1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %% ws-procs9x6.tex : 20-9-2004
3: %% Text file for Proceedings Trim Size [9in x 6in] written in Latex2E.
4: %% The content, structure, format and layout of this style file is the
5: %% property of World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
6: %% Copyright 1995, 2002 by World Scientific Publishing Co.
7: %% All rights are reserved.
8: %%
9: %% Proceedings Trim Size: 9in x 6in
10: %% Text Area: 7.35in (include runningheads) x 4.5in
11: %% Main Text is 10/13pt
12: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
13:
14: %% Use \tbl{...} command for table caption i.e. to fit table width.
15: %% Use \caption{...} command for figure caption.
16: %\documentclass[draft]{ws-procs9x6}
17: \documentclass{ws-procs9x6}
18:
19: \usepackage{epsfig}
20: \newcommand{\agt}{\,\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt \hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}} \raise 1pt
21: \hbox {$>$}\,}
22: \newcommand{\alt}{\,\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt \hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}} \raise 1pt
23: \hbox {$<$}\,}
24:
25: \begin{document}
26:
27: \title{$D$-meson production in the GM-VFN scheme}
28:
29: \author{B. A. Kniehl}
30:
31: \address{II.~Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Hamburg,\\
32: Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany\\
33: E-mail: kniehl@desy.de}
34:
35: \maketitle
36:
37: \abstracts{
38: We study the inclusive hadrodroduction of $D^0$, $D^+$, $D^{*+}$, and $D_s^+$
39: mesons at next-to-leading order in the parton model of quantum chromodynamics
40: endowed with universal non-perturbative fragmentation functions (FFs) fitted
41: to $e^+e^-$ annihilation data from CERN LEP1.
42: Working in the general-mass variable-flavor-number scheme, we resum the
43: large logarithms through the evolution of the FFs and, at the same time,
44: retain the full dependence on the charm-quark mass without additional
45: theoretical assumptions.
46: In this way, the cross section distributions in transverse momentum recently
47: measured by the CDF Collaboration in run~II at the Fermilab Tevatron are
48: described within errors.}
49:
50: \section{Introduction}
51: \label{sec:one}
52:
53: Recently, there has been much interest in the study of charmed-hadron ($X_c$)
54: production at hadron colliders, both experimentally and theoretically.
55: The CDF Collaboration measured the differential cross sections $d\sigma/dp_T$
56: for the inclusive production of $D^0$, $D^+$, $D^{*+}$, and $D_s^+$ mesons
57: (and their antiparticles) in $p\bar{p}$ collisions at the Fermilab Tevatron
58: (run II) as functions of transverse momentum ($p_T$) in the central rapidity
59: ($y$) region.\cite{CDF}
60: Until recently, the most advanced theoretical predictions,\cite{BK,CN} based
61: on quantum chromodynamics (QCD) at next-to-leading order (NLO), consistently
62: undershot all the $D^0$, $D^+$, and $D^{*+}$ data by significant amounts, as
63: is evident from Fig.~3 of Ref.~\refcite{CDF}, while no predictions for $D_s^+$
64: mesons existed.
65: Especially in view of future physics at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, where
66: the continuum production of charmed hadrons will provide important backgrounds
67: for numerous new-physics signals, it is an urgent task to deepen our
68: understanding of the inclusive hadroproduction of charmed hadrons on the basis
69: of QCD in order to render the theoretical predictions as reliable as possible,
70: so as to establish a sturdy anchor for new-physics searches.
71: Here, we report on recent progress in this direction.\cite{Kniehl:2005ej}
72:
73: \section{General-Mass Variable-Flavor-Number Scheme}
74:
75: We wish to advocate the general-mass variable-flavor-number (GM-VFN) scheme,
76: which has recently been elaborated for the photoproduction\cite{KS} and
77: hadroproduction\cite{Kniehl:2004fy} of heavy-flavored hadrons.
78: In this approach, one starts from the $p_T\gg m_c$ region and absorbs the large
79: logarithms $\ln(p_T^2/m_c^2)$ into the parton density function (PDF) of the
80: $c$-quark in the incoming hadrons and the fragmentation functions (FFs) for
81: the $c\to X_c$ transitions.
82: After factorizing the $\ln m_c^2$ terms, the cross section is infrared safe in
83: the limit $m_c\to0$, and $n_f=4$ is taken in the strong-coupling constant
84: $\alpha_s$ and the DGLAP evolution equations.
85: The remaining $m_c$ dependence, i.e.\ the $m_c^2/p_T^2$ power terms, is
86: retained in the hard-scattering cross sections.
87: These terms are important in the intermediate $p_T$ region, where
88: $p_T\agt m_c$, and are expected to improve the precision of the theoretical
89: predictions.
90: The large logarithms are absorbed into the PDFs and FFs by subtraction of the
91: collinearly (mass) singular terms.
92: However, in order to define a unique factorization prescription, one also has
93: to specify non-singular terms.
94: This is done by requiring that, in the limit $p_T\to\infty$, the known
95: hard-scattering cross sections of the zero-mass variable-flavor-number (ZM-VFN)
96: scheme are recovered.
97: To achieve this, subtraction terms are derived by comparing the
98: fixed-flavor-number (FFN) theory in the limit $m_c\to0$ with the ZM-VFN theory,
99: implemented in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ factorization
100: scheme.\cite{KS,Kniehl:2004fy}
101: This matching procedure is useful, since all commonly used $c$-quark PDFs and
102: FFs are defined in the ZM-VFN scheme.
103: The latter can then be used consistently together with hard-scattering cross
104: sections calculated in the GM-VFN scheme.
105:
106: \section{Numerical Results}
107:
108: We are now in a position to present our numerical results for the cross
109: sections of inclusive $D^0$, $D^+$, $D^{*+}$, and $D_s^+$ hadroproduction to
110: be directly compared with the CDF data,\cite{CDF} which come as distributions
111: $d\sigma/dp_T$ at c.m.\ energy $\sqrt{S}=1.96$~TeV with $y$ integrated over
112: the range $|y|\le1$.
113: For each $X_c$ species, the particle and antiparticle contributions are
114: averaged.
115: %The calculation of the cross section $d^2\sigma/(dp_Tdy)$ proceeds as outlined
116: %in Ref.~\refcite{Kniehl:2004fy}.
117: We work in the GM-VFN scheme with $n_f=4$, thus excluding $X_c$ hadrons from
118: $X_b$-hadron decays, which are vetoed in the CDF analysis.\cite{CDF}
119: We set $m_c=1.5$~GeV and evaluate $\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu_R)$, where $\mu_R$ is
120: the renormalization scale, with
121: $\Lambda^{(4)}_{\overline{\rm MS}}=328$~MeV,\cite{CTEQ6M} corresponding to
122: $\alpha^{(5)}(m_Z)=0.1181$.
123: We employ proton PDF set CTEQ6.1M from the CTEQ Collaboration\cite{CTEQ6M}
124: and the NLO FFs\cite{Kniehl:2005de} that were recently fitted to LEP1 data
125: taking the starting scales for the DGLAP evolution to be $\mu_0=m_c,m_b$.
126: We distinguish between the initial- and final-state factorization scales,
127: $\mu_F$ and $\mu_F^\prime$, so that we have three unphysical mass scales
128: altogether.
129: Our default choice is $\mu_R=\mu_F=\mu_F^\prime=m_T$, where
130: $m_T=\sqrt{p_T^2+m_c^2}$ is the transverse mass.
131: In order to conservatively estimate the theoretical error due to the scale
132: uncertainty, we independently vary the values of $\mu_R/m_T$, $\mu_F/m_T$, and
133: $\mu_F^\prime/m_T$ between 1/2 and 2, and determine the maximum upward and
134: downward deviations from our default predictions.
135:
136: Our theoretical predictions are compared with the CDF data in
137: Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1}.
138: The four frames refer to $D^0$, $D^+$, $D^{*+}$, and $D_s^+$
139: mesons.
140: In all cases, we find good agreement in the sense that the theoretical and
141: experimental errors overlap, i.e.\ the notorious discrepancy between
142: experiment and theory mentioned in Sec.~\ref{sec:one} has disappeared.
143: In fact, our theoretical predictions provide the best description of the
144: CDF data obtained so far.
145: \begin{figure}[ht]
146: \begin{center}
147: \begin{tabular}{cc}
148: \parbox{0.5\textwidth}{\epsfig{file=tev_d0_log3.eps,width=0.5\textwidth,%
149: bbllx=40pt,bblly=15pt,bburx=420pt,bbury=470pt}} &
150: \parbox{0.5\textwidth}{\epsfig{file=tev_dplus_log3.eps,width=0.5\textwidth,%
151: bbllx=40pt,bblly=15pt,bburx=420pt,bbury=470pt}} \\
152: \parbox{0.5\textwidth}{\epsfig{file=tev_dstar_log3.eps,width=0.5\textwidth,%
153: bbllx=40pt,bblly=15pt,bburx=420pt,bbury=470pt}} &
154: \parbox{0.5\textwidth}{\epsfig{file=tev_ds_log3.eps,width=0.5\textwidth,%
155: bbllx=40pt,bblly=15pt,bburx=420pt,bbury=470pt}}
156: \end{tabular}
157: \end{center}
158: %\vspace*{-0.5cm}
159: \caption{Comparison of the CDF data\protect\cite{CDF} with our NLO predictions
160: for $X_c=D^0,D^+,D^{*+},D_s^+$.
161: The solid lines represent our default predictions, while the dashed lines
162: indicate the unphysical-scale uncertainty.}
163: \label{fig:fig1}
164: \end{figure}
165:
166: \section{Conclusions}
167:
168: In conclusion, the GM-VFN scheme resums large logarithms by the DGLAP
169: evolution of non-perturbative FFs, guarantees the universality of the
170: latter as in the ZM-VFN scheme, and simultaneously retains the $m_c$-dependent
171: terms of the FFN scheme without additional theoretical assumptions.
172: Adopting this framework in combination with new fits of $D^0$, $D^+$,
173: $D^{*+}$, and $D_s^+$ FFs\cite{Kniehl:2005de} to LEP1 data, we managed for the
174: first time to reconcile the CDF data on the production of these mesons in
175: Tevatron run~II\cite{CDF} with QCD within errors and thus eliminated a
176: worrisome discrepancy.
177: Furthermore, we presented the first NLO predictions for the $D_s^+$
178: data.\cite{CDF}
179:
180: \section*{Acknowledgments}
181:
182: The author thanks G. Kramer, I. Schienbein, and H. Spiesberger for the
183: collaboration in the work presented here.
184: %This work was supported in part by BMBF Grant No.\ 05 HT4GUA/4.
185:
186: \begin{thebibliography}{0}
187:
188: \bibitem{CDF} CDF Collaboration, D. Acosta {\it et al.},
189: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}\ {\bf91}, 241804 (2003).
190:
191: \bibitem{BK} J. Binnewies, B. A. Kniehl and G. Kramer,
192: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}\ {\bf D58}, 014014 (1998);
193: B. A. Kniehl, G. Kramer and B. P\"otter,
194: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}\ {\bf B597}, 337 (2001).
195:
196: \bibitem{CN} M. Cacciari and P. Nason,
197: {\it JHEP} {\bf0309}, 006 (2003).
198:
199: \bibitem{Kniehl:2005ej} B. A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, I. Schienbein and
200: H. Spiesberger,
201: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}\ {\bf 96}, 012001 (2006).
202:
203: \bibitem{KS} G. Kramer and H. Spiesberger,
204: {\it Eur.\ Phys.\ J.} {\bf C22}, 289 (2001);
205: {\bf C28}, 495 (2003);
206: {\bf C38}, 309 (2004).
207:
208: \bibitem{Kniehl:2004fy} B. A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, I. Schienbein and
209: H. Spiesberger,
210: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}\ {\bf D71}, 014018 (2005);
211: {\it Eur.\ Phys.\ J.} {\bf C41}, 199 (2005).
212:
213: \bibitem{Kniehl:2005de} B. A. Kniehl and G. Kramer,
214: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}\ {\bf D71}, 094013 (2005);
215: {\bf D74}, 037502 (2006).
216:
217: \bibitem{CTEQ6M} CTEQ Collaboration, D. Stump {\it et al.},
218: {\it JHEP} {\bf0310}, 046 (2003).
219:
220: \end{thebibliography}
221:
222: \end{document}
223: