\varphi_1-\varphi_2$ is the

575: angle enclosed between ${\bf k}_{1T}$ and ${\bf k}_{2T}$, so that

576: \begin{equation}

577: |{\bf p}_T|^{2}=t_1+t_2+2\sqrt{t_1 t_2}\cos\varphi.

578: \end{equation}

579: 

580: It is interesting to consider the contribution of the diagram involving a

581: three-gluon vertex separately.

582: It is equal to

583: \begin{equation}

584: \overline{|{\cal A}_3(R + R \to {\cal

585: H}[^3S_1^{(8)}])|^2}=\pi^2\alpha_s^2\frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal

586: H}[^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle}{2M^3} (M^2\cos ^2\varphi+|{\bf

587: p}_T|^{2}).

588: \end{equation}

589: For $|{\bf p}_T|^2 \gg M^2$, one has

590: \begin{equation}

591: \overline{|{\cal A}_3(R + R \to {\cal

592: H}[^3S_1^{(8)}])|^2}\approx\pi^2\alpha_s^2\frac{\langle{\cal

593: O}^{\cal H}[^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle}{2M^3}|{\bf

594: p}_T|^{2},

595: \label{eq:vgvgJPsi3s18}

596: \end{equation}

597: which makes up the bulk of the contribution and can be interpreted as being

598: due to the fragmentation production of the ${\cal H}$ meson.

599: In fact, the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:vgvgJPsi3s18}) can be written in

600: the factorized form

601: \begin{equation}

602: \overline{|{\cal A}_3(R + R \to {\cal H}[^3S_1^{(8)}])|^2}\approx

603: \overline{|{\cal A}(R + R \to g)|^2}P(g \to {\cal H}[^3S_1^{(8)}]),

604: \end{equation}

605: where

606: \begin{equation}

607: \overline{|{\cal A}(R + R \to g)|^2}=\frac{3}{2}\pi\alpha_s |{\bf p}_T|^{2}

608: \end{equation}

609: refers to real-gluon production by reggeized-gluon fusion \cite{PRD2003} and

610: \begin{equation}

611: P(g \to {\cal H}[^3S_1^{(8)}])=\pi\alpha_s

612: \frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal H}[^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle}{3M^3}

613: \end{equation}

614: is the probability for the fragmentation of a gluon to a ${\cal H}$ meson,

615: which may be gleaned from the result for the corresponding fragmentation

616: function at the starting scale $\mu_0$ \cite{FFBraaten},

617: \begin{equation}

618: D_{g \to {\cal H}[^3S_1^{(8)}]}(z,\mu_0)

619: =\pi\alpha_s\frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal H}[^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle}{3M^3}

620: \delta(1-z).

621: \end{equation}

622: 

623: The counterparts of Eq.~(\ref{eq:vgvgJPsi3p28}) in the collinear parton model

624: of QCD emerge through the operation

625: \begin{equation}

626: \overline{|{\cal A}(g + g \to {\cal

627: H}[^{2S+1}L_J^{(1,8)}]|^2}=\lim_{t_1,t_2\to0}\int_0^{2\pi}

628: \frac{d\varphi_1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\frac{d\varphi_2}{2\pi}\overline{|{\cal

629: A}(R + R \to {\cal H}[^{2S+1}L_J^{(1,8)}]|^2}.

630: \label{eq:limit}

631: \end{equation}

632: In this way, we recover the well-known results \cite{Leibovich}:

633: \begin{eqnarray}

634: \overline{|{\cal A}(g + g \to {\cal H}[^{3}P_0^{(1)}]|^2}

635: &=&\frac{8}{3}\pi^2\alpha_s^2 \frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal

636: H}[^3P_0^{(1)}]\rangle}{M^3},

637: \nonumber\\

638: \overline{|{\cal A}(g + g \to {\cal H}[^{3}P_1^{(1)}]|^2}

639: &=&0,

640: \nonumber\\

641: \overline{|{\cal A}(g + g \to {\cal H}[^{3}P_2^{(1)}]|^2}

642: &=&\frac{32}{45}\pi^2\alpha_s^2 \frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal

643: H}[^3P_2^{(1)}]\rangle}{M^3},

644: \nonumber\\

645: \overline{|{\cal A}(g + g \to {\cal H}[^{3}S_1^{(8)}]|^2}

646: &=&0,

647: \nonumber\\

648: \overline{|{\cal A}(g + g \to {\cal H}[^{1}S_0^{(8)}]|^2}

649: &=&\frac{5}{12}\pi^2\alpha_s^2

650: \frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal H}[^1S_0^{(8)}]\rangle}{M},

651: \nonumber\\

652: \overline{|{\cal A}(g + g \to {\cal H}[^{3}P_0^{(8)}]|^2}

653: &=&5\pi^2\alpha_s^2\frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal H}[^3P_0^{(8)}]\rangle}{M^3},

654: \nonumber\\

655: \overline{|{\cal A}(g + g \to {\cal H}[^{3}P_1^{(8)}]|^2}

656: &=&0,

657: \nonumber\\

658: \overline{|{\cal A}(g + g \to {\cal H}[^{3}P_2^{(8)}]|^2}

659: &=&\frac{4}{3}\pi^2\alpha_s^2

660: \frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal H}[^3P_2^{(8)}]\rangle}{M^3}.

661: \end{eqnarray}

662: 

663: In the case of the $2\to2$ subprocess~(\ref{eq:RRtoHG}), we find

664: \begin{eqnarray}

665: \lefteqn{\overline{|{\cal A}(R + R \to {\cal H}[^{3}S_1^{(1)}] +

666: g|^2}=\pi^3 \alpha_s^3\frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal

667: H}[^3S_1^{(1)}]\rangle}{M^3}}

668: \nonumber\\

669: &&{}\times\frac{-320 M^4}{81

670: (M^2 - {\hat s})^2 (M^2 +t_1- {\hat t})^2 (M^2 +t_2- {\hat u})^2}

671:  (4 t_1 t_2 M^2 (t_1 + t_2 +

672: M^2)^2  \cos^4(\varphi_1 - \varphi_2)

673: \nonumber\\

674: &&{}- 2 \sqrt{t_1 t_2} (t_1 + t_2 + M^2) \cos^3(\varphi_1 -

675: \varphi_2) (-t_2^2 M^2 - 3 M^6 + t_2^2 {\hat t} + 3 M^4 {\hat t} +

676: t_2 M^2 {\hat u} + 3 M^4 {\hat u}

677: \nonumber\\

678: &&{}+ t_2 {\hat t} {\hat u} - M^2 {\hat t}

679: {\hat u} + t_1^2 (t_2 - M^2 + {\hat u}) + t_1 (t_2^2 + {\hat t}

680: (M^2 + {\hat u}) + t_2 (5 M^2 + {\hat t} + {\hat u}))

681: \nonumber\\

682: &&{}- 2 \sqrt{t_2} |{\bf p}_T| (t_1^2 - (t_2 - M^2) (M^2

683: - {\hat t}) + t_1 (t_2 + 2 M^2 + {\hat t})) \cos{\varphi_2})

684: \nonumber\\

685: &&{}- (-M^2 + {\hat t} + {\hat u})^2 (t_2^2 M^2 + t_2 M^4

686: + t_1^2 (t_2 + M^2) + t_2 {\hat t}^2 + M^2 {\hat t}^2 + M^2 {\hat

687: u}^2

688: \nonumber\\

689: &&{}+ t_1 (t_2^2 + M^4 + {\hat u}^2 + 2 t_2 (4 M^2 +

690: {\hat t} + {\hat u})) - 2 \sqrt{t_2} |{\bf p}_T| (t_1^2 + (t_2 +

691: M^2) (M^2 - {\hat t})

692: \nonumber\\

693: &&{}+ t_1 (t_2 + 8 M^2 + {\hat t} +

694: 2 {\hat u})) \cos{\varphi_2} + (t_1^2 + (t_2 + M^2)^2 + 2 t_1 (t_2

695: + 5 M^2)) |{\bf p}_T|^2 \cos^2{\varphi_2})

696: \nonumber\\

697: &&{}+

698: \cos^2(\varphi_1 - \varphi_2) (t_2^3 M^4 - 2 t_2^2 M^6 + 5 t_2 M^8

699: - 2 t_2^3 M^2 {\hat t} + 4 t_2^2 M^4 {\hat t} - 10 t_2 M^6 {\hat

700: t} + t_2^3 {\hat t}^2

701: \nonumber\\

702: &&{}- 2 t_2^2 M^2 {\hat t}^2 + 5

703: t_2 M^4 {\hat t}^2 - t_2^3 M^2 {\hat u} - 7 t_2 M^6 {\hat u} +

704: t_2^3 {\hat t} {\hat u} - t_2^2 M^2 {\hat t} {\hat u} + 11 t_2 M^4

705: {\hat t} {\hat u} - 3 M^6 {\hat t} {\hat u}

706: \nonumber\\

707: &&{}+ t_2^2

708: {\hat t}^2 {\hat u} - 4 t_2 M^2 {\hat t}^2 {\hat u} + 3 M^4 {\hat

709: t}^2 {\hat u} + 2 t_2 M^4 {\hat u}^2 + t_2^2 {\hat t} {\hat u}^2 +

710: 3 M^4 {\hat t} {\hat u}^2 - 2 M^2 {\hat t}^2 {\hat u}^2

711: \nonumber\\

712: &&{}+ t_1^3 (-4 t_2^2 + (M^2 - {\hat u}) (M^2 - {\hat t}

713: - {\hat u}) + t_2 (-5 M^2 + {\hat t} + {\hat u})) + t_1^2 (-4

714: t_2^3 - 2 M^6 + 4 M^4 {\hat u}

715: \nonumber\\

716: &&{}+ {\hat t} {\hat u}

717: ({\hat t} + {\hat u}) - 2 t_2^2 (12 M^2 + {\hat t} + {\hat u}) -

718: M^2 {\hat u} ({\hat t} + 2 {\hat u}) + t_2 (-25 M^4 + {\hat t}^2 +

719: 7 {\hat t} {\hat u} + 2 {\hat u}^2

720: \nonumber\\

721: &&{}+ M^2 (8 {\hat t}

722: + 15 {\hat u}))) + t_1 (5 M^8 - 4 M^2 {\hat t} {\hat u}^2 + t_2^3

723: (-5 M^2 + {\hat t} + {\hat u}) - M^6 (7 {\hat t} + 10 {\hat u})

724: \nonumber\\

725: &&{}+ M^4 (2 {\hat t}^2 + 11 {\hat t} {\hat u} + 5 {\hat

726: u}^2) + t_2^2 (-25 M^4 + 2 {\hat t}^2 + 7 {\hat t} {\hat u} +

727: {\hat u}^2 + M^2 (15 {\hat t} + 8 {\hat u}))

728: \nonumber\\

729: &&{}+ t_2

730: (-11 M^6 + 15 M^4 ({\hat t} + {\hat u}) + 6 {\hat t} {\hat u}

731: ({\hat t} + {\hat u}) - 2 M^2 (4 {\hat t}^2 + 3 {\hat t} {\hat u}

732: + 4 {\hat u}^2)))

733: \nonumber\\

734: &&{}+ 2 \sqrt{t_2} |{\bf p}_T| (t_1^4 +

735: t_1^3 (3 t_2 + 11 M^2 + {\hat s} + {\hat t}) + t_1^2 (3 t_2^2 + 7

736: M^4 + {\hat s} {\hat t} + t_2 (33 M^2 - 2 {\hat s} + 3 {\hat t})

737: \nonumber\\

738: &&{}+ M^2 (11 {\hat s} + 4 {\hat t})) + t_1 (t_2^3 - 3

739: M^6 - 4 M^2 {\hat t}^2 + 7 M^4 ({\hat s} + {\hat t}) + t_2^2 (5

740: M^2 + {\hat s} + 3 {\hat t})

741: \nonumber\\

742: &&{}+ t_2 (27 M^4 + 2 M^2

743: ({\hat s} - 10 {\hat t}) + 6 {\hat s} {\hat t})) - (M^2 - {\hat

744: t}) (t_2^3 - t_2 M^4 + t_2^2 {\hat s}

745: \nonumber\\

746: &&{}+ M^2 (-4 {\hat

747: t} ({\hat s} + {\hat t}) + M^2 (3 {\hat s} + 4 {\hat t}))))

748: \cos{\varphi_2}\ - 4 t_2 |{\bf p}_T|^2 (t_1^3 + 2 t_1^2 (t_2 + 2

749: M^2) + 2 (M^3 - M {\hat t})^2

750: \nonumber\\

751: &&{}+ t_1 (t_2^2 + 2 t_2

752: M^2 + 5 M^4 - 4 M^2 {\hat t})) \cos^2{\varphi_2}) - |{\bf p}_T|^2

753: \cos^2{\varphi_1} (2 t_1^3 t_2 + 4 t_1^2 t_2^2 + 2 t_1 t_2^3

754: \nonumber\\

755: &&{}+ 4 t_1^2 t_2 M^2 + 8 t_1 t_2^2 M^2 + t_1^2 M^4 + 12

756: t_1 t_2 M^4 + t_2^2 M^4 + 6 t_1 M^6 + 10 t_2 M^6 + M^8

757: \nonumber\\

758: &&{}+ 4 M^6 |{\bf p}_T|^2 - 2 t_1^2 M^2 {\hat t} - 4 t_1

759: t_2 M^2 {\hat t} - 2 t_2^2 M^2 {\hat t} - 4 t_1 M^4 {\hat t} - 20

760: t_2 M^4 {\hat t} - 2 M^6 {\hat t}

761: \nonumber\\

762: &&{}- 8 M^4 |{\bf

763: p}_T|^2 {\hat t} + t_1^2 {\hat t}^2 + 2 t_1 t_2 {\hat t}^2 + t_2^2

764: {\hat t}^2 + 2 t_1 M^2 {\hat t}^2 + 10 t_2 M^2 {\hat t}^2 + M^4

765: {\hat t}^2 + 4 M^2 |{\bf p}_T|^2 {\hat t}^2

766: \nonumber\\

767: &&{}- 2 t_1^2

768: M^2 {\hat u} - 12 t_1 t_2 M^2 {\hat u} - 2 t_2^2 M^2 {\hat u} - 12

769: t_1 M^4 {\hat u} - 20 t_2 M^4 {\hat u} - 2 M^6 {\hat u} - 8 M^4

770: |{\bf p}_T|^2 {\hat u}

771: \nonumber\\

772: &&{}+ 2 t_1^2 {\hat t} {\hat u} +

773: 4 t_1 t_2 {\hat t} {\hat u} + 2 t_2^2 {\hat t} {\hat u} + 4 t_1

774: M^2 {\hat t} {\hat u} + 20 t_2 M^2 {\hat t} {\hat u} + 2 M^4 {\hat

775: t} {\hat u} + 8 M^2 |{\bf p}_T|^2 {\hat t} {\hat u} + t_1^2 {\hat

776: u}^2

777: \nonumber\\

778: &&{}+ 2 t_1 t_2 {\hat u}^2 + t_2^2 {\hat u}^2 + 6

779: t_1 M^2 {\hat u}^2 + 10 t_2 M^2 {\hat u}^2 + M^4 {\hat u}^2 + 4

780: M^2 |{\bf p}_T|^2 {\hat u}^2

781: \nonumber\\

782: &&{}- 8 \sqrt{t_1} M^2 |{\bf

783: p}_T| (t_2 + M^2 - {\hat u}) (M^2 - {\hat t} - {\hat u})

784: \Bigr(\cos{\varphi_1} + \cos(\varphi_1 - 2

785: \varphi_2)\Bigr)

786: \nonumber\\

787: &&{} + 4 \sqrt{t_1 t_2} \cos(\varphi_1 -

788: \varphi_2) \Bigl(M^2-{\hat t}-{\hat u}\Bigr) \Bigl((t_1 + t_2)^2 +

789: M^2 (5 M^2 + 2 t_1 + 6 t_2 - 4 {\hat u})\Bigr)

790: \nonumber\\

791: &&{} + 2

792: t_1 \cos(2 (\varphi_1 - \varphi_2)) \Bigl( t_2 \Bigl( (t_1 +

793: t_2)^2 + M^2 (2 t_1 + 4 t_2 + 5 M^2 - 4 {\hat u}) \Bigr) + 2 M^2

794: \Bigl( M^2 - {\hat u} \Bigr)^2\Bigr)

795: \nonumber\\

796: &&{}- 16 M^2 |{\bf

797: p}_T| \sqrt{t_2} \cos{\varphi_2} \Bigr(M^2 - {\hat t} - {\hat u}

798: \Bigl)^2 + 4 M^2 |{\bf p}_T|^2 \cos(2 \varphi_2) \Bigr( M^2 (M^2 -

799: 2 {\hat t} - 2 {\hat u}) + ({\hat t} + {\hat u})^2 \Bigl)

800: \nonumber\\

801: &&{}- 2 \sqrt{t_1} (M^2 - {\hat t} - {\hat u})

802: \cos(\varphi_1 - \varphi_2) (-2 |{\bf p}_T| (2 t_1^2 t_2 - M^6 + 2

803: t_2^2 (M^2 - {\hat t}) + M^4 {\hat t} + M^4 {\hat u} - 2 M^2 {\hat

804: t} {\hat u}

805: \nonumber\\

806: &&{}+ t_2 (8 M^4 - 7 M^2 {\hat t} - {\hat t}

807: ({\hat t} + {\hat u})) + t_1 (2 t_2^2 + M^2 (3 M^2 - {\hat t} - 3

808: {\hat u}) + t_2 (11 M^2 + {\hat t} + 3 {\hat u}))) \cos{\varphi_2}

809: \nonumber\\

810: &&{}+ \sqrt{t_2} (2 t_2^2 M^2 + 7 t_2 M^4 - M^6 + t_2^2

811: |{\bf p}_T|^2 + 2 t_2 M^2 |{\bf p}_T|^2 + 5 M^4 |{\bf p}_T|^2

812: \nonumber\\

813: &&{}+ t_1^2 (2 t_2 + 2 M^2 + |{\bf p}_T|^2) - 4 t_2 M^2

814: {\hat t} - 4 M^2 |{\bf p}_T|^2 {\hat t} + t_2 {\hat t}^2 + 3 M^2

815: {\hat t}^2 - t_2 M^2 {\hat u} - t_2 {\hat t} {\hat u}

816: \nonumber\\

817: &&{}- M^2 {\hat t} {\hat u} - {\hat t}^2 {\hat u} + 3 M^2

818: {\hat u}^2 - {\hat t} {\hat u}^2 + t_1 (2 t_2^2 + 7 M^4 + M^2 (6

819: |{\bf p}_T|^2 - {\hat t} - 4 {\hat u}) + {\hat u} (-{\hat t} +

820: {\hat u})

821: \nonumber\\

822: &&{}+ t_2 (13 M^2 + 2 |{\bf p}_T|^2 + 3 ({\hat

823: t} + {\hat u}))) + |{\bf p}_T|^2 (t_1^2 + t_2^2 + 2 t_2 M^2 + 5

824: M^4 + 2 t_1 (t_2 + 3 M^2)

825: \nonumber\\

826: &&{}- 4 M^2 {\hat t}) \cos(2

827: \varphi_2))) + 2 |{\bf p}_T| \cos{\varphi_1} (2 t_1 \sqrt{t_2}

828: (t_1 + t_2 + M^2) (t_2^2 + M^4 - M^2 {\hat u}

829: \nonumber\\

830: &&{}+ t_1

831: (t_2 - M^2 + {\hat u}) + t_2 (2 M^2 + {\hat u})) \cos^3(\varphi_1

832: - \varphi_2) + \sqrt{t_1} \cos^2(\varphi_1 - \varphi_2) (t_2^4 +

833: 11 t_2^3 M^2 + 7 t_2^2 M^4

834: \nonumber\\

835: &&{}- 3 t_2 M^6 + t_2^3 {\hat

836: s} + 11 t_2^2 M^2 {\hat s} + 7 t_2 M^4 {\hat s} - 3 M^6 {\hat s} +

837: t_2^3 {\hat u} + 4 t_2^2 M^2 {\hat u} + 7 t_2 M^4 {\hat u} - 4 M^6

838: {\hat u}

839: \nonumber\\

840: &&{}+ t_2^2 {\hat s} {\hat u} + 7 M^4 {\hat s}

841: {\hat u} - 4 t_2 M^2 {\hat u}^2 + 8 M^4 {\hat u}^2 - 4 M^2 {\hat

842: s} {\hat u}^2 - 4 M^2 {\hat u}^3 + t_1^3 (t_2 - M^2 + {\hat u})

843: \nonumber\\

844: &&{}+ t_1^2 (3 t_2^2 + {\hat s} (-M^2 + {\hat u}) + t_2

845: (5 M^2 + {\hat s} + 3 {\hat u})) + t_1 (3 t_2^3 + M^6 - M^4 {\hat

846: u}

847: \nonumber\\

848: &&{}+ t_2^2 (33 M^2 - 2 {\hat s} + 3 {\hat u}) + t_2

849: (27 M^4 + 2 M^2 ({\hat s} - 10 {\hat u}) + 6 {\hat s} {\hat u})) +

850: 2 \sqrt{t_2} |{\bf p}_T| (-5 M^6 + 5 M^4 {\hat t}

851: \nonumber\\

852: &&{}- 4

853: t_2 (M^4 - M^2 {\hat t}) + t_1^2 (M^2 - {\hat t} - {\hat u}) +

854: t_2^2 (M^2 - {\hat t} - {\hat u}) + 5 M^4 {\hat u} - 2 t_1 (2 M^2

855: (M^2 - {\hat u})

856: \nonumber\\

857: &&{}+ t_2 (M^2 + {\hat t} + {\hat u})))

858: \cos{\varphi_2}) + \sqrt{t_1} (-M^2 + {\hat t} + {\hat u})^2 (t_1

859: t_2 + t_2^2 + t_1 M^2 + 8 t_2 M^2 + M^4

860: \nonumber\\

861: &&{}+ 4 M^2 |{\bf

862: p}_T|^2 + 2 t_2 {\hat t} - t_1 {\hat u} + t_2 {\hat u} - M^2 {\hat

863: u} - 2 \sqrt{t_2} |{\bf p}_T| (7 M^2 + {\hat t} + {\hat u})

864: \cos{\varphi_2} + 4 M^2 |{\bf p}_T|^2 \cos(2 \varphi_2))

865: \nonumber\\

866: &&{}- (M^2 - {\hat t} - {\hat u}) \cos(\varphi_1 -

867: \varphi_2) (-(|{\bf p}_T| (3 M^6 - 3 M^4 {\hat t} - 12 t_2 (M^4 -

868: M^2 {\hat t}) + t_1^2 (M^2 - {\hat t} - {\hat u})

869: \nonumber\\

870: &&{}+

871: t_2^2 (M^2 - {\hat t} - {\hat u}) - 3 M^4 {\hat u} + 4 M^2 {\hat

872: t} {\hat u} - 2 t_1 (6 M^2 (M^2 - {\hat u}) + t_2 (11 M^2 + 3

873: ({\hat t} + {\hat u})))) \cos{\varphi_2})

874: \nonumber\\

875: &&{}- 2

876: \sqrt{t_2} (2 t_1^2 (t_2 + M^2 - {\hat u}) - M^2 (M^4 + 2 {\hat t}

877: (|{\bf p}_T|^2 + {\hat u}) - M^2 (2 |{\bf p}_T|^2 + {\hat t} +

878: {\hat u})

879: \nonumber\\

880: &&{}+ t_2 (-3 M^2 + 3 {\hat t} + {\hat u})) +

881: t_1 (2 t_2^2 + 8 M^4 + M^2 (2 |{\bf p}_T|^2 - 7 {\hat u}) - {\hat

882: u} ({\hat t} + {\hat u})

883: \nonumber\\

884: &&{}+ t_2 (11 M^2 + 3 {\hat t} +

885: {\hat u})) + 2 M^2 |{\bf p}_T|^2 (t_1 + M^2 - {\hat t}) \cos(2

886: \varphi_2))))),

887: \label{eq:RRtoeHG}

888: \end{eqnarray}

889: where $\hat s=(k_1+k_2)^2$, $\hat t=(k_1-p)^2$, and $\hat u=(k_2-p)^2$ are the

890: standard Mandelstam variables.

891: With the aid of Eq.~(\ref{eq:limit}), we recover from Eq.~(\ref{eq:RRtoeHG})

892: the well-known collinear-parton-model result \cite{Leibovich},

893: \begin{eqnarray}

894: \overline{|{\cal A}(g + g \to {\cal H}[^{3}S_1^{(1)}] + g|^2}

895: &=&\pi^3 \alpha_s^3 \frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal

896: H}[^3S_1^{(1)}]\rangle}{M^3}\, \frac{320 M^4}{81 (M^2 - {\hat t})^2

897: (M^2 - {\hat u})^2 ({\hat t} + {\hat u})^2}

898: \nonumber\\

899: &&{}\times (M^4

900: {\hat t}^2 - 2 M^2 {\hat t}^3 + {\hat t}^4 + M^4 {\hat t} {\hat u}

901: - 3 M^2 {\hat t}^2 {\hat u} + 2 {\hat t}^3 {\hat u} + M^4 {\hat

902: u}^2

903: \nonumber\\

904: &&{} - 3 M^2 {\hat t} {\hat u}^2 + 3 {\hat t}^2

905: {\hat u}^2 - 2 M^2 {\hat u}^3 + 2 {\hat t} {\hat u}^3 + {\hat

906: u}^4).

907: \end{eqnarray}

908: 

909: We now turn to subprocesses~(\ref{eq:FRtoH}) and (\ref{eq:FRtoHG}), with one

910: real photon in the initial state.

911: For the $2 \to 1$ subprocesses (\ref{eq:FRtoH}), which are pure color-octet

912: processes, we find

913: \begin{eqnarray}

914: \overline{|{\cal A}(R + \gamma \to {\cal

915: H}[^{3}S_1^{(8)}]|^2}&=&0,

916: \nonumber\\

917: \overline{|{\cal A}(R + \gamma \to {\cal H}[^{1}S_0^{(8)}]|^2}&=&8

918: \pi^2 \alpha \alpha_s e_Q^2 \frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal

919: H}[^1S_0^{(8)}]\rangle}{M},

920: \nonumber\\

921: \overline{|{\cal A}(R + \gamma \to {\cal

922: H}[^{3}P_0^{(8)}]|^2}&=&\frac{32}{3} \pi^2\alpha \alpha_s

923: e_Q^2\frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal

924: H}[^3P_0^{(8)}]\rangle}{M^3}\,\frac{(3 M^2 + t_1)^2}{(M^2 +

925: t_1)^2},

926: \nonumber\\

927: \overline{|{\cal A}(R + \gamma \to {\cal

928: H}[^{3}P_1^{(8)}]|^2}&=&\frac{64}{3} \pi^2\alpha \alpha_s

929: e_Q^2\frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal

930: H}[^3P_1^{(8)}]\rangle}{M^3}\,\frac{t_1(2 M^2 + t_1)}{(M^2 +

931: t_1)^2},

932: \nonumber\\

933: \overline{|{\cal A}(R + \gamma \to {\cal

934: H}[^{3}P_2^{(8)}]|^2}&=&\frac{64}{15}\pi^2\alpha \alpha_s

935: e_Q^2\frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal

936: H}[^3P_2^{(8)}]\rangle}{M^3}\,\frac{6 M^4 + 6 M^2 t_1 +

937: t_1^2}{(M^2 + t_1)^2}, \label{eq:gammaR}

938: \end{eqnarray}

939: where $e_Q$ is electric charge of the heavy quark $Q$.

940: Application of Eq.~(\ref{eq:limit}) to Eq.~(\ref{eq:gammaR}) yields the

941: well-known results of the collinear parton model \cite{KraemerGammaP},

942: \begin{eqnarray}

943: \overline{|{\cal A}(g +\gamma \to {\cal H}[^{3}S_1^{(8)}]|^2}&=&0,

944: \nonumber\\

945: \overline{|{\cal A}(g +\gamma \to {\cal H}[^{1}S_0^{(8)}]|^2}&=&8

946: \pi^2 \alpha \alpha_s e_Q^2\frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal

947: H}[^1S_0^{(8)}]\rangle}{M},

948: \nonumber\\

949: \overline{|{\cal A}(g +\gamma \to {\cal H}[^{3}P_0^{(8)}]|^2}&=&

950: 96 \pi^2\alpha \alpha_s e_Q^2\frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal

951: H}[^3P_0^{(8)}]\rangle}{M^3},

952: \nonumber\\

953: \overline{|{\cal A}(g +\gamma \to {\cal H}[^{3}P_1^{(8)}]|^2}&=&

954: 0,

955: \nonumber\\

956: \overline{|{\cal A}(g +\gamma \to {\cal

957: H}[^{3}P_2^{(8)}]|^2}&=&\frac{128}{5}\pi^2\alpha \alpha_s

958: e_Q^2\frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal H}[^3P_2^{(8)}]\rangle}{M^3}.

959: \end{eqnarray}

960: 

961: For the $2 \to 2$ subprocess (\ref{eq:FRtoHG}), which is a color-singlet

962: process, we find

963: \begin{eqnarray}

964: \lefteqn{\overline{|{\cal A}(R + \gamma \to {\cal

965: H}[^{3}S_1^{(1)}] + g|^2}=\pi^3\alpha \alpha_s^2

966: e_Q^2\frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal H}[^3S_1^{(1)}]\rangle}{M^3}\,

967: \frac{2048 M^2}{27 (M^2 - {\hat s})^2 (M^2 - {\hat u})^2 (t_1 +

968: M^2 - {\hat t})^2}}

969: \nonumber\\

970: &&{}\times \Bigl( t_1^4 M^2 + M^2 \bigl({\hat s}^2 + {\hat s}

971: {\hat u} + {\hat u}^2 - M^2 ({\hat s} + {\hat u})\bigr)^2 + t_1^3

972: (M^2 (5 {\hat s} + 3 {\hat u})-7 M^4 - {\hat s} {\hat u})

973: \nonumber\\

974: &&{}+ t_1^2 ({\hat s} {\hat u} ({\hat u}-{\hat s})+ M^4 (3 {\hat

975: u}-11 {\hat s}) + M^2 (7 {\hat s}^2 + 2 {\hat s} {\hat u} - 3

976: {\hat u}^2)) + t_1 {\hat s} ({\hat s} {\hat u}^2 + M^4 ({\hat

977: u}-6 {\hat s})

978: \nonumber\\

979: &&{} + M^2 (4 {\hat s}^2 + {\hat s} {\hat u} - {\hat u}^2))- 2

980: \sqrt{t_1} |{\bf p}_T| (t_1^3 M^2 + t_1^2 (-7 M^4 - {\hat s}

981: {\hat u} + M^2 (3 {\hat s} + 4 {\hat u}))

982: \nonumber\\

983: &&{} + t_1 (M^4 (-7 {\hat s} + 2 {\hat u}) -{\hat s}^2 {\hat u}+

984: M^2 (2 {\hat s}^2 + {\hat s} {\hat u} - 2 {\hat u}^2)) - M^2 (2

985: M^4 ({\hat s} + {\hat u}) - 2 M^2 {\hat u} (3 {\hat s} + 2 {\hat

986: u}) \nonumber\\ &&{} + {\hat u} (3 {\hat s}^2 + 4 {\hat s} {\hat

987: u} + 2 {\hat u}^2))) \cos{\varphi} - 2 M^2 |{\bf p}_T|^2 (t_1^3 +

988: M^2 {\hat s}^2 + t_1^2 (M^2 + 2 {\hat s}) \nonumber\\

989: &&{}+ t_1 (2 M^2 {\hat s} + {\hat s}^2 - 2 {\hat t}^2))

990: \cos^2{\varphi}\Bigr), \label{eq:gammaRg}

991: \end{eqnarray}

992: where $k_2^\mu$ now represents the photon four-momentum and

993: $\varphi_2=0$.

994: %, $\hat s=(k_1+k_2)^2$, $\hat t=(k_2-p)^2$, and $\hat

995: %u=(k_1-p)^2$.

996: Equation~(\ref{eq:gammaRg}) agrees with the

997: corresponding result in Ref.~\cite{ZotovLEP}, but has a more

998: compact form. By means of Eq.~(\ref{eq:limit}),

999: Eq.~(\ref{eq:gammaRg}) collapses to the well-known

1000: collinear-parton model result \cite{kls},

1001: \begin{eqnarray}

1002: \overline{|{\cal A}(g + \gamma \to {\cal H}[^{3}S_1^{(1)}] +

1003: g|^2}&=&\pi^3\alpha \alpha_s^2 e_Q^2\frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal

1004: H}[^3S_1^{(1)}]\rangle}{M^3}\, \frac{2048 M^4}{27 (M^2 - {\hat

1005: t})^2 (M^2 - {\hat u})^2 ({\hat t} + {\hat u})^2}

1006: \nonumber\\

1007: &&{}\times (M^4

1008: {\hat t}^2 - 2 M^2 {\hat t}^3 + {\hat t}^4 + M^4 {\hat t} {\hat u}

1009: - 3 M^2 {\hat t}^2 {\hat u} + 2 {\hat t}^3 {\hat u} + M^4 {\hat

1010: u}^2

1011: \nonumber\\

1012: &&{} - 3 M^2 {\hat t} {\hat u}^2 + 3 {\hat t}^2

1013: {\hat u}^2 - 2 M^2 {\hat u}^3 + 2 {\hat t} {\hat u}^3 + {\hat

1014: u}^4).

1015: \end{eqnarray}

1016: 

1017: Finally, we turn to subprocesses (\ref{eq:eRtoH}) and (\ref{eq:eRtoHG}),

1018: through which electroproduction proceeds at LO.

1019: As for the $2\to2$ subprocesses (\ref{eq:eRtoH}), which are all color-octet

1020: processes, we have

1021: \begin{eqnarray}

1022: \lefteqn{\overline{|{\cal A}(R + e \to e + {\cal H}[^{3}S_1^{(8)}]|^2}=0,}

1023: \nonumber\\

1024: \lefteqn{\overline{|{\cal A}(R + e \to e + {\cal

1025: H}[^{1}S_0^{(8)}]|^2}=64 \pi^3\alpha^2 \alpha_s

1026: e_Q^2\frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal H}[^1S_0^{(8)}]\rangle}{M^3}\,

1027: \frac{1}{y_2^2 Q^2 (M^2 + Q^2 + t_1)^2}}

1028: \nonumber\\

1029: &&{}\times\biggl( (2 + (y_2 - 2) y_2) \Bigl((M^2 + t_1)^2 + Q^4 +

1030: 2 Q^2 M^2 - 2 Q^2 t_1 y_2\Bigr) +

1031:     4 Q^2 t_1 \nonumber\\&&+

1032:     4 Q \sqrt{t_1 (1 - y_2)} (M^2 + Q^2 + t_1) (y_2 - 2) y_2 \cos{(\varphi_1 -

1033:  \varphi_2)}

1034: \nonumber\\

1035: &&{}+ 2 (y_2 - 1) \Bigl(Q^4 + (M^2 + t_1)^2 + Q^2 (2 M^2 + 2 t_1 -

1036: t_1 y_2^2)\Bigr) \cos{(2 (\varphi_1 - \varphi_2))}\biggr) M^2,

1037: \nonumber\\

1038: \lefteqn{\overline{|{\cal A}(R + e \to e + {\cal

1039: H}[^{3}P_0^{(8)}]|^2}=\frac{256}{3} \pi^3\alpha^2 \alpha_s

1040: e_Q^2\frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal

1041: H}[^3P_0^{(8)}]\rangle}{M^5}\,\frac{1}{y_2^2 Q^2 (M^2 + Q^2 +

1042: t_1)^4}}

1043: \nonumber\\

1044: &&{}\times\biggl((2 + (y_2 - 2) y_2)\Bigl(9 M^8 + 24 M^6 (Q^2 +

1045: t_1) + 22 M^4 Q^4 + 22 M^4 t_1^2 +

1046:     (Q^2 + t_1)^2 (Q^4 + t_1^2)

1047: \nonumber\\

1048: &&{}+ 8 M^2 (Q^2 + t_1) (Q^4 + t_1^2)\Bigr) +

1049:     2 M^4 Q^2 t_1 (52 + y_2 ((43 - 9 y_2) y_2 -64))

1050: \nonumber\\

1051: &&{}+

1052:     2 Q^2 t_1 (Q^2 + t_1)^2 (10 - y_2 (14 + (y_2 - 6) y_2)) \nonumber\\

1053: &&{}+

1054:     4 M^2 Q^2 t_1 (Q^2 + t_1) (16 - 3 y_2 (8 + (y_2 - 5) y_2))

1055: \nonumber\\

1056: &&{}+

1057:     4 Q \sqrt{t_1 (1 - y_2)} (M^2 + Q^2 + t_1)

1058:      (Q^4 (4 + (y_2 - 2) y_2) + 2 Q^2 (t_1 (4 + (y_2 - 6) y_2)

1059: \nonumber\\

1060: &&{}+ M^2 (8 + y_2 (-4 + 3 y_2))) +

1061:        (3 M^2 + t_1) (t_1 (4 + (y_2 - 2) y_2)

1062: \nonumber\\

1063: &&{}+ M^2 (4 + y_2 (3 y_2 - 2))))

1064:  \cos{(\varphi_1 - \varphi_2)}

1065: -

1066:     2 (3 M^2 + Q^2 + t_1) (y_2 - 1)\nonumber\\

1067: &&{}\times

1068:      (3 M^6 + 7 M^4 (Q^2 + t_1) + (Q^2 + t_1) (Q^4 + t_1^2 + Q^2 t_1 (2 +

1069:  (y_2 - 4) y_2))

1070: \nonumber\\

1071: &&{}+

1072:        M^2 (5 Q^4 + 5 t_1^2 + Q^2 t_1 (10 + y_2 (3 y_2-4)))) \cos{(2 (\varphi_1 -

1073:        \varphi_2))}\biggr) M^2,

1074: \nonumber\\

1075: \lefteqn{\overline{|{\cal A}(R + e \to e + {\cal

1076: H}[^{3}P_1^{(8)}]|^2}=\frac{512}{3} \pi^3\alpha^2 \alpha_s

1077: e_Q^2\frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal H}[^3P_1^{(8)}]\rangle}{M^5}\,

1078: \frac{1}{y_2^2 Q^2 (M^2 + Q^2 + t_1)^4 }}

1079: \nonumber\\

1080: &&{}\times\biggl((2 + (y_2 - 2) y_2)\Bigl(Q^8 + t_1 (M^2 + t_1)^2

1081: (2 M^2 + t_1) \Bigr) \nonumber\\

1082: &&{}+ 2 Q^6 (y_2 - 2) (M^2 (y_2 - 2) - t_1 (2 - y_2 + y_2^2))

1083: \nonumber\\

1084: &&{}+

1085:     Q^4 (4 M^2 t_1 (y_2 - 3) (y_2 - 2) + M^4 (10 + (y_2-10) y_2) -

1086:        2 t_1^2 (y_2 (6 + y_2 (-5 + 2 y_2))-6))

1087: \nonumber\\

1088: &&{}+

1089:     2 Q^2 (M^4 t_1 (10 + (-8 + y_2) y_2) -2 M^6 (y_2 - 1) - t_1^3 (y_2 - 2) (2 +

1090:  (y_2 - 1) y_2)

1091: \nonumber\\

1092: &&{}-

1093:        M^2 t_1^2 (y_2 (10 + y_2 (2 y_2-5))-12)) +

1094:     4 Q \sqrt{t_1 (1 - y_2)} (M^2 + Q^2 + t_1)

1095:      (M^4 (y_2 - 2)

1096: \nonumber\\

1097: &&{}+ (Q^2 + t_1)^2 (y_2 - 2) y_2 - M^2 (Q^2 (2 + y_2) + t_1 (2 +

1098: y_2 - 2 y_2^2)))

1099:      \cos{(\varphi_1 - \varphi_2)} \nonumber\\

1100: &&{}+ 2 (y_2 - 1) ((Q^2 + t_1)^4 - Q^2 t_1 (Q^2 + t_1)^2 y_2^2 +

1101:        M^4 ((Q^2 + t_1)^2 - 2 Q^2 t_1 y_2) +

1102:        2 M^2 ((Q^2 + t_1)^3

1103: \nonumber\\

1104: &&{}- Q^2 t_1 (Q^2 + t_1) y_2 - Q^2 t_1^2 y_2^2)) \cos{(2

1105: (\varphi_1 -

1106:        \varphi_2))}\biggr) M^2,

1107: \nonumber\\

1108: \lefteqn{ \overline{|{\cal A}(R + e \to e + {\cal

1109: H}[^{3}P_2^{(8)}]|^2}=\frac{512}{15} \pi^3\alpha^2 \alpha_s

1110: e_Q^2\frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal H}[^3P_2^{(8)}]\rangle}{M^5}\,

1111: \frac{1}{y_2^2 Q^2 (M^2 + Q^2 + t_1)^4 }}

1112: \nonumber\\

1113: &&{}\times\biggl((2 + (y_2 - 2) y_2) \Bigl( Q^8+

1114:     (M^2 + t_1)^2 (6 M^4 + 6 M^2 t_1 + t_1^2) \Bigr) +

1115:     2 Q^6 (M^2 (8 + (y_2-8) y_2)

1116: \nonumber\\

1117: &&{}-t_1 (y_2 - 3) (y_2 - 2)^2) +

1118:     Q^4 (M^4 (38 + y_2 (7 y_2-38)) + 4 M^2 t_1 (20 + y_2 (8 y_2-25))

1119: \nonumber\\

1120: &&{}+

1121:        t_1^2 (44 - 2 y_2 (30 + y_2 (2 y_2-13)))) +

1122:     2 Q^2 (-(t_1^3 (y_2 - 3) (y_2 - 2)^2) + 6 M^6 (3 + (y_2 - 3) y_2)

1123: \nonumber\\

1124: &&{}-

1125:        M^2 t_1^2 (y_2 (50 + y_2 (6 y_2-25))-40) - M^4 t_1 (y_2 (52 + y_2 (6 y_2-25))-46))

1126: \nonumber\\

1127: &&{}+

1128:     4 Q \sqrt{t_1 (1 - y_2)} (M^2 + Q^2 + t_1)(Q^4 (4 + (y_2 - 2) y_2) \nonumber\\

1129: &&{}+ t_1^2 (4 +

1130:  (y_2 - 2) y_2) + 3 M^4 (2 + y_2 (2 y_2-3))

1131: +

1132:        M^2 t_1 (10 + y_2 (6 y_2-11)) \nonumber\\

1133: &&{}+ Q^2 (M^2 (10 - 11 y_2) + 2 t_1 (4 +

1134:  (y_2 - 6) y_2)))

1135:      \cos{(\varphi_1 - \varphi_2)}

1136: \nonumber\\

1137: &&{}- 2 (y_2 - 1) (2 M^2

1138:         ((Q^2 + t_1)^3 - 5 Q^2 t_1 (Q^2 + t_1) y_2 + 3 Q^2 t_1^2 y_2^2) \nonumber\\

1139: &&{}+

1140:        (Q^2 + t_1)^2 (Q^4 + t_1^2

1141: + Q^2 t_1 (2 + (y_2 - 4) y_2)) \nonumber\\

1142: &&{}+

1143:        M^4 (Q^4 + t_1^2+ 2 Q^2 t_1 (1 + 3 (y_2 - 1) y_2))) \cos{(2 (\varphi_1 -

1144:        \varphi_2))}\biggr) M^2.

1145: \end{eqnarray}

1146: As usual, $Q^2=-q^2$ and $y_2=(q\cdot P)/(k\cdot P)$, where $P^\mu$,

1147: $k^\mu$, $k^{\prime\mu}$, and $q^\mu=k^\mu-k^{\prime\mu}$ are the four-momenta

1148: of the incoming proton, the incoming lepton, the outgoing lepton, and the

1149: virtual photon, respectively, $\varphi_1$ is the angle between

1150: ${\bf k}_{1T}$ and ${\bf p}_{T}$, and $\varphi_2$ is the angle between

1151: ${\bf q}_{T}$ and ${\bf p}_{T}$. The corresponding formulas in the

1152: collinear parton model \cite{fm} are recovered as explained in

1153: Eq.~(\ref{eq:limit}) and read:

1154: \begin{eqnarray}

1155: \overline{|{\cal A}(g + e \to e + {\cal H}[^{3}S_1^{(8)}]|^2}&=&0,

1156: \nonumber\\

1157: \overline{|{\cal A}(g + e \to e + {\cal H}[^{1}S_0^{(8)}]|^2}&=&64

1158: \pi^3\alpha^2 \alpha_s e_Q^2\frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal

1159: H}[^1S_0^{(8)}]\rangle}{M}\,\frac{y_2^2 - 2 y_2 + 2}{y_2^2 Q^2},

1160: \nonumber\\

1161: \overline{|{\cal A}(g + e \to e + {\cal

1162: H}[^{3}P_0^{(8)}]|^2}&=&\frac{256}{3} \pi^3\alpha^2 \alpha_s

1163: e_Q^2\frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal

1164: H}[^3P_0^{(8)}]\rangle}{M^3}

1165: \nonumber\\

1166: &&{}\times\frac{(y_2^2 - 2 y_2 + 2) (Q^2 + 3 M^2)^2}{y_2^2 Q^2

1167: (Q^2 + M^2)^2},

1168: \nonumber\\

1169: \overline{|{\cal A}(g + e \to e + {\cal

1170: H}[^{3}P_1^{(8)}]|^2}&=&\frac{512}{3} \pi^3\alpha^2 \alpha_s

1171: e_Q^2\frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal

1172: H}[^3P_1^{(8)}]\rangle}{M^3}

1173: \nonumber\\

1174: &&{}\times\frac{((y_2^2 - 2 y_2 + 2)Q^2 -4 (y_2 - 1)) M^2}{y_2^2

1175: (Q^2+M^2)^2},

1176: \nonumber\\

1177: \overline{|{\cal A}(g + e \to e + {\cal

1178: H}[^{3}P_2^{(8)}]|^2}&=&\frac{512}{15} \pi^3\alpha^2 \alpha_s

1179: e_Q^2\frac{\langle{\cal O}^{\cal

1180: H}[^3P_2^{(8)}]\rangle}{M^3}

1181: \nonumber\\

1182: &&{}\times\frac{((y_2^2 - 2 y_2 + 2)(Q^4 + 6 M^4) -12 (y_2 - 1)

1183: M^2 Q^2)}{y_2^2 Q^2 (Q^2+M^2)^2}.

1184: \end{eqnarray}

1185: 

1186: Our analytic result for the $2\to3$ color-singlet subprocess (\ref{eq:eRtoHG})

1187: is rather lengthy, and we refrain from listing it here.

1188: 

1189: \section{\label{sec:five}Charmonium production at the Tevatron}

1190: 

1191: During the last decade, the CDF Collaboration at the Tevatron

1192: \cite{CDFI,CDFII} collected data on charmonium production at energies

1193: $\sqrt{S}=1.8$~TeV (run~I) and $\sqrt{S}=1.96$~TeV (run~II) in the central

1194: region of pseudorapidity $|\eta|<0.6$.

1195: The data cover a large interval in transverse momentum, namely

1196: $5<p_T<20$~GeV (run I) and $0<p_T<20$~GeV (run II).

1197: The data sample of run~I \cite{CDFI} includes $p_T$ distributions of

1198: $J/\psi$ mesons that were produced directly in the hard interaction, via

1199: radiative decays of $\chi_{cJ}$ mesons, via decays of $\psi^\prime$ mesons,

1200: and via decays of $b$ hadrons.

1201: That of run~II \cite{CDFII} includes $p_T$ distributions of prompt

1202: $J/\psi$ mesons, so far without separation into direct, $\chi_{cJ}$-decay, and

1203: $\psi^\prime$-decay contributions, and of $J/\psi$ mesons from $b$-hadron

1204: decays.

1205: 

1206: As is well known, the cross section of charmonium production measured at the

1207: Tevatron is more than one order of magnitude larger than the prediction of the

1208: CSM evaluated within the collinear parton model \cite{KramerReview}.

1209: Switching from the collinear parton model to the $k_T$-factorization approach

1210: \cite{CDFBaranov,KTTeryaev,KTYuan} somewhat ameliorates the situation, but

1211: still does not lead to agreement at all.

1212: On the other hand, a successful description of the data could be achieved with

1213: the NRQCD factorization formalism \cite{NRQCD} implemented in the collinear

1214: parton model, including the fusion and fragmentation mechanisms of charmonium

1215: hadroproduction \cite{PMBraaten,BKLee}.

1216: 

1217: Charmonium hadroproduction was studied some time ago using the NRQCD

1218: factorization formalism implemented in the $k_T$-factorization approach

1219: invoking both the fusion \cite{CDFBaranov,KTTeryaev,KTYuan} and fragmentation

1220: pictures \cite{PRD2003}.

1221: It was found \cite{CDFBaranov,KTTeryaev,KTYuan} that, in order to describe the

1222: experimental data from the CDF Collaboration \cite{CDFI}, it is necessary to

1223: employ a set of NMEs that greatly differs from the one favored by the

1224: collinear parton model.

1225: In this paper, we confirm this conclusion only to some degree.

1226: 

1227: On the other hand, the polarization of prompt $J/\psi$ mesons measured at the

1228: Tevatron \cite{CDFPolarization} also provides a sensitive probe of the NRQCD

1229: mechanism.

1230: This issue was carefully investigated both in the collinear parton model

1231: \cite{PMPolarization} and in the $k_T$-factorization approach

1232: \cite{KTPolarization}.

1233: None of these studies was able to prove or disprove the NRQCD factorization

1234: hypothesis.

1235: 

1236: In contrast to previous analyses in the collinear parton model or

1237: the $k_T$-factorization approach, we perform a joint fit to the

1238: run-I and run-II CDF data \cite{CDFI,CDFII} to obtain the

1239: color-octet NMEs for $J/\psi$, $\psi^\prime$, and $\chi_{cJ}$

1240: mesons. We use three different versions of unintegrated gluon

1241: distribution function. Our calculations are based on exact

1242: analytical expressions for the relevant squared amplitudes, which

1243: were previously unknown in literature. Our fits include five

1244: experimental data sets, which come as $p_T$ distributions of

1245: $J/\psi$ mesons from direct production, prompt production,

1246: $\chi_{cJ}$ decays, and $\psi^\prime$ decays in run~I and from

1247: prompt production in run~II.

1248: 

1249: We now describe how to evaluate the differential hadronic cross section from

1250: Eq.~(\ref{eq:KT}) in combination with the squared matrix elements of the

1251: $2\to1$ and $2\to2$ subprocesses~(\ref{eq:RRtoH}) and (\ref{eq:RRtoHG}),

1252: respectively.

1253: The rapidity and pseudorapidity of a charmonium state with four-momentum

1254: $p^\mu=(p^0,{\bf p}_{T},p^3)$ are given by

1255: \begin{equation}

1256: y=\frac{1}{2}\ln\frac{p^0+p^3}{p^0-p^3},\quad

1257: \eta=\frac{1}{2}\ln\frac{|{\bf p}|+p^3}{|{\bf p}|-p^3},

1258: \end{equation}

1259: respectively.

1260: For the $2\to1$ subprocess~(\ref{eq:RRtoH}), we have

1261: \begin{eqnarray}

1262: &&\frac{d\sigma^{\mathrm{KT}}(p + \overline{p} \to {\cal H} + X)}

1263: {d|{\bf p}_T|d y}

1264: = \frac{|{\bf p}_T|}{(|{\bf p}_T|^2+M^2)^2} \int{d|{\bf

1265: k}_{1T}|^2}\int{d \varphi_1}

1266: \nonumber\\

1267: &&{}\times

1268: \Phi_p(\xi_1,|{\bf k}_{1T}|^2,\mu^2)

1269: \Phi_{\overline{p}}(\xi_2,|{\bf k}_{2T}|^2,\mu^2)

1270: \overline{|{\cal A}(R

1271: + R \to {\cal H})|^2},

1272: \end{eqnarray}

1273: where

1274: \begin{equation}

1275: \xi_1=\frac{p^0+p^3}{\sqrt{S}},\qquad

1276: \xi_2=\frac{p^0-p^3}{\sqrt{S}},

1277: \label{eq:xi12}

1278: \end{equation}

1279: and ${\bf k}_{2T}={\bf p}_{T}-{\bf k}_{1T}$.

1280: In our numerical analysis, we choose the factorization scale to be

1281: $\mu=M_T$.

1282: For the $2 \to 2$ subprocess~(\ref{eq:RRtoHG}), we have

1283: \begin{eqnarray}

1284: &&\frac{d\sigma^{\mathrm{KT}}(p + \overline{p} \to {\cal H} + X)}{d|{\bf

1285: p}_T| d y}=\frac{|{\bf p}_T|}{(2 \pi)^3} \int{d|{\bf

1286: k}_{1T}|^2}\int{d \varphi_1} \int{d x_2}\int{d|{\bf

1287: k}_{2T}|^2}\int{d \varphi_2}

1288: \nonumber\\

1289: &&{} \times \Phi_p(x_1,|{\bf

1290: k}_{1T}|^2,\mu^2) \Phi_{\overline{p}}(x_2,|{\bf k}_{2T}|^2,\mu^2)

1291: \frac{\overline{|{\cal A}(R + R \to {\cal H} + g)|^2}}{

1292: (x_2 - \xi_2)(2 x_1 x_2 S)^2},

1293: \end{eqnarray}

1294: where

1295: \begin{equation}

1296: x_1=\frac{1}{(x_2 - \xi_2) S}\left[({\bf k}_{1T}+{\bf k}_{2T} - {\bf p}_T)^2-

1297: M^2 - |{\bf p}_{T}|^2 + x_2 \xi_1 S\right].

1298: \end{equation}

1299: 

1300: We now present and discuss our results. In Table~\ref{tab:NME}, we

1301: list out fit results for the relevant color-octet NMEs for three

1302: different choices of unintegrated gluon distribution function,

1303: namely JB \cite{JB}, JS \cite{JS}, and KMR \cite{KMR}. The

1304: color-singlet NMEs are not fitted, but determined from the measured

1305: partial decay widths of $\psi(nS) \to l^+ + l^-$ and $\chi_{c2} \to

1306: \gamma + \gamma$. The numerical values are adopted from

1307: Ref.~\cite{BKLee} and read: $\langle{\cal

1308: O}^{J/\psi}[^3S_1^{(1)}]\rangle = 1.3$~GeV$^3$, $\langle{\cal

1309: O}^{\psi^\prime}[^3S_1^{(1)}]\rangle = 6.5\times10^{-1}$~GeV$^3$,

1310: and $\langle{\cal O}^{\chi_{cJ}}[^3P_J^{(1)}]\rangle = (2 J +

1311: 1)\times 8.9\times 10^{-2}$~GeV$^5$. They were obtained using the

1312: vacuum saturation approximation and heavy-quark spin symmetry in the

1313: NRQCD factorization formulas and including NLO QCD radiative

1314: corrections \cite{QCDCorrections}. The relevant branching ratios are

1315: taken from Ref.~\cite{PDG2004} and read $B(J/\psi \to \mu^+ +

1316: \mu^-)=0.0601$, $B(\psi^\prime \to J/\psi + X)=0.576$, $B(\chi_{c0}

1317: \to J/\psi + \gamma)=0.012$, $B(\chi_{c1} \to J/\psi +

1318: \gamma)=0.318$, and $B(\chi_{c2} \to J/\psi + \gamma)=0.203$. They

1319: somewhat differ from the values used previously \cite{PDG2002}. For

1320: comparison, we list in Table~\ref{tab:NME} also the NMEs obtained in

1321: Ref.~\cite{BKLee} for the collinear parton model with the LO parton

1322: distribution functions of the proton by Martin, Roberts, Stirling,

1323: and Thorne (MRST98LO) \cite{MRST}.

1324: 

1325: We first study the relative importance of the different intermediate states in

1326: direct $J/\psi$ and $\psi^\prime$ production.

1327: In previous fits to CDF data from run~I \cite{CDFI}, with $p_T>5$~GeV,

1328: the linear combinations

1329: \begin{equation}

1330: M^{\cal H}_r=

1331: \langle {\cal O}^{\cal H}[^1S_0^{(8)}]\rangle

1332: +\frac{r}{m_c^2}\langle {\cal O}^{\cal H}[^3P_0^{(8)}]\rangle

1333: \label{eq:lc}

1334: \end{equation}

1335: for ${\cal H}=J/\psi,\psi^\prime$ were fixed because it was

1336: infeasible to separate the contributions proportional to $\langle

1337: {\cal O}^{\cal H}[^1S_0^{(8)}]\rangle$ and $\langle {\cal O}^{\cal

1338: H}[^3P_0^{(8)}]\rangle$. By contrast, the new run-II data

1339: \cite{CDFI}, which reach down to $p_T=0$, allow us to determine

1340: $\langle {\cal O}^{\cal H}[^1S_0^{(8)}]\rangle$ and $\langle {\cal

1341: O}^{\cal H}[^3P_0^{(8)}]\rangle$ separately because the respective

1342: contributions exhibit different $p_T$ dependences for $p_T<5$~GeV.

1343: This feature is nicely illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:States}, where

1344: the shapes of the relevant color-octet contributions to  prompt

1345: $J/\psi$ production, proportional to $\langle {\cal O}^{\cal

1346: H}[^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle$, $\langle {\cal O}^{\cal

1347: H}[^1S_0^{(8)}]\rangle$, and $\langle {\cal O}^{\cal

1348: H}[^3P_0^{(8)}]\rangle$, are compared with that of the CDF data

1349: from run~II \cite{CDFII}. Notice that the color-octet

1350: contributions differ in the peak position, by up to 1~GeV.

1351: Apparently, this suffices to disentangle the contributions

1352: previously combined by Eq.~(\ref{eq:lc}). We find that $\langle

1353: {\cal O}^{J/\psi,\psi^\prime}[^3P_0^{(8)}]\rangle$ and $\langle

1354: {\cal O}^{\psi^\prime}[^1S_0^{(8)}]\rangle$ are compatible with

1355: zero, independent of the choice of unintegrated gluon density---a

1356: striking result. For the case of $J/\psi$ production from

1357: $\psi^\prime$ decay, this implies that the $^3S_1^{(1)}$ and

1358: $^3S_1^{(8)}$ channels are sufficient to describe the measured

1359: $p_T$ distribution (see Fig.~\ref{fig:Psi2S}).

1360: 

1361: In Figs.~\ref{fig:Direct}--\ref{fig:PromptR2}, we compare the CDF data on

1362: $J/\psi$ mesons from direct production, $\psi^\prime$ decays, and $\chi_{cJ}$

1363: decays in run I \cite{CDFI} and from prompt production in run II \cite{CDFII},

1364: respectively, with the theoretical results evaluated with the NMEs listed in

1365: Table~\ref{tab:NME}.

1366: From Fig.~\ref{fig:Direct}, we observe that the color-singlet contribution is

1367: significant, especially at low values of $p_T$, and comparable to the one

1368: from the $^1S_0^{(8)}$ channel.

1369: As is familiar from the collinear parton model, the $^3S_1^{(8)}$ contribution

1370: makes up the bulk of the cross section at large values of $p_T$.

1371: Incidentally, the values of $\langle {\cal O}^{J/\psi}[^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle$

1372: obtained in the $k_T$-factorization framework are in average quite close to

1373: the one obtained in the collinear parton model, as may be seen from

1374: Table~\ref{tab:NME}.

1375: The situation is very similar for $J/\psi$ production from $\psi^\prime$

1376: decay, considered in Fig.~\ref{fig:Psi2S}, except that the

1377: $^1S_0^{(8)}$ and $^3P_J^{(8)}$ contributions are negligible.

1378: 

1379: At this point, we wish to compare our results for direct $J/\psi$

1380: hadroproduction in the $k_T$-factorization approach with the literature,

1381: specifically with Refs.~\cite{CDFBaranov,KTYuan}, which consider the partonic

1382: subprocess~(\ref{eq:RRtoH}).

1383: By contrast, in Ref.~\cite{KTTeryaev}, the NLO subprocess

1384: $R + R \to J/\psi[{^3}S_1^{(8)}] + g$ was studied, leaving aside the LO

1385: subprocess~(\ref{eq:RRtoH}).

1386: In Ref.~\cite{KTYuan}, the value

1387: $\langle{\cal O}^{J/\psi}[{}^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle = 7.0\times 10^{-3}$~GeV$^3$

1388: was obtained using the Kwiecinski-Martin-Stasto (KMS) \cite{KMS} unintegrated

1389: gluon distribution function.

1390: This value is 2.6 times larger than the result we found using the KMR

1391: \cite{KMR} version, which is very similar to the KMS one.

1392: We attribute this difference in

1393: $\langle{\cal O}^{J/\psi}[{}^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle$ to the different scale choice,

1394: $\mu=k_T$, used by the authors of Ref.~\cite{KTYuan}.

1395: Adopting their value for $\langle{\cal O}^{J/\psi}[{}^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle$, we

1396: can reproduce their result for the respective cross section contribution.

1397: On the other hand, the value

1398: $\langle{\cal O}^{J/\psi}[{}^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle=

1399: 15.0\times 10^{-3}$~GeV$^3$ found in Ref.~\cite{CDFBaranov} exceeds the one of

1400: Ref.~\cite{KTYuan} by a factor of 2.1 and our KMR value by a factor of 5.6.

1401: Furthermore, the cross section evaluated in Ref.~\cite{CDFBaranov} falls off

1402: with $p_T$ considerably more slowly than in Ref.~\cite{KTYuan} and here, only

1403: by one order of magnitude as $p_T$ runs from 2 to 20~GeV, while the

1404: unintegrated gluon density in the proton falls off with $k_T$ far more rapidly.

1405: 

1406: The discussion of $J/\psi$ production from radiative $\chi_{cJ}$ decays,

1407: considered in Fig.~\ref{fig:ChiCJ}, is simpler because there is only one free

1408: parameter in the fit, namely

1409: $\langle{\cal O}^{\chi_{c0}}[{^3}S_1^{(8)}]\rangle$.

1410: We confirm the conclusion of Ref.~\cite{KTTeryaev}, that, in the

1411: $k_T$-factorization approach, the color-singlet contribution is sufficient to

1412: describe the data.

1413: In fact, the best fit is realized when

1414: $\langle{\cal O}^{\chi_{c0}}[{^3}S_1^{(8)}]\rangle$ is taken to be zero or

1415: very small.

1416: In case of the JB gluon density, the fitting procedure even favors a

1417: negative value of $\langle{\cal O}^{\chi_{c0}}[{^3}S_1^{(8)}]\rangle$.

1418: 

1419: In Fig.~\ref{fig:PromptR2}, the $p_T$ distribution of prompt $J/\psi$

1420: production in run~II is broken down into the contributions from direct

1421: production, $\psi^\prime$ decays, and $\chi_{cJ}$ decays.

1422: We observe that the latter is dominant for $p_T \alt 5$~GeV, while prompt

1423: $J/\psi$ mesons are preferably produced directly at larger values of $p_T$.

1424: The contribution from $\psi^\prime$ decays stays at the level of several

1425: percent for all values of $p_T$.

1426: While the JS \cite{JS} and KMR \cite{KMR} gluon densities allow for a

1427: faithful description of the measured $p_T$ distribution \cite{CDFII}, the JB

1428: \cite{JB} one has a problem in the low-$p_T$ range, at $p_T \alt 5$~GeV, where

1429: even the $\chi_{cJ}$-decay contribution, which is entirely of color-singlet

1430: origin, exceeds the data.

1431: This problem can be traced to the speed of growth of the JB gluon density as

1432: $k_T \to 0$.

1433: By contrast, the JS and KMR gluon densities are smaller and approximately

1434: $k_T$ independent at low values of $k_T$.

1435: For this reason, we excluded the CDF prompt-$J/\psi$ data from run~I

1436: \cite{CDFI} and run~II \cite{CDFII} from our fit based on the JB gluon

1437: density.

1438: 

1439: Considering the color-octet NMEs relevant for the $J/\psi$,

1440: $\psi^\prime$ and $\chi_{cJ}$ production mechanisms, we can

1441: formulate the following heuristic rule for favoured transitions

1442: from color-octet to color-singlet states: $\Delta L\simeq 0$ and

1443: $\Delta S\simeq 0$; {\it i.e.} these transitions are doubly

1444: chromoelectric and preserve the orbital angular momentum and the

1445: spin of the heavy-quark bound state.

1446: 

1447: \section{\label{sec:six}Charmonium production at HERA}

1448: 

1449: At HERA, the cross section of prompt $J/\psi$ production was

1450: measured in a wide range of the kinematic variables

1451: $W^2=(P+q)^2$, $Q^2=-q^2$, $y_2=(P\cdot q)/(P\cdot k)$,

1452: $z=(P\cdot p)/(P\cdot q)$, $p_T$ and $y$, where $P^\mu$, $k^\mu$,

1453: $k^{\prime\mu}$, $q^\mu=k^\mu-k^{\prime\mu}$, and $p^\mu$ are the

1454: four-momenta of the incoming proton, incoming lepton, scattered

1455: lepton, virtual photon, and produced $J/\psi$ meson,

1456: respectively, both in photoproduction \cite{epZEUS}, at small

1457: values of $Q^2$, and deep-inelastic scattering (DIS) \cite{epH1},

1458: at large values of $Q^2$. At sufficiently large values of $Q^2$,

1459: the virtual photon behaves like a point-like object, while, at

1460: low values of $Q^2$, it can either act as a point-like object

1461: (direct photoproduction) or interact via its quark and gluon

1462: content (resolved photoproduction). Resolved photoproduction is

1463: only important at low values of $z$.

1464: 

1465: In the region $z\alt 1$, diffractive production, which is beyond the

1466: scope of this paper, takes place.

1467: In order to suppress the diffractive-production contribution, one usually

1468: applies the acceptance cut $z<0.9$.

1469: This effectively eliminates the contributions from the $2\to1$ partonic

1470: subprocesses~(\ref{eq:FRtoH}) and (\ref{eq:eRtoH}), so that we are left with

1471: the $2\to2$ partonic subprocesses~(\ref{eq:FRtoHG}) and (\ref{eq:eRtoHG}).

1472: 

1473: Let us first present the relevant formulas for the double differential

1474: cross sections of DIS, direct photoproduction, and resolved photoproduction.

1475: In the case of DIS, we have

1476: \begin{eqnarray}

1477: &&\frac{d\sigma^{\mathrm{KT}}(p + e \to e+{\cal H} + X)}

1478: {d|{\bf p}_T|^2 d z}

1479: =\frac{1}{8 z (2 \pi)^5}\int{d Q^2}\int{d y_2}

1480: \int{d|{\bf k}_{1T}|^2}\int{d\varphi_1}\int{d \varphi_2}

1481: \nonumber\\

1482: &&{}\times \Phi_p(x_1,|{\bf k}_{1T}|^2,\mu^2)

1483: \frac{\overline{|{\cal A}(R + e \to e + {\cal H} + g)|^2}}

1484: {(y_2 - \chi_2) (2 x_1 S)^2},

1485: \end{eqnarray}

1486: where

1487: \begin{eqnarray}

1488: x_1&=&\frac{1}{(y_2 -

1489: \chi_2) S}\left[({\bf k}_{1T}+{\bf q}_{2T}- {\bf p}_{T})^2 - M^2 -

1490: |{\bf p}_{T}|^2 + y_2 \chi_1 S + (y_2 - \chi_2) Q^2\right],

1491: \nonumber\\

1492: \chi_1&=&\frac{p^0+p^3}{2 E_p},\qquad

1493: \chi_2=\frac{p^0-p^3}{2 E_e}.

1494: \end{eqnarray}

1495: Here, $E_p$ and $E_e$ are the proton and lepton energies in the laboratory

1496: frame, and we have $S=4 E_p E_e$ and $|{\bf q}_{2T}|=\sqrt{(1-y_2)Q^2}$.

1497: 

1498: In the case of direct photoproduction, we have

1499: \begin{eqnarray}

1500: \lefteqn{\frac{d\sigma^{\mathrm{KT}}(p + e \to e+{\cal H} + X)}{d|{\bf

1501: p}_T|^2 d z}=\frac{1}{2 z (2 \pi)^2}\int{d y_2}

1502:  \int{d|{\bf k}_{1T}|^2}\int{d \varphi_1}}

1503: \nonumber\\

1504: &&{}\times\Phi_p(x_1,|{\bf k}_{1T}|^2,\mu^2) f_{\gamma/e}(y_2)

1505: \frac{\overline{|{\cal A}(R + \gamma \to {\cal H} + g)|^2}}

1506: {y_2(y_2 - \chi_2)(2 x_1S)^2},

1507: \end{eqnarray}

1508: where

1509: \begin{equation}

1510: x_1=\frac{1}{(y_2 - \chi_2) S}\left[({\bf k}_{1T}-{\bf p}_{T})^2

1511: - M^2 - |{\bf p}_{T}|^2 + y_2 \chi_1 S\right]

1512: \end{equation}

1513: and $f_{\gamma/e}(y_2)$ is the quasi-real photon flux.

1514: In the Weiz\"acker-Williams approximation, the latter takes the form

1515: \begin{equation}

1516: f_{\gamma/e}(y_2)=\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}\left[\frac{1+(1-y_2)^2}{y_2}\ln

1517: \frac{Q_{\rm max}^2}{Q_{\rm min}^2}

1518: +2m_e^2y_2\left(\frac{1}{Q_{\rm min}^2}-\frac{1}{Q_{\rm max}^2}\right)\right],

1519: \end{equation}

1520: where $Q_{\rm min}^2=m_e^2y_2^2/(1-y_2)$ and $Q^2_{\rm max}$ is determined by

1521: the experimental set-up, {\it e.g.}\

1522: $Q^2_{\rm max}=1$~GeV$^2$ \cite{epZEUS}.

1523: 

1524: In the case of resolved photoproduction, we take into account the $2 \to 1$

1525: and $2\to 2$ partonic subprocesses (\ref{eq:RRtoH}) and (\ref{eq:RRtoHG}),

1526: respectively, where the first reggeized gluon comes from the proton and the

1527: second one from the photon.

1528: For subprocess (\ref{eq:RRtoH}), the relevant doubly differential cross

1529: section reads:

1530: %

1531: \begin{eqnarray}

1532: \lefteqn{\frac{d\sigma^{\mathrm{KT}}(p + e \to e+{\cal H} + X)}{d|{\bf

1533: p}_T|^2 d z}=\frac{1}{2 z (|{\bf p}_T|^2 +M^2)^2} \int{d y_2}

1534: \int{d|{\bf k}_{1T}|^2}\int{d \varphi_1}}

1535: \nonumber\\

1536: &&\times \Phi_p(x_1,|{\bf k}_{1T}|^2,\mu^2)f_{\gamma/e}(y_2)

1537: \Phi_\gamma(x_2,|{\bf k}_{2T}|^2,\mu^2)

1538: {\overline{|{\cal A}(R + R \to {\cal H})|^2}},

1539: \end{eqnarray}

1540: where

1541: \begin{eqnarray}

1542: x_1=\chi_1, \quad x_2=\frac{\chi_2}{y_2}, \quad {\bf k}_{2T}={\bf

1543: p}_{T}-{\bf k}_{1T}.

1544: \end{eqnarray}

1545: For subprocess (\ref{eq:RRtoHG}), the relevant doubly differential cross

1546: section is given by

1547: %

1548: \begin{eqnarray}

1549: &&\frac{d\sigma^{\mathrm{KT}}(p + e \to e+{\cal H} + X)}{d|{\bf

1550: p}_T|^2 d z}=\frac{1}{2 z (1 - z) (2 \pi)^3} \int{d y_2}\int{d|{\bf

1551: k}_{1T}|^2}\int{d \varphi_1}\int{d x_2}\int{d|{\bf k}_{2T}|^2}\int{d

1552: \varphi_2}

1553: \nonumber\\

1554: &&\times \Phi_p(x_1,|{\bf k}_{1T}|^2,\mu^2)f_{\gamma/e}(y_2)

1555: \Phi_\gamma(x_2,|{\bf k}_{2T}|^2,\mu^2)

1556: \frac{\overline{|{\cal A}(R + R \to {\cal H} +

1557: g)|^2}}{x_2 (2 x_1 x_2 y_2 S)^2},

1558: \end{eqnarray}

1559: %

1560: where

1561: %

1562: \begin{eqnarray}

1563: x_1&=&\frac{1}{(x_2 y_2 - \chi_2) S}\left[({\bf k}_{1T}-{\bf

1564: p}_{T})^2 - M^2 - |{\bf p}_{T}|^2 + x_2 y_2 \chi_1 S\right].

1565: \end{eqnarray}

1566: To evaluate the unintegrated gluon distribution function in the resolved

1567: photon, $\Phi_\gamma(x_2,|{\bf k}_{2T}|^2,\mu^2)$, we use a procedure

1568: suggested by Bl\"umlein \cite{JBPhoton}, which is similar to the proton case

1569: \cite{JB}.

1570: As input for this, we use the collinear parton distribution functions of the

1571: resolved photon by Gl\"uck, Reya, and Vogt (GRV$_\gamma$) \cite{GRVPhoton}.

1572: 

1573: In Figs.~\ref{fig:PhP}--\ref{fig:DISz}, our NRQCD predictions in the

1574: $k_T$-factorization approach, evaluated with the NMEs from

1575: Table~\ref{tab:NME}, are compared with the HERA data \cite{epZEUS,epH1}.

1576: Specifically, Figs.~\ref{fig:PhP} and \ref{fig:PhPz} refer to the $p_T^2$ and

1577: $z$ distributions in photoproduction with $E_p=820$~GeV, $E_e=27.5$~GeV,

1578: 60~GeV${}<W<240$~GeV, and $Q^2<1$~GeV$^2$ \cite{epZEUS}, while

1579: Figs.~\ref{fig:DIS} and \ref{fig:DISz} refer to those in DIS with

1580: $E_p=920$~GeV, $E_e=27.5$~GeV, 50~GeV${}<W<225$~GeV, and

1581: 2~GeV$^2<Q^2<100$~GeV$^2$ \cite{epH1}.

1582: Acceptance cuts common to both photoproduction and DIS include $p_T>1$~GeV and

1583: $0.3<z<0.9$.

1584: In this regime, the LO NRQCD predictions in the $k_T$-factorization approach

1585: are mainly due to the color-singlet channels and are thus fairly independent

1586: of the color-octet NMEs presented in Table~\ref{tab:NME}.

1587: Therefore, our results agree well with previous calculations in the CSM

1588: \cite{SaleevZotov94}, up to minor differences in the choice of the

1589: color-singlet NMEs and the $c$-quark mass.

1590: 

1591: \section{\label{sec:seven}Charmonium production at LEP2}

1592: 

1593: Some time ago, the DELPHI Collaboration presented data on the

1594: inclusive cross section of $J/\psi$ photoproduction in

1595: $\gamma\gamma$ collisions ($e^+ + e^- \to e^+ + e^- + J/\psi +

1596: X$) at LEP2, taken as a function of the $J/\psi$ transverse

1597: momentum $p_T$ \cite{LEPJpsi}. The $J/\psi$ mesons were

1598: identified through their decays to $\mu^+\mu^-$ pairs, and events

1599: where the system $X$ contains a prompt photon were suppressed by

1600: requiring that at least four charged tracks were reconstructed.

1601: The average $e^+e^-$ center-of-mass energy was

1602: $\sqrt{S}=197$~GeV, the scattered positrons and electrons were

1603: antitagged, with maximum angle $\theta_{\rm max}=32$~mrad, and

1604: the maximum $\gamma\gamma$ center-of-mass energy was chosen to be

1605: $W=35$~GeV in order to reject the major part of the

1606: non-two-photon events.

1607: 

1608: Under LEP2 experimental conditions, most $J/\psi$ mesons are produced

1609: promptly, while the cross section for $J/\psi$ mesons from $b$-hadron decays

1610: is estimated to be about 1\% of the total $J/\psi$ cross section

1611: \cite{KniehlLEP} and can be safely neglected.

1612: Because the average value of the photon virtuality $Q^2$ is small, the

1613: Weizs\"acker-Williams approximation can be used to evaluate the $e^+ e^-$

1614: cross section from the $\gamma\gamma$ cross section as

1615: \begin{equation}

1616: d\sigma(e^+ + e^- \to e^+ + e^- + {\cal H} + X)=\int dy_1\int dy_2\,

1617: f_{\gamma/e}(y_1)f_{\gamma/e}(y_2) d\sigma(\gamma + \gamma \to

1618: {\cal H} + X).

1619: \end{equation}

1620: 

1621: The process $e^+ + e^- \to e^+ + e^- + J/\psi + X$ receives contributions from

1622: direct, single-resolved, and double-resolved photoproduction.

1623: The relevant partonic subprocesses are:

1624: $\gamma + \gamma \to {\cal H}[{^3S}_1^{(8)}] + g$,

1625: $\gamma + R \to {\cal H}[{^1S}_0^{(8)}, {^3P}_{J}^{(8)}]$,

1626: $\gamma + R \to {\cal H}[{^3S}_1^{(1)}] + g$,

1627: $R + R \to {\cal H}[{^3S}_1^{(8)}, {^1S}_0^{(8)}, {^3P}_{J}^{(8)}]$, and

1628: $R + R \to {\cal H}[{^3S}_1^{(1)}] + g$.

1629: The squared amplitude of $\gamma + \gamma \to {\cal H}[^3S_1^{(8)}] + g$ may

1630: be found in Ref.~\cite{KniehlLEP}, the ones for the other partonic

1631: subprocesses were presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:four}.

1632: 

1633: The cross section of direct photoproduction is evaluated as

1634: \begin{eqnarray}

1635: &&\frac{d\sigma(e^+ + e^-\to e^+ + e^-+{\cal H} + X)}{d|{\bf p}_T|^2 d y}=

1636: \frac{1}{4 \pi} \int{d y_2}\, f_{\gamma/e}(y_1) f_{\gamma/e}(y_2)

1637: \nonumber\\

1638: &&{}\times\frac{y_1 y_2}{y_2 - \xi_2}\,

1639: \frac{\overline{|{\cal A}(\gamma + \gamma \to {\cal H} + g)|^2}}

1640: {(2 y_1 y_2 S)^2},

1641: \end{eqnarray}

1642: where $\xi_1$ and $\xi_2$ are defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:xi12}) and

1643: \begin{equation}

1644: y_1=\frac{y_2 \xi_1 S - M^2}{(y_2 - \xi_2) S}.

1645: \end{equation}

1646: 

1647: In the case of single-resolved photoproduction via the $2\to1$ subprocesses,

1648: we have

1649: \begin{eqnarray}

1650: &&\frac{d\sigma^{\mathrm{KT}}(e^+ + e^- \to e^+ + e^- + {\cal H} + X)}{d|{\bf

1651: p}_T|^2 d y}= 4 \pi \int{d y_1}\, f_{\gamma/e}(y_1)

1652: f_{\gamma/e}(y_2)

1653: \nonumber\\

1654: &&\times \Phi_\gamma(x_1,|{\bf k}_{1T}|^2,\mu^2) y_2

1655: \frac{\overline{|{\cal A}(R + \gamma \to {\cal H} )|^2}}{(2 x_1

1656: y_1 y_2 S)^2},

1657: \end{eqnarray}

1658: where $x_1=\xi_1/y_1$, $y_2=\xi_2$, and

1659: ${\bf k}_{1T}={\bf p}_{T}$.

1660: In the case of single-resolved photoproduction via the $2\to2$ subprocess, we

1661: have

1662: \begin{eqnarray}

1663: &&\frac{d\sigma^{\mathrm{KT}}(e^+ + e^- \to e^+ + e^-+{\cal H} + X)}{d|{\bf

1664: p}_T|^2 d y}

1665: =\frac{1}{2 (2 \pi)^2}\int{d y_1} \int{d y_2}

1666: \int{d|{\bf k}_{1T}|^2}\int{d \varphi_1}\, f_{\gamma/e}(y_1) f_{\gamma/e}(y_2)

1667: \nonumber\\

1668: &&{}\times \Phi_\gamma(x_1,|{\bf k}_{1T}|^2,\mu^2) \frac{y_2}{y_2 - \xi_2}\,

1669: \frac{\overline{|{\cal A}(R + \gamma \to {\cal

1670: H} + g)|^2}}{(2 x_1 y_1 y_2 S)^2},

1671: \end{eqnarray}

1672: where

1673: \begin{equation}

1674: x_1=\frac{1}{y_1 (y_2 - \xi_2) S}\left[({\bf k}_{1T}-{\bf

1675: p}_{T})^2 - M^2 - |{\bf p}_{T}|^2 + y_2 \xi_1 S\right].

1676: \end{equation}

1677: 

1678: In the case of double-resolved photoproduction via the $2\to1$ subprocesses,

1679: we have

1680: \begin{eqnarray}

1681: &&\frac{d\sigma^{\mathrm{KT}}(e^+ + e^- \to  e^+ + e^-+{\cal H} + X)}{d|{\bf

1682: p}_T|^2 d y}= 2\int{d y_1} \int{d y_2}

1683:  \int{d|{\bf k}_{1T}|^2}\int{d \varphi_1}\,

1684: f_{\gamma/e}(y_1) f_{\gamma/e}(y_2)

1685: \nonumber\\

1686: &&{}\times \Phi_\gamma(x_1,|{\bf k}_{1T}|^2,\mu^2)

1687: \Phi_\gamma(x_2,|{\bf k}_{2T}|^2,\mu^2) \frac{\overline{|{\cal

1688: A}(R + R \to {\cal H})|^2}}{(2 x_1 x_2 y_1 y_2 S)^2},

1689: \end{eqnarray}

1690: where $x_1 = \xi_1/y_1$, $x_2 = \xi_2/y_2$, and ${\bf k}_{2T} = {\bf

1691: p}_{T} - {\bf k}_{1T}$.

1692: In the case of double-resolved photoproduction via the $2\to2$ subprocess,

1693: we have

1694: \begin{eqnarray}

1695: &&\frac{d\sigma^{\mathrm{KT}}(e^+ + e^- \to e^+ + e^-+ {\cal H} +

1696: X)}{d|{\bf p}_T|^2 d y}=\frac{1}{2 (2 \pi)^3}\int{d y_1} \int{d

1697: y_2} \int{d|{\bf k}_{1T}|^2}\int{d \varphi_1}

1698: \nonumber\\

1699: &&\times

1700: \int{dx_2} \int{d|{\bf k}_{2T}|^2} \int{d\varphi_2}\,

1701: f_{\gamma/e}(y_1)\Phi_\gamma(x_1,|{\bf k}_{1T}|^2,\mu^2)

1702: f_{\gamma/e}(y_2)\Phi_\gamma(x_2,|{\bf k}_{2T}|^2,\mu^2)

1703: \nonumber\\

1704: &&\times

1705: \frac{y_2}{x_2 y_2 - \xi_2}\,

1706: \frac{\overline{|{\cal A}(R + R \to {\cal H} + g)|^2}}{(2 x_1 x_2

1707: y_1 y_2 S)^2},

1708: \end{eqnarray}

1709: where

1710: \begin{equation}

1711: x_1=\frac{1}{y_1 (x_2 y_2 - \xi_2) S}\left[({\bf k}_{1T} + {\bf

1712: k}_{2T} - {\bf p}_{T})^2 - M^2 - |{\bf p}_{T}|^2 + x_2 y_2 \xi_1

1713: S\right].

1714: \end{equation}

1715: 

1716: In Fig.~\ref{fig:LEP}, we confront the $p_T^2$ distribution of

1717: $e^+ + e^- \to e^+ + e^- + J/\psi + X$, where $X$ is devoid of prompt photons,

1718: measured by DELPHI \cite{LEPJpsi} with our full theoretical prediction (line

1719: No.~4), which is broken down into the single-resolved color-octet contribution

1720: (line No.~1), the single-resolved color-singlet contribution (line No.~2), and

1721: the direct plus double-resolved contributions (line No.~3).

1722: We observe that the single-resolved contribution makes up the bulk of the

1723: cross section, while the direct and double-resolved contributions are greatly

1724: suppressed, and that, within the single-resolved contribution, the

1725: color-singlet channel is dominant.

1726: The experimental data overshoot the theoretical prediction by a moderate

1727: factor of 2--3.

1728: For the case of $\gamma\gamma$ collisions, we conclude that the color-singlet

1729: processes are dominant in the $k_T$-factorization approach, a situation

1730: familiar from photo- and electroproduction in $ep$ collisions considered in

1731: Sec.~\ref{sec:six}.

1732: The situation is quite different for the collinear parton model, where

1733: color-octet processes dominate \cite{KniehlLEP}.

1734: 

1735: Recently, in Ref.~\cite{ZotovLEP}, it was attempted to interpret the DELPHI

1736: data in the $k_T$-factorization approach invoking only the CSM and neglecting

1737: the cascade decays of the $\psi^\prime$ and $\chi_{cJ}$ mesons.

1738: Curve No.~2 in Fig.~\ref{fig:LEP} approximately agrees with the corresponding

1739: predictions in Ref.~\cite{ZotovLEP} for $m_c=1.55$~GeV.

1740: In Ref.~\cite{ZotovLEP}, a significantly lower value of $m_c$ is employed to

1741: reach agreement with the DELPHI data.

1742: 

1743: \section{\label{sec:eight}Conclusion}

1744: 

1745: Working at LO in the $k_T$-factorization approach to NRQCD, we analytically

1746: evaluated the squared amplitudes of prompt charmonium production by reggeized

1747: gluons in $RR$, $R\gamma$, and $Re$ collisions.

1748: We extracted the relevant color-octet NMEs,

1749: $\langle {\cal O}^{\cal H}[^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle$,

1750: $\langle {\cal O}^{\cal H}[^1S_0^{(8)}]\rangle$, and

1751: $\langle {\cal O}^{\cal H}[^3P_0^{(8)}]\rangle$ for

1752: ${\cal H}=J/\psi$, $\psi^\prime$, and $\chi_{cJ}$ through fits to $p_T$

1753: distributions measured by the CDF Collaboration in $p\bar p$ collisions at the

1754: Tevatron with $\sqrt{S}=1.8$~TeV \cite{CDFI} and 1.96~TeV \cite{CDFII} using

1755: three different versions of unintegrated gluon distribution function, namely

1756: JB \cite{JB}, JS \cite{JS}, and KMR \cite{KMR}.

1757: Appealing to the assumed NRQCD factorization, we used the NMEs thus obtained

1758: to predict various cross section distributions of prompt $J/\psi$

1759: photoproduction and electroproduction in $ep$ collisions and photoproduction

1760: in $e^+e^-$ collisions and compared them with ZEUS \cite{epZEUS} and H1

1761: \cite{epH1} data from HERA and DELPHI \cite{LEPJpsi} data from LEP2,

1762: respectively.

1763: In the case of photoproduction, we included both the direct and resolved

1764: contributions.

1765: As for the unintegrated parton distribution functions of the proton and the

1766: resolved photon, we assumed the gluon content to be dominant.

1767: 

1768: Our fits to the Tevatron data turned out to be satisfactory, except for the

1769: one to the $\chi_{cJ}$ sample based on the JB gluon density in the proton,

1770: where the fit result significantly exceeded the measured cross section in the

1771: small-$p_T$ region.

1772: We found agreement with the HERA and LEP2 data within a factor of 2, which is

1773: the typical size of the theoretical uncertainty due to the lack of knowledge

1774: of the precise value of the $c$-quark mass and the NLO corrections.

1775: Specifically, we found that direct and resolved photoproduction in $ep$

1776: collisions under HERA kinematic conditions dominantly proceed through

1777: color-singlet processes, namely $R(p)+\gamma \to {\cal H}[{^3}S_1^{(1)}] + g$

1778: and $R(p) + R(\gamma) \to {\cal H}[{^3}S_1^{(1)}] + g$, respectively.

1779: Similarly, photoproduction in $e^+e^-$ collisions under LEP2 kinematic

1780: conditions is mainly mediated via the color-singlet subprocess

1781: $R(\gamma) + \gamma \to {\cal H}[{^3}S_1^{(1)}] + g$, but the color-octet

1782: subprocess $R(\gamma)+\gamma \to {\cal H}[{^1}S_0^{(8)}]$ also contributes

1783: appreciably.

1784: 

1785: LO predictions in both the collinear parton model and the $k_T$-factorization

1786: framework suffer from sizeable theoretical uncertainties, which are largely

1787: due to unphysical-scale dependences.

1788: Substantial improvement can only be achieved by performing full NLO analyses.

1789: While the stage for the NLO NRQCD treatment of $2\to2$ processes has been set

1790: in the collinear parton model \cite{kkms}, conceptual issues still remain to

1791: be clarified in the $k_T$-factorization approach.

1792: Since, at NLO, incoming partons can gain a finite $k_T$ kick through the

1793: perturbative emission of partons, one expects that essential features produced

1794: by the $k_T$-factorization approach at LO will thus automatically show up at

1795: NLO in the collinear parton model.

1796: 

1797: \begin{acknowledgments}

1798: 

1799: V.A.S. and D.V.V. thank the 2nd Institute for Theoretical Physics at the

1800: University of Hamburg for the hospitality extended to them during visits when

1801: this research was carried out.

1802: The work of D.V.V. was supported in part by a Mikhail Lomonosov grant, jointly

1803: funded by DAAD and the Russian Ministry of Education, by the International

1804: Center of Fundamental Physics in Moscow, and by the Dynastiya Foundation.

1805: This work was supported in part by BMBF Grant No.\ 05~HT4GUA/4.

1806: 

1807: \end{acknowledgments}

1808: 

1809: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1810: 

1811: \bibitem{NRQCD}

1812: G.~T.~Bodwin, E.~Braaten, and G.~P.~Lepage,

1813: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{51}, 1125 (1995); \textbf{55}, 5853(E) (1997).

1814: 

1815: \bibitem{PartonModel}

1816: CTEQ Collaboration, R. Brock \emph{et al.},

1817: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ \textbf{67}, 157 (1995).

1818: 

1819: \bibitem{DGLAP}

1820: V.~N.~Gribov and L.~N.~Lipatov,

1821: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{15}, 438 (1972)

1822: [Yad.\ Fiz.\ \textbf{15}, 781 (1972)];

1823: Yu.~L.~Dokshitzer,

1824: Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP \textbf{46}, 641 (1977)

1825: [Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\  \textbf{73}, 1216 (1977)];

1826: G.~Altarelli and G.~Parisi,

1827: Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{B126}, 298 (1977).

1828: 

1829: \bibitem{BFKL}

1830: E.~A.~Kuraev, L.~N.~Lipatov, and V.~S.~Fadin,

1831: Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP \textbf{44}, 443 (1976)

1832: [Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\  \textbf{71}, 840 (1976)];

1833: I.~I.~Balitsky and L.~N.~Lipatov,

1834: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf 28}, 822 (1978)

1835: [Yad.\ Fiz.\  \textbf{28}, 1597 (1978)].

1836: 

1837: \bibitem{KTGribov}

1838: L.~V.~Gribov, E.~M.~Levin, and M.~G.~Ryskin,

1839: Phys.\ Rept.\ \textbf{100}, 1 (1983);

1840: S.~Catani, M.~Ciafoloni, and F.~Hautmann,

1841: Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{B366}, 135 (1991).

1842: 

1843: \bibitem{KTCollins}

1844: J.~C.~Collins and R.~K.~Ellis,

1845: Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{B360}, 3 (1991).

1846: 

1847: \bibitem{KTLipatov}

1848: L.~N.~Lipatov,

1849: Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{B452}, 369 (1995).

1850: 

1851: \bibitem{KTLipatovFadin}

1852: V.~S.~Fadin and L.~N.~Lipatov,

1853: Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{B477}, 767 (1996).

1854: 

1855: \bibitem{KTAntonov}

1856: E.~N.~Antonov, L.~N.~Lipatov, E.~A.~Kuraev, and I.~O.~Cherednikov,

1857: Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{B721}, 111 (2005).

1858: 

1859: \bibitem{PRD2003}

1860: V.~A.~Saleev and D.~V.~Vasin,

1861: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{68}, 114013 (2003);

1862: Phys.\ Atom.\ Nucl.\ \textbf{68}, 94 (2005)

1863: [Yad.\ Fiz.\  \textbf{68}, 95 (2005)].

1864: 

1865: \bibitem{JB}

1866: J.~Bl\"umlein,

1867: Report No.\ DESY~95-121 (1995).

1868: 

1869: \bibitem{JS}

1870: H.~Jung and G.~P.~Salam,

1871: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C \textbf{19}, 351 (2001).

1872: 

1873: \bibitem{KMR}

1874: M.~A.~Kimber, A.~D.~Martin, and M.~G.~Ryskin,

1875: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{63}, 114027 (2001).

1876: 

1877: \bibitem{PLB2002}

1878: V.~A.~Saleev and D.~V.~Vasin,

1879: Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{548}, 161 (2002).

1880: 

1881: \bibitem{CCFM}

1882: M.~Ciafaloni,

1883: Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{B296}, 49 (1988);

1884: S.~Catani, F.~Fiorani, and G.~Marchesini,

1885: Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{234}, 339 (1990);

1886: G.~Marchesini,

1887: Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{B445}, 49 (1995).

1888: 

1889: \bibitem{CSM}

1890: V.~G.~Kartvelishvili, A.~K.~Likhoded, and S.~R.~Slabospitsky,

1891: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\  \textbf{28}, 678 (1978)

1892: [Yad.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 28}, 1315 (1978)];

1893: S.~S.~Gershtein, A.~K.~Likhoded, and S.~R.~Slabospitsky, %oct 80

1894: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\  \textbf{34}, 128 (1981)

1895: [Yad.\ Fiz.\  \textbf{34}, 227 (1981)];

1896: E.~L.~Berger and D.~Jones,

1897: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{23}, 1521 (1981);

1898: R.~Baier and R.~R\"{u}ckl, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{102}, 364 (1981).

1899: 

1900: \bibitem{QPM}

1901: W.~Lucha, F.~F.~Schoberl, and D.~Gromes,

1902: Phys.\ Rept.\  \textbf{200}, 127 (1991);

1903: E.~J.~Eichten and C.~Quigg,

1904: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{52}, 1726 (1995).

1905: 

1906: \bibitem{Maltoni}

1907: F.~Maltoni, M.~L.~Mangano, and A.~Petrelli,

1908: Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{B519}, 361 (1998).

1909: 

1910: \bibitem{Guberina}

1911: J.~H.~K\"{u}hn, J.~Kaplan, and E.~G.~O.~Safiani,

1912: Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{B157}, 125 (1979);

1913: B.~Guberina, J.~H.~K\"{u}hn, R.~D.~Peccei, and R.~R\"{u}ckl,

1914: Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{B174}, 317 (1980).

1915: 

1916: \bibitem{CDFBaranov}

1917: S.~P.~Baranov,

1918: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{66}, 114003 (2002).

1919: 

1920: \bibitem{Ostrovsky}

1921: V.~S.~Fadin, M.~I.~Kotsky, and L.~N.~Lipatov,

1922: Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{415}, 97 (1997);

1923: D.~Ostrovsky,

1924: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{62}, 054028 (2000).

1925: 

1926: \bibitem{FFBraaten}

1927: E.~Braaten, K.~Cheung, and T.~C.~Yuan,

1928: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{48}, 4230 (1993);

1929: E.~Braaten and T.~C.~Yuan,

1930: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{50}, 3176 (1994);

1931: \textbf{52}, 6627 (1995);

1932: E.~Braaten and J.~Lee,

1933: Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{B586}, 427 (2000).

1934: 

1935: \bibitem{Leibovich}

1936: P.~Cho and A.~K.~Leibovich,

1937: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{53}, 150 (1996);

1938: \textbf{53}, 6203 (1996).

1939: 

1940: \bibitem{KraemerGammaP}

1941: M.~Cacciari and M.~Kramer,

1942: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  \textbf{76}, 4128 (1996).

1943: 

1944: \bibitem{ZotovLEP}

1945: A.~V.~Lipatov and N.~P.~Zotov,

1946: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C \textbf{41}, 163 (2005).

1947: 

1948: \bibitem{kls}

1949: P.~Ko, J.~Lee, and H.S.~Song,

1950: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{54}, 4312 (1996); \textbf{60}, 119902(E) (1996).

1951: %M.~Beneke, M.~Kramer, and M.~V\"anttinen,

1952: %Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{57}, 4258 (1998).

1953: 

1954: \bibitem{fm}

1955: S.~Fleming and T.~Mehen,

1956: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{57}, 1846 (1998).

1957: 

1958: \bibitem{CDFI}

1959: CDF Collaboration,

1960: F.~Abe \emph{et al.},

1961: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{79}, 572 (1997); \textbf{79}, 578 (1997);

1962: CDF Collaboration, T.~Affolder \emph{et al.},

1963: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{85}, 2886 (2000).

1964: 

1965: \bibitem{CDFII}

1966: CDF Collaboration,

1967: D.~Acosta \emph{et al.},

1968: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{71}, 032001 (2005).

1969: 

1970: \bibitem{KramerReview}

1971: M.~Kr\"amer,

1972: Prog.\ Part.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{47}, 141 (2001).

1973: 

1974: \bibitem{KTTeryaev}

1975: Ph.~H\"agler, R.~Kirschner, A.~Sch\"afer, L.~Szymanowski, and O.~V.~Teryaev,

1976: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{62}, 071502 (2000);

1977: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{86}, 1446 (2001).

1978: 

1979: \bibitem{KTYuan}

1980: F.~Yuan and K.-T.~Chao,

1981: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{63}, 034006 (2001);

1982: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{87}, 022002 (2001).

1983: 

1984: \bibitem{PMBraaten}

1985: E.~Braaten and S.~Fleming,

1986: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{74}, 3327 (1995);

1987: B.~A.~Kniehl and G.~Kramer,

1988: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C \textbf{6}, 493 (1999).

1989: 

1990: \bibitem{BKLee}

1991: E.~Braaten, B.~A.~Kniehl, and J.~Lee,

1992: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{62}, 094005 (2000).

1993: 

1994: \bibitem{CDFPolarization}

1995: CDF Collaboration, T.~Affolder \emph{et al.},

1996: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{86}, 3963 (2001).

1997: 

1998: \bibitem{PMPolarization}

1999: B.~A.~Kniehl and J.~Lee,

2000: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{62}, 114027 (2000);

2001: B.~A.~Kniehl, G.~Kramer, and C.~P.~Palisoc,

2002: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{68}, 114002 (2003).

2003: 

2004: \bibitem{KTPolarization}

2005: F.~Yuan and K.-T.~Chao,

2006: Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{500}, 99 (2001).

2007: 

2008: \bibitem{QCDCorrections}

2009: R.~Barbieri, R.~Gatto, R.~K\"ogerler, and Z.~Kunszt,

2010: Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{57}, 455 (1975);

2011: R.~Barbieri, M.~Caffo, R.~Gatto, and E.~Remiddi,

2012: Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{B192}, 61 (1981).

2013: 

2014: \bibitem{PDG2004}

2015: Particle Data Group, S.~Eidelman \emph{et al.},

2016: Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{592}, 1 (2004).

2017: 

2018: \bibitem{PDG2002}

2019: Particle Data Group,

2020: K.~Hagiwara \emph{et al.},

2021: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{66}, 010001 (2002).

2022: 

2023: \bibitem{MRST}

2024: A.~D.~Martin, R.~G.~Roberts, W.~J.~Stirling, and R.~S.~Thorne,

2025: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C \textbf{4}, 463 (1998).

2026: 

2027: \bibitem{KMS}

2028: J.~Kwiecinski, A.~D.~Martin, and A.~M.~Stasto,

2029: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{56}, 3991 (1997).

2030: 

2031: \bibitem{epZEUS}

2032: ZEUS Collaboration, S.~Chekanov \emph{et al.},

2033: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C \textbf{27}, 173 (2003).

2034: 

2035: \bibitem{epH1}

2036: H1 Collaboration, C.~Adloff \emph{et al.},

2037: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C \textbf{25}, 41 (2002).

2038: 

2039: \bibitem{JBPhoton}

2040: J.~Bl\"umlein,

2041: Report No.\ DESY~95-125 (1995).

2042: 

2043: \bibitem{GRVPhoton}

2044: M.~Gl\"uck, E.~Reya, and A.~Vogt,

2045: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{46}, 1973 (1992).

2046: 

2047: \bibitem{SaleevZotov94}

2048: N.~P.~Zotov and V.~A.~Saleev,

2049: Phys.\ Atom.\ Nucl.\  \textbf{57}, 513 (1994)

2050: [Yad.\ Fiz.\  \textbf{57}, 543 (1994)];

2051: V.~A.~Saleev and N.~P.~Zotov,

2052: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A \textbf{9}, 151 (1994);

2053: V.~A.~Saleev,

2054: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{65}, 054041 (2002);

2055: N.~P.~Zotov and A.~V.~Lipatov,

2056: Phys.\ Atom.\ Nucl.\  \textbf{66}, 1760 (2003)

2057: [Yad.\ Fiz.\  \textbf{66}, 1807 (2003)].

2058: 

2059: \bibitem{LEPJpsi}

2060: DELPHI Collaboration, J.~Abdallah \emph{et al.},

2061: Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{565}, 76 (2003).

2062: 

2063: \bibitem{KniehlLEP}

2064: M.~Klasen, B.~A.~Kniehl, L.~N.~Mihaila, and M.~Steinhauser,

2065: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{89}, 032001 (2002).

2066: 

2067: \bibitem{kkms}

2068: M.~Klasen, B.~A.~Kniehl, L.~N.~Mihaila, and M.~Steinhauser,

2069: Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{B609}, 518 (2001);

2070: \textbf{B713}, 487 (2005);

2071: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{71}, 014016 (2005).

2072: 

2073: \end{thebibliography}

2074: 

2075: \newpage

2076: 

2077: \begin{figure}[ht]

2078: \begin{center}

2079: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth, clip=]{pp_KMR_States_R2.eps}

2080: \end{center}

2081: \caption{\label{fig:States}Contributions to the $p_T$ distribution of prompt

2082: $J/\psi$ hadroproduction in $p\overline{p}$ scattering with

2083: $\sqrt{S}=1.96$~TeV and $|y|<0.6$ from the relevant color-octet states

2084: compared with CDF data from Tevatron run~II \cite{CDFII}.

2085: All distributions are normalized to unity at their peaks.}

2086: \end{figure}

2087: 

2088: \begin{figure}[ht]

2089: \begin{center}

2090: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth, clip=]{pp_JPsi_direct.eps}

2091: \end{center}

2092: \caption{\label{fig:Direct}Contributions to the $p_T$ distribution of direct

2093: $J/\psi$ hadroproduction in $p\overline{p}$ scattering with $\sqrt{S}=1.8$~TeV

2094: and $|y|<0.6$ from the partonic subprocesses

2095: (1) $R + R\rightarrow J/\psi[^{3}S_1^{(8)}]$,

2096: (2) $R + R\rightarrow J/\psi[^{1}S_0^{(8)},^{3}P_J^{(8)}]$,

2097: (3) $R + R\rightarrow J/\psi[^{3}S_1^{(1)}]+g$,

2098: and (4) their sum

2099: compared with CDF data from Tevatron run~I \cite{CDFI}.

2100: The theoretical results are obtained with the (a) JB \cite{JB}, (b) JS

2101: \cite{JS}, or (c) KMR \cite{KMR} unintegrated gluon distribution functions.

2102: The decay branching fraction $B(J/\psi \to \mu^+ + \mu^-)$ is included.}

2103: \end{figure}

2104: 

2105: \begin{figure}[ht]

2106: \begin{center}

2107: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth, clip=]{pp_JPsi_from_Psi2S.eps}

2108: \end{center}

2109: \caption{Contributions to the $p_T$ distribution of $J/\psi$ mesons from

2110: $\psi^\prime$ decays in hadroproduction in $p\overline{p}$ scattering with

2111: $\sqrt{S}=1.8$~TeV and $|y|<0.6$ from the partonic subprocesses

2112: (1) $R + R\rightarrow \psi^\prime[{^3S}_1^{(8)}]$,

2113: (2) $R + R\rightarrow \psi^\prime[{^1S}_0^{(8)},{^3P}_J^{(8)}]$ (this

2114: contribution actually vanished),

2115: (3) $R + R\rightarrow \psi^\prime[{^3S}_1^{(1)}]+g$,

2116: and (4) their sum

2117: compared with CDF data from Tevatron run~I \cite{CDFI}.

2118: The theoretical results are obtained with the (a) JB \cite{JB}, (b) JS

2119: \cite{JS}, or (c) KMR \cite{KMR} unintegrated gluon distribution functions.

2120: The decay branching fraction $B(J/\psi \to \mu^+ + \mu^-)$ is included.}

2121: \label{fig:Psi2S}

2122: \end{figure}

2123: 

2124: \begin{figure}[ht]

2125: \begin{center}

2126: \includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth, clip=]{pp_JPsi_from_ChiC.eps}

2127: \end{center}

2128: \caption{\label{fig:ChiCJ}Contributions to the $p_T$ distribution of $J/\psi$

2129: mesons from $\chi_{cJ}$ decays in hadroproduction in $p\overline{p}$

2130: scattering with $\sqrt{S}=1.8$~TeV and $|y|<0.6$ from the sum of the partonic

2131: subprocesses $R + R\rightarrow \chi_{cJ}[^{3}P_J^{(1)}]$ and

2132: $R + R\rightarrow \chi_{cJ}[^{3}S_1^{(8)}]$, the latter of which being quite

2133: unimportant,

2134: compared with CDF data from Tevatron run~I \cite{CDFI}.

2135: The theoretical results are obtained with the JB \cite{JB}, JS

2136: \cite{JS}, or KMR \cite{KMR} unintegrated gluon distribution functions.

2137: The decay branching fraction $B(J/\psi \to \mu^+ + \mu^-)$ is included.}

2138: \end{figure}

2139: 

2140: \begin{figure}[ht]

2141: \begin{center}

2142: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth, clip=]{pp_JPsi_Prompt_R2.eps}

2143: \end{center}

2144: \caption{\label{fig:PromptR2}Contributions to the $p_T$ distribution of prompt

2145: $J/\psi$ hadroproduction in $p\overline{p}$ scattering with

2146: $\sqrt{S}=1.96$~TeV and $|y|<0.6$ from

2147: (1) direct production,

2148: (2) $\psi^\prime$ decays,

2149: (3) $\chi_{cJ}$ decays,

2150: and (4) their sum

2151: compared with CDF data from Tevatron run~II \cite{CDFII}.

2152: The theoretical results are obtained with the (a) JB \cite{JB}, (b) JS

2153: \cite{JS}, or (c) KMR \cite{KMR} unintegrated gluon distribution functions.

2154: The decay branching fraction $B(J/\psi \to \mu^+ + \mu^-)$ is included.}

2155: \end{figure}

2156: 

2157: \begin{figure}[ht]

2158: \begin{center}

2159: \includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth, clip=]{yp_JPsi_prompt.eps}

2160: \end{center}

2161: \caption{\label{fig:PhP}Contribution to the $p_T^2$ distribution of prompt

2162: $J/\psi$ photoproduction in $ep$ scattering with $E_p=820$~GeV,

2163: $E_e=27.5$~GeV, $60$~GeV${}<W<240$~GeV, $Q^2<1$~GeV$^2$, and $0.3<z<0.9$ from

2164: the direct-photon subprocess

2165: $R + \gamma\rightarrow {\cal H}[^{3}S_1^{(1)}]+g$

2166: compared with ZEUS data from HERA \cite{epZEUS}.

2167: The resolved-photon subprocesses

2168: $R + R\rightarrow {\cal H}[^{3}S_1^{(1)},^{3}P_J^{(1)},^{3}S_1^{(8)},

2169: ^{1}S_0^{(8)},^{3}P_J^{(8)}]$

2170: are neglected.

2171: The theoretical results are obtained with the JB \cite{JB}, JS \cite{JS}, or

2172: KMR \cite{KMR} unintegrated gluon distribution functions.}

2173: \end{figure}

2174: 

2175: \begin{figure}[ht]

2176: \begin{center}

2177: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth, clip=]{yp_JPsi_prompt_z.eps}

2178: \end{center}

2179: \caption{\label{fig:PhPz}Contributions to the $z$ distribution of prompt

2180: $J/\psi$ photoproduction in $ep$ scattering with $E_p=820$~GeV,

2181: $E_e=27.5$~GeV, 60~GeV${}<W<240$~GeV, $Q^2<1$~GeV$^2$, and (a) $p_T>1$~GeV,

2182: (b) $p_T>2$~GeV, or (c) $p_T>3$~GeV from

2183: (1) the direct-photon subprocess

2184: $R + \gamma\rightarrow {\cal H}[^{3}S_1^{(1)}]+g$,

2185: (2) the resolved-photon subprocesses

2186: $R + R\rightarrow {\cal H}[^{3}S_1^{(1)},^{3}P_J^{(1)},^{3}S_1^{(8)},

2187: ^{1}S_0^{(8)},^{3}P_J^{(8)}]$, and

2188: (3) their sum

2189: compared with ZEUS data from HERA \cite{epZEUS}.

2190: The theoretical results are obtained with the JB \cite{JB}

2191: unintegrated gluon distribution function.}

2192: \end{figure}

2193: 

2194: \begin{figure}[ht]

2195: \begin{center}

2196: \includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth, clip=]{ep_JPsi_prompt.eps}

2197: \end{center}

2198: \caption{\label{fig:DIS}Contribution to the $p_T^2$ distribution of prompt

2199: $J/\psi$ electroproduction in $ep$ scattering with $E_p=920$~GeV,

2200: $E_e=27.5$~GeV, 50~GeV${}<W<225$~GeV, 2~GeV$^2<Q^2<100$~GeV$^2$, and

2201: $0.3<z<0.9$ from the color-singlet subprocess

2202: $R + e\rightarrow e + {\cal H}[^{3}S_1^{(1)}]+g$ compared with H1 data from

2203: HERA \cite{epH1}.

2204: The theoretical results are obtained with the JB \cite{JB}, JS \cite{JS}, or

2205: KMR \cite{KMR} unintegrated gluon distribution functions.}

2206: \end{figure}

2207: 

2208: \begin{figure}[ht]

2209: \begin{center}

2210: \includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth, clip=]{ep_JPsi_prompt_z.eps}

2211: \end{center}

2212: \caption{\label{fig:DISz}Contribution to the $z$ distribution of prompt

2213: $J/\psi$ electroproduction in $ep$ scattering with $E_p=920$~GeV,

2214: $E_e=27.5$~GeV, 50~GeV${}<W<225$~GeV, 2~GeV$^2<Q^2<100$~GeV$^2$, and

2215: $p_T > 1$~GeV from the color-singlet subprocess

2216: $R + e\rightarrow e + {\cal H}[^{3}S_1^{(1)}]+g$

2217: compared with H1 data from HERA \cite{epH1}.

2218: The theoretical results are obtained with the JB \cite{JB}, JS \cite{JS}, or

2219: KMR \cite{KMR} unintegrated gluon distribution functions.}

2220: \end{figure}

2221: 

2222: \begin{figure}[ht]

2223: \begin{center}

2224: \includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth, clip=]{yy_JPsi_prompt.eps}

2225: \end{center}

2226: \caption{\label{fig:LEP}Contributions to the $p_T^2$ distribution of prompt

2227: $J/\psi$ photoproduction in $e^+e^-$ annihilation with $\sqrt{S}=197$~GeV,

2228: $Q^2<9.93$~GeV$^2$, $W<35$~GeV, and $|y|<2$ from the partonic subprocesses

2229: (1) $R + \gamma\rightarrow {\cal H}[{^1S}_0^{(8)},{^3P}_J^{(8)}]$,

2230: (2) $R + \gamma\rightarrow {\cal H}[^{3}S_1^{(1)}]+g$,

2231: (3) $\gamma + \gamma\rightarrow {\cal H}[^{3}S_1^{(8)}]+g$,

2232: $R + R \to {\cal H}[{^3S}_1^{(8)}, {^1S}_0^{(8)}, {^3P}_{J}^{(8)}]$, and

2233: $R + R \to {\cal H}[{^3S}_1^{(1)}] + g$, and

2234: (4) their sum

2235: compared with DELPHI data from LEP2 \cite{LEPJpsi}.

2236: The theoretical results are obtained with the JB \cite{JB}

2237: unintegrated gluon distribution function.}

2238: \end{figure}

2239: 

2240: \begin{table}[hp]

2241: \begin{center}

2242: \caption{\label{tab:NME}NMEs for $J/\psi$, $\psi^\prime$, and $\chi_{cJ}$

2243: mesons from fits in the collinear parton model (PM) \cite{BKLee} using the

2244: MRST98LO parton distribution functions of the proton \cite{MRST} and in the

2245: $k_T$-factorization approach using the JB \cite{JB}, JS \cite{JS}, and KMR

2246: \cite{KMR} unintegrated gluon distribution functions.

2247: The CDF prompt data from run~I \cite{CDFI} and run~II \cite{CDFII} have been

2248: excluded from our fit based on the JB gluon density.}

2249: \begin{ruledtabular}

2250: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}

2251: NME & PM \cite{BKLee} & Fit JB & Fit JS & Fit KMR \\

2252: \hline $\langle {\cal O}^{J/\psi}[^3S_1^{(1)}]\rangle/$GeV$^3$ &

2253: 1.3 & 1.3 & 1.3 & 1.3 \\

2254: $\langle {\cal O}^{J/\psi}[^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle/$GeV$^3$ &

2255: $4.4\times10^{-3}$ & $1.5\times10^{-3}$ & $6.1\times10^{-3}$ &

2256: $2.7\times10^{-3}$ \\

2257: $\langle{\cal O}^{J/\psi}[^1S_0^{(8)}]\rangle/$GeV$^3$ & --- &

2258: $6.6\times10^{-3}$ & $9.0\times10^{-3}$ &

2259: $1.4\times10^{-2}$ \\

2260: $\langle {\cal O}^{J/\psi}[^3P_0^{(8)}]\rangle/$GeV$^5$ &

2261: --- & 0 & 0 & 0 \\

2262: $M_{3.4}^{J/\psi}/$GeV$^3$ & $8.7\times10^{-2}$ &

2263: $6.6\times10^{-3}$ & $9.0\times10^{-3}$ & $1.4\times10^{-2}$

2264: \\\hline $\langle {\cal

2265: O}^{\psi^\prime}[^3S_1^{(1)}]\rangle/$GeV$^3$ & $6.5\times10^{-1}$

2266: & $6.5\times10^{-1}$ & $6.5\times10^{-1}$ &

2267: $6.5\times10^{-1}$ \\

2268: $\langle {\cal O}^{\psi^\prime}[^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle/$GeV$^3$ &

2269: $4.2\times10^{-3}$ & $3.0\times10^{-4}$ & $1.5\times10^{-3}$ &

2270: $8.3\times10^{-4}$ \\

2271: $\langle{\cal O}^{\psi^\prime}[^1S_0^{(8)}]\rangle/$GeV$^3$ &

2272: --- & 0 & 0 & 0 \\

2273: $\langle {\cal O}^{\psi^\prime}[^3P_0^{(8)}]\rangle/$GeV$^5$ & ---

2274: & 0 & 0 & 0 \\$M_{3.5}^{\psi^\prime}/$GeV$^3$ &

2275: $1.3\times10^{-2}$ & 0 & 0 & 0 \\

2276: \hline $\langle {\cal O}^{\chi_{c0}}[^3P_0^{(1)}]\rangle/$GeV$^5$

2277: & $8.9\times10^{-2}$ & $8.9\times10^{-2}$ & $8.9\times10^{-2}$ &

2278: $8.9\times10^{-2}$ \\

2279: $\langle {\cal O}^{\chi_{c0}}[^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle/$GeV$^3$ &

2280: $2.3\times10^{-3}$ & 0 & $2.2\times10^{-4}$ & $4.7\times10^{-5}$ \\

2281: \hline

2282: $\chi^2/\mathrm{d.o.f}$ & ---  & 2.2 & 4.1 & 3.0 \\

2283: \end{tabular}

2284: \end{ruledtabular}

2285: \end{center}

2286: \end{table}

2287: 

2288: \end{document}

2289: