1: \documentclass[aps,prd,preprint,groupedaddress,showpacs]{revtex4}
2:
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \usepackage{graphics}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \def\choosen{\atopwithdelims..}
9:
10: \preprint{DESY~06--104\hspace{11.5cm} ISSN 0418-9833}
11: \preprint{July 2006\hspace{14.9cm}}
12:
13: \boldmath
14: \title{Bottomonium Production in the Regge Limit of QCD}
15: \unboldmath
16:
17: \author{\firstname{B.A.} \surname{Kniehl}}
18: \email{kniehl@desy.de}
19: \affiliation{{II.} Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\" at Hamburg,
20: Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany}
21:
22: \author{\firstname{V.A.} \surname{Saleev}}
23: \email{saleev@ssu.samara.ru}
24: \author{\firstname{D.V.} \surname{Vasin}}
25: \email{vasin@ssu.samara.ru}
26: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Samara State University,
27: Academic Pavlov Street~1, 443011 Samara, Russia}
28:
29: \begin{abstract}
30: We study bottomonium hadroproduction in proton-antiproton collisions at the
31: Fermilab Tevatron in the framework of the quasi-multi-Regge kinematics
32: approach and the factorization formalism of non-relativistic QCD at leading
33: order in the strong-coupling constant $\alpha_s$ and the relative velocity $v$
34: of the bound quarks.
35: The transverse-momentum distributions of prompt $\Upsilon(nS)$-meson
36: production measured at the Tevatron are fitted to obtain the non-perturbative
37: long-distance matrix elements for different choices of un-integrated gluon
38: distribution functions of the proton.
39: \end{abstract}
40:
41: \pacs{12.38.-t,12.40.Nn,13.85.Ni,14.40.Gx}
42:
43: \maketitle \maketitle
44:
45: \section{Introduction}
46:
47: Bottomonium production at high energies has provided a useful laboratory for
48: testing the high-energy limit of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) as well as the
49: interplay of perturbative and non-perturbative phenomena in QCD.
50: The factorization formalism of non-relativistic QCD (NRQCD) \cite{NRQCD} is a
51: rigorous theoretical framework for the description of heavy-quarkonium
52: production and decay.
53: The factorization hypothesis of NRQCD assumes the separation of the effects of
54: long and short distances in heavy-quarkonium production.
55: NRQCD is organized as a perturbative expansion in two small parameters, the
56: strong-coupling constant $\alpha_s$ and the relative velocity $v$ of the
57: heavy quarks.
58:
59: The phenomenology of strong interactions at high energies exhibits a dominant
60: role of gluon interactions in quarkonium production.
61: In the conventional parton model \cite{PartonModel}, the initial-state gluon
62: dynamics is controlled by the Dokshitzer-Gribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi
63: (DGLAP) evolution equation \cite{DGLAP}.
64: In this approach, it is assumed that $S > \mu^2 \gg \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2$,
65: where $\sqrt{S}$ is the invariant collision energy, $\mu$ is the typical
66: energy scale of the hard interaction, and $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ is the
67: asymptotic scale parameter of QCD.
68: In this way, the DGLAP evolution equation takes into account only one big
69: logarithm, namely $\ln(\mu/\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$.
70: In fact, the collinear-partron approximation is used, and the transverse
71: momenta of the incoming gluons are neglected.
72:
73: In the high-energy limit, the contribution from the partonic subprocesses
74: involving $t$-channel gluon exchanges to the total cross section can become
75: dominant.
76: The summation of the large logarithms $\ln(\sqrt{S}/\mu)$ in the evolution
77: equation can then be more important than the one of the
78: $\ln(\mu/\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$ terms.
79: In this case, the non-collinear gluon dynamics is described by the
80: Balitsky-Fadin-Kuraev-Lipatov (BFKL) evolution equation \cite{BFKL}.
81: In the region under consideration, the transverse momenta ($k_T$) of the
82: incoming gluons and their off-shell properties can no longer be neglected,
83: and we deal with reggeized $t$-channel gluons.
84: The theoretical frameworks for this kind of high-energy phenomenology are the
85: $k_T$-factorization approach \cite{KTGribov,KTCollins} and the
86: quasi-multi-Regge kinematics (QMRK) approach
87: \cite{KTLipatovFadin,KTAntonov}, which is based on effective quantum field
88: theory implemented with the non-abelian gauge-invariant action, as suggested
89: a few years ago \cite{KTLipatov}.
90: Our previous analysis of charmonium production at high-energy colliders using
91: the high-energy factorization scheme \cite{KniehlSaleevVasin,PRD2003} has
92: shown the equivalence of the $k_T$-factorization and the QMRK approaches at
93: leading order (LO) in $\alpha_s$.
94: However, the $k_T$-factorization approach has well-known principal
95: difficulties \cite{smallx} at next-to-leading order (NLO).
96: By contrast, the QMRK approach offers a conceptual solution of the NLO
97: problems \cite{Ostrovsky}.
98: In our LO applications, the QMRK approach yields similar formulas as the
99: $k_T$-factoriztion approach, so that we can essentially continue using our
100: previous results \cite{KniehlSaleevVasin,PRD2003} obtained in the
101: $k_T$-factorization formalism using the Collins-Ellis prescription
102: \cite{KTCollins}.
103:
104: This paper is organized as follows.
105: In Sec.~\ref{sec:two}, the QMRK approach is briefly reviewed.
106: In Sec.~\ref{sec:four}, we explain how the analytic results of
107: Refs.~\cite{KniehlSaleevVasin,PRD2003} relevant for our analysis may be
108: converted to the QMRK framework.
109: In Sec.~\ref{sec:five}, we perform fits to the transverse-momentum
110: ($p_T=|{\bf p}_T|$) distributions of inclusive bottomonium production measured
111: at the Fermilab Tevatron to obtain numerical values for the non-perturbative
112: matrix elements (NMEs) of the NRQCD factorization formalism.
113: In Sec.~\ref{sec:six}, we summarize our results.
114:
115: \boldmath
116: \section{QMRK approach}
117: \unboldmath
118: \label{sec:two}
119:
120: In the phenomenology of strong interactions at high energies, it is necessary
121: to describe the QCD evolution of the gluon distribution functions of the
122: colliding particles starting from some scale $\mu_0$, which controls a
123: non-perturbative regime, to the typical scale $\mu$ of the hard-scattering
124: processes, which is typically of the order of the transverse mass
125: $M_T=\sqrt{M^2+|{\bf p}_T|^2}$ of the produced particle (or hadron jet) with
126: (invariant) mass $M$ and transverse two-momentum ${\bf p}_T$.
127: In the region of very high energies, in the so-called Regge limit, the typical
128: ratio $x=\mu/\sqrt{S}$ becomes very small, $x\ll1$.
129: This leads to large logarithmic contributions of the type
130: $[\alpha_s\ln(1/x)]^n$ in the resummation procedure, which is described by the
131: BFKL evolution equation \cite{BFKL} for an un-integrated gluon distribution
132: function $\Phi(x,|{\bf q}_T|^2,\mu^2)$, where ${\bf q}_T$ is the transverse
133: two-momentum of the gluon with respect to the flight direction of the incoming
134: hadron from which it stems.
135: Accordingly, in the QMRK approach \cite{KTLipatovFadin}, the initial-state
136: $t$-channel gluons are considered as reggeons (or reggeized gluons).
137: They carry finite transverse two-momenta ${\bf q}_T$ with respect to the
138: hadron beam from which they stem and are off mass shell.
139:
140: Reggeized gluons interact with quarks and Yang-Mills gluons in a specific way.
141: Recently, in Ref.~\cite{KTAntonov}, the Feynman rules for the effective theory
142: based on the non-abelian gauge-invariant action \cite{KTLipatov} were derived
143: for the induced and some important effective vertices.
144: The induced vertex for the transition from a reggeized gluon to a Yang-Mills
145: gluon $R^{\pm}\to g $ (PR vertex) shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:FR}(a) has the form:
146: \begin{equation}
147: \Gamma_{ab}^{\pm\nu}(q) = i \delta^{ab} q^2 (n^{\pm})^\nu,
148: \label{eq:PR}
149: \end{equation}
150: where $(n^+)^\nu = P_1^\nu/E_1$,
151: $(n^-)^\nu = P_2^\nu/E_2$,
152: $P_{1,2}^\nu$ are the four-momenta of the colliding protons, and
153: $E_{1,2}$ are their energies in the center-of-mass frame.
154: We have $(n^\pm)^2=0$, $n^+\cdot n^-=2$, and $S=(P_1+P_2)^2=4E_1E_2$.
155: For any four-momentum $k^{\mu}$, we define $k^{\pm}=k\cdot n^{\pm}$.
156: It is easy to see that the four-momenta of the reggeized gluons can be
157: represented as
158: \begin{eqnarray}
159: q_1^\mu&=&q_{1T}^\mu + \frac{q_1^-}{2}(n^+)^\mu,
160: \nonumber\\
161: q_2^\mu&=& q_{2T}^\mu + \frac{q_2^+}{2}(n^-)^\mu,
162: \nonumber\\
163: q_1^+&=&q_2^- = 0.
164: \end{eqnarray}
165: The induced interaction vertex of one reggeized gluon with two Yang-Mills
166: gluons (PPR vertex) depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:FR}(b) reads
167: \begin{equation}
168: \Gamma^{\mu\pm\nu}_{acb}(k_1,q,k_2) = - g_s f^{abc}
169: \frac{q^2}{k_1^\pm}(n^{\pm})^\mu (n^{\pm})^\nu,
170: \label{eq:PPR}
171: \end{equation}
172: where $g_s=\sqrt{4\pi\alpha_s}$ is the gauge coupling of QCD.
173: The reggeized-gluon propagator displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:FR}(c) is given by
174: \begin{equation}
175: D^{\mu\nu}_{ab}(q) = -i \delta^{ab}\frac{1}{2 q^2}
176: \left[(n^+)^\mu(n^-)^\nu + (n^+)^\nu(n^-)^\mu \right].
177: \label{eq:RR}
178: \end{equation}
179: The Lagrangian of the effective theory~\cite{KTLipatov} also contains the
180: standard gluon-gluon and quark-gluon interactions for Yang-Mills gluons.
181:
182: Using the Feynman rules for the induced vertices (\ref{eq:PR}) and
183: (\ref{eq:PPR}) and the ordinary vertices, one can construct effective
184: vertices, which obey Bose and gauge symmetries.
185: For example, the effective three-vertex that describes the production of a
186: single Yang-Mills gluon with four-momentum $k^\mu=q_1^\mu+q_2^\mu$ and color
187: index $b$ by two-reggeon annihilation $R^++R^-\to g$ (PRR vertex) shown in
188: Fig.~\ref{fig:EffectiveVertex} reads
189: \begin{eqnarray}
190: \Gamma^{+\mu-}_{cba}(q_1,k,q_2) &=&
191: V^{\rho\sigma\mu}_{cab}(-q_1,-q_2,k) (n^+)_\rho (n^-)_\sigma
192: +\Gamma^{\rho-\mu}_{cab}(q_1,q_2,k) (n^+)_\rho
193: +\Gamma^{\sigma+\mu}_{acb}(q_2,q_1,k) (n^-)_\sigma
194: \nonumber\\
195: &=&2g_sf^{cba}\left[
196: (n^-)^\mu\left(q_2^++\frac{q_2^2}{q_1^-}\right)
197: -(n^+)^\mu\left(q_1^-+\frac{q_1^2}{q_2^+}\right)+(q_1-q_2)^\mu \right],
198: \label{eq:PRR}
199: \end{eqnarray}
200: where
201: \begin{equation}
202: V^{\lambda\mu\nu}_{abc}(k_1,k_2,k_3) = - g_s f^{abc}
203: \left[(k_1-k_2)^\nu g^{\lambda\mu}+(k_2-k_3)^\lambda g^{\mu\nu}
204: +(k_3-k_1)^\mu g^{\nu\lambda}\right]
205: \end{equation}
206: is the Yang-Mills three-gluon vertex, with all four-momenta taken to be
207: outgoing, and we exploited the following relation
208: \begin{equation}
209: \delta^{ab}(n^{\pm})^\mu=\Gamma^{\pm\nu}_{ac}(q)
210: \left(-i\delta^{cb}\frac{g^{\mu\nu}}{q^2}\right).
211: \end{equation}
212:
213: The gauge invariance of the effective theory \cite{KTLipatov} leads to the
214: following condition for amplitudes in the QMRK:
215: \begin{equation}
216: \lim_{|{\bf q}_{1T}|,|{\bf q}_{1T}|\to 0} \overline{|{\cal A}(R+R
217: \to {\cal H}+X)|^2}=0.
218: \end{equation}
219:
220: In the QMRK approach, the hadronic cross section of quarkonium (${\cal H}$)
221: production through the process
222: \begin{equation}
223: p + \bar p \to {\cal H} + X
224: \label{eq:ppHX}
225: \end{equation}
226: and the partonic cross section of the two-reggeon fusion subprocess
227: \begin{equation}
228: R + R \to {\cal H} + X
229: \label{eq:RRHX}
230: \end{equation}
231: are related as
232: \begin{eqnarray}
233: d\sigma(p + \bar p \to {\cal H} + X)&=& \int\frac{d x_1}{x_1}
234: \int\frac{d^2{\bf q}_{1T}}{\pi} \Phi\left(x_1,|{\bf q}_{1T}|^2,\mu^2\right)
235: \int\frac{d x_2}{x_2} \int\frac{d^2 {\bf q}_{2T}}{\pi}
236: \nonumber\\
237: &&{}\times\Phi\left(x_2,|{\bf q}_{2T}|^2,\mu^2\right)
238: d\hat\sigma(R + R \to {\cal H}+X).
239: \label{eq:KT}
240: \end{eqnarray}
241: where $\Phi\left(x,|{\bf q}_{T}|^2,\mu^2\right)$ is the un-integrated gluon
242: distribution function in the proton,
243: $x_1=q_1^-/(2E_1)$ and $x_2 =q_2^+/(2 E_2)$ are the fractions of the proton
244: momenta passed on to the reggeized gluons, and the factorization scale $\mu$
245: is chosen to be of order $M_T$.
246: The collinear and un-integrated gluon distribution functions are formally
247: related as
248: \begin{equation}
249: xG(x,\mu^2)=\int_0^{\mu^2} d|{\bf q}_{T}|^2
250: \Phi\left(x,|{\bf q}_{T}|^2,\mu^2\right),
251: \label{eq:xG}
252: \end{equation}
253: so that, for ${\bf q}_{1T}={\bf q}_{2T}={\bf 0}$, we recover the conventional
254: factorization formula of the collinear parton model,
255: \begin{equation}
256: d\sigma(p + \bar p \to {\cal H}+\!X)=\int{d x_1}G(x_1,\mu^2)
257: \int{d x_2} G(x_2,\mu^2) d\hat \sigma(g + g \to {\cal H} + X).
258: \label{eq:PM}
259: \end{equation}
260:
261: The partonic cross section or process~(\ref{eq:RRHX}) may be evaluated as
262: \begin{equation}
263: d\hat\sigma(R + R\to {\cal H}+X)
264: =\frac{{\cal N}}{2x_1x_2S}\overline{|{\cal A}(R + R\to {\cal H}+X)|^2}d\Phi,
265: \end{equation}
266: where $2x_1x_2S$ is the flux factor of the incoming particles,
267: ${\cal A}(R + R\to {\cal H}+X)$ is the production amplitude, the
268: overbar indicates average (summation) over initial-state
269: (final-state) spins and colors, $d\Phi$ is the phase space volume of
270: the outgoing particles, and
271: \begin{equation}
272: {\cal N}= \frac{(x_1x_2S)^2}{16|{\bf q}_{1T}|^2|{\bf q}_{2T}|^2}
273: \label{eq:Norm}
274: \end{equation}
275: is a normalization factor that ensures the correct transition to the
276: collinear-parton limit.
277: This convention implies that the partonic cross section in the QMRK approach
278: is normalized approximately to the cross section for on-shell gluons when
279: ${\bf q}_{1T}={\bf q}_{2T}={\bf0}$.
280:
281: In our numerical calculations, we use the un-integrated gluon distribution
282: functions by Bl\"umlein (JB) \cite{JB}, by Jung and Salam (JS) \cite{JS}, and
283: by Kimber, Martin, and Ryskin (KMR) \cite{KMR}.
284: A direct comparison between different un-integrated gluon distributions as
285: functions of $x$, $|{\bf k}_T|^2$, and $\mu^2$ may be found in
286: Ref.~\cite{PLB2002}.
287: Note that the JB version is based on the BFKL evolution equation \cite{BFKL}.
288: On the contrary, the JS and KMR versions were obtained using the more
289: complicated Catani-Ciafaloni-Fiorani-Marchesini (CCFM) evolution equation
290: \cite{CCFM}, which takes into account both large logarithms of the types
291: $\ln(1/x)$ and $\ln(\mu/\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$.
292:
293: \boldmath
294: \section{Relation between QMRK and
295: $k_T$-factorization approaches}
296: \label{sec:four}
297: \unboldmath
298:
299: In this section, we obtain the squared amplitudes for inclusive quarkonium
300: production via the fusion of two reggeized gluons in the framework of
301: QMRK~\cite{KTAntonov} and NRQCD~\cite{NRQCD}.
302: We work at LO in $\alpha_s$ and $v$ and consider the following partonic
303: subprocesses \cite{KniehlSaleevVasin}:
304: \begin{eqnarray}
305: R + R &\to& {\cal H} \left[{^3P}_J^{(1)},{^3S}_1^{(8)},{^1S}_0^{(8)},
306: {^3P}_J^{(8)}\right],
307: \label{eq:RRtoH}\\
308: R + R &\to& {\cal H} \left[{^3S}_1^{(1)}\right] + g.
309: \label{eq:RRtoHG}
310: \end{eqnarray}
311: This formalism also allows for a consistent treatment at NLO, which is,
312: however, beyond the scope of this paper and needs a separate investigation.
313:
314: According to the prescription of Ref.~\cite{KTAntonov}, the amplitudes of
315: processes (\ref{eq:RRtoH}) may be obtained from the five Feynman diagrams
316: depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:RRH}.
317: Of course, the last three Feynman diagrams in Fig.~\ref{fig:RRH} can be
318: combined through the effective PRR vertex.
319: The Feynman diagrams pertinent to process (\ref{eq:RRtoHG}) are shown in
320: Fig.~\ref{fig:RRHg}.
321:
322: The LO results for the squared amplitudes of subprocesses~(\ref{eq:RRtoH}) and
323: (\ref{eq:RRtoHG}) that we find by using the Feynman rules of
324: Ref.~\cite{KTAntonov} coincide with those we obtained in
325: Ref.~\cite{KniehlSaleevVasin} in the $k_T$-factorization approach.
326: The general relation between the squared amplitudes in both approaches is
327: \begin{equation}
328: {\cal N}\overline{|{\cal A}(R + R \to {\cal H} + X)|^2}
329: =\overline{|{\cal A}^{\rm KT}(R + R \to {\cal H} + X)|^2}.
330: \end{equation}
331: The formulas for the $2\to1$ subprocesses~(\ref{eq:RRtoH}) are listed in
332: Eq.~(27) of Ref.~\cite{KniehlSaleevVasin}.
333: In the case of the $2\to2$ subprocess~(\ref{eq:RRtoHG}), our analytic results
334: were not included in the journal publication of Ref.~\cite{KniehlSaleevVasin}
335: for lack of space.
336: However, they are given in Eq.~(38) of the preprint version of
337: Ref.~\cite{KniehlSaleevVasin} and may be obtained in {\tt FORTRAN} or
338: {\tt Mathematica} format by electronic mail upon request from the authors.
339:
340: The differential hadronic cross section of process (\ref{eq:KT}) may then be
341: evaluated from the squared matrix elements of processes (\ref{eq:RRtoH}) and
342: (\ref{eq:RRtoHG}) as indicated in Eqs.~(46) and (48) of
343: Ref.~\cite{KniehlSaleevVasin}.
344:
345: \section{Bottomonium production at the Tevatron}
346: \label{sec:five}
347:
348: The CDF Collaboration at the Tevatron measured the $p_T$ distributions of
349: $\Upsilon(1S)$, $\Upsilon(2S)$, and $\Upsilon(3S)$ mesons in the central
350: region of rapidity ($y$), $|y|<0.4$, at $\sqrt{S}=1.8$~TeV (run~I)
351: \cite{CDFBottomI} and that of the $\Upsilon(1S)$ meson in the rapidity regions
352: $|y|<0.6$, $0.6<|y|<1.2$, and $1.2<|y|<1.8$ at $\sqrt{S}=1.96$~TeV (run~II)
353: \cite{CDFBottomII}.
354: In both cases, the $S$-wave bottomonia were produced promptly, {\it i.e.},
355: directly or through non-forbidden decays of higher-lying $S$- and $P$-wave
356: bottomonium states, including cascade transitions such as
357: $\Upsilon(3S)\to\chi_{b1}(2P)\to\Upsilon(1S)$.
358:
359: As is well known, the cross section of bottomonium production measured at the
360: Tevatron at large values of $p_T$ is more than one order of magnitude larger
361: than the prediction of the color-singlet model (CSM) \cite{CSM} implemented in
362: the collinear parton model \cite{QWG}.
363: Switching from the CSM to the NRQCD factorization formalism \cite{NRQCD}
364: within the collinear parton model \cite{BFL} somewhat ameliorates the
365: situation in the large-$p_T$ region, at $p_T\agt10$~GeV, but still does not
366: lead to agreement at all values of $p_T$.
367: On the other hand, the shape of the $p_T$ distribution can be described in the
368: color evaporation model \cite{CEM} improved by the resummation of the large
369: logarithmic contributions from soft-gluon radiation at all orders in
370: $\alpha_s$ in the region of $p_T<M$ \cite{Berger}.
371: However, the overall normalization of the cross section can not be predicted
372: in this approach \cite{CEM,Berger}.
373:
374: In contrast to previous analyses in the collinear parton model, we perform a
375: joint fit to the CDF data from run I \cite{CDFBottomI} and run II
376: \cite{CDFBottomII} for all $p_T$ values, including the small-$p_T$ region, to
377: extract the color-octet NMEs of the $\Upsilon(nS)$ and $\chi_{bJ}(nP)$ mesons
378: using three different un-integrated gluon distribution functions.
379: Our calculations are based on exact analytical expressions for the relevant
380: squared amplitudes, obtained in the QMRK approach as explained in
381: Sec.~\ref{sec:four}.
382:
383: For the reader's convenience, we list in Table~\ref{tab:UpsilonBR}
384: the inclusive branching fractions of the feed-down decays of the
385: various bottomonium states, which can be gleaned from
386: Ref.~\cite{PDG2004}. Theses values supersede those presented in
387: Ref.~\cite{BFL}. Since the $\Upsilon(nS)$ mesons are identified in
388: Refs.~\cite{CDFBottomI,CDFBottomII} through their decays to
389: $\mu^+\mu^-$ pairs, we have to include the corresponding branching
390: fractions, which we also adopt from Ref.~\cite{PDG2004},
391: $B(\Upsilon(1S) \to \mu^+ + \mu^-) = 0.0248$, $B(\Upsilon(2S) \to
392: \mu^+ + \mu^-) = 0.0131$, and $B(\Upsilon(3S) \to \mu^+ + \mu^-) =
393: 0.0181$. We take the pole mass of the bottom quark to be $m_b =
394: 4.77$~GeV.
395:
396: We now present and discuss our numerical results.
397: In Table~\ref{tab:NME}, we list our fit results for the relevant color-octet
398: NMEs for three different choices of un-integrated gluon distribution function,
399: namely JB \cite{JB}, JS \cite{JS}, and KMR \cite{KMR}.
400: The relevant color-singlet NMEs are not fitted.
401: The color-singlet NMEs of the $\Upsilon(nS)$ mesons are determined from the
402: measured partial decay widths of $\Upsilon(nS) \to l^+ + l^-$ using the vacuum
403: saturation approximation and heavy-quark spin symmetry in the NRQCD
404: factorization formulas and including NLO QCD radiative corrections
405: \cite{QCDCorrections}.
406: The partial decay widths of $\chi_{b0}(nP)\to 2\gamma$, from which the
407: color-singlet NMEs of the $\chi_{bJ}(nP)$ mesons could be extracted, are yet
408: unknown.
409: However, these NMEs can be estimated using the wave functions evaluated at the
410: origin from potential models \cite{QPM}, as was done in Ref.~\cite{BFL}.
411: We adopt the color-singlet NMEs of the $\chi_{b0}(nP)$ mesons from
412: Ref.~\cite{BFL}.
413:
414: We first study the relative importance of the various color-octet $b\bar b$
415: Fock states in direct $\Upsilon(nS)$ hadroproduction.
416: Previous fits to CDF data \cite{CDFBottomI} were constrained to the
417: large-$p_T$ region, $p_T\agt8$~GeV, and could not separate the contributions
418: proportional to $\langle {\cal O}^{\Upsilon(nS)}[^1S_0^{(8)}]\rangle$
419: and $\langle {\cal O}^{\Upsilon(nS)}[^3P_0^{(8)}]\rangle$.
420: Instead, they determined the linear combination
421: \begin{equation}
422: M_r^{\Upsilon(nS)}
423: =\langle{\cal O}^{\Upsilon(nS)}\left[^1S_0^{(8)}\right]\rangle
424: +\frac{r}{m_b^2}\langle{\cal O}^{\Upsilon(nS)}\left[^3P_0^{(8)}\right]\rangle,
425: \label{eq:lc}
426: \end{equation}
427: for the value of $r$ that minimized the error on $M_r^{\Upsilon(nS)}$.
428: By contrast, the QMRK approach allows us to cover also the small-$p_T$ region
429: and thus to fit $\langle {\cal O}^{\Upsilon(nS)}[^1S_0^{(8)}]\rangle$ and
430: $\langle {\cal O}^{\Upsilon(nS)}[^3P_0^{(8)}]\rangle$ separately, thanks to
431: the different $p_T$ dependences of the respective contributions for
432: $p_T\alt8$~GeV.
433: This feature is nicely illustrated for direct $\Upsilon(1S)$ hadroproduction
434: in Fig.~\ref{fig:States}, where the shapes of the contributions proportional
435: to $\langle {\cal O}^{\Upsilon(1S)}[^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle$,
436: $\langle {\cal O}^{\Upsilon(1S)}[^1S_0^{(8)}]\rangle$, and
437: $\langle{\cal O}^{\Upsilon(1S)}[^3P_0^{(8)}]\rangle$ are compared.
438: Notice that the peak positions significantly differ, by up to 2~GeV.
439: Apparently, this suffices to disentangle the contributions previously
440: combined by Eq.~(\ref{eq:lc}).
441:
442: In Figs.~\ref{fig:UpsilonR12JB}, \ref{fig:UpsilonR12JS}, and
443: \ref{fig:UpsilonR12KMR}, we compare the CDF data on prompt
444: $\Upsilon(nS)$ hadroproduction in run I \cite{CDFBottomI} with the theoretical
445: results evaluated with the JB \cite{JB}, JS \cite{JS}, and KMR \cite{KMR}
446: un-integrated gluon distribution functions, respectively, and the NMEs listed
447: in Table~\ref{tab:NME}.
448: In each case, the color-singlet and color-octet contributions are also shown
449: separately.
450: Except for the JB and KMR analyses of $\Upsilon(3S)$ production, the
451: color-octet contributions are always suppressed, especially at low values of
452: $p_T$.
453: In the JS analysis, the $\Upsilon(1S)$ and $\Upsilon(2S)$ data are
454: significantly exceeded by the color-singlet contributions for $p_T\alt10$~GeV,
455: which explains the poor quality of the fit, with $\chi^2/\mbox{d.o.f.}=27$.
456: In the JB analysis, this only happens for $p_T\alt2$~GeV, so that the value of
457: $\chi^2/\mbox{d.o.f.}$ is lowered by one order of magnitude, being
458: $\chi^2/\mbox{d.o.f.}=2.9$.
459: By contrast, the KMR gluon yields an excellent fit, with
460: $\chi^2/\mbox{d.o.f.}=0.5$, and will be the only one considered in the
461: following discussion.
462: Comparing the color-singlet and color-octet contributions in
463: Fig.~\ref{fig:UpsilonR12KMR}, we observe that the latter is dominant in the
464: $\Upsilon(3S)$ case and in the $\Upsilon(2S)$ case for $p_T\agt13$~GeV, while
465: it is of minor importance in the $\Upsilon(1S)$ case in the whole $p_T$ range
466: considered.
467: The latter feature is substantiated by the run-II data and is reflected in all
468: their $y$ subintervals, as may be see from Fig.~\ref{fig:CDFBottomII}.
469:
470: Notice that the contributions to prompt $\Upsilon(nS)$ hadroproduction due to
471: the feed-down from the $\chi_{bJ}(3P)$ mesons have been neglected above,
472: simply because the latter have not yet been observed and their partial decay
473: widths are unknown.
474: In the remainder of this section, we assess the impact of these contributions.
475: For the color-singlet NME, we use the potential model result
476: $\langle {\cal O}^{\chi_{b0}(3P)}[^3P_0^{(1)}]\rangle=2.7$~GeV$^5$ \cite{QPM}.
477: By analogy to the KMR fit results for
478: $\langle {\cal O}^{\chi_{b0}(1P)}[^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle$ and
479: $\langle {\cal O}^{\chi_{b0}(2P)}[^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle$ in Table~\ref{tab:NME},
480: we expect the value of $\langle {\cal O}^{\chi_{b0}(3P)}[^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle$
481: to be negligibly small, compatible with zero.
482: Looking at Table~\ref{tab:UpsilonBR}, a naive extrapolation from the
483: $\chi_{bJ}(1P)$ and $\chi_{bJ}(2P)$ states suggests that the inclusive
484: branching fractions for the $\chi_{bJ}(3P)$ decays into the $\Upsilon(3S)$,
485: $\Upsilon(2S)$, and $\Upsilon(1S)$ states could be about 12\%, 9\%, and 7\%,
486: respectively.
487: These decays generate further cascade transitions, whose inclusive
488: branching fractions follow from these estimates in combination with the
489: entries of Table~\ref{tab:UpsilonBR}.
490: Including all these ingredients, we repeat our KMR fit to the CDF data.
491: As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:UpsilonR12CSM} for prompt $\Upsilon(nS)$
492: hadroproduction in run~I, the CDF data can be fairly well described in the
493: QMRK approach to the CSM, while the color-octet contributions turn out to be
494: negligibly small.
495: We note in passing that a similar observation, although with lower degree of
496: agreement between data and theory, can be made for the JB gluon, while the JS
497: gluon badly fails for $p_T\alt10$~GeV.
498:
499: \section{Conclusion}
500: \label{sec:six}
501:
502: Working at LO in the QMRK approach to NRQCD, we analytically evaluated the
503: squared amplitudes of prompt bottomonium production in two-reggeon collisions.
504: We extracted the relevant color-octet NMEs,
505: $\langle {\cal O}^{\cal H}[^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle$,
506: $\langle {\cal O}^{\cal H}[^1S_0^{(8)}]\rangle$, and
507: $\langle {\cal O}^{\cal H}[^3P_0^{(8)}]\rangle$ for
508: ${\cal H}=\Upsilon(1S)$, $\Upsilon(2S)$, $\Upsilon(3S)$, $\chi_{b0}(1P)$, and
509: $\chi_{b0}(2P)$, through fits to $p_T$ distributions of prompt $\Upsilon(nS)$
510: hadroproduction measured by the CDF Collaboration at the Tevatron in $p\bar p$
511: collisions with $\sqrt{S}=1.8$~TeV \cite{CDFBottomI} and 1.96~TeV
512: \cite{CDFBottomII} using three different un-integrated gluon distribution
513: functions of the proton, namely JB \cite{JB}, JS \cite{JS}, and KMR
514: \cite{KMR}.
515: The fits based on the KMR, JB, and JS gluons turned out to be excellent, fair,
516: and poor, respectively.
517: They yielded small to vanishing values for the color-octet NMEs, especially
518: when the estimated feed-down contributions from the as-yet unobserved
519: $\chi_{bJ}(3P)$ states were included.
520:
521: The present analysis, together with a recent investigation of charmonium
522: production at high energies \cite{KniehlSaleevVasin}, suggest that the
523: color-octet NMEs of bottomonium are more strongly suppressed than those of
524: charmonium as expected from the velocity scaling rules of NRQCD.
525: We illustrated that the QMRK approach \cite{KTLipatov,KTAntonov} provides a
526: useful laboratory to describe the phenomenology of high-energy processes in
527: the Regge limit of QCD.
528:
529: LO predictions in both the collinear parton model and the QMRK framework
530: suffer from sizeable theoretical uncertainties, which are largely due to
531: unphysical-scale dependences.
532: Substantial improvement can only be achieved by performing full NLO analyses.
533: While the stage for the NLO NRQCD treatment of $2\to2$ processes has been set
534: in the collinear parton model \cite{kkms}, conceptual issues still remain to
535: be elaborated in the QMRK approach.
536: Since, at NLO, incoming partons can gain a finite $k_T$ kick through the
537: perturbative emission of partons, one expects that essential features produced
538: by the QMRK approach at LO will thus automatically show up at NLO in the
539: collinear parton model.
540:
541: \section{Acknowledgements}
542:
543: We thank E.~Kuraev and M.~Ryskin for useful discussions.
544: D.V.V. is grateful to the International Center of Fundamental Physics in
545: Moscow and the Dynastiya Foundation for financial support.
546: This work was supported in part by BMBF Grant No.\ 05 HT4GUA/4 and by DFG
547: Grant No.\ KN~365/6--1.
548:
549: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
550:
551: \bibitem{NRQCD}
552: G.~T.~Bodwin, E.~Braaten, and G.~P.~Lepage,
553: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{51}, 1125 (1995); \textbf{55}, 5853(E) (1997).
554:
555: \bibitem{PartonModel}
556: CTEQ Collaboration, R. Brock \emph{et al.},
557: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ \textbf{67}, 157 (1995).
558:
559: \bibitem{DGLAP}
560: V.~N.~Gribov and L.~N.~Lipatov,
561: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{15}, 438 (1972)
562: [Yad.\ Fiz.\ \textbf{15}, 781 (1972)];
563: Yu.~L.~Dokshitzer,
564: Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP \textbf{46}, 641 (1977)
565: [Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ \textbf{73}, 1216 (1977)];
566: G.~Altarelli and G.~Parisi,
567: Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{B126}, 298 (1977).
568:
569: \bibitem{BFKL}
570: E.~A.~Kuraev, L.~N.~Lipatov, and V.~S.~Fadin,
571: Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP \textbf{44}, 443 (1976)
572: [Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ \textbf{71}, 840 (1976)];
573: I.~I.~Balitsky and L.~N.~Lipatov,
574: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{28}, 822 (1978)
575: [Yad.\ Fiz.\ \textbf{28}, 1597 (1978)].
576:
577: \bibitem{KTGribov}
578: L.~V.~Gribov, E.~M.~Levin, and M.~G.~Ryskin,
579: Phys.\ Rept.\ \textbf{100}, 1 (1983);
580: S.~Catani, M.~Ciafoloni, and F.~Hautmann,
581: Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{B366}, 135 (1991).
582:
583: \bibitem{KTCollins}
584: J.~C.~Collins and R.~K.~Ellis,
585: Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{B360}, 3 (1991).
586:
587: \bibitem{KTLipatovFadin}
588: V.~S.~Fadin and L.~N.~Lipatov,
589: Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{B477}, 767 (1996).
590:
591: \bibitem{KTAntonov}
592: E.~N.~Antonov, L.~N.~Lipatov, E.~A.~Kuraev, and I.~O.~Cherednikov,
593: Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{B721}, 111 (2005).
594:
595: \bibitem{KTLipatov}
596: L.~N.~Lipatov,
597: Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{B452}, 369 (1995).
598:
599: \bibitem{PRD2003}
600: V.~A.~Saleev and D.~V.~Vasin,
601: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{68}, 114013 (2003);
602: Phys.\ Atom.\ Nucl.\ \textbf{68}, 94 (2005)
603: [Yad.\ Fiz.\ \textbf{68}, 95 (2005)].
604:
605: \bibitem{KniehlSaleevVasin}
606: B.~A.~Kniehl, D.~V.~Vasin, and V.~A.~Saleev,
607: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{73}, 074022 (2006).
608:
609: \bibitem{smallx}
610: Small $x$ Collaboration, B.~Anderson \emph{et al.},
611: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C \textbf{25}, 77 (2002).
612:
613: \bibitem{Ostrovsky}
614: V.~S.~Fadin, M.~I.~Kotsky, and L.~N.~Lipatov,
615: Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{415}, 97 (1997);
616: A.~Leonidov and D.~Ostrovsky,
617: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C\ \textbf{11}, 495 (1999);
618: D.~Ostrovsky,
619: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{62}, 054028 (2000);
620: V.~S.~Fadin, M.~G.~Kozlov, and A.~V.~Reznichenko,
621: Phys.\ Atom.\ Nucl.\ \textbf{67}, 359 (2004)
622: [Yad.\ Fiz.\ \textbf{67}, 377 (2004)].
623:
624: \bibitem{JB}
625: J.~Bl\"umlein,
626: Report No.\ DESY~95--121 (1995).
627:
628: \bibitem{JS}
629: H.~Jung and G.~P.~Salam,
630: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C \textbf{19}, 351 (2001).
631:
632: \bibitem{KMR}
633: M.~A.~Kimber, A.~D.~Martin, and M.~G.~Ryskin,
634: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{63}, 114027 (2001).
635:
636: \bibitem{PLB2002}
637: V.~A.~Saleev and D.~V.~Vasin,
638: Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{548}, 161 (2002).
639:
640: \bibitem{CCFM}
641: M.~Ciafaloni,
642: Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{B296}, 49 (1988);
643: S.~Catani, F.~Fiorani, and G.~Marchesini,
644: Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{234}, 339 (1990);
645: G.~Marchesini,
646: Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{B445}, 49 (1995).
647:
648: \bibitem{CDFBottomI}
649: CDF Collaboration, F.~Abe \emph{et al.},
650: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{75}, 4358 (1995);
651: CDF Collaboration, D.~Acosta \emph{et al.},
652: \emph{ibid.}\ \textbf{88}, 161802 (2002).
653:
654: \bibitem{CDFBottomII}
655: CDF Collaboration, V.~M.~Abazov \emph{et al.},
656: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{94}, 232001 (2005).
657:
658: \bibitem{CSM}
659: V.~G.~Kartvelishvili, A.~K.~Likhoded, and S.~R.~Slabospitsky,
660: Sov.\ J. Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{28}, 678 (1978)
661: [Yad.\ Fiz.\ \textbf{28}, 1315 (1978)];
662: E.~L.~Berger and D.~Jones,
663: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{23}, 1521 (1981);
664: R.~Baier and R.~R\"{u}ckl,
665: Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{102}, 364 (1981).
666:
667: \bibitem{QWG}
668: N.~Brambilla \emph{et al.},
669: CERN Yellow Report No.\ CERN-2005-005 and No.\ FERMILAB-FN-0779, 2005.
670:
671: \bibitem{BFL}
672: E.~Braaten, S.~Fleming, and A.~K.~Leibovich,
673: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{63}, 094006 (2001).
674:
675: \bibitem{CEM}
676: J.~F.~Amundson, O.~J.~P.~Eboli, E.~M.~Gregores, and F.~Halzen,
677: Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{390}, 323 (1997).
678:
679: \bibitem{Berger}
680: E.~L.~Berger, J.~Qiu, and Y.~Wang,
681: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{71}, 034007 (2005);
682: Int.\ J. Mod.\ Phys.\ A \textbf{20}, 3753 (2005).
683:
684: \bibitem{PDG2004}
685: Particle Data Group, S.~Eidelman \emph{et al.},
686: Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{592}, 1 (2004).
687:
688: \bibitem{CTEQ}
689: CTEQ Collaboration, H.~L. Lai \emph{et al.},
690: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C \textbf{12}, 375 (2000).
691:
692: \bibitem{QCDCorrections}
693: R.~Barbieri, R.~Gatto, R.~K\"ogerler, and Z.~Kunszt,
694: Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{57}, 455 (1975);
695: R.~Barbieri, M.~Caffo, R.~Gatto, and E.~Remiddi,
696: Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{B192}, 61 (1981).
697:
698: \bibitem{QPM}
699: W.~Lucha, F.~F.~Schoberl, and D.~Gromes,
700: Phys.\ Rept.\ \textbf{200}, 127 (1991);
701: E.~J.~Eichten and C.~Quigg,
702: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{52}, 1726 (1995).
703:
704: \bibitem{kkms}
705: M.~Klasen, B.~A.~Kniehl, L.~N.~Mihaila, and M.~Steinhauser,
706: Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{B609}, 518 (2001);
707: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{89}, 032001 (2002);
708: Nucl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{B713}, 487 (2005);
709: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{71}, 014016 (2005).
710:
711: \end{thebibliography}
712:
713: \newpage
714:
715: \begin{table}[hpt]
716: \begin{center}
717: \caption{\label{tab:UpsilonBR}Inclusive branching fractions of the feed-down
718: decays of the various bottomonium states.}
719: \begin{ruledtabular}
720: \begin{tabular}{c|ccccccccc}
721: In$\setminus$Out & $\Upsilon(3S)$ & $\chi_{b2}(2P)$ & $\chi_{b1}(2P)$ &
722: $\chi_{b0}(2P)$ & $\Upsilon(2S)$ & $\chi_{b2}(1P)$ & $\chi_{b1}(1P)$ &
723: $\chi_{b0}(1P)$ & $\Upsilon(1S)$ \\
724: \hline
725: $\Upsilon(3S)$ & 1 & 0.114 & 0.113 & 0.054 & 0.106 & 0.00721 & 0.00742 &
726: 0.00403 & 0.102 \\
727: $\chi_{b2}(2P)$ & $\cdots$ & 1 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & 0.162 & 0.0110 &
728: 0.0113 & 0.00616 & 0.130 \\
729: $\chi_{b1}(2P)$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & 1 & $\cdots$ & 0.21 & 0.0143 &
730: 0.0147 & 0.00798 & 0.161 \\
731: $\chi_{b0}(2P)$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & 1 & 0.046 & 0.00313 &
732: 0.00322 & 0.00175 & 0.0167 \\
733: $\Upsilon(2S)$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & 1 & 0.068 &
734: 0.07 & 0.038 & 0.320 \\
735: $\chi_{b2}(1P)$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ &
736: 1 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & 0.22 \\
737: $\chi_{b1}(1P)$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ &
738: $\cdots$ & 1 & $\cdots$ & 0.35 \\
739: $\chi_{b0}(1P)$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ &
740: $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & 1 & 0.06 \\
741: $\Upsilon(1S)$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ &
742: $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & 1 \\
743: \end{tabular}
744: \end{ruledtabular}
745: \end{center}
746: \end{table}
747:
748: \newpage
749:
750: \begin{table}[hpt]
751: \begin{center}
752: \caption{\label{tab:NME}NMEs of the $\Upsilon(1S)$, $\Upsilon(2S)$,
753: $\Upsilon(3S)$, $\chi_{b0}(1P)$, and $\chi_{b0}(2P)$ mesons from fits to CDF
754: data from run I \cite{CDFBottomI} and run II \cite{CDFBottomII} in the
755: collinear parton model (PM) \cite{BFL} using the CTEQ5L \cite{CTEQ} parton
756: distribution functions of the proton and in the QMRK approach using the JB
757: \cite{JB}, JS \cite{JS}, and KMR \cite{KMR} un-integrated gluon distribution
758: functions of the proton.
759: The errors on the fit results are determined by varying in turn each NME up
760: and down about its central value until the value of $\chi^2$ is increased by
761: unity keeping all other NMEs fixed at their central values.}
762: \begin{ruledtabular}
763: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
764: NME & PM \cite{BFL} & Fit JB & Fit JS & Fit KMR \\
765: \hline
766: $\langle{\cal O}^{\Upsilon(1S)}[^3S_1^{(1)}]\rangle/$GeV$^3$ &
767: $10.9\pm 1.6$ & $10.9\pm 1.6$ & $10.9\pm 1.6$ & $10.9\pm 1.6$ \\
768: $\langle{\cal O}^{\Upsilon(1S)}[^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle/$GeV$^3$ &
769: $\left(2.0\pm 4.1{-0.6\choosen{+0.5}}\right)\times 10^{-2}$ &
770: $(5.3\pm 0.5)\times 10^{-3}$ & $(0.0\pm 1.8)\times 10^{-4}$ &
771: $(0.0\pm 3.1)\times 10^{-3}$ \\
772: $\langle{\cal O}^{\Upsilon(1S)}[^1S_0^{(8)}]\rangle/$GeV$^3$ &
773: $\cdots$ & $(0.0\pm 4.7)\times 10^{-4}$ & $(0.0\pm 5.2)\times
774: 10^{-5}$ &
775: $(0.0\pm 4.3)\times 10^{-3}$ \\
776: $\langle{\cal O}^{\Upsilon(1S)}[^3P_0^{(8)}]\rangle/$GeV$^5$ &
777: $\cdots$ & $(0.0\pm 1.3)\times 10^{-3}$ & $(0.0\pm 1.6)\times
778: 10^{-4}$ &
779: $(9.5\pm 2.0)\times 10^{-2}$ \\
780: $M_{5}^{\Upsilon(1S)}/$GeV$^3$ &
781: $\left(1.4\pm 0.7{+1.0\choosen{-0.7}}\right)\times 10^{-1}$ &
782: $(0.0\pm 7.6)\times 10^{-4}$ & $(0.0\pm 8.7)\times 10^{-5}$ &
783: $(2.1\pm 0.9)\times 10^{-2}$\\
784: %\hline
785: $\langle{\cal O}^{\chi_{b0}(1P)}[^3P_0^{(1)}]\rangle/$GeV$^5$ &
786: $2.4\pm 0.4$ & $2.4\pm 0.4$ & $2.4\pm 0.4$ & $2.4\pm 0.4$ \\
787: $\langle{\cal O}^{\chi_{b0}(1P)}[^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle/$GeV$^3$ &
788: $\left(1.5\pm 1.1{+1.3\choosen{-1.0}}\right)\times 10^{-2}$ &
789: $(0.0\pm 2.1)\times 10^{-3}$ & $(0.0\pm 8.4)\times 10^{-5}$ &
790: $(0.0\pm 1.4)\times 10^{-3}$ \\
791: %\hline
792: $\langle{\cal O}^{\Upsilon(2S)}[^3S_1^{(1)}]\rangle/$GeV$^3$ &
793: $4.5\pm 0.7$ & $4.5\pm 0.7$ & $4.5\pm 0.7$ & $4.5\pm 0.7$ \\
794: $\langle{\cal O}^{\Upsilon(2S)}[^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle/$GeV$^3$ &
795: $\left(1.6\pm 0.6{+0.7\choosen{-0.5}}\right)\times 10^{-1}$ &
796: $(0.0\pm 5.9)\times 10^{-3}$ & $(0.0\pm 4.1)\times 10^{-4}$ &
797: $(3.3\pm 0.8)\times 10^{-2}$ \\
798: $\langle{\cal O}^{\Upsilon(2S)}[^1S_0^{(8)}]\rangle/$GeV$^3$ &
799: $\cdots$ & $(0.0\pm 9.2)\times 10^{-4}$ & $(0.0\pm 8.3)\times
800: 10^{-5}$ &
801: $(0.0\pm 3.7)\times 10^{-3}$ \\
802: $\langle{\cal O}^{\Upsilon(2S)}[^3P_0^{(8)}]\rangle/$GeV$^5$ &
803: $\cdots$ & $(0.0\pm 2.6)\times 10^{-3}$ & $(0.0\pm 2.8)\times
804: 10^{-4}$ &
805: $(0.0\pm 1.6)\times 10^{-2}$ \\
806: $M_{5}^{\Upsilon(2S)}/$GeV$^3$ &
807: $\left(-1.1\pm 1.0 {+0.3\choosen{-0.2}}\right)\times 10^{-1}$ &
808: $(0.0\pm 1.5)\times 10^{-3}$ & $(0.0\pm 1.4)\times 10^{-4}$ &
809: $(0.0\pm 7.2)\times 10^{-3}$ \\
810: %\hline
811: $\langle{\cal O}^{\chi_{b0}(2P)}[^3P_0^{(1)}]\rangle/$GeV$^5$ &
812: $2.6\pm 0.5$ & $2.6\pm 0.5$ & $2.6\pm 0.5$ & $2.6\pm 0.5$ \\
813: $\langle{\cal O}^{\chi_{b0}(2P)}[^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle/$GeV$^3$ &
814: $\left(0.8\pm 1.1{+1.1\choosen{-0.8}}\right)\times 10^{-2}$ &
815: $(1.1\pm 0.4)\times 10^{-2}$ & $(0.0\pm 2.8)\times 10^{-4}$ &
816: $(0.0\pm 5.7)\times 10^{-3}$ \\
817: %\hline
818: $\langle{\cal O}^{\Upsilon(3S)}[^3S_1^{(1)}]\rangle/$GeV$^3$ &
819: $4.3\pm 0.9$ & $4.3\pm 0.9$ & $4.3\pm 0.9$ & $4.3\pm 0.9$ \\
820: $\langle{\cal O}^{\Upsilon(3S)}[^3S_1^{(8)}]\rangle/$GeV$^3$ &
821: $\left(3.6\pm 1.9 {+1.8\choosen{-1.3}}\right)\times 10^{-2}$ &
822: $(1.4\pm 0.3)\times 10^{-2}$ & $(5.9\pm 4.2)\times 10^{-3}$ &
823: $(1.1\pm 0.4)\times 10^{-2}$ \\
824: $\langle{\cal O}^{\Upsilon(3S)}[^1S_0^{(8)}]\rangle/$GeV$^3$ &
825: $\cdots$ & $(0.0\pm 2.6)\times 10^{-3}$ & $(0.0\pm 8.1)\times
826: 10^{-4}$ &
827: $(0.0\pm 2.7)\times 10^{-3}$ \\
828: $\langle{\cal O}^{\Upsilon(3S)}[^3P_0^{(8)}]\rangle/$GeV$^5$ &
829: $\cdots$ & $(2.4\pm 0.8)\times 10^{-2}$ & $(3.4\pm 4.2)\times
830: 10^{-3}$ &
831: $(5.2\pm 1.1)\times 10^{-2}$ \\
832: $M_{5}^{\Upsilon(3S)}/$GeV$^3$ &
833: $\left(5.4\pm 4.3 {+3.1\choosen{-2.2}}\right)\times 10^{-2}$ &
834: $(5.2\pm 4.4)\times 10^{-3}$ & $(7.4\pm 10.2)\times 10^{-4}$ &
835: $(1.1\pm 0.5)\times 10^{-2}$\\
836: %\hline
837: $\langle{\cal O}^{\chi_{b0}(3P)}[^3P_0^{(1)}]\rangle/$GeV$^5$ &
838: $2.7\pm 0.7$ & $2.7\pm 0.7$ & $2.7\pm 0.7$ & $2.7\pm 0.7$ \\
839: %\hline
840: $\chi^2/\mathrm{d.o.f.}$ & $\cdots$ & $2.9$ & $27$ & $0.5$ \\
841: \end{tabular}
842: \end{ruledtabular}
843: \end{center}
844: \end{table}
845:
846: \newpage
847:
848: \begin{figure}[hpt]
849: \begin{center}
850: \psfig{figure=FeynmanRules.eps}
851: \caption{\label{fig:FR}Feynman diagrams pertinent to the (a) PR vertex, (b)
852: PPR vertex, and (c) reggeized-gluon propagator given in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:PR}),
853: (\ref{eq:PPR}), and (\ref{eq:RR}), respectively.}
854: \end{center}
855: \end{figure}
856:
857: \begin{figure}[hpt]
858: \begin{center}
859: \psfig{figure=EffectiveVertex.eps}
860: \caption{\label{fig:EffectiveVertex}Feynman diagrams pertinent to the
861: effective PRR vertex given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:PRR}).}
862: \end{center}
863: \end{figure}
864:
865: \begin{figure}[hpt]
866: \begin{center}
867: \psfig{figure=RR_H.eps,width=1.0\textwidth}
868: \caption{\label{fig:RRH}Feynman diagrams pertinent to
869: processes~(\ref{eq:RRtoH}).}
870: \end{center}
871: \end{figure}
872:
873: \begin{figure}[ht]
874: \begin{center}
875: \psfig{figure=RR_gH.eps,width=0.75\textwidth}
876: \caption{\label{fig:RRHg}Feynman diagrams pertinent to
877: process~(\ref{eq:RRtoHG}).}
878: \end{center}
879: \end{figure}
880:
881: \begin{figure}[hpt]
882: \begin{center}
883: \psfig{figure=pp_KMR_States_R1-2.eps,width=0.8\textwidth}
884: \caption{\label{fig:States}Contributions to the $p_T$ distribution of direct
885: $\Upsilon(1S)$ hadroproduction in $p\bar p$ scattering with $\sqrt{S}=1.8$~TeV
886: and $|y|<0.4$ from the relevant color-octet states.
887: All distributions are normalized to unity at their peaks.}
888: \end{center}
889: \end{figure}
890:
891: \begin{figure}[hpt]
892: \begin{center}
893: \psfig{figure=Upsilon_JB_R1-2.eps,width=0.8\textwidth}
894: \caption{\label{fig:UpsilonR12JB}$p_T$ distributions of prompt (a)
895: $\Upsilon(1S)$, (b) $\Upsilon(2S)$, and (c) $\Upsilon(3S)$ hadroproduction in
896: $p\overline{p}$ scattering with $\sqrt{S}=1.8$~TeV and $|y|<0.4$ including the
897: respective decay branching fractions $B(\Upsilon(nS)\to\mu^++\mu^-)$.
898: The color-octet (curve 1) and color-singlet (curve 2) contributions, evaluated
899: with the JB \cite{JB} un-integrated gluon distribution function, and their
900: sum (curve 3) are compared with the CDF data from run I \cite{CDFBottomI}.}
901: \end{center}
902: \end{figure}
903:
904: \begin{figure}[hpt]
905: \begin{center}
906: \psfig{figure=Upsilon_JS_R1-2.eps,width=0.8\textwidth}
907: \caption{\label{fig:UpsilonR12JS}Same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:UpsilonR12JB}, but
908: for the JS \cite{JS} un-integrated gluon distribution function.}
909: \end{center}
910: \end{figure}
911:
912: \begin{figure}[hpt]
913: \begin{center}
914: \psfig{figure=Upsilon_KMR_R1-2.eps,width=0.8\textwidth}
915: \caption{\label{fig:UpsilonR12KMR}Same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:UpsilonR12JB}, but
916: for the KMR \cite{KMR} un-integrated gluon distribution function.}
917: \end{center}
918: \end{figure}
919:
920: \begin{figure}[hpt]
921: \begin{center}
922: \psfig{figure=KMR_U1_R2-1_Prompt.eps,width=0.8\textwidth}
923: \caption{\label{fig:UpsilonR21}$p_T$ distributions of prompt $\Upsilon(1S)$
924: hadroproduction in $p\overline{p}$ scattering with $\sqrt{S}=1.96$~TeV and (a)
925: $|y|<0.6$, (b) $0.6<|y|<1.2$, (c) $1.2<|y|<1.8$, and (d) $|y|<1.8$ including
926: the decay branching fractions $B(\Upsilon(1S)\to\mu^++\mu^-)$.
927: The color-octet (curve 1) and color-singlet (curve 2) contributions, evaluated
928: with the KMR \cite{KMR} un-integrated gluon distribution function, and their
929: sum (curve 3) are compared with the CDF data from run II \cite{CDFBottomII}.}
930: \end{center}
931: \end{figure}
932:
933: \begin{figure}[hpt]
934: \begin{center}
935: \psfig{figure=Upsilon_KMR_R1-2_CSM.eps,width=0.8\textwidth}
936: \caption{\label{fig:UpsilonR12CSM}$p_T$ distributions of prompt (a)
937: $\Upsilon(1S)$, (b) $\Upsilon(2S)$, and (c) $\Upsilon(3S)$ hadroproduction in
938: $p\overline{p}$ scattering with $\sqrt{S}=1.8$~TeV and $|y|<0.4$ including the
939: respective decay branching fractions $B(\Upsilon(nS)\to\mu^++\mu^-)$.
940: The color-singlet contribution including the estimated feed-down contributions
941: due to the $\chi_{bJ}(3P)$ meson, evaluated with the KMR \cite{KMR}
942: un-integrated gluon distribution function, is compared with the CDF data from
943: run I \cite{CDFBottomI}.}
944: \end{center}
945: \end{figure}
946:
947: \end{document}
948: