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/06/29 \\
50: DCPT/06/58 \\
51: 7th August 2006 \\
52:
53: \end{flushright}
54:
55: \vspace*{0.5cm}
56:
57: \begin{center}
58: {\Large \bf Central jet production as a probe of the perturbative formalism
59: for exclusive diffraction}
60:
61: \vspace*{1cm}
62: \textsc{V.A.~Khoze$^{a,b}$, A.D. Martin$^a$ and M.G. Ryskin$^{a,b}$} \\
63:
64: \vspace*{0.5cm}
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:
78: We propose a new variable, $R_j$, in order to
79: identify exclusive double-diffractive high $E_T$ dijet production. The variable $R_j$ is
80: calculated using the transverse energy
81: $E_T$ and pseudorapidity of the jet with the {\it largest} $E_T$.
82: For a purely exclusive event the value of $R_j\to 1$, if we were to neglect hadronisaton and the
83: detector resolution effects. To illustrate
84: the expected $R_j$-distribution we also compute exclusive three-jet
85: production; and, moreover, include jet smearing effects.
86: By studying the predictions as a function of the size of the rapidity interval, $\delta\eta$,
87: which allows for additional gluon radiation, one can probe the QCD
88: radiation effects which are responsible for the Sudakov suppression
89: of the exclusive amplitude. In this way we may check,
90: and improve, the formalism used to predict the cross sections of
91: exclusive double-diffractive Higgs boson (and/or
92: other New Physics) production.
93:
94:
95: \end{abstract}
96:
97: \section{Introduction}
98: Diffractive processes offer a unique means to discover new
99: physics at the LHC, see for example, \cite{ar,KMRProsp,DKMOR,cox}. An
100: exciting possibility is to search for Higgs bosons in an exclusive reaction, that is
101: $pp \to p+H+p$, where the plus signs denote large rapidity gaps.
102: This process allows detailed measurements of the Higgs boson properties in an exceptionally
103: clean environment and provides a unique signature, especially for the MSSM Higgs sector,
104: see \cite{KKMRext, Georg}. In particular, the Higgs mass and spin-parity determination
105: can be done irrespective of the decay mode, and these studies are at the heart
106: of the recent proposal \cite{LOI} to complement the central detectors at the LHC
107: by forward proton taggers placed far away from the interaction point.
108: However, the expected event rate is limited;
109: it is strongly suppressed, in particular by a Sudakov form factor necessary to guarantee the exclusive final state, see for instance \cite{KMR,jeff}.
110: An analogous Sudakov suppression enters the predictions for the exclusive production of dijets, $\gamma\gamma$, etc.
111: The existing diffractive Tevatron data (see, for example, the reviews \cite{KG1,KG2,MG1,CM,MG2,koji}
112: and references therein) are not in disagreement with the theoretical expectations
113: for these processes, see \cite {KKMR,KKMRdj,KMRS,MKKRS, BH75}. However a
114: definitive\footnote{The observation of exclusive $\chi_c$ and $\gamma\gamma$ events (\cite {MG2,koji,AH})
115: by the CDF collaboration has been reported at the conferences.
116: These results appear to be consistent with the
117: perturbative QCD expectations \cite {KMRS,KMRSg}, though in reality the scale
118: of the $\chi_c$ production process is too low to justify the use of the perturbative
119: QCD formalism.
120: The Tevatron exclusive $\gamma\gamma$ data are very important.
121: Here we do not face problems with hadronization or with the identification
122: of the jets. However the exclusive cross section is rather small.
123: Future precise measurements in the diphoton mass interval
124: 10-20 GeV would allow a significant reduction of the uncertainties
125: in the expectations for Higgs production,
126: to the order of $30-50\%$.}
127: confirmation of the mechanism of central diffractive production is still desirable.
128:
129: Here we examine in more detail the prediction for the important process of central diffractive dijet production
130: at the Tevatron. This process is a valuable luminosity monitor for central diffractive Higgs production, and for other
131: exclusive processes which may reveal New Physics, at the LHC.
132: The corresponding cross section was evaluated to
133: be about 10$^4$ times larger than that for the SM Higgs boson.
134: Thus, in principle, the exclusive production
135: of a pair of high $E_T$ jets (that is $p\bar {p} \to p+jj+\bar {p}$ in the case of the Tevatron)
136: appears to be an ideal `standard candle' for the Higgs.
137: Note, that the CDF measurements have already started to
138: reach values of the invariant mass of the Pomeron-Pomeron system
139: in the SM Higgs mass range.
140: This process is important on its own right
141: as a gluon factory. As discussed in \cite {KMRmm,KMRProsp}
142: the remarkable purity of the diffractively
143: produced di-gluon system
144: would provide a unique environment to study the properties of high
145: energy gluon jets.
146: Unfortunately, in the present CDF experimental environment, which does not provide
147: tagging of both forward protons, the separation
148: of exclusive events is not completely unambiguous. In particular, in addition to the smearing due to the
149: jet-searching algorithm and
150: detector effects (see for example, \cite {Royon}) , there are also hadronization and QCD radiative effects,
151: which distort the manifestation of the exclusive di-jet
152: signal, see for example \cite {AF, BH75}.
153: Because the reliability of the predictions
154: for the cross sections of central exclusive production
155: of heavy mass objects is so important for the prospects of
156: forward physics studies at the LHC, it is pivotal to check (whenever possible)
157: all the important ingredients of the perturbative QCD approach derived
158: in \cite{KMR, KMRProsp}. In this paper we focus on how to
159: expose the role of the crucial QCD radiative effects
160: which regulate the amount of the Sudakov suppression.
161:
162: Recall, that already in QED, it is well known that we can never observe a pure exclusive process. For example, the cross section for
163: $e^-e^+ \to \mu^-\mu^+$ is exactly zero if we exclude the photon
164: radiation and additional lepton-pair production which may accompany such
165: events; for a review, see \cite{bfkk}.
166: To determine the cross section we must use the celebrated Bloch-Nordsiek \cite{BN}
167: and Kinoshita-Lee-Nauenberg \cite {KLN} theorems, and calculate the radiative correction
168: accounting for the experimental resolution. In experiments with very good resolution the corrections are quite large.
169:
170: An analogous situation occurs when we consider QCD exclusive processes. Here we will apply the Bloch-Nordsieck
171: procedure to exclusive diffractive dijet production. That is we will allow for additional gluon radiation
172: in some rapidity interval $\delta\eta$, and study how the cross section changes as we change the size of $\delta\eta$
173: and the energy fraction which is allowed to radiate into $\delta\eta$. At present, two extreme mechanisms are used
174: to describe central diffractive dijet production. First, the formalism for pure exclusive production \cite{KMR} has
175: been implemented in the ExHuMe Monte Carlo \cite{ExHuMe}. Second, central inelastic dijet production via the
176: inelastic interaction of two soft Pomerons, which results in parton-parton scattering at large $E_T$; this process
177: is implemented in the POMWIG Monte Carlo \cite{POMWIG}. The dijet distribution is plotted in terms of the variable
178: \be
179: R_{jj}~=~M_{jj}/M_X~.
180: \label{eq:jj}
181: \ee
182: In terms of this variable, the first process corresponds to $R_{jj}=1$, since the mass of the dijet system, $M_{jj}$,
183: is equal to the mass, $M_X$, of the whole central system. The second process has $R_{jj}<1$ since additional
184: radiation (the fragments of the Pomerons) populate the central region, that is $M_X>M_{jj}$.
185:
186:
187:
188:
189:
190:
191:
192:
193: \section{A new signature $R_j$ of exclusive dijet events}
194: Dijet production, with a rapidity gap on either side, has been measured by the CDF collaboration, both in Run I \cite{CDFdijets}
195: and in Run II \cite {KG2, MG1,CM, MG2, koji}, at the Tevatron.
196: However there may still be some room for doubt whether {\it exclusive} dijet production,
197: $p\bar {p} \to p+jj+\bar {p}$, has been actually observed. As mentioned above,
198: there are various effects which strongly smear the $R_{jj}$ distribution, especially in the absence
199: of double proton tagging.
200: The hope was that exclusive events would show up as a peak at $R_{jj}=1$. Unfortunately the $R_{jj}$ distribution is strongly smeared out by
201: QCD bremsstrahlung, hadronization, the jet searching algorithm and other experimental effects. For example, it was shown, using the ExHume Monte Carlo \cite{CP}, that only about $10\%$ of exclusive events with $E_T>7$ GeV have finally $R_{jj}>0.8$, with the CDF cuts used in Run I at the Tevatron.
202:
203: To weaken the role of this smearing we propose to measure the dijet distribution in terms of a new variable
204: \be
205: R_j~=~2E_T ~({\rm cosh}~\eta^*)/M_X~,
206: \label{eq:j}
207: \ee
208: where only the transverse energy $E_T$ and the rapidity $\eta$ of the jet with
209: the {\it largest} $E_T$ are used in
210: the numerator. Here $\eta^* = \eta -Y_M$ where $Y_M$ is the rapidity of the whole central system\footnote{Note
211: that we systematically neglect the effects arising from the transverse momentum of the dijet system, which is
212: very small compared to the $E_T$ resolution.}. Clearly
213: the jet with the largest $E_T$ is less affected by hadronization, final parton radiation etc. In particular, final state radiation at the lowest order in $\alpha_S$ will not affect $R_j$ at all, since it does not change the kinematics of the highest $E_T$ jet used to evaluate (\ref{eq:j}). So despite the emission of an extra jet during the final parton shower, we still have $R_j=1$. Thus, to see the role of QCD radiation on the $R_j$ distribution, we only account explicitly for additional gluon radiation
214: in the initial state. At leading order, it is sufficient to consider
215: the emission of a third gluon jet, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}. The reason why it is sufficient to consider
216: only one extra jet, is that the effect of the other jets, which, at LO, carry lower energy due to the strong ordering,
217: is almost negligible in terms of the $R_j$ distribution. The rapidity $Y_M$ is sketched in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}. In Section 5 we will compute the exclusive three-jet cross section for different choices of the rapidity interval $\delta\eta$ containing the jets.
218: %
219: \begin{figure}
220: \begin{center}
221: \includegraphics[height=5cm]{f1.eps}
222: \caption{Central diffractive dijet production; (a) purely exclusive, (b) via soft Pomeron-Pomeron
223: interactions, and (c) with a third jet in a given rapidity interval $\delta\eta$.
224: The dashed lines represent gluons.\label{fig:1}}
225: \end{center}
226: \end{figure}
227: %
228: %
229: \begin{figure}
230: \begin{center}
231: \includegraphics[height=7cm]{f2.eps}
232: \caption{The rapidity $Y_M$ of the central system. It does not necessarily occur at $y=0$. The rapidity
233: interval containing the jets is denoted by $\delta\eta$, outside of which there is no hadronic
234: activity.\label{fig:2}}
235: \end{center}
236: \end{figure}
237: %
238:
239:
240:
241:
242:
243: \section{Resume of the calculation of exclusive dijet production}
244: To compute the $R_j$ distribution we first calculate the cross section of the exclusive dijet production
245: of Fig.~\ref{fig:1}. We have $\sigma_{\rm excl}={\cal L}{\hat \sigma}$ where \cite{KMR}
246: \begin{equation}
247: {\cal L} ~\simeq ~\frac{{\hat S}^2}{b^2} \left|\frac{\pi}{8} \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~.
248: \label{eq:M}
249: \end{equation}
250: The first factor, ${\hat S}^2 $, is the probablity that the rapidity gaps survive against population by secondary hadrons from the underlying event, that is hadrons originating from {\it soft} rescattering. It is calculated using a model which embodies all the main features of soft diffraction \cite{KMRsoft}. It is found to be ${\hat S}^2 =0.026$ for $pp\ra p+H+p$ at the LHC.
251: The remaining factor, $|...|^2$, however, may
252: be calculated using perturbative QCD techniques, since the dominant contribution to the integral comes from the region $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2\ll Q_t^2\ll M_H^2$.
253: The probability amplitudes, $f_g$, to find the appropriate pairs of
254: $t$-channel gluons ($Q,q_1$) and ($Q,q_2$), are given by the skewed
255: unintegrated gluon densities at a {\it hard} scale $\mu \sim M_H/2$.
256:
257:
258: Since the momentum fraction $x'$ transfered through the
259: screening gluon $Q$ is much smaller than that ($x$) transfered through
260: the active gluons $(x'\sim Q_t/\sqrt s\ll x\sim M_H/\sqrt s\ll 1)$, it
261: is possible to express $f_g(x,x',Q_t^2,\mu^2)$
262: in terms of the conventional integrated density
263: $g(x)$. A simplified form of this relation is \cite{KMR}
264: \begin{equation}
265: \label{eq:a61}
266: f_g (x, x^\prime, Q_t^2, \mu^2) \; = \; R_g \:
267: \frac{\partial}{\partial \ln Q_t^2}\left [ \sqrt{T_g (Q_t, \mu)} \: xg
268: (x, Q_t^2) \right ],
269: \end{equation}
270: which holds to 10--20\%
271: accuracy.
272: The factor $R_g$ accounts for
273: the single $\log Q^2$ skewed effect. It is found to
274: be about 1.4 at the Tevatron energy and about 1.2 at the energy of the LHC.
275:
276: Note that the $f_g$'s embody a Sudakov suppression
277: factor $T$, which ensures that the gluon does not radiate in the
278: evolution from $Q_t$ up to the hard scale $\mu \sim M_H/2$, and so
279: preserves the rapidity gaps. The Sudakov factor is \cite{WMR,KMR}
280: \begin{equation}
281: \label{eq:a71}
282: T_g (Q_t, \mu)=\exp \left (-\int_{Q_t^2}^{\mu^2}
283: \frac{\alpha_S (k_t^2)}{2 \pi}\frac{dk_t^2}{k_t^2} \left[
284: % \int_0^1 \: \left [\Theta(1-z-\Delta)\Theta(z-\Delta)zP_{gg} (z) \:
285: \int_\Delta^{1-\Delta}zP_{gg} (z)dz
286: \ + \ \int_0^1 \sum_q\
287: P_{qg} (z)dz\right]\right),
288: \end{equation}
289: with $\Delta = k_t/(\mu + k_t)$. The square root arises in
290: (\ref{eq:a61}) because the (survival) probability not to emit any
291: additional gluons is only relevant to
292: the hard (active) gluon. It is the presence of this Sudakov factor
293: which makes the integration in (\ref{eq:M}) infrared stable, and
294: perturbative QCD applicable.
295:
296: It should be emphasised that the presence of the double
297: logarithmic $T$-factors is a purely classical effect, which was first
298: discussed in 1956 by Sudakov in QED \cite{Sud}. There is strong bremsstrahlung
299: when two colour charged gluons `annihilate' into a heavy neutral object and the
300: probability not to observe such a bremsstrahlung is given by the
301: Sudakov form factor.
302: Therefore, any model (with perturbative or
303: non-perturbative gluons) must account for the Sudakov suppression when
304: producing exclusively a heavy neutral boson via the fusion of two
305: coloured/charged particles.
306:
307: In fact, the
308: $T$-factors can be calculated to {\it single} log
309: accuracy \cite{KKMRext}. The collinear single logarithms may be summed up using the
310: DGLAP equation. To account for the `soft' logarithms (corresponding
311: to the emission of low energy gluons) the one-loop virtual correction
312: to the $gg\to H$ vertex was calculated explicitly, and then the scale
313: $\mu=0.62\ M_H$ was chosen in such a way that eq.(\ref{eq:a71})
314: reproduces the result of this explicit calculation \cite{KKMRext}. It is sufficient to
315: calculate just the one-loop correction since it is known that the
316: effect of `soft' gluon emission exponentiates. Thus
317: (\ref{eq:a71}) gives the $T$-factor to single log accuracy\footnote{ Of course, in the case of QCD, the exponentiation of soft emission requires some clarification.
318: Because of the non-Abelian structure of QCD, there are indeed some
319: particular cases when the soft-emission factorization and Poisson
320: distribution theorems do not hold. This was exemplified, in
321: particular, in Ref.~\cite{kf}. However we are
322: interested in a phenomenon of a completely different (classical) nature.
323: In \cite{KKMRext} we discussed the NLO correction
324: to the double log term caused by the {\it classical current},
325: where the soft gluon radiation
326: exponentiates. This accounts for the effect of the
327: energy- and angular-ordered additional soft gluon radiation, which,
328: due to QCD coherence, is just part of the cascade generated by
329: the `primary' gluon. Summation of such soft `single' logs is
330: performed analogously to the DGLAP approach, which results in their
331: exponentiation. This situation is of the same nature as the well
332: known Modified Leading Logarithmic Approximation, which, for example, is discussed in
333: detail in the book by Dokshitzer et al. \cite{DKMT}.}.
334:
335:
336:
337:
338:
339:
340:
341:
342: \section{Calculation of exclusive 3-jet production}
343:
344: Here we consider the emission of a third jet described by the variables
345: $x$ and $p_t$. The variable $x$ is the fraction of the momentum of the incoming gluon (denoted by $x_1$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(c))
346: carried by the third, relatively soft, jet; that is $x=1-x'_1/x_1$. The explicit formula for the LO third jet radiation can be
347: obtained using the helicity formalism reviewed in Ref.~\cite{MP}. We outline the calculation
348: in the Appendix, where the general formulae for the exclusive
349: three-jet production amplitude are presented; that is, not restricted to LO. In the double logarithm limit, with $p_t \ll E_T$ and
350: $x \ll 1$, the exclusive 3-jet cross section is simply the exclusive
351: dijet cross section, ${\hat \sigma}^{(2)}$, multiplied by the classical
352: probability for soft gluon emission \begin{equation} \label{eq:e1}
353: d{\hat \sigma}^{(3)}_{\rm LO}~=~d{\hat \sigma}^{(2)}~ \frac{1}{4}~\left(\frac{N_c\alpha_s}{\pi}\frac{dp_t^2}{p_t^2}
354: \frac{dx}x\right)~.
355: \end{equation}
356: Note the extra factor 1/4, which reflects the suppression of soft gluon emission in comparison with the usual classical result given by the expression in brackets.
357: Naively we might expect a colour factor $N_c$, but instead we have $N_c/4$. This is due to the absence of the colour correlation between
358: the left (amplitude $M$) and the right (amplitude $M^*$) parts of the diagram
359: for the cross section, in our case with a colour singlet $s$-channel state.
360:
361: If we just keep the collinear logs with respect to the beam direction, that is we keep the condition $Q_t<p_t \ll E_T$, but do not impose $x \ll 1$, then the 3-jet cross section becomes
362: \begin{equation}
363: \label{eq:e2a}
364: \frac{d{\hat \sigma}^{(3)}_{LO}}{dt}~=~{\hat \sigma}~
365: \left(\frac{N_c\alpha_s}{4\pi}\frac{dp_t^2}{p_t^2}\frac{dx}x\right)\ ,
366: \end{equation}
367: where
368: \be
369: {\hat \sigma}~=~\left(\frac{9\pi\alpha_s^2(E^2_T)}{4E^4_T}\right)
370: \frac 12\left[(1-x)^3+\frac{1+x^4(1-2E^2_T/M^2_{jj})}{1-x}\right]\ .
371: \label{eq:e2}
372: \ee
373: The first term, in the round brackets in (\ref{eq:e2}), is the known cross section for the exclusive
374: colour-singlet $gg$-dijet production. The variable $t$ in (\ref{eq:e2a}) denotes the square of the four momentum transferred in this exclusive
375: colour-singlet $gg\to\mbox{high $E_T$-dijet}$ process. In other words $t$ is measured
376: between the highest $E_T$ jet and the incoming gluon which produces the high $E_T$ dijet system.
377: The last term in round brackets in (\ref{eq:e2a}) is just the double-log expression for the emission of the third jet, see (\ref{eq:e1}). Finally, the factor in square brackets in (\ref{eq:e2})
378: accounts for the polarization structure of the 3-jet system. Recall that the exclusive double-diffractive kinematics selects events with the same helicities of the incoming gluons, either ($++$) or $(--)$, that is $J_z=0$. The first term, $(1-x)^3$, corresponds to the helicity of the soft (third) jet being equal to the
379: helicities of the incoming gluons, whereas the remaining expression corresponds to the third jet having opposite helicity to that of the incoming gluons. In this expression, the term proportional to $x^4$ originates from the high $E_T$ dijets having different helicities, whereas the
380: factor 1 in the numerator corresponds to the production of two high $E_T$ jets with the helicities equal to each other. The $1/(1-x)$ in the second term reflects the usual (BFKL-like) $1/z$ singularity in the Altarelli-Parisi splitting function $P(z)$.
381:
382: It is informative to note that the behaviour of all three terms in the square
383: brackets of Eq. (\ref{eq:e2}), in the $x \to 0$ or $x \to 1$ limits, is not accidental.
384: Its physical origin can be understood by recalling the
385: celebrated Low soft-bremsstrahlung theorem \cite{Low} (see also \cite{borden,DKS}).
386: Recall, that according to the MHV rules (see the Appendix),
387: the only non-vanishing Born $2 \to 2$ amplitudes, $M_B$,
388: are those which have two positive and two negative helicities.
389: On the other hand, the $J_z=0$ selection rule requires that the two
390: incoming gluons have the same helicities, either $(++)$ or $(--)$.
391: According to the Low theorem \cite{Low}, for radiation of a soft gluon
392: with energy fraction $z \ll 1$, the radiative matrix element $M_{\rm rad}$
393: may be expanded in powers of $z$
394: \be
395: M_{\rm rad} \sim \frac{1}{z} \sum_0^\infty C_n z^n,
396: \ee
397: where the first two terms, with coefficients $C_0$ and $C_1$ (which correspond
398: to long-distance radiation), can be written
399: in terms of the non-radiative matrix element $M_B$.
400:
401: The application of these classical results is especially transparent when
402: the cross sections are integrated over the azimuthal angles. Then the non-radiative
403: process depends only on simple variables, such as the centre-of-mass energy
404: \footnote{Note that in our case, in the collinear log approximation, when $Q_t \ll p_t \ll E_T$,
405: the azimuthal angular dependence is practically absent.}.
406: In particular, if $M_B =0$, the expansion
407: starts from the non-universal $C_2 z^2$ term, which corresponds to non-classical
408: (short-distance) effects, not
409: related to $M_B$, see \cite{borden,DKS}.
410:
411: Let us start with the third term in the square brackets in Eq. (\ref{eq:e2}).
412: In this case soft radiation
413: should be considered with $z=x \ll 1$. The corresponding non-radiative matrix element vanishes,
414: since its helicity structure is either $(+++-)$ or $(---+)$.
415: Therefore, the matrix element squared, $|M_{\rm rad}|^2$, is proportional
416: to $x^2$. Keeping in mind the factor $x^2 ~dx/x$, which arises from phase space,
417: we see that this term is indeed proportional to $x^4~ dx/x$, as it appears
418: in Eq. (\ref{eq:e2}).
419: The soft-radiation limit of the first term corresponds to $z=(1-x) \ll 1$.
420: Then the third jet carries the largest
421: momentum, and one of the final jets is very soft. Again, the corresponding
422: Born amplitude vanishes due to the MHV rule,
423: and we arrive at the result $|M_{\rm rad}|^2 \sim (1-x)^4 ~d(1-x)/(1-x)$.
424: Finally, the second term, with the factor 1 in the numerator, corresponds to the only non-vanishing
425: non-radiative amplitude, either $(++--)$ or $(--++)$.
426:
427:
428:
429:
430:
431:
432: In the case of the collinear LO process (i.e. $p_t \ll E_T$), the value of $R_j$
433: can be calculated as
434: \begin{equation}
435: \label{eq:erj}
436: R_j=\sqrt{1-x}\left(\frac{\cosh(\eta^*)}{\cosh(\eta^*\pm \frac 12\ln(1-x))}\right)\ .
437: \end{equation}
438: Here $\sqrt{1-x}=M_{jj}/M_X$ accounts for a lower mass, $M_{jj}$, of dijet system
439: in comparison with the mass $M_X$ of 3-jet system, whereas the factor in brackets accounts for the corresponding shift (by $0.5\ln(1-x)$) of the rapidity of dijet system.
440: The minus sign must be used in (\ref{eq:erj}) when the highest $E_T$ jet goes in the same (beam or target)
441: hemisphere as the soft (third) jet.
442:
443:
444:
445:
446:
447:
448:
449:
450: \section{How the third jet affects the distribution in $R_j$}
451: With knowledge of the luminosity, (\ref{eq:M}), and the cross
452: section of the hard subprocess, (\ref{eq:e2}), we can calculate the cross
453: section of exclusive 3-jet production, and study how this contribution
454: looks in terms of the $R_j$ variable. Note that, after the emission
455: of the third jet, the production of other soft jets with $x'<x$
456: practically does not alter the value of $R_j$.
457:
458: \begin{figure}
459: \begin{center}
460: \includegraphics[height=5cm]{MM.eps}
461: \caption{The cross section, $MM^*$, for exclusive three-jet production, where the active gluons are denoted by $g$ and $g'$, see the $t$-channel decomposition of eq. (\ref{eq:decomp}). The two outside vertical lines are the screening gluons; indeed all the lines in the plot denote gluons. The dashed line is the third (soft) jet, with kinematic variables $x$ and $p_t$. The colour labels $a,b,c,d,e$ are those used in eq. (\ref{eq:ff}).}
462: \label{fig:MM}
463: \end{center}
464: \end{figure}
465: In the naive, \`{a} la QED, case, this multijet emission cancels a large part of the Sudakov $T$-factor suppression.
466: In other words, it gives an exponent analogous to that in (\ref{eq:a71}), but with a
467: positive power. In QCD the situation is more complicated. In the
468: expression for the cross section, $MM^*$, the two active $t$-channel
469: gluons (one in $M$, the other in $M^*$) are not correlated with each
470: other, but form colour singlets, each with the corresponding screening
471: gluon in its own amplitude, $M$ or $M^*$, see Fig.~\ref{fig:MM}. The colour decomposition
472: of the $t$-channel pair of active gluons, $gg'$, is given by
473: \be gg'=\sum_i c'_iA_i=\frac {1}{64}A_1+\frac 8{64}A_8+\frac
474: 8{64}A_{\bar 8} +\frac{10}{64}A_{10}+\frac{10}{64}A_{\bar{10}}+\frac
475: {27}{64}A_{27},
476: \label{eq:decomp}
477: \ee
478: where $A_i$ denotes the colour multiplet of the $t$-channel $gg'$
479: system: that is, $A_1$ is the colour singlet, $A_8$ and $A_{\bar 8}$ ($A_{10}$ and $A_{\bar{10}}$) are the asymmetric and symmetric colour octets (decuplets) components, etc. The coefficients $c'_i$
480: give the probability to have one or another colour state. Thus the probability that the pair of active gluons, $gg'$, forms the
481: corresponding colour multiplet is
482: \be
483: c_i \equiv ic'_i,
484: \ee
485: that is $c'_i$ times
486: the statistical weight given by the number $i$ of members of the multiplet.
487:
488: If we use the decomposition of the product of two 3-gluon vertices $i^2f_{abe}f_{cde}$ over the colour projection operators $P_i$, that is
489: \be
490: i^2f_{abe}f_{cde}=\left(3P_1+\frac 32P_8+\frac 32P_{\bar 8}-P_{27}\right)_{ab,cd} ,
491: \label{eq:ff}
492: \ee
493: then we see that for each $t$-channel colour multiplet, the probability of soft gluon emission is driven by its own colour factor $\lambda_i$. Namely, we have
494: $\lambda_1=N_c=3$ for the singlet, $\lambda_8=3/2$ for the octets,
495: $\lambda_{10}=0$ for the decuplets and $\lambda_{27}=-1$ for the 27-multiplet. The colour labels $a,b,c,d,e$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:MM}.
496:
497: So to compute the $R_j$ distribution we must include the factors arising from including the third jet with the corresponding colour charge $\lambda_i$ for each term in the decomposition (\ref{eq:decomp}). The power of the exponent for this real emission has the form of the $T$ for the virtual corrections (\ref{eq:a71}) multiplied by the corresponding colour factor $\lambda_i/N_c$. For instance, for the case when the $gg'$-pair form a singlet, that is for $i=1$, we have $\lambda_i/N_c=1$. Taking each exponent with its weight $c_i$, we
498: obtain
499: \be
500: T^{(\rm real)}~=~\sum_i c_i~\exp
501: \left ( \frac{\lambda_i}{N_c}\int_{Q_t^2}^{\mu^2}
502: \frac{\alpha_S (k_t^2)}{2 \pi}\frac{dk_t^2}{k_t^2}
503: \int_\Delta^x P_{gg} (z)dz~ \theta(\delta \eta/2-|\eta|)\right)~,
504: \label{eq:Treal}
505: \ee
506: where the scale $\mu=0.62 \sqrt{M^2_{jj}/(1-x)}$ is taken to be the
507: same as in (\ref{eq:a71}) and where the coefficients $c_i=ic'_i$ are the weightings in the decomposition shown in eq. (\ref{eq:decomp}).
508: Unlike eq. (\ref{eq:a71}), the $z$ integral is limited by the momentum
509: fraction $x$ carried by the soft third jet;
510: for the case of $x>1/2$ the upper limit $x$ in the $z$
511: integral (14) is replaced by $1-x$ -- two jets cannot carry the fraction
512: of an initial momentum greater than 1 (i.e. $x+z<1$).
513: Next, we have added the
514: $\theta$-function, which enables us to vary the size of the $\delta\eta$
515: interval containing the jets, so that we can study the radiation effect in
516: more detail. As a rule, the jet reconstruction is performed in some
517: limited rapidity interval, so it is natural to select events where all
518: the jets are emitted within the interval $\delta\eta$ centred at the
519: position of the $M_X$ system (that is in the interval $\pm \delta\eta /2$
520: in the frame where $Y_M=0$, see Fig.~\ref{fig:2}), while any hadron
521: activity outside the interval $\delta\eta$ is forbidden.
522:
523: Note that, due to a more complicated colour structure in QCD,
524: even in the double log limit, there is
525: no exact cancellation between the real emission (\ref{eq:Treal}) and
526: the Sudakov $T$-factor (\ref{eq:a71})\footnote{The simplest example of this lack of cancellation
527: is exclusive Higgs boson production, where already at the
528: first $\alpha_s$ order there is Sudakov suppression (\ref{eq:a71}),
529: while it is impossible to emit only one gluon accompanying the Higgs
530: boson from the colourless two gluon state.}.
531:
532: To calculate the exclusive cross section for 3-jet production
533: accompanied by the emission of softer jets in the rapidity interval
534: $\delta \eta$, we multiply the exclusive luminosity (\ref{eq:M}) by the cross
535: section of the hard (LO 3-jet production) subprocess, (\ref{eq:e2}), and by the
536: factor $T^{({\rm real})}$, (\ref{eq:Treal}), to account for the allowed radiation of
537: softer gluons. The results are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:teva} and Fig.~\ref{fig:lhc} in terms of
538: distributions over the new variable $R_j$. In order to do this, relation (\ref{eq:erj}) was used to transform the distributions
539: over the momentum fraction $x$ carried by the soft gluon, into the
540: $R_j$-distributions presented in the figures.
541:
542:
543:
544:
545: \begin{figure}
546: \begin{center}
547: \includegraphics[height=15cm]{rjtf.eps}
548: \caption{The $R_j$ distribution of exclusive two- and three-jet production at the Tevatron.
549: Without smearing, exclusive two-jet production would be just a $\delta$-function at $R_j=1$.
550: The distribution for three-jet production is shown for different choices of the rapidity interval, $\delta\eta$, containing the jets; these distributions are shown with and without smearing. The highest $E_T$ jet must have $E_T>20$ GeV.}
551: \label{fig:teva}
552: \end{center}
553: \end{figure}
554: \begin{figure}
555: \begin{center}
556: \includegraphics[height=15cm]{rjlf.eps}
557: \caption{The $R_j$ distribution of exclusive two- and three-jet production at the LHC.
558: Without smearing, exclusive two-jet production would be just a $\delta$-function at $R_j=1$.
559: The distribution for three-jet production is shown for different choices of the rapidity interval, $\delta\eta$, containing the jets; these distributions are shown with and without smearing. The highest $E_T$ jet must have $E_T>50$ GeV.}
560: \label{fig:lhc}
561: \end{center}
562: \end{figure}
563:
564: To be explicit the procedure is as follows. The $R_j$ distribution is computed using
565: \begin{equation}
566: \frac{d\sigma}{dR_j}=\int dE_T^2 d\eta_1 d\eta_2 dp^2_t~{\cal L}\left(\frac{d\hat\sigma^{(3)}}{dtdp^2_tdx}
567: \right)(T^{\rm (real)})^2 \left(\frac{dR_j}{dx}\right)^{-1}
568: \end{equation}
569: where the luminosity ${\cal L}$ is given in (\ref{eq:M}) and the Sudakov factor
570: $T^{({\rm real})}$ is given by (\ref{eq:Treal}); and where $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$
571: are the rapidities of the high $E_T$ jets.
572: We integrate over the kinematic intervals
573: \be
574: E_T>E_{\rm min},~~~~~~|\eta_{1,2}|<2.5,~~~~~~ p_{\rm min}<p_t<p_{\rm max}.
575: \ee
576: The lower limit of the logarithmic $p_t$ integral
577: is given {\it either} by the transverse momentum $Q_t$ in
578: the gluon loop\footnote{For $p_t < Q_t$, the
579: destructive interference between emissions from the active gluon $x_1$
580: and from the screening gluon (that is, the left gluon in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(a,c)) kills the logarithmic $p_t$
581: integration. Strictly speaking the values of $Q_t$ in the
582: amplitudes $M$ and $M^*$ may be different, but this effect is beyond the
583: LO accuracy of our calculation.}
584: {\it or} by the allowed rapidity interval $\delta\eta$, that
585: is $p_{\rm min}={\rm max}\left\{Q_t,xM_Xe^{-\delta\eta/2}\right\}$.
586: The upper limit is of a pure kinematical nature: $p_{\rm max}={\rm min}\left\{E_T,xM_X/2\right\}$.
587: If $p_{\rm max}< p_{\rm min}$, then there is no LO contribution.
588:
589: Next, we have to include the emission of the
590: third (soft) jet in the direction of one or the other incoming gluons, that is beam
591: protons. In other words we must sum up the contributions with either the plus or minus signs plus
592: in (\ref{eq:erj}). Thus, finally, we obtain
593: $$\frac{d\sigma}{dR_j}=\frac{{\hat S}^2}{b^2}\int dE^2_T
594: d\eta_1 d\eta_2\sum_{+,-}\sum_i c_i ~{\hat \sigma}~\left(\frac{N_c \alpha_s}{4\pi}\right)$$
595: %\left(\frac{9\pi\alpha_s2(E2_T)}{4E4_T}\right)
596: %\frac 12\left[(1-x)3+\frac{1+x4(1-2E2_T/M2_{jj})}{1-x}\right]
597: %\left(\frac{N_c\alpha_s}{4\pi}\right)\cdot$$
598: \be
599: \left|\frac{\pi}{8} \int\frac{dQ^2_t}{Q^4_t}\: f_g(x_1,x_1', Q_t^2,
600: \mu^2)
601: f_g(x_2,x_2',Q_t^2,\mu^2)\exp(n_i)\sqrt{\ln (p^2_{\rm max}/p^2_{\rm min})}\right|^2
602: \left(x\frac{dR_j}{dx}\right)^{-1}
603: \label{eq:fin}
604: \end{equation}
605: where $n_i$ denotes the power in the exponent in $T^{({\rm real})}$ of (\ref{eq:Treal}). The quantity ${\hat \sigma}$ arising from the hard
606: $gg\to ggg$ subprocess is given by (\ref{eq:e2}). Note that the factor $dp^2_t/p^2_t$ in (\ref{eq:e2a}) gives rise to the logarithm in ${\cal L}$ in (\ref{eq:fin}), while the factor $dx/x$ goes into $(xdR_j/dx)^{-1}$. Indeed, the value of $x$ and the derivative
607: \be
608: \frac{dR_j}{dx}\ =\ \frac{R_j}{2(1-x)}\left[\pm \tanh\left(\eta^*\pm \frac 12\ln(1-x)\right)\ -\ 1\right]
609: \ee
610: are calculated according (\ref{eq:erj}). Note that since
611: the lower limit, $p_{\rm min}$, of the integration over the $p_t$ of the soft
612: jet may depend on the transverse momentum, $Q_t$, in the internal gluon
613: loop, the factors $\exp(n_i)$ and $\ln(p^2_{\rm max}/p^2_{\rm min})$ occur
614: inside the `luminosity $Q^2_t$ integral'.
615:
616:
617:
618: In the computation we have used the partons of Ref. \cite{mrst99}. We neglect
619: hadronization effects, and present the parton level results by dashed
620: curves. In terms of the $R_j$ distribution, the exclusive dijet contribution
621: occurs as a $\delta$-function, $\delta(R_j-1)$, and cannot be shown in the
622: figures. However, in any realistic experiment, the distribution is smeared,
623: at least by fluctuations in the calorimeter
624: \footnote{If we assume that the
625: two forward protons are tagged,
626: (as is possible, in principle, in D0 experiment at the
627: Tevatron\cite{d0,CR} or at the LHC if the CMS and/or ATLAS
628: detectors are supplemented by the Roman Pots) then the mass of the
629: whole system, $M_X$, can be measured with much better accuracy by the
630: missing mass method.}. To see the effect of more or less realistic
631: smearing, we assume a Gaussian distribution with a typical
632: resolution\footnote{We thank M.G. Albrow, D. Alton,
633: M. Arneodo, A. Brandt, C. Buttar, R. Harris, C. Royon and K. Terashi for discussions on this
634: choice.
635: The resolution
636: $\sigma=0.6/\sqrt{E_T~{\rm in~ GeV}}$
637: %is even/(may be) a bit optimistic. It
638: is close to that obtained for the CDF detector, namely
639: $\sigma=0.64/\sqrt{E_T~{\rm in~ GeV}}+0.028$. The resolution of the D0 hadron
640: calorimeter is not quite so good: $\sigma\sim 20$\% for $E_T=20$
641: GeV. Moreover the expected resolution of the CMS hadron calorimeter is about twice worse,
642: while the anticipated resolution of the ATLAS detector may be even a bit
643: better: $\sigma\sim 0.5/\sqrt{E_T~{\rm in~ GeV}}+0.015$.} $\sigma=0.6/\sqrt{E_T~{\rm in~ GeV}}$.
644:
645: The results obtained,
646: after this smearing of the parton level distributions, are shown by the
647: continuous curves in Fig.~\ref{fig:teva} and Fig.~\ref{fig:lhc}.
648: We see that for the case of
649: $\delta\eta < 5$ the exclusive dijet production still
650: dominates for $R_j > 0.7\ -\ 0.8$.
651: The
652: perturbative QCD radiation is suppressed by the extra coupling
653: $\alpha_s$. However this suppression is partly compensated by the
654: collinear logs and by a large longitudinal phase space, that is by the
655: rapidity interval $\delta\eta$ allowed for the emission of the extra
656: soft jets. Indeed, we see that the cross section grows with
657: $\delta\eta$, and by $\delta\eta>10$ is close to the saturation curve
658: (denoted ``all $\delta\eta$''), which covers the whole interval of
659: leading log QCD radiation.
660:
661: Note that in the region $R_j<0.6-0.7$ the dominant contribution comes from three jet emission. Moreover here the results are more weakly dependent on possible smearing. Of course, in the region of small $R_j$ there may be other contributions coming from the three- or four-jet Mercedes-like configurations\footnote{In the Appendix we give the formulae needed to compute exclusive three-jet production in the whole kinematical interval, and not just in the domain of the leading collinear log approximation.
662: }. However these contributions are not expected to be large, since in this case $\alpha_s$ is not compensated by large logs. Another possible contribution comes from configurations which look like inelastic dijet production in the collisions of two soft Pomerons. Such configurations, corresponding to Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(b), may populate the low $R_j$ region, and are beyond the scope of the present analysis.
663:
664:
665:
666:
667:
668:
669:
670: \section{General use of $R_j$}
671:
672: In spite of the fact that the $R_j$ variable was introduced to select exclusive
673: dijets in double-diffractive hadron-hadron interactions in which both of the outgoing protons are tagged, a similar idea can be used to improve the measurements of the light-cone momentum fraction carried by the dijet system in other situations. In particular, to measure the fraction of the photon momentum, $x_\gamma$, carried by the high $E_T$ dijets in DIS. Note that the final state radiation (and hadronisation)
674: affect mainly the energy, and much less the rapidity of the jet. Therefore
675: to calculate $x_\gamma$ (or $x^+_{jj}$ and $x^-_{jj}$ in the more general case)
676: one can use the $E_T$ of the largest $E_T$ jet together with the rapidity of each jet.
677:
678:
679:
680:
681:
682:
683:
684: \begin{figure}
685: \begin{center}
686: \includegraphics[height=5cm]{5g.eps}
687: \caption{A schematic diagram of the $gg \to ggg$ process. The gluon labelled by $e$ is the (soft) third jet.}
688: \label{fig:5g}
689: \end{center}
690: \end{figure}
691:
692:
693:
694:
695:
696:
697: \section*{Appendix: Helicity amplitudes for $gg \to ggg$}
698: Here we outline the formalism used to calculate the $gg\to ggg$ process shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:5g}.
699: We denote the colour indices of the incoming gluons by $a,b$, and of the outgoing high $E_T$ gluons by $c,d$. Finally the colour index of the soft jet is denoted by $e$.
700: The $gg \to ggg$ matrix element, which depends on the helicities, $h_i$, and the 4-momenta, $p_i$, of gluons, is given by the so-called dual expansion
701: (see \cite{MP} and references therein)
702:
703: \begin{equation}
704: \label{eq:mhv1}
705: M^{h_a,h_b,h_c,h_d,h_e}(p_a,p_b,p_c,p_d,p_e)=\sum {\rm Tr} (\lambda_a\lambda_b
706: \lambda_c\lambda_d\lambda_e)~ m(a,b,c,d,e)\ ,
707: \end{equation}
708: where the sum is over the non-cyclic permutations of $a,b,c,d,e$.
709: The first factor looks as if all the gluons were emitted from the quark loop;
710: where $\lambda_i$ are the standard matrices of the fundamental representation of SU(3),
711: which are normalised as follows
712: \be
713: {\rm Tr}( \lambda^a \lambda^b)= \frac{1}{2} \delta^{ab},
714: \ee
715: \be
716: [\lambda^a, \lambda^b]= i f_{abc} \lambda^c.
717: \ee
718: The colour-ordered subamplitudes, $m(a,b,c,d,e)$, are only functions of the kinematical variables of the process,
719: i.e. the momenta and the helicities of the gluons. They
720: may be written in terms of the products of the Dirac bispinors, that is in terms of the angular (and square) brackets
721: \be
722: \langle ab \rangle~=~\langle p_a^-|p_b^+\rangle~=~\sqrt{|2p_ap_b|}e^{i\phi_{ab}},
723: \ee
724: \be
725: [ab]~=~\langle p_a^+|p_b^-\rangle~=~\sqrt{|2p_ap_b|}e^{i\bar\phi_{ab}},
726: \ee
727: where $2(p_ap_b)=s_{ab}$
728: is the square of the energy of the corresponding pair. If both 4-momenta have positive energy, the phase $\phi_{ab}$ is given by
729: \be
730: \cos \phi_{ab}=\frac{p_a^xp_b^+-p_b^xp_a^+}{\sqrt{p^+_ap^+_bs_{ab}}},~~~~~~~
731: \sin \phi_{ab}=\frac{p_a^yp_b^+-p_b^yp_a^+}{\sqrt{p^+_ap^+_bs_{ab}}},
732: \ee
733: with $p^+_i=p_i^0+p_i^z$, while
734: the phase $\bar\phi_{ab}$ can be calculated using the identity $s_{ab}=\langle ab \rangle [ab]$.
735: Actually the phase $\phi_{ab}$ is irrelevant in our collinear LO calculations,
736: except for the fact that $\langle ab\rangle=-\langle ba\rangle$ and
737: $[ab]=-[ba]$. However to calculate the $gg\to ggg$ amplitude beyond
738: LO, and to compute a more precise cross section, based on eqs.
739: (\ref{eq:mhv1},\ref{eq:mhv2}), we would have to account for the phases.
740:
741: Finally, the only non-zero subamplitudes
742: \begin{equation}
743: \label{eq:mhv2}
744: m(a,b,c,d,e)=ig^3 2^{5/2}\frac{\langle IJ\rangle ^4}{\langle ab\rangle \langle bc\rangle \langle cd\rangle \langle de\rangle \langle ea \rangle}
745: \end{equation}
746: are those which have two helicities of one sign, with the other three of the opposite sign,
747: the so-called Maximal Helicity Violating (MHV) amplitudes.
748: Here $g$ is the QCD coupling ($\alpha_s=g^2/4\pi$). In particular, when $h_a=h_b=-1$ while $h_c=h_d=h_e=+1$ the numerator
749: $\langle IJ \rangle^4=\langle ab\rangle ^4$; i.e. $I$ and $J$ are the only two gluons with the same helicities.
750: If we change the sign of helicities, then we have simultaneously to replace
751: the $\langle ij \rangle$ brackets by the $[ij]$ brackets.
752: Note that the collinear logarithm in the direction of gluon
753: $a$ comes from the factor $\langle ae \rangle$ (or $\langle
754: ea\rangle$) in the denominator of (\ref{eq:mhv2}). Thus to obtain the LO
755: result it is enough to keep only the permutations where the soft gluon
756: $e$ is close by its nearest neighbour, gluon $a$.
757:
758: Note that in the formalism leading to (\ref{eq:mhv2}) all the gluons are
759: considered as incoming particles; that is, the energies of the
760: gluons $c,d,e$ are negative. In the case when one or two momenta in the product
761: $\langle ab \rangle$ have negative energy, the phase $\phi_{ab}$ is
762: calculated with minus the momenta with negative energy, and then
763: $n\pi/2$ is added to $\phi_{ab}$ where $n$ is the number of negative
764: momenta in the spinor product.
765:
766: The three jet cross section (\ref{eq:e2}) is the square of the matrix
767: element (\ref{eq:mhv1}) calculated using the subamplitudes given by (\ref{eq:mhv2}). In this way, we obtain
768: \begin{equation}
769: d\sigma=|M|^2\frac{\delta^{(4)}(\sum_i
770: p_i)}{64\pi^5s_{ab}}\Pi_j\frac{d^3p_j}{2E_j},
771: \end{equation}
772: where $i=a,b,c,d,e$ and $j=c,d,e$.
773: To calculate the collinear LO contribution it is enough
774: to keep, in (\ref{eq:mhv1}), only the permutations where the soft gluon $e$ is the
775: nearest neighbour of the incoming gluons $a$ or $b$. For example, for the
776: case of $e$ collinear to $a$ we need only retain the $m(a,e,b,c,d)$
777: and $m(a,b,c,d,e)$ subamplitudes, plus the analogous amplitudes
778: with all the permutations of the gluons $b,c,d$. When we sum over the
779: permutations of gluons $b,c,d$, and account for the fact that
780: in collinear approximation the 4-vector $e_\mu$ is parallel to $a_\mu$,
781: we obtain the exclusive amplitude
782: of high-$E_T$ dijet production. The factor $\langle ae \rangle$
783: in the denominator of the subamplitude provides the LO logarithm
784: $ds_{ae}/s_{ae}$ in the cross section.
785:
786:
787:
788:
789:
790:
791:
792:
793:
794:
795: \section*{Acknowledgements}
796:
797: We thank Mike Albrow, Michele Arneodo, Andrew Brandt, Duncan Brown, Brian Cox, Albert De Roeck,
798: Dino Goulianos, Risto Orava, Andy Pilkington and
799: Koji Terashi for useful discussions.
800: 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,
801: the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, by grants RFBR 04-02-16073, 07-02-00023
802: and by the Federal Program of the Russian Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology SS-1124.2003.2, and by INTAS grant 05-103-7515.
803:
804:
805:
806: %\newpage
807:
808: \begin{thebibliography}{x}
809:
810: \bibitem{ar} M.G.~Albrow and A.~Rostovtsev,
811: %``Searching for the Higgs at hadron colliders using the missing mass
812: %method,''
813: {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0009336}.
814:
815: \bibitem{KMRProsp} V.A.~Khoze, A.D.~Martin and M.G.~Ryskin,
816: Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C23} (2002) 311.
817: \bibitem{DKMOR} A.~De~Roeck, V.A.~Khoze, A.D.~Martin, R.~Orava and
818: M.G.~Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C25} (2002) 391.
819:
820: \bibitem{cox}B.E.~Cox,
821: %``A review of forward proton tagging at 420-m at the LHC, and relevant
822: %results
823: %from the Tevatron and HERA,''
824: AIP Conf.\ Proc.\ {\bf 753}, (2005) 103,
825: {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0409144}.
826: \bibitem {KKMRext} A.B. Kaidalov, V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin
827: and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C33} (2004) 261.
828: \bibitem {Georg} V.A. Khoze, S. Heinemeyer, M.G. Ryskin, W.J. Stirling, M. Tasevsky
829: and G. Weiglein, to be published.
830:
831: \bibitem {LOI}M.G.~Albrow {\it et al.},
832: %``FP420: An R&D proposal to investigate the feasibility of installing
833: %proton
834: %tagging detectors in the 420-m region at LHC,''
835: CERN-LHCC-2005-025.
836: \bibitem {KMR} V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf
837: C14} (2000) 525.
838: \bibitem {jeff} J.R.~Forshaw,
839: %``Diffractive Higgs production: Theory,''
840: {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0508274}.
841:
842:
843: \bibitem {KG1} K.~Goulianos, {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0407035}.
844:
845: \bibitem{KG2}
846: K.~Goulianos,
847: %``Twenty years of diffraction at the Tevatron,''
848: {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0510035}.
849:
850: \bibitem {MG1} M.~Gallinaro [CDF - Run II Collaboration],
851: {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0505159}.
852:
853: \bibitem {CM} C.~Mesropian,
854: %``New diffraction results from CDF,''
855: {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0510193}
856:
857: \bibitem {MG2}
858: M.~Gallinaro [on behalf of the CDF Collaboration],
859: %``Diffractive physics results at CDF,''
860: Acta Phys.\ Polon. {\bf B35} (2004) 465;
861: {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0410232};
862: Talk at the XIV International Workshop
863: on Deep Inelastic Scattering, 20-24 April 2006,
864: Tsukuba, Japan.
865:
866: \bibitem {koji}
867: K. Terashi, Talk at the XLI Rencontres de Moriond, March 18-25, 2006,
868: Vallee
869: d'Aoste, Italy.
870:
871: \bibitem {KKMR}A.B.~Kaidalov, V.A.~Khoze, A.D.~Martin and M.G.~Ryskin,
872: %``Probabilities of rapidity gaps in high energy interactions,''
873: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. {\bf C21} (2001) 521.
874:
875: \bibitem {KKMRdj} A.B.~Kaidalov, V.A.~Khoze, A.D.~Martin and
876: M.G.~Ryskin,
877: %``Factorization breaking in diffractive dijet production,''
878: Phys.\ Lett. {\bf B559} (2003) 235
879:
880: \bibitem {KMRS} V.A.~Khoze, A.D.~Martin, M.G.~Ryskin and
881: W.J.~Stirling,
882: %``Double-diffractive chi meson production at the hadron colliders,''
883: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. {\bf C35} (2004) 211.
884:
885: \bibitem {MKKRS} A.D.~Martin, A.B.~Kaidalov, V.A.~Khoze, M.G.~Ryskin
886: and W.J.~Stirling,
887: %``Diffractive Higgs production and related processes,''
888: Czech.\ J.\ Phys.\ {\bf 55} (2005) B717,
889: {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0409258}.
890:
891: \bibitem {BH75} V.A.~Khoze, A.B.~Kaidalov, A.D.~Martin, M.G.~Ryskin
892: and W.J.~Stirling,
893: %``Diffractive processes as a tool for searching for new physics,''
894: {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0507040}.
895:
896: \bibitem {AH} M.G. Albrow and A. Hamilton, presentation at the Workshop
897: on Future of Forward Physics at the LHC, Manchester, December 2005.
898:
899: \bibitem {KMRSg} V.A.~Khoze, A.D.~Martin, M.G.~Ryskin and
900: W.J.~Stirling,
901: %``Diffractive gamma gamma production at hadron colliders,''
902: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. {\bf C38} (2005) 475.
903:
904: \bibitem {KMRmm} V.A.~Khoze, A.D.~Martin, and M.G.~Ryskin,
905: %``Double-diffractive processes in high-resolution missing-mass
906: %experiments
907: %at the Tevatron,''
908: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. {\bf C19} (2001) 477.
909:
910: \bibitem {Royon} M.~Boonekamp, R.~Peschanski and C.~Royon,
911: %``Inclusive Higgs boson and dijet production via double pomeron
912: %exchange,''
913: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87} (2001) 251806;
914: C.~Royon,
915: %``Hard diffraction at the LHC and the Tevatron using double pomeron
916: %exchange,''
917: {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0601226} and references therein.
918:
919: \bibitem {AF} R.B.~Appleby and J.R.~Forshaw,
920: %``Diffractive dijet production,''
921: Phys.\ Lett. {\bf B541} (2002) 108.
922:
923: \bibitem {bfkk} V.N.~Baier, E.A.~Kuraev, V.S.~Fadin and V.A.~Khoze,
924: %``Inelastic Processes In Quantum Electrodynamics At High-Energies,''
925: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 78} (1981) 293.
926:
927: \bibitem {BN} F.~Bloch and A.~Nordsieck,
928: %``Note On The Radiation Field Of The Electron,''
929: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 52} (1937) 54.
930:
931: \bibitem {KLN} T.~Kinoshita,
932: %``Mass Singularities Of Feynman Amplitudes,''
933: J.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 3} (1962) 650;
934: T.~D.~Lee and M.~Nauenberg,
935: %``Degenerate Systems And Mass Singularities,''
936: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 133} (1964) B1549.
937:
938: \bibitem {ExHuMe} J. Monk and A. Pilkington, {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0502077}.
939:
940: \bibitem {POMWIG} B.E.~Cox and J.R.~Forshaw,
941: %``POMWIG: HERWIG for diffractive interactions,''
942: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 144} (2002) 104.
943:
944: \bibitem {CDFdijets}
945: T.~Affolder {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration],
946: %``Dijet production by double pomeron exchange at the Fermilab Tevatron,''
947: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 85} (2000) 4215.
948:
949: \bibitem {CP} B.E. Cox and A. Pilkington, Phys. Rev. {\bf D72} (2005)
950: 094024.
951:
952: \bibitem {KMRsoft} V.A.~Khoze, A.D.~Martin and M.G.~Ryskin,
953: %``Soft diffraction and the elastic slope at Tevatron and LHC energies: A
954: %multi-pomeron approach,''
955: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. {\bf C18} (2000) 167.
956:
957: \bibitem {WMR} M.A. Kimber, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Phys. Rev. {\bf D63} (2001) 114027;\\
958: G. Watt, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C31} (2003) 73.
959:
960: \bibitem {Sud} V.V.~Sudakov,
961: %``Vertex Parts At Very High-Energies In Quantum Electrodynamics,''
962: Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf 3} (1956) 65
963: [Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 30} (1956) 87].
964:
965: \bibitem {kf} E. Kuraev and V. Fadin, Sov. J.
966: Nucl. Phys. {\bf 27} (1987) 293.
967:
968: \bibitem {DKMT} Yu.L.~Dokshitzer, V.A.~Khoze, A.H.~Mueller and S.I.~Troyan,
969: in {\it Basics of perturbative QCD}, Editions Fronti\`{e}res (1991).
970:
971: \bibitem {MP}
972: M.L.~Mangano and S.J.~Parke,
973: %``Multiparton Amplitudes In Gauge Theories,''
974: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 200} (1991) 301.
975:
976: \bibitem{Low}
977: F.E.~Low,
978: %``Bremsstrahlung Of Very Low-Energy Quanta In Elementary Particle
979: %Collisions,''
980: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 110} (1958) 974.
981:
982: \bibitem {borden}D.L.~Borden, V.A.~Khoze, W.J.~Stirling and J.~Ohnemus,
983: %``Three jet final states and measuring the gamma gamma width of the Higgs
984: %at a photon linear collider,''
985: Phys.\ Rev. {\bf D50} (1994) 4499.
986:
987: \bibitem{DKS}
988: Yu.~L.~Dokshitzer, V.A.~Khoze and W.J.~Stirling,
989: %``Gluon radiation and energy losses in top quark production,''
990: Nucl.\ Phys. {\bf B428} (1994) 3.
991:
992:
993: \bibitem {mrst99} A.D. Martin, R.G. Roberts, W.J. Stirling and R.S. Thorne, Eur.\ Phys.\ J. {\bf C14} (2000) 133.
994:
995: \bibitem{d0} ``The Upgraded D\O \ Detector", V.~M.~Abazov {\it et al.},
996: submitted to Nucl. Instr. and Methods, {\tt arXiv:physics/0507191},
997: Fermilab-Pub-05/341-E.
998:
999: \bibitem {CR}
1000: C.~Royon,
1001: %``Hard diffraction at the LHC and the Tevatron using double pomeron
1002: %exchange,''
1003: {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0601226} and references therein.
1004:
1005: \end{thebibliography}
1006:
1007: \end{document}
1008:
1009:
1010:
1011:
1012:
1013:
1014:
1015: [ Part 3, Application/X-EPRINT-TAR 130KB. ]
1016: [ Unable to print this part. ]
1017:
1018: