1: \documentclass[12pt,epsfig]{article}

2: \usepackage{graphicx,amsmath,amssymb}

3: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1}

4: \parskip 2mm plus 2mm minus 2mm

5: \newlength{\dinwidth}

6: \newlength{\dinmargin}

7: \setlength{\dinwidth}{21.0cm} \textheight23.0cm \textwidth17.0cm

8: \setlength{\dinmargin}{\dinwidth}

9: \addtolength{\dinmargin}{-\textwidth}

10: \setlength{\dinmargin}{0.5\dinmargin} \oddsidemargin -1.0in

11: \addtolength{\oddsidemargin}{\dinmargin}

12: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{\oddsidemargin}

13: \setlength{\marginparwidth}{0.9\dinmargin} \marginparsep 8pt

14: \marginparpush 5pt \topmargin -42pt \headheight 12pt \headsep 30pt

15: %\footheight 12pt

16: \footskip 44pt

17: 

18: \def\lapproxeq{\lower .7ex\hbox{$\;\stackrel{\textstyle

19: <}{\sim}\;$}}

20: \def\gapproxeq{\lower .7ex\hbox{$\;\stackrel{\textstyle

21: >}{\sim}\;$}}

22: \def\gtrsim{\lower .7ex\hbox{$\;\stackrel{\textstyle

23: >}{\sim}\;$}}

24: \def\lesim{\lower .7ex\hbox{$\;\stackrel{\textstyle

25: <}{\sim}\;$}}

26: \newcommand{\porpbar}

27: {\!\,^{\scriptscriptstyle(}$\mbox{$\bar{p}$}$\,^{\scriptscriptstyle)}}

28: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

29: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

30: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

31: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

32: \def\funp{{I\!\!P}}

33: \def\dr{\raisebox{2.1ex}{$\scriptsize\lfloor$}\!\raisebox{1ex}{$\rightarrow$}}

34: \def\bb{b\bar{b}}

35: \def\cc{c\bar{c}}

36: \def\qq{q\bar{q}}

37: \def\pp{p\bar{p}}

38: \def\ra{ \rightarrow }

39: \def\whs{\widehat{\sigma}}

40: \def\GeV{\rm GeV}

41: \def\a{{\alpha}_S}

42: \def\ol{\overline }

43: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{(\ref{eq:#1})}

44: \newcommand{\bi}[1]{\bibitem{a#1}}

45: 

46: \begin{document}

47: %\titlepage

48: \begin{flushright}

49: IPPP/06/11 \\

50: DCPT/06/22 \\

51: 24th February 2006 \\

52: 

53: \end{flushright}

54: 

55: \vspace*{0.5cm}

56: 

57: \begin{center}

58: {\Large \bf On the role of hard rescattering in exclusive diffractive Higgs production}

59: 

60: \vspace*{1cm}

61: \textsc{V.A.~Khoze$^{a,b}$, A.D. Martin$^a$ and M.G. Ryskin$^{a,b}$} \\

62: 

63: \vspace*{0.5cm}

64: %$^a$ Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, 117259, Russia\\

65: $^a$ Department of Physics and Institute for

66: Particle Physics Phenomenology, \\

67: University of Durham, DH1 3LE, UK \\

68: $^b$ Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina,

69: St.~Petersburg, 188300, Russia \\

70: 

71: 

72: \end{center}

73: 

74: \vspace*{0.5cm}

75: 

76: \begin{abstract}

77: We discuss the contribution of so-called semi-enhanced hard rescattering corrections to central exclusive diffractive

78: Higgs production, $pp \ra p+H+p$, at the LHC. We present arguments to show that these corrections are

79: small.  We confirm these expectations by considering HERA data for leading neutron production.

80: \end{abstract}

81: 

82: \section{Introduction}

83: Central exclusive diffractive processes offer an excellent opportunity to study the Higgs sector at the LHC in an exceptionally clean environment; for recent reviews see, for example, \cite{rev}. The process we have in mind is

84: \begin{equation}

85:  \label{excl}

86:  pp\to p\; +\; H\; +\; p

87: \end{equation}

88: where the + signs denote large rapidity gaps.   

89: Demanding such an exclusive process (\ref{excl}) leads to a small cross section \cite{KMR}.

90: At the LHC, we predict

91: \begin{equation}

92: \sigma_{\rm excl}(H)~\sim ~10^{-4}~\sigma^{\rm tot}_{\rm incl}(H).

93: \end{equation}

94: In spite of this, the exclusive reaction (\ref{excl}) has the following advantages:

95: \begin{itemize}

96: \item[(a)]

97: The mass of the Higgs boson can be measured

98: with high accuracy (with mass resolution $\sigma(M)\sim 1$ GeV) by measuring the

99: missing mass to the forward outgoing protons, {\it provided} that they can be accurately tagged far away from the interaction point. Such a measurement can be done irrespective of the decay mode, and is at the heart of an LHC proposal

100: \cite{FP420} to complement the central detectors by forward proton taggers in the 420m region from the interaction

101: point.

102: \item[(b)]

103: The leading order $b\bar b$

104:   QCD background is suppressed by the P-even $J_z=0$ selection

105: rule \cite{KMRmm}, where the $z$ axis is along the direction of the proton beam.

106: Therefore one can consider the observation of a Standard Model Higgs boson via $H\to

107: b\bar b$, which is the main decay mode for a mass $M \lapproxeq 140$ GeV. Moreover, a measurement of the mass of the decay products must match the `missing mass' measurement. It should be possible to achieve a signal-to-background ratio of the order of 1. For an integrated

108: LHC luminosity of ${\cal L} \sim 60 ~{\rm fb}^{-1}$ we expect about a dozen or so observable events

109: for a Standard Model Higgs, {\it after} accounting for signal efficiencies and various cuts\footnote{See Ref.~\cite{DKMOR} for early estimates of the signal-to-background ratio.}.

110: \item[(c)]

111: The quantum numbers of the central object (in particular, the

112: C- and P-parities) can be analysed by studying the azimuthal angle

113: distribution of the tagged protons \cite{Centr}. Due to the selection

114: rules, the production of $0^{++}$ states is strongly favoured.

115: \item[(d)]

116: There is a very clean environment for the

117: exclusive process -- the soft background is strongly suppressed.

118: \item[(e)]

119: Extending the study to SUSY Higgs bosons, there are regions of SUSY parameter space were the

120: signal is enhanced by a factor of 10 or more, while the background remains unaltered.  Indeed,

121: there are even regions where the conventional inclusive Higgs search modes are suppressed, whereas the

122: exclusive diffractive signal is

123: enhanced, and even such that both the $h$ and $H$ $0^{++}$ bosons may be detected \cite{KKMRext}.   

124: \end{itemize}

125: 

126:  

127: 

128: 

129: 

130: 

131: 

132: 

133: \section{The KMR estimate of $pp \ra p+H+p$ at the LHC}

134: 

135: The basic mechanism for the exclusive process, $pp\ra p+H+p$, is

136: shown in Fig.~$\ref{fig:H}$(a). The left-hand gluon $Q$ is needed to screen the

137: colour flow caused by the active gluons labelled by $x_1$ and $x_2$. The $t$-integrated cross section is of the form \cite{KMR,INC}

138: \begin{equation}

139: \sigma \sim \frac{{\hat S}^2}{b^2} \left| N\int\frac{dQ^2_t}{Q^4_t}\: f_g(x_1, x_1', Q_t^2, \mu^2)f_g(x_2,x_2',Q_t^2,\mu^2)~ \right| ^2, \label{eq:M}

140: \end{equation}

141: where $b/2$ is the $t$-slope of the proton-Pomeron vertex, and the constant $N$ is known in terms of the $H\to gg$ decay width. 

142: The factor, ${\hat S}^2 $, is the probability that the rapidity gaps survive against population by secondary hadrons.  It has been omitted (${\hat S}^2 =1$) in Fig.~$\ref{fig:H}$(a).  We will consider it in a moment. 

143: The amplitude-squared factor, $|M_0|^2$, however, may

144: be calculated using perturbative QCD techniques, since the dominant contribution to the integral comes from the region $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2\ll Q_t^2\ll M_H^2$. 

145: The probability amplitudes, $f_g$, to find the appropriate pairs of

146: $t$-channel gluons ($x_1,x_1'$) and ($x_2,x_2'$), are given by the skewed

147:   unintegrated gluon densities at a {\it hard} scale $\mu \sim M_H/2$.

148: \begin{figure}

149: \begin{center}

150: \includegraphics[height=15cm]{H.eps}

151: %\centerline{\epsfxsize=0.4\textwidth\epsfbox{H.eps}}

152: \caption{Schematic diagrams for central exclusive Higgs production,

153: $pp \to p+H+p$. The presence of Sudakov form factors ensures the infrared

154: stability of the $Q_t$ integral over the gluon loop in diagram (a). It is also necessary

155: to compute the probability, ${\hat S}^2$, that the rapidity gaps survive soft and semi-hard rescattering;

156: the two possible types of contributions are shown in diagrams (c) and (d) respectively, where the dashed lines

157: represent Pomeron exchanges (as in version (b) of diagram (a)).  

158: In addition to diagram (d), there is a `mirror-imaged' enhanced diagram with

159: the additional Pomeron instead being emitted from the upper proton, and an enhanced diagram with

160: additional Pomerons being emitted

161: from both protons and coupling to intermediate partons of the other proton. The expectation is that diagram (c) gives ${\hat S}^2\simeq 0.026$ at the LHC,

162: whereas in the text we argue that the enhanced diagrams do not give a significant contribution.}

163: \label{fig:H}

164: \end{center}

165: \end{figure}

166: 

167: 

168: Since the momentum fraction $x'$ transferred through the

169: screening gluon $Q$ is much smaller than that ($x$) transferred through

170: the active gluons $(x'\sim Q_t/\sqrt s\ll x\sim M_H/\sqrt s\ll 1)$, it

171: is possible to express $f_g(x,x',Q_t^2,\mu^2)$

172: in terms of the conventional integrated density

173: $g(x)$. A simplified form of this relation is \cite{KMR}

174: \begin{equation}

175: \label{eq:a61}

176:   f_g (x, x^\prime, Q_t^2, \mu^2) \; = \; R_g \:

177: \frac{\partial}{\partial \ln Q_t^2}\left [ \sqrt{T_g (Q_t, \mu)} \: xg

178:   (x, Q_t^2) \right ], 

179: \end{equation} 

180: which holds to 10--20\%

181: accuracy.

182: The factor $R_g$ accounts for

183: the single $\log Q^2$ skewed effect.  It is found to

184: be about 1.4 at the Tevatron energy and about 1.2 at the energy of the LHC.

185: 

186: Note that the $f_g$'s embody a Sudakov suppression

187: factor $T$, which ensures that the gluon does not radiate in the

188: evolution from $Q_t$ up to the hard scale $\mu \sim M_H/2$, and so

189: preserves the rapidity gaps. The Sudakov factor is \cite{WMR}

190: \begin{equation}

191: \label{eq:a71}

192:   T_g (Q_t, \mu)=\exp \left (-\int_{Q_t^2}^{\mu^2}

193:   \frac{\alpha_S (k_t^2)}{2 \pi}\frac{dk_t^2}{k_t^2} \left[

194: %  \int_0^1 \: \left [\Theta(1-z-\Delta)\Theta(z-\Delta)zP_{gg} (z) \:

195:   \int_\Delta^{1-\Delta}zP_{gg} (z)dz

196: \ + \ \int_0^1 \sum_q\

197:   P_{qg} (z)dz\right]\right),

198: \end{equation}

199: with $\Delta = k_t/(\mu + k_t)$.  The square root arises in

200: (\ref{eq:a61}) because the (survival) probability not to emit any

201: additional gluons  is only relevant to

202: the hard (active) gluon.  It is the presence of this Sudakov factor

203: which makes the integration in (\ref{eq:M}) infrared stable, and

204: perturbative QCD applicable.

205: 

206: 

207: 

208: In fact, the

209: $T$-factors have been calculated to {\it single} log

210: accuracy \cite{KKMRext}. The collinear single logarithms may be summed up using the

211: DGLAP equation. To account for the `soft' logarithms (corresponding

212: to the emission of low energy gluons) the one-loop virtual correction

213: to the $gg\to H$ vertex was calculated explicitly, and then the scale

214: $\mu=0.62\ M_H$ was chosen in such a way that eq.(\ref{eq:a71})

215: reproduces the result of this explicit calculation. It is sufficient to

216: calculate just the one-loop correction since it is known that the

217: effect of `soft' gluon emission exponentiates. Thus

218: (\ref{eq:a71}) gives the $T$-factor to single log accuracy.

219: 

220: Now we discuss the rapidity gap survival factor, ${\hat S}^2 $.  It has been calculated using an eikonal model which embodies all the main features of soft diffraction.  A schematic diagram is shown in Fig.~$\ref{fig:H}$(c).

221: The additional Pomeron may couple the upper and lower proton lines in all possible configurations. 

222: It is found to be ${\hat S}^2 \simeq 0.026$ for $pp\ra p+H+p$ at the LHC.  The uncertainty in the eikonal evaluation

223: of  ${\hat S}^2 $ has been estimated to be $\pm 50\%$ \cite{KKMRext,KMRsoft}.  In this connection it is interesting to note

224: that an alternative determination, based on a Monte Carlo calculation, also yields ${\hat S}^2 =0.026$ at the LHC 

225: \cite{lonnblad}.  A review of the various determinations of ${\hat S}^2$, showing general agreement, can be found in \cite{gotsman}. Moreover the value ${\hat S}^2=0.024$ was found in the recent study described in \cite{BM},

226: where the amplitude shown in Fig.~$\ref{fig:H}$(a) was denoted TPF (Two Pomeron Fusion).

227: Actually the exclusive cross section is proportional to

228: the factor ${\hat S}^2/b^2$, which is almost constant in the relevant interval $b=4~-~6$ GeV$^{-2}$ \cite{Sb}, 

229: where $b/2$ is the $t$-slope of the proton-Pomeron vertex.

230: 

231: 

232: 

233: 

234: 

235: 

236: 

237: \section{Enhanced diagrams: theoretical uncertainties} 

238: 

239: Besides the uncertainties in the gap survival factor ${\hat S}^2 $

240: caused by the soft eikonal rescattering of the incoming (outgoing)

241: protons 

242: there is the possibility of an additional effect.  The gap may be filled by the

243: secondaries created in the rescattering of the intermediate

244: partons; see, for example, \cite{enh}. Formally this effect is described by the semi-enhanced (and/or

245: enhanced) reggeon diagrams. One such diagram\footnote{The term {\it enhanced diagram} 

246: originates from Reggeon Field Theory. It means that,

247: contrary to eikonal rescattering, we have an additional

248: integration over the rapidity of $V_{3P}$ vertex. This integration

249: enhances the contribution of the given graph (rather

250: than the whole amplitude) by an extra logarithm, arising from the available space

251: in rapidity. Really Fig.~$\ref{fig:H}$(d), with one $V_{3P}$ vertex is called a {\it semi-enhanced diagram}, whereas

252: an {\it enhanced diagram} contains two $V_{3P}$ vertices and hence two integrations over their rapidities.} is shown schematically 

253: in Fig.~$\ref{fig:H}$(d). Since the intermediate gluons have a

254: relatively large transverse momenta, there a possibility that the contribution may be evaluated

255: within the framework of perturbative QCD. It is proportional to the QCD coupling $\alpha_s$ times the

256: density of gluons, generated by the lower proton in the rapidity

257: interval occupied by the intermediate partons of the upper

258: proton, that is $f_g(x_4,k^2_{t,4},...)$. Here $x_4$ and $k_{t,4}$ are the momentum fraction of the lower

259: proton and the transverse momentum carried by the $t$-channel gluon in the upper cell of the gluon

260: ladder corresponding to the additional Pomeron in Fig.~$\ref{fig:H}$(d).  Note that $x_4$ can become

261: very small, $\sim 10^{-5}$.

262: 

263: 

264: The first detailed attempt to calculate such a contribution within the perturbative QCD framework 

265: has been performed in ref.\cite{BM}.  They evaluated an amplitude

266: of the form\footnote{Note that our triple-Pomeron vertex $V_{3P}$ is defined slightly differently to that

267: in ref.\cite{BM}.}

268: \be

269: M_1~\sim~\int \frac{dx_4}{x_4} \int\frac{d^2 q_t}{2\pi^2} \int\frac{d^2 k_{t,4}}{k^4_{t,4}}~f_g(x_4,k^2_{t,4},...)

270: ~V_{3P}~M_0,

271: \label{eq:enh}

272: \ee

273: where the unintegrated gluon density $f_g(x_4,...)$ was calculated using 

274: the Balitsky-Kovchegov equation \cite{BK}, and where the leading log expression

275: for the QCD triple-Pomeron vertex, $V_{3P}$, was used \cite{BW}. Their result was that the enhanced diagrams give a rather large (negative)

276: correction to exclusive Higgs boson production at the LHC energy.  That is the exclusive Higgs signal may

277: be significantly reduced.

278: 

279: However the computation of the enhanced diagrams has, itself, many unresolved uncertainties. 

280: {\it First}, the next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) corrections to the triple-Pomeron vertex

281: are not known at present. To see the possible effect that these could have, we note that in the original Reggeon

282: phenomenological calculations a ``threshold'' was usually introduced, such that the rapidity interval between two

283: Reggeon vertices must exceed $\Delta Y = 2\ -\ 3$ \cite{KT,KPTM}.

284: An analogous effective repulsion

285: between the two vertices of gluon emission has also been observed in the calculation of the

286: NLL BFKL corrections \cite{FLC}.  

287: The NLL correction, $\omega_1$, to the intercept of the Pomeron trajectory is such that

288:  \begin{equation}

289: \label{e1}

290: \omega^{\rm NLL}~=~\omega_0+\omega_1~\simeq~\omega_0(1-6.2\alpha_s),

291: \end{equation}

292: where $\omega \equiv \alpha_P(0)-1$, and where $\omega=\omega_0=(N_c\alpha_s/\pi)4\ln 2~$ is the LO BFKL result.

293: It turns out that the major part of this NLL

294: correction is of pure kinematical origin \cite{SAl}.

295: On the other hand, in the presence of the ``threshold''

296: $\Delta Y$ we have a behaviour exp$(\omega Y) \sim x^{-\omega}$ where the intercept is given by \cite{schmidt}

297: \begin{equation}

298: \label{e2}

299: \omega~=~\omega_0~e^{-\omega\Delta Y}~=~\omega_0(1-\omega_0\Delta Y+...).

300: \end{equation}

301: Thus, if we assume that the whole NLL correction is explained by the

302: $\Delta Y$ threshold, then, on comparing the decrease of the intercept given by (\ref{e1}) and (\ref{e2}), we

303: obtain the value

304: \begin{equation}

305: \label{e3}

306: \Delta Y =6.2/((4\ln 2) N_c/\pi)\simeq 2.3,

307: \end{equation}

308: which is very close to that coming from the original Regge phenomenology.

309: 

310: If, indeed, the NLL correction to the triple-Pomeron vertex has the form

311: of a $\Delta Y=2.3$ threshold, then it follows that the semi-enhanced correction

312: will only contribute when the rapidity interval\footnote{$x_H$ is the proton momentum fraction carried by the Higgs

313: boson.} $\delta y=y_p-y_H=

314: \ln (1/x_H)$  between the incoming proton and the vertex of Higgs boson

315: emission becomes larger than $2\Delta Y$; since the interval between

316: the rapidity of the triple-Pomeron vertex ($y_V$) and the proton,

317:  and the interval between the triple-Pomeron and Higgs vertices,

318: both must exceed $\Delta Y$.  That is, we must have

319: $$y_p-y_V>\Delta Y,~~~~~~{\rm and}~~~~~~y_V-y_H>\Delta Y.$$

320: If we impose these requirements, then the semi-enhanced correction

321: (considered in \cite{BM}) will not contribute significantly\footnote{We thank A.B. Kaidalov for emphasizing the crucial

322: role of this threshold effect, see also \cite{enh}.} to the

323: central ($y_H=0$) exclusive production of a Higgs boson of

324: mass $M_H>140$ GeV at the LHC energy $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV, since the

325: available rapidity interval $\delta y=\ln (\sqrt{s}/M_H) <4.6$ is less than

326: $2\Delta Y$.  Even for $M_H=120$ GeV the available phase space is minute.

327: 

328: {\it Secondly}, at the moment there are no experimental data which determine the partons

329: in the region with $x \lapproxeq 10^{-4}$.

330: There is a tendency that at low $Q^2 < 2-3$ GeV$^2$ and $x<10^{-3}$ for the

331: gluon density to start to decrease with $x$ decreasing \cite{CTEQ,MRST}.  Moreover, in some global analyses

332: the gluon distribution is even negative for $Q^2=2$ GeV$^2$ and $x<3\times

333: 10^{-4}$ \cite{MRST}.  A more detailed discussion of our present knowledge (and uncertainties)

334: of the low-$x$ parton distributions can be found, for example, in \cite{MR}.

335: 

336: 

337: 

338: 

339: 

340: 

341: 

342: {\it Finally}, we recall that

343: infrared stability of the calculation of \eqref{eq:enh} is {\it only} provided by

344: the so-called `saturation momentum' $Q_s(x_4)$, below which the unintegrated gluon

345: density $f_g$ becomes proportional to $k^2_t$.  That is

346: $$ f_g(x_4,k^2_{t,4},...) ~ \propto ~ k^2_{t,4}~~~~~~~~~{\rm for}~~k_{t,4}<Q_s(x_4). $$

347: Indeed, the dimension of the Pomeron loop $\int d^2 q_t$ integration is

348: compensated by the infrared-type integral $\int d^2 k_{t,4}/k^4_{t,4}$.

349: Here the infrared divergency is not protected by Sudakov factors,

350: and the infrared cutoff is provided either by the inverse proton

351: size or by the saturation momentum $Q_s$.\footnote{When the

352: essential values of the Pomeron loop momentum $q_t$ (and $k_{t,4}$)

353: are much smaller than the value of the gluon transverse momenta $Q_T$ in the

354: loop which contains the Higgs ($gg\to H$) vertex, we can justify the validity

355: of the same leading order (LO) P-even, $J_z=0$ selection rule as in

356: the original amplitude, Fig.~$\ref{fig:H}$(a), without the semi-enhanced correction.} The hope

357: is that at very low values of $x_4$ the momentum $Q_s(x_4)$ is large

358: enough for perturbative QCD to be applicable.  This is not excluded; however so far there is

359: no experimental evidence (in the HERA data) to show the explicit

360: growth of $Q_s(x)$ with decreasing $x$.

361: 

362:   Thus the size of the correction crucially depends on the gluon

363: density in the saturation (or, even, the infrared) region. The problem is

364: that there is no established theoretical procedure to calculate the parton densities in this region,

365: where many other more complicated multi-Pomeron graphs, not

366: accounted for in the BK-equation, become important. In particular,

367: the interactions between the gluons from two parallel `Pomeron-ladders'

368: are already not negligible at much lower HERA

369: energies \cite{BR}. Clearly the series alternates in sign.  The second enhanced correction

370: with two Pomeron loops gives a positive contribution, and so on. 

371: This is why the authors of Ref.~\cite{BM} wrote that

372: ``we can not consider our

373: results as representing a reliable numerical final answer''. Moreover,

374: note that in \cite{BM}, just the first semi-enhanced Reggeon graph

375: was considered. It was demonstrated by Abramovsky \cite{Abrb,Abr} that the inclusion of

376: more complicated Reggeon diagrams may strongly diminish the effective

377: value of the triple-Pomeron vertex.  In particular, it is found that including graphs with one and

378: two extra Pomerons reduces the effective value of the triple-Pomeron vertex $V_{3P}$ by a factor

379: of 4 \cite{Abrb}.

380: 

381: \begin{figure}

382: \begin{center}

383: \includegraphics[height=3cm]{SD.eps}

384: %\centerline{\epsfxsize=0.4\textwidth\epsfbox{H.eps}}

385: \caption{The leading Reggeon contributions to the total and the single diffractive

386: dissociation cross sections.  The dashed lines correspond to Pomeron exchange.}

387: \label{fig:SD}

388: \end{center}

389: \end{figure}

390: 

391: 

392:  From the formal point of view, if we work perturbatively and include only the first Reggeon diagrams,

393: we can estimate the importance of the semi-enhanced correction by relating the ratio

394: of the contributions to exclusive Higgs production, 

395: $\sigma_H$(Fig.~\ref{fig:H}(d))/$\sigma_H$(Fig.~\ref{fig:H}(b)), to the ratio $\sigma_{\rm SD}/\sigma_{\rm tot}$.

396: Here $\sigma_{\rm tot}$ and $\sigma_{\rm SD}$ are the total and single diffractive dissociation cross sections

397: respectively, as computed from Fig.~\ref{fig:SD}.  We see that we have the ratios of equivalent Regge diagrams.

398: However, in the first ratio we need to include an AGK factor \cite{AGK} of 4; one factor of 2 since the Higgs boson may be emitted from either the left or right Pomeron in Fig.~\ref{fig:H}(d), and another factor of 2 as the cross section is given by the square of the amplitude.  Thus in terms of the simplest Regge

399:  diagrams we obtain 

400: \be

401: \frac{\sigma_H^{(d)}}{\sigma_H^{(b)}}~=~4~\frac{\sigma_{\rm SD}}{\sigma_{\rm tot}}

402: \left(\frac{{\rm ln}\sqrt {s/M^2_H}}{{\rm ln}(s/s_0)}\right)~\simeq~0.1

403: \ee

404: at the LHC, where the ratio in brackets is to allow for the different rapidity intervals available for the

405: triple-Pomeron vertex, $V_{3P}$.  The numerical evaluation of 0.1 is obtained using 

406: $\sigma_{\rm tot}\simeq 100$ mb \cite{KPTM,KMRsoft,GLMNP}, $\sigma_{\rm SD} \sim 10$ mb,\footnote{$\sigma_{\rm SD}$ is

407: observed\cite{Dino} to be

408: already practically independent of energy by $\sqrt{s} \simeq 500$ GeV.} ln$(s/M_H^2) \simeq 9$ and

409: ln$(s/s_0) \simeq 18$ for the LHC energy.  This estimate of the size of the semi-enhanced contribution is

410: much less than that given in \cite{BM}.  The arguments employed in this paragraph, and in \cite{BM}, are based

411: on perturbative estimates using the simplest Reggeon graphs, whose validity is questionable close to the saturation regime. The true parameter of the perturbative series is not the QCD coupling $\alpha_S$, but 

412: the probability of additional interactions, which however tends to 1 as the saturation region is approached.

413: 

414: Let us discuss this in more detail. Note that, starting from perturbative theory, we arrive in the

415: strong coupling regime.  The main contribution comes from the rescattering of partons with low $k_{t,4}<Q_s(x_4)$,

416: that is from the region where the probability of rescattering is of the order of 1.  So we must consider the

417: possibility of double counting.  Indeed the calculation of the ``soft'' survival factor, ${\hat S}^2$, 

418: in \cite{INC, KMRsoft}

419: used the phenomenological $pp$-amplitude obtained from fitting to ``soft'' data.  This amplitude, shown 

420:  by the left vertical line in Fig.~$\ref{fig:H}$(c), already includes the

421: enhanced Reggeon diagrams like that shown in Fig.~$\ref{fig:SD}$; that is it accounts for the rescattering of the whole proton wave function 

422: including all the intermediate and ``wee'' partons.  Thus we do not need to consider the contribution 

423: of Fig.~$\ref{fig:H}$(d), but instead the {\it difference} between the enhanced contributions to exclusive

424: Higgs production and the enhanced corrections hidden in the {\it phenomenological} soft $pp$-amplitude.

425: Here we may appeal to the Good-Walker approach \cite{GW}. Qualitatively, we expect that the component of the proton wave function, which contains the Higgs boson, will have smaller size and a smaller number of wee partons than

426: in a normal proton.  The probability of a soft rescattering for this component is, most probably, smaller, that is

427: the gap survival factor is larger, than that calculated using the ``experimental'' elastic $pp$-amplitude.

428: So, contrary to Ref.~\cite{BM}, we may find that the corrections from the enhanced diagrams could even

429: enlarge the predicted exclusive Higgs cross section.  However the probability of a soft rescattering is

430: mainly driven by the spatial distribution of the valence quarks, so we do not expect the effect to be large (see e.g. \cite{enh,SWILL}).

431: 

432: 

433: We conclude that there are theoretical and phenomenological reasons why the semi-enhanced

434: corrections are expected to be small at LHC energies, and will not appreciably affect the estimates, outlined in Section 2, obtained

435: for the cross section of the exclusive process $pp \ra p+H+p$.

436: Indeed, first, the correction comes from the `saturation' (or even the

437: infrared) region, where the global parton analyses which include the low $x$ HERA structure

438: function data, show that, at low $Q^2$, the

439: gluon density decreases as $x$ decreases below $10^{-3}-10^{-4}$.

440: Moreover, the concept ``gluon density $(f_g)$'' is not well defined in the saturation domain.

441: When we enter the strong coupling regime of saturation we have to rely more on phenomenological

442: arguments.  One of these is the `$\Delta Y$' threshold effect, which arises from the NLL correction

443: to the triple-Pomeron vertex; it is expected to strongly suppress the

444: correction when $x_H > 0.01$.

445: However there is a more direct way of checking the smallness of the semi-enhanced 

446: hard rescattering correction.  To this we now turn.

447: 

448: 

449: 

450: 

451: \section{Enhanced diagrams: experimental information}

452: 

453: 

454: There is a good way to experimentally probe the importance of the semi-enhanced rescattering

455: correction.  It is the observation of leading neutron production in

456: inelastic events at HERA, in which the neutron is measured with Feynman $x$ in the region $x_L\simeq 0.7 - 0.9$. This process, $\gamma p \ra Xn$, is mediated by pion exchange.

457: The gap corresponding to pion exchange may be filled by the

458: secondaries produced in the rescattering of intermediate partons,

459: in exact analogy with the case of exclusive Higgs production. Due to

460: the relatively large values of the momentum fraction ($1-x_L$) transferred

461: across the gap, here the rapidity interval available for the

462: triple-Pomeron vertex is already large enough at HERA energies. Since

463:  the whole correction, after the integration over the rapidity of the

464: triple-Pomeron vertex, is proportional to the available rapidity

465:  interval, which grows with the initial photon energy, one has to expect

466: that the probability to observe a leading neutron (that is to observe a gap) must fall down with

467: energy. However this is not observed experimentally.  The leading neutron data can be found

468: in \cite{zeus1}-\cite{h12}, and a detailed analysis and discussion of the data is given in \cite{LN}.

469: These HERA data show a flat dependence on the incoming photon energy; see, for example, Figs. 7 of \cite{h1},

470: and Tables 14, 18 and Figs. 11, 12 of \cite{zeus2} which show, for fixed $Q^2$, the same probability\footnote{That is

471: the same probability, ${\hat S}^2$, to observe the rapidity gap associated with pion-exchange.} to

472: observe a leading neutron for

473: values of $x_{Bj}$ which decrease by more than an order of magnitude corresponding to an increase of the

474: photon laboratory energy by more than a factor of 10. 

475: The flat behaviour

476: provides a strong phenomenological argument in favour of a {\it small}

477: semi-enhanced correction.

478: 

479: Soon there will be another way to check experimentally the role of the

480: semi-enhanced rescattering corrections.  That is from the measurements of exclusive $\gamma\gamma$ production,

481: $\pp \ra p+\gamma\gamma+\bar{p}$,

482: at the Tevatron, and subsequently at the LHC where large $\gamma\gamma$ masses should be accessible. Three candidate events have already been observed in Run II at the Tevatron \cite{gamgam}.

483: These hint at a cross section that is even larger than that predicted by a calculation \cite{KMRS}

484: based on a similar mechanism to that described in Section 2, that is without the semi-enhanced correction.

485: Recall that the estimate of the correction in \cite{BM} significantly reduces the size of the exclusive cross section.

486: These Tevatron data are preliminary, and we await definitive measurements over a range of masses of the

487:  $\gamma\gamma$ system.

488: In particular, if measurements of $\gamma\gamma$ production with $M=10-20$ GeV were available, it should be

489: possible to confirm the prediction for the exclusive production of a SM Higgs with

490: $M_H=120-140$ GeV to the order of $30-50\%$. Moreover, if we account for the NLO corrections to $gg \ra \gamma\gamma$ then the uncertainty could be reduced to $10-20\%.$

491: 

492: 

493: \section{Conclusions}

494: 

495: The prediction for the cross section of  central exclusive diffractive production of new heavy objects

496: at the LHC is very important.  In particular, the Higgs production process 

497: $pp \ra p+H+p$ offers many advantages for

498: experimentally probing the Higgs sector, and, indeed, in some regions of SUSY parameter space can even be the Higgs

499: discovery mode.  The expected Signal-to-Background ratio is promising, but the event

500: rate (at least for a Standard Model Higgs) is low.  It is therefore crucial to check the existing predictions.

501: One recent check was

502: carried out in Ref.~\cite{BM}.  In this paper the basic ingredients of the calculation outlined in Section 2

503: were confirmed.  However the authors of \cite{BM} went a step further.  Their aim was to quantify the possible importance of the so-called enhanced diagrams.  Indeed, they calculated these contributions perturbatively and came to the conclusion that they could be significant, and could reduce the predicted event rate, although they drew attention to

504:  the limited validity of perturbative

505:  procedure.  We therefore addressed this issue

506: in this Note.  In Section 3 we presented arguments which indicate that the enhanced corrections will be

507: small at LHC energies, and will not appreciably affect either the value, or the uncertainty, of the previous predictions.

508: One reason is that there is just not sufficient room in rapidity for the triple-Pomeron vertex.  The LHC

509: is a bit below threshold for this contribution to be important.

510: Then, in Section 4, we described how measurements of leading neutrons at HERA clearly confirm the

511: smallness of these enhanced corrections.

512: 

513: 

514: 

515: \section*{Acknowledgements}

516: 

517: We thank Aliosha Kaidalov for particularly valuable discussions on this topic. We also thank

518: J. Bartels, S. Bondarenko, K. Kutak and L. Motyka for informative discussions on their paper. MGR would like to thank the IPPP at the University of Durham for hospitality, and ADM thanks the Leverhulme Trust for an Emeritus Fellowship. This work was supported by the Royal Society,

519: the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, by the grant RFBR

520: 04-02-16073, and by the Federal Program of the Russian Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology SS-1124.2003.2.

521: 

522: 

523: %\newpage

524: \begin{thebibliography}{x}

525: 

526: \bibitem{rev} V.A. Khoze, A.B. Kaidalov, A.D. Martin, M.G. Ryskin and W.J. Stirling, {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0507040};\\

527: B. Cox, {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0501064}.

528:   

529: \bibitem{KMR} V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C14} (2000) 525.

530: 

531: \bibitem{FP420} FP420  project: M.G. Albrow et al., CERN-LHCC-2005-025, Jun 2005.

532:  

533: \bibitem{KMRmm} V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys.

534: J. {\bf C19} (2001) 477.

535: 

536: \bibitem{DKMOR} A. De Roeck, V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin, R. Orava and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys.

537: J. {\bf C25} (2002) 391.

538: 

539: \bibitem{Centr} A.B. Kaidalov, V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin

540: and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C31} (2003) 387.

541: 

542: \bibitem{KKMRext} A.B. Kaidalov, V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin

543: and M.G.Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C33} (2004) 261.

544: 

545: \bibitem{INC} V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C23} (2002) 311.

546: 

547: \bibitem{WMR} M.A. Kimber, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Phys. Rev. {\bf D63} (2001) 114027;\\

548: G. Watt, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C31} (2003) 73.

549: 

550: \bibitem{KMRsoft} V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C18} (2000) 167.

551: 

552: \bibitem{lonnblad} L. L\"{o}nnblad and M. Sjodahl, JHEP {\bf 0505} (2005) 038.

553: 

554: \bibitem{gotsman} E. Gotsman, E. Levin, U. Maor, E. Naftali and A. Prygarin, 

555: in {\it HERA and the LHC}, CERN-2005-014, p. 221.

556: 

557: \bibitem{BM} J. Bartels, S. Bondarenko, K. Kutak and L. Motyka, {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0601128}.

558: 

559: \bibitem{Sb} V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin, M.G. Ryskin and W.J. Stirling, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C35} (2004) 211.

560: 

561: \bibitem{enh} A.B. Kaidalov, V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C21} (2001) 521.

562: 

563: \bibitem{BK} I. Balitsky, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B463} (1996) 99;\\

564: Y.V. Kovchegov, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60} (1999) 034008; {\it ibid}., {\bf D61} (2000) 074018.

565: 

566: \bibitem{BW} J. Bartels and M. W\"{u}sthoff, Z. Phys. {\bf C66} (1995) 157.

567: 

568: \bibitem{KT} A.B. Kaidalov, V.A. Khoze, Yu.F. Pirogov and N.L. Ter-Issakyan, Phys. Lett. {\bf B45} (1973) 493;\\

569: A.B. Kaidalov and K.A. Ter-Martirosyan, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B75} (1974) 471.

570: 

571: \bibitem{KPTM}

572: A.B. Kaidalov, L.A. Ponomarev and K.A. Ter-Martirosyan, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 44} (1986) 468.

573: 

574: \bibitem{FLC} V.S. Fadin and L.N. Lipatov, Phys. Lett. {\bf B429} (1998) 127;\\

575: G. Camici and M. Ciafaloni, Phys. Lett {\bf B430} (1998) 349.

576: 

577: \bibitem{SAl} B. Andersson, G. Gustafson and J. Samuelsson, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B467} (1996) 443;\\

578: J. Kwieci\'{n}ski, A.D. Martin and P.J. Sutton, Z. Phys. {\bf C71} (1996) 585:\\

579: M. Ciafaloni, D. Colferai and G. Salam, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60} (1999) 114036. 

580: 

581: \bibitem{schmidt} C.R. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60} (1999) 074003;\\

582: J.~R.~Forshaw, D.~A.~Ross and A.~Sabio Vera, Phys. Lett. {\bf B455} (1999) 273;\\

583: see also, G. Chachamis, M. Lublinsky and A. Sabio Vera, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A748} (2005) 649.

584: 

585: \bibitem{CTEQ} CTEQ collaboration, J. Pumplin et al., JHEP {\bf 07} (2002) 012.

586: 

587: \bibitem{MRST} A.D. Martin, R.G. Roberts, W.J. Stirling and R.S. Thorne, Phys. Lett. {\bf B604} (2004) 61.

588: 

589: \bibitem{MR} A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, in {\it HERA and the LHC}, CERN-2005-014, p. 369.

590: 

591: \bibitem{BR} J. Bartels and M.G. Ryskin, Z. Phys. {\bf C60} (1993) 751.

592: 

593: \bibitem{Abrb} V.A. Abramovsky, Pis'ma v JETP {\bf 23} (1976) 228.

594: 

595: \bibitem {Abr} V.A. Abramovsky, A.V. Dmitriev and A.A. Schneider, {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0512199};\\

596: A.Capella, J. Kaplan and J. Tran Thanh Van, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B105} (1976) 333;\\

597: V.A. Abramovsky and R.G. Betman, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 49} (1989) 747.

598: 

599: \bibitem{AGK}V. Abramovsky, V.N. Gribov and O.V. Kancheli,

600: Sov.  J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 18} (1974) 308.

601: 

602: \bibitem{GLMNP} E. Gotsman, E. Levin, U. Maor, E. Naftali and A. Prygarin, in 

603: {\it HERA and the LHC}, CERN-2005-014, p.221 (and references therein).

604: 

605: \bibitem{Dino} K.Goulianos, {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0407035} (and references therein). 

606: 

607: \bibitem{GW} M.L. Good and W.D. Walker, Phys. Rev. {\bf 120} (1960) 1857. 

608: 

609: \bibitem{SWILL} V.A. Khoze, M.G. Ryskin,  W.J. Stirling and P.H. Williams, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C26} (2003) 429.

610: 

611: \bibitem {zeus1} ZEUS Collaboration, M. Derrick et al., Phys. Lett {\bf B384} (1996) 388;\\

612: J. Breitweg et al., Nucl. Phys. {\bf B596} (2001) 3; Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C1} (1998) 81; ibid. {\bf C2} (1998) 237.

613: 

614: \bibitem {zeus2} ZEUS Collaboration, S. Chekanov et al., Nucl. Phys. {\bf B637} (2002) 3.

615: 

616: \bibitem {zeus3} ZEUS Collaboration, S. Chekanov et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B610} (2005) 199.

617: 

618: \bibitem {h1} H1 Collaboration, C. Adloff et al., Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C6} (1999) 587.

619: 

620: \bibitem {h12} H1 Collaboration, C. Adloff et al., Nucl. Phys. {\bf B619} (2001) 3.

621: 

622: \bibitem {LN} A.B. Kaidalov, V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0602215}, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C} in press.

623: 

624: \bibitem {gamgam} M.G. Albrow and A. Hamilton, presentation at the Workshop on {\it Future of Forward Physics at the LHC}, Manchester, December 2005.

625: 

626: \bibitem {KMRS} V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin, M.G. Ryskin and W.J. Stirling, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C38} (2005) 475.

627: 

628: 

629: \end{thebibliography}

630: 

631: \end{document}

632: