1: \documentclass[a4paper,showpacs,showkeys,nofootinbib,aps]{revtex4}
2: %\usepackage{a4}
3: \usepackage{amsmath}
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Page format %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6: %\textwidth 173mm
7: %\textheight 215mm
8: %\topmargin -50pt
9: \topmargin 1cm %
10: \voffset -50pt %
11: %\oddsidemargin -0.5cm %
12: %\evensidemargin -0.5cm
13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
14: %\usepackage{axodraw}
15: %\usepackage[dvipdfm,pdfstartview=FitH]{hyperref}
16: %\usepackage[bookmarksnumbered,colorlinks,plainpages,backref]{hyperref}
17: %\hypersetup{pdfstartview=FitH, bookmarks=true}
18: \begin{document}
19: \title{Azimuthal Dependence of the Heavy Quark Initiated Contributions to DIS}
20: \author{L.N.~Ananikyan}
21: \email{lev@web.am}
22: \affiliation{Yerevan Physics Institute, Alikhanian Br.2, 375036 Yerevan, Armenia}
23: \author{N.Ya.~Ivanov}
24: \email{nikiv@uniphi.yerphi.am}
25: \affiliation{Yerevan Physics Institute, Alikhanian Br.2, 375036 Yerevan, Armenia}
26: \date{\today}
27: \begin{abstract}
28: \noindent We analyze the azimuthal dependence of the heavy-quark-initiated contributions to the
29: lepton-nucleon deep inelastic scattering (DIS). First we derive the relations between the parton
30: level semi-inclusive structure functions and the helicity $\gamma^{*}Q$ cross sections in the case
31: of arbitrary values of the heavy quark mass. Then the azimuth-dependent ${\cal O}(\alpha_{s})$
32: lepton-quark DIS is calculated in the helicity basis. Finally, we investigate numerically the
33: properties of the $\cos\varphi$ and $\cos2\varphi$ distributions caused by the photon-quark
34: scattering (QS) contribution. It turns out that, contrary to the basic photon-gluon fusion (GF)
35: component, the QS mechanism is practically $\cos2\varphi$-independent. This fact implies that
36: measurements of the azimuthal distributions in charm leptoproduction could directly probe the charm
37: density in the proton.
38: \end{abstract}
39: \pacs{12.38.-t, 13.60.-r, 13.88.+e}%
40: \keywords{Perturbative QCD, Heavy Flavor Leptoproduction, Intrinsic Charm, Azimuthal Asymmetries}
41: \maketitle
42: \section{Introduction}
43: The notion of the intrinsic charm (IC) content of the proton has been introduced over 25 years ago
44: in Refs~\cite{BHPS,BPS}. It was shown that, in the light-cone Fock space picture
45: \cite{brod1,brod2}, it is natural to expect a five-quark state contribution, $\left\vert
46: uudc\bar{c}\right\rangle$, to the proton wave function. This component can be generated by
47: $gg\rightarrow c\bar{c}$ fluctuations inside the proton where the gluons are coupled to different
48: valence quarks. The original concept of the charm density in the proton \cite{BHPS,BPS} has
49: nonperturbative nature since a five-quark contribution $\left\vert uudc\bar{c}\right\rangle$ scales
50: as $1/m^{2}$ where $m$ is the $c$-quark mass \cite{polyakov}.
51:
52: A decade ago another point of view on the charm content of the proton has been proposed in the
53: framework of the variable flavor number scheme (VFNS) \cite{ACOT,collins}. Within the VFNS, the
54: mass logarithms of the type $\alpha_{s}\ln\left( Q^{2}/m^{2}\right)$ are resummed through the all
55: orders into a heavy quark density which evolves with $Q^{2}$ according to the standard DGLAP
56: evolution equation. Hence this approach introduces the parton distribution functions (PDFs) for the
57: heavy quarks and changes the number of active flavors by one unit when a heavy quark threshold is
58: crossed. Note also that the charm density arises within the VFNS perturbatively via the
59: $g\rightarrow c\bar{c}$ evolution. Some recent developments concerning the VFNS are presented in
60: Refs.~\cite{Thorne-NNLO,CTEQ6-5HQ,CTEQ6HQ,chi,SACOT}.
61:
62: Presently, both nonperturbative IC and perturbative charm density are widely used for a
63: phenomenological description of available data. (A recent review of the theory and experimental
64: constraints on the charm quark distribution can be found in Refs.~\cite{pumplin,brod-higgs}). In
65: particular, practically all the recent versions of the CTEQ \cite{CTEQ6} and MRST \cite{MRST2004}
66: sets of PDFs are based on the VFN schemes and contain a charm density. At the same time, the key
67: question remains open: How to measure the charm content of the proton? The basic theoretical
68: problem is that radiative corrections to the leading order (LO) predictions for the heavy quark
69: production cross sections are large: they increase the Born level results by approximately a factor
70: of two at energies of the fixed target experiments. On the other hand, perturbative instability
71: leads to a high sensitivity of the theoretical calculations to standard uncertainties in the input
72: QCD parameters: $m$, $\mu _{R}$, $\mu _{F}$, $\Lambda _{QCD}$ and PDFs. For this reason, one can
73: only estimate the order of magnitude of the pQCD predictions for the heavy flavor production cross
74: sections \cite{Mangano-N-R,Frixione-M-N-R}.
75:
76: At not very high energies, the main reason for large NLO cross sections of heavy flavor production
77: in $\gamma g$ \cite{Ellis-Nason,Smith-Neerven}, $\gamma ^{*}g$ \cite{LRSN}, and $gg$
78: \cite{Nason-D-E-1,Nason-D-E-2,Nason-D-E-3,BKNS} collisions is the so-called threshold (or
79: soft-gluon) enhancement. This strong logarithmic enhancement has universal nature in the
80: perturbation theory since it originates from incomplete cancellation of the soft and collinear
81: singularities between the loop and the bremsstrahlung contributions. Large leading and
82: next-to-leading threshold logarithms can be resummed to all orders of perturbative expansion using
83: the appropriate evolution equations \cite{Contopanagos-L-S,Laenen-O-S,Kidonakis-O-S}. Soft gluon
84: resummation of the threshold Sudakov logarithms indicates that the higher-order contributions to
85: the heavy flavor production are also sizeable. (For a review see
86: Refs.~\cite{Laenen-Moch,kid2,kid1}).
87:
88: Since production cross sections are not perturbatively stable, it is of special interest to study
89: those observables that are well-defined in pQCD. A nontrivial example of such an observable was
90: proposed in Refs.~\cite{we1,we2,we4,we3} where the azimuthal $\cos2\varphi$ asymmetry in heavy
91: quark photo- and leptoproduction has been analyzed \footnote{The well-known examples are the shapes
92: of differential cross sections of heavy flavor production which are sufficiently stable under
93: radiative corrections.}. In particular, the Born level results have been considered \cite{we1,we4}
94: and the NLO soft-gluon corrections to the basic mechanism, photon-gluon fusion (GF), have been
95: calculated \cite{we2,we4}. It was shown that, contrary to the production cross sections, the
96: $\cos2\varphi$ asymmetry in heavy flavor photo- and leptoproduction is quantitatively well defined
97: in pQCD: the contribution of the dominant GF mechanism to the asymmetry is stable, both
98: parametrically and perturbatively. This fact provides the motivation for investigation of the
99: photon-(heavy) quark scattering (QS) contribution to the $\varphi$-dependent lepton-hadron deep
100: inelastic scattering (DIS).
101:
102: In the present paper, we calculate the azimuthal dependence of the next-to-leading order (NLO)
103: ${\cal O}(\alpha_{em}\alpha _{s})$ heavy-flavor-initiated contributions to DIS. To our knowledge,
104: pQCD predictions for the $\varphi $-dependent $\gamma ^{* }Q$ cross sections in the case of
105: arbitrary values of the heavy quark mass $m$ and $Q^{2}$ are not available in the literature.
106: Moreover, there is a confusion among the existing results for azimuth-independent $\gamma ^{*}Q$
107: cross sections.
108:
109: The NLO corrections to the $\varphi$-independent lepton-quark DIS have been calculated (for the
110: first time) a long time ago in Ref.~\cite{HM}, and have been re-calculated recently in \cite{KS}.
111: The authors of Ref.~\cite{KS} conclude that there are errors in the NLO expression for
112: $\sigma^{(2)}$ given in Ref.~\cite{HM} \footnote{For more details see PhD thesis \cite{KS-thesis},
113: pp.~158-160.}. We disagree with this conclusion. It will be shown below that a correct
114: interpretation of the notations for the production cross sections used in \cite{HM} leads to a
115: complete agreement between the results presented in Refs.~\cite{HM}, \cite{KS} and present paper.
116:
117: As to the $\varphi $-dependent $\gamma^{*}Q$ cross sections, our main result can be formulated as
118: follows. Contrary to the basic GF component, the QS mechanism is practically $\cos
119: 2\varphi$-independent. This is due to the fact that the QS contribution to the $\cos 2\varphi $
120: asymmetry is absent (for the kinematic reason) at LO and is negligibly small (of the order of
121: $1\%$) at NLO. This fact indicates that the azimuthal distributions in charm leptoproduction could
122: be a good probe of the charm density in the proton. In detail, the possibility of measuring the
123: charm content of the proton using the $\cos 2\varphi$ asymmetry will be investigated in a
124: forthcoming publication \cite{we5}.
125:
126: Concerning the experimental aspects, azimuthal asymmetries in charm leptoproduction can, in
127: principle, be measured in the COMPASS experiment at CERN, as well as in future studies at the
128: proposed eRHIC \cite{eRHIC,EIC} and LHeC \cite{LHeC} colliders at BNL and CERN, correspondingly.
129:
130: The outline of this paper is as follows. In Section~\ref{I}, we derive the relations between the
131: parton level semi-inclusive structure functions and the helicity $\gamma^{*}Q$ cross sections in
132: the case of arbitrary values of the heavy quark mass. As explained in Ref.~\cite{AOT}, in the
133: presence of non-zero masses, it is the helicity basis that provides the simplest connections
134: between the hadron- and parton-level production cross sections. In Section~\ref{II}, we present the
135: NLO ${\cal O}(\alpha_{em}\alpha _{s})$ predictions for the $\varphi$-dependent lepton-quark DIS in
136: the helicity basis. Our calculations are compared with available results in Section~\ref{III}. In
137: Section~\ref{IV}, a numerical investigation of the $\cos\varphi$ and $\cos2\varphi$ distributions
138: caused by the QS contribution is given. In particular, we provide a simple parton level proof of
139: the fact that the QS mechanism is practically $\cos 2\varphi$-independent. Our conclusions are
140: presented in Section~\ref{V}.
141:
142: \section{\label{I}Azimuth-Dependent Structure Functions in the Helicity Basis}
143:
144: In this Section, the helicity formalism for the semi-inclusive $\gamma ^{*}Q$ cross sections in the
145: case of arbitrary values of the heavy quark mass is presented. This is a purely kinematical
146: analysis, which will set the notation to be used later on. In fact, we extend the helicity approach
147: proposed in Ref.~\cite{AOT} to the case of $\varphi$-dependent leptoproduction using the method
148: formulated in Ref.~\cite{dombey}.
149:
150: We consider the semi-inclusive deep inelastic lepton-quark scattering. The momentum assignment will
151: be denoted as
152: \begin{equation}\label{1}
153: l(\ell )+Q(k)\rightarrow l^{\prime}(\ell -q)+Q^{\prime}(p)+X(p_{X}).
154: \end{equation}
155: The following definition of partonic kinematic variables is used:
156: \begin{equation}\label{2}
157: y=\frac{q\cdot k}{\ell \cdot k},\qquad \qquad z=\frac{Q^{2}}{2q\cdot k} ,\qquad \qquad \lambda
158: =\frac{m^{2}}{Q^{2}},\qquad \qquad Q^{2}=-q^{2}.
159: \end{equation}
160: The differential cross section of the reaction (\ref{1}), d$^{3}\hat{\sigma} _{lQ}$, is defined in
161: terms of the quark tensor $\widetilde{W} _{Q}^{\mu \nu }$:
162: \begin{equation}\label{3}
163: \ell _{0}^{\prime }\frac{\text{d}^{3}\hat{\sigma}_{lQ}}{\text{d}^{3}\ell ^{\prime
164: }}=2\frac{\text{d}^{3}\hat{\sigma}_{lQ}}{\text{d}y\text{d}Q^{2} \text{d}\varphi
165: }=\frac{2z}{y}\frac{\text{d}^{3}\hat{\sigma}_{lQ}}{\text{d}z \text{d}Q^{2}\text{d}\varphi
166: }=\frac{\alpha _{em}^{2}}{(\ell \cdot k)Q^{4}}L_{\mu \nu }\widetilde{W}_{Q}^{\mu \nu
167: }\frac{\text{d}^{3}p}{(2\pi )^{3}2p_{0}},
168: \end{equation}
169: where $\ell^{\prime}_{\mu}=(\ell -q)_{\mu}$ is the 4-momentum of the final lepton. In the target
170: rest frame, the azimuth $\varphi $ is the angle between the lepton scattering plane and the heavy
171: quark production plane, defined by the exchanged photon and the detected quark $Q^{\prime}$ (see
172: Fig.~\ref{Fg.1}). The covariant definition of $\varphi $ is
173: \begin{figure}
174: \begin{center}
175: \mbox{\epsfig{file=graph_p.eps,width=200pt}} \caption{\label{Fg.1}\small Definition of the
176: azimuthal angle $\varphi$ in the target rest frame.}
177: \end{center}
178: \end{figure}
179: \begin{eqnarray}
180: \cos \varphi &=&\frac{r\cdot n}{\sqrt{-r^{2}}\sqrt{-n^{2}}},\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \sin
181: \varphi =\frac{Q^{2}\sqrt{1+4\lambda z^{2}}}{2z\sqrt{-r^{2}}\sqrt{-n^{2}
182: }}~n\cdot \ell , \nonumber\\
183: r^{\mu } &=&\varepsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }k_{\nu }q_{\alpha }\ell _{\beta },\qquad \qquad
184: \qquad \qquad \quad n^{\mu }=\varepsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }q_{\nu }k_{\alpha }p_{\beta
185: }.\label{4}
186: \end{eqnarray}
187: The explicit expression for the lepton tensor $L_{\mu \nu }$ is:
188: \begin{equation}\label{5}
189: L_{\mu \nu }=\mathop{\overline{\sum}}\limits_{\text{spin}}\left\langle \ell \left\vert j_{\nu
190: }^{\dagger }\right\vert \ell ^{\prime }\right\rangle \left\langle \ell ^{\prime }\left\vert j_{\mu
191: }\right\vert \ell \right\rangle =2\ell _{\mu }\ell _{\nu }^{\prime }+2\ell _{\nu }\ell _{\mu
192: }^{\prime }-Q^{2}g_{\mu \nu },
193: \end{equation}
194: where $\mathop{\overline{\sum}}\limits_{\text{spin}}$denotes a sum over all final helicity states
195: and an averaging over all initial spin variables. The semi-inclusive quark tensor
196: $\widetilde{W}_{Q}^{\mu \nu }$ is defined as follows:
197: \begin{equation}\label{6}
198: \widetilde{W}_{Q}^{\mu \nu }(q,k,p)=\frac{1}{4\pi }\mathop{\overline{\sum}}\limits
199: _{X(p_{X}),\text{spin}}\left\langle k\left\vert J^{\mu }\right\vert p,p_{X}\right\rangle \left(
200: 2\pi \right) ^{4}\delta ^{(4)}\left( q+k-p-p_{X}\right) \left\langle p_{X},p\left\vert J^{\dagger
201: \nu }\right\vert k\right\rangle,
202: \end{equation}
203: where sums and integrals over all the unobserved final states $X$ of momentum $p_{X}^{\mu }$ are
204: implied.
205:
206: To construct the parton tensor describing the semi-inclusive $\gamma ^{*}Q$ DIS, it is convenient
207: to introduce two 4-vectors:
208: \begin{equation}\label{7}
209: v^{\mu }=\frac{\varepsilon _{\tau \nu \alpha \beta }\varepsilon ^{\tau \gamma \theta \mu }q^{\nu
210: }k^{\alpha }p^{\beta }k_{\gamma }q_{\theta }}{ (q\cdot k)\sqrt{-n^{2}}\sqrt{1+4\lambda
211: z^{2}}},\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad w^{\mu }=k^{\mu }+\frac{q\cdot k}{Q^{2}}q^{\mu },
212: \end{equation}
213: that obey the following conditions: $v\cdot k=v\cdot q=0,$ $v^{2}=-1$ and $ w\cdot q=0,$ $w\cdot
214: k=w^{2}=m^{2}\left( 1+4\lambda z^{2}\right) /4\lambda z^{2}$. In terms of $v^{\mu }$ and $w^{\nu
215: }$, $\widetilde{W}_{Q}^{\mu \nu }$ has the following structure:
216: \begin{equation}\label{8}
217: \widetilde{W}_{Q}^{\mu \nu }(q,k,p)=-\left( g^{\mu \nu }-\frac{q^{\mu }q\nu }{q^{2}}\right)
218: \widetilde{W}_{1}+\frac{w^{\mu }w^{\nu }}{m^{2}}\widetilde{W} _{2}+\left( w^{\mu }v^{\nu }+w^{\nu
219: }v^{\mu }\right) \frac{\widetilde{W}_{I} }{m}+v^{\mu }v^{\nu }\widetilde{W}_{A},
220: \end{equation}
221: that obeys all the necessary conservation laws. In particular, $\widetilde{W} _{Q}^{\mu \nu }q_{\mu
222: }=0$. The scalar coefficients $\widetilde{W}_{i}$ $(i=1,2,I,A)$ are the semi-inclusive parton-level
223: structure functions for the process (\ref{1}), $\widetilde{W}_{i}\equiv \widetilde{W}_{i}\left(
224: z,\lambda ,p_{X}^{2},q\cdot p\right)$.
225:
226: For parton-model considerations, is it convenient to use the so-called colliner frames where the
227: 3-momenta of the virtual photon and initial quark are antiparallel to each other, $\vec{q}\parallel
228: (-\vec{k})$. Evidently, an arbitrary colliner frame can be obtained from the initial quark rest
229: system with the help of a Lorentz boost along $\vec{q}$. Pointing the $z$-axis along $\vec{q}$, we
230: will have in a colliner frame:
231: \begin{eqnarray}
232: v^{\mu } &=&(0,\vec{v}_{\perp },0),\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad\qquad \qquad \vec{v}_{\perp
233: }=\frac{\vec{p}_{\perp }}{\left\vert
234: \vec{p}_{\perp }\right\vert }, \label{9}\\
235: w^{\mu } &=&\frac{Q\sqrt{1+4\lambda z^{2}}}{2\sqrt{z}}e_{0}^{\mu },\qquad \qquad \quad \qquad
236: \qquad\;\, e_{0}^{\mu }=\frac{1}{Q}(\left\vert \vec{q} \right\vert ,\vec{0}_{\perp
237: },q_{0}),\label{10}
238: \end{eqnarray}
239: where $Q=\sqrt{-q^{2}}$ and $e_{0}^{\mu }$ describes the longitudinal polarization of the virtual
240: photon, $\gamma ^{* }$. It is also useful to define the scalar, $e_{q}^{\mu }$, and transverse,
241: $e_{\pm }^{\mu }$, polarization vectors:
242: \begin{equation}\label{11}
243: e_{q}^{\mu }=\frac{q^{\mu }}{Q},\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad e_{\pm }^{\mu
244: }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(0,\mp 1,-i,0\right).
245: \end{equation}
246: Note the completeness relation
247: \begin{equation}\label{12}
248: e_{+}^{\mu }e_{+}^{\nu * }+e_{-}^{\mu }e_{-}^{\nu * }-e_{0}^{\mu }e_{0}^{\nu * }+e_{q}^{\mu
249: }e_{q}^{\nu * }=-g^{\mu \nu },
250: \end{equation}
251: and the normalization for the physical states:
252: \begin{equation}\label{13}
253: e_{r}\cdot e_{s}^{* }=(-1)^{s}\delta_{rs},\qquad \qquad \qquad (r,s=0,\pm 1).
254: \end{equation}
255: One can see from Eqs.~(\ref{9},\ref{10}) that it is merely the scalar coefficient functions
256: $\widetilde{W}_{i}$ $(i=1,2,I,A)$\ depend on the final quark momentum $p$ in a collinear frame. For
257: this reason, we can integrate the semi-inclusive quark tensor $\widetilde{W}_{Q}^{\mu \nu }(q,k,p)$
258: over $ \vec{p}$ and obtain the inclisive quantity $W_{Q}^{\mu \nu }(q,k)$:
259: \begin{eqnarray}
260: W_{Q}^{\mu \nu }(q,k) &=&\int \frac{\text{d}^{3}p}{(2\pi )^{3}2p_{0}}
261: \widetilde{W}_{Q}^{\mu \nu }(q,k,p) \label{14}\\
262: &=&-\left( g^{\mu \nu }-\frac{q^{\mu }q\nu }{q^{2}}\right) \left(\hat{W}
263: _{1}-\frac{1}{2}\hat{W}_{A}\right) +\frac{w^{\mu }w^{\nu }}{m^{2}}\left(\hat{W}_{2}-\frac{2\lambda
264: z^{2}}{1+4\lambda z^{2}}\hat{W}_{A}\right) +\left( w^{\mu }v^{\nu }+w^{\nu }v^{\mu }\right)
265: \frac{\hat{W}_{I}}{m} +v^{\mu }v^{\nu }\hat{W}_{A}.\nonumber
266: \end{eqnarray}
267: The inclusive coefficient functions $W_{i}(z,\lambda )$ $\ (i=1,2,I,A)$ are related to the
268: semi-inclusive ones as follows:
269: \begin{eqnarray}
270: \hat{W}_{1}(z,\lambda ) &=&\int \frac{\text{d}^{3}p}{(2\pi )^{3}2p_{0}} \left(
271: \widetilde{W}_{1}+\frac{1}{2}\widetilde{W}_{A}\right) \left( z,\lambda ,p_{X}^{2},q\cdot p\right)
272: ,\qquad \qquad \; \hat{W} _{I}(z,\lambda )=\int \frac{\text{d}^{3}p}{(2\pi
273: )^{3}2p_{0}}\widetilde{W}_{I}\left( z,\lambda ,p_{X}^{2},q\cdot p\right) , \label{15}\\
274: \hat{W}_{2}(z,\lambda ) &=&\int \frac{\text{d}^{3}p}{(2\pi )^{3}2p_{0}} \left(
275: \widetilde{W}_{2}+\frac{2\lambda z^{2}}{1+4\lambda z^{2}}\widetilde{W} _{A}\right) \left( z,\lambda
276: ,p_{X}^{2},q\cdot p\right),\quad \! \hat{W} _{A}(z,\lambda )=\int \frac{\text{d}^{3}p}{(2\pi
277: )^{3}2p_{0}}\widetilde{W} _{A}\left( z,\lambda ,p_{X}^{2},q\cdot p\right).\nonumber
278: \end{eqnarray}
279: Integrating $W_{Q}^{\mu \nu }(q,k)$ over the lepton azimuth $\varphi $ defined by Eqs.~(\ref{4}),
280: one can reproduce the well-known expression for totally inclusive DIS:
281: \begin{equation}\label{16}
282: \frac{1}{2\pi }\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi }\text{d}\varphi W_{Q}^{\mu \nu }(q,k)=-\left( g^{\mu \nu
283: }-\frac{q^{\mu }q\nu }{q^{2}}\right) \hat{W} _{1}(z,Q^{2})+\frac{w^{\mu }w^{\nu
284: }}{m^{2}}\hat{W}_{2}(z,Q^{2}).
285: \end{equation}
286: Note that the above relation can easily be obtained from Eq.~(\ref{14}) taking into account that
287: $\int_{0}^{2\pi }$d$\varphi\,v^{\mu }v^{\nu }=\pi \left( e_{+}^{\mu }e_{+}^{\nu * }+e_{-}^{\mu
288: }e_{-}^{\nu * }\right) =\pi \left( -g^{\mu \nu }+e_{0}^{\mu }e_{0}^{\nu * }-e_{q}^{\mu }e_{q}^{\nu
289: * }\right).$
290:
291: Now the cross section for the inclusive azimuth-dependent lepton-quark DIS can be written as
292: \begin{equation}\label{17}
293: \frac{\text{d}^{3}\hat{\sigma}_{lQ}}{\text{d}z\text{d}Q^{2}\text{d}\varphi }=
294: \frac{y}{z}\frac{\text{d}^{3}\hat{\sigma}_{lQ}}{\text{d}y\text{d}Q^{2}\text{d }\varphi
295: }=\frac{y}{Q^{2}}\frac{\text{d}^{3}\hat{\sigma}_{lQ}}{\text{d}z\text{d}y\text{d}\varphi
296: }=\frac{\alpha _{em}^{2}y^{2}}{Q^{6}}L_{\mu \nu }W_{Q}^{\mu \nu }.
297: \end{equation}
298: To derive the relations between the invariant and helicity structure functions, we use the
299: completeness (\ref{12}) which implies that
300: \begin{equation}\label{18}
301: L_{\mu \nu }W_{Q}^{\mu \nu }=\sum\limits_{r,s}\rho _{rs}\hat{F}_{rs},
302: \end{equation}
303: where the quark and lepton helicity structure functions ($\hat{F}_{rs}$ and $\rho _{rs}$,
304: respectively) are defined as
305: \begin{equation}\label{19}
306: \hat{F}_{rs}=e_{r}^{\mu }W_{Q,\mu \nu }e_{s}^{\nu *},\qquad \qquad \quad \ \ \qquad \qquad \ \rho
307: _{rs}=(-1)^{r+s}e_{r}^{\mu * }L_{\mu \nu }e_{s}^{\nu }.
308: \end{equation}
309: Choosing the $x$-axis along $\vec{v}_{\perp }$ defined by Eq.~(\ref{9}), we obtain for the quark
310: helicity structure functions $\hat{F}_{rs}(z,\lambda )$:
311: \begin{eqnarray}
312: \hat{F}_{{+}{+}} &=&\hat{F}_{{-}{-}}=\hat{W}_{1},\qquad \qquad \quad \ \ \ \qquad \qquad \quad
313: \quad \;\; \ \ \ \qquad \qquad \quad \ \ \ \ \hat{F}_{\mathop{0}\mathop{0}}=-\hat{W}_{1}+
314: \frac{1+4\lambda z^{2}}{4\lambda z^{2}}\hat{W}_{2}, \nonumber\\
315: \hat{F}_{{+}\mathop{0}}&=&\hat{F}_{\mathop{0}{+}}=-\hat{F}_{{-}\mathop{0}}=-\hat{F}_{\mathop{0}{-}}=
316: \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{1+4\lambda z^{2}}{2\lambda z^{2}}}\hat{W}_{I},\qquad \qquad \qquad \,
317: \hat{F} _{{+-}}=\hat{F}_{{-+}}=-\frac{1}{2}\hat{W}_{A}.\label{20}
318: \end{eqnarray}
319: The lepton tensor $\rho _{rs}\left( \hat{\varepsilon},\varphi \right)$ has the following form in
320: the helicity basis:
321: \begin{eqnarray}
322: \rho_{{++}} &=&\rho _{{--}}=\frac{Q^{2}}{1-\hat{\varepsilon}},\qquad \qquad \quad \ \ \ \qquad
323: \qquad \quad \ \ \ \qquad \qquad \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \, \rho _{\mathop{0}\mathop{0}}=
324: \frac{2Q^{2}\hat{\varepsilon}}{1-\hat{\varepsilon}}, \label{21}\\
325: \rho_{{+}\mathop{0}}
326: &=&\rho_{\mathop{0}{+}}^{*}=-\rho_{{-}\mathop{0}}^{*}=-\rho_{\mathop{0}{-}}=-\frac{Q^{2}
327: \sqrt{\hat{\varepsilon}(1+\hat{\varepsilon})}}{1-\hat{\varepsilon}} \,\text{e}^{-i\varphi },\qquad
328: \qquad \ \ \ \, \rho_{{+-}}=\rho_{{-+}}^{* }=-\frac{Q^{2}\hat{
329: \varepsilon}}{1-\hat{\varepsilon}}\,\text{e}^{-2i\varphi}.\nonumber
330: \end{eqnarray}
331: The quantity $\hat{\varepsilon}$ measures the degree of the longitudinal polarization of the
332: virtual photon in the Breit frame \cite{dombey}. The covariant definition is:
333: \begin{equation}\label{22}
334: \hat{\varepsilon}=\frac{2(1-y-\lambda z^{2}y^{2})}{1+(1-y)^{2}+2\lambda z^{2}y^{2}}.
335: \end{equation}
336: In terms of the helicity structure functions, the azimuth-dependent inclusive lepton-quark cross
337: section has the form:
338: \begin{equation}\label{23}
339: \frac{\text{d}^{3}\hat{\sigma}_{lQ}}{\text{d}z\text{d}Q^{2}\text{d}\varphi }= \frac{\alpha
340: _{em}^{2}}{Q^{4}}\frac{2y^{2}}{1-\hat{\varepsilon}}\left[ \hat{F}_{T}(z,\lambda
341: )+\hat{\varepsilon}\hat{F}_{L}(z,\lambda )+\hat{\varepsilon}\hat{F}_{A}(z,\lambda )\cos 2\varphi
342: +2\sqrt{\hat{\varepsilon}(1+\hat{ \varepsilon})}\,\hat{F}_{I}(z,\lambda )\cos \varphi \right] ,
343: \end{equation}
344: where
345: \begin{equation}\label{24}
346: \hat{F}_{T}=\hat{F}_{{++}},\qquad \qquad \hat{F}_{L}=\hat{F}_{\mathop{0}\mathop{0}},\qquad \qquad
347: \hat{F}_{A}=-\hat{F}_{{+-}},\qquad \qquad \hat{F}_{I}=\hat{F}_{{-}\mathop{0}}.
348: \end{equation}
349: Likewise, using Eqs.~(\ref{18}-\ref{22}), one can easily express the semi-inclusive $lQ$ cross
350: section defined by Eq.~(\ref{3}) in terms of the corresponding helicity structure functions
351: $\widetilde{F}_{rs}\left( z,\lambda ,k\cdot p,q\cdot p\right)=e_{r}^{\mu }(q,k)\widetilde{W}_{Q,\mu
352: \nu }(q,k,p)e_{s}^{\nu *}(q,k)$.
353:
354: Sometimes, instead of the structure functions $\hat{F}_{rs}$, the helicity $\gamma ^{* }Q$ cross
355: sections are used:
356: \begin{equation}\label{25}
357: \hat{\sigma}_{i}(z,\lambda )=\frac{8\pi ^{2}\alpha _{em}\,z}{Q^{2}\sqrt{ 1+4\lambda
358: z^{2}}}\,\hat{F}_{i}(z,\lambda),\qquad (i=T,L,A,I),
359: \end{equation}
360: where $\hat{\sigma}_{T}=\hat{\sigma}_{{++}},\
361: \hat{\sigma}_{L}=\hat{\sigma}_{\mathop{0}\mathop{0}},\ \hat{\sigma}_{A}=-\hat{\sigma}_{{+-}}$ and
362: $\hat{\sigma}_{I}=\hat{\sigma}_{{-}\mathop{0}}$. Since $y\ll 1$ in most of the experimentally
363: reachable kinematic range, it is the the quantities $\hat{\sigma}_{2}$ and $\hat{F}_{2}$ that can
364: effectively be measured in $\varphi$-independent DIS:
365: \begin{equation}\label{26}
366: \hat{\sigma}_{2}(z,\lambda)=\hat{\sigma}_{T}(z,\lambda)+\hat{\sigma}_{L}(z,\lambda),\qquad \qquad
367: \qquad \qquad \hat{F}_{2}(z,\lambda)= \frac{2z}{1+4\lambda
368: z^{2}}\left[\hat{F}_{T}(z,\lambda)+\hat{F}_{L}(z,\lambda)\right].
369: \end{equation}
370: In terms of the quantities $\hat{\sigma}_{i}$, the cross section of the reaction (\ref{1}) can be
371: written as
372: \begin{equation}\label{27}
373: \frac{\text{d}^{3}\hat{\sigma}_{lQ}}{\text{d}z\text{d}Q^{2}\text{d}\varphi }= \frac{\alpha
374: _{em}}{(2\pi )^{2}}\frac{y^{2}}{zQ^{2}}\frac{\sqrt{1+4\lambda z^{2}}}{1-\hat{\varepsilon}}\left[
375: \hat{\sigma}_{2}(z,\lambda )-(1-\hat{ \varepsilon})\hat{\sigma}_{L}(z,\lambda
376: )+\hat{\varepsilon}\hat{\sigma}_{A}(z,\lambda )\cos 2\varphi
377: +2\sqrt{\hat{\varepsilon}(1+\hat{\varepsilon})}\,\hat{\sigma}_{I}(z,\lambda )\cos \varphi \right].
378: \end{equation}
379: In Eqs.~(\ref{26},\ref{27}), $\hat{\sigma}_{T}\,(\hat{\sigma}_{L})$ is the usual $ \gamma ^{* }N$
380: cross section describing heavy quark production by a transverse (longitudinal) virtual photon. The
381: third cross section, $\hat{ \sigma}_{A}$, comes about from interference between transverse states
382: and is responsible for the $\cos 2\varphi $ asymmetry which occurs in real photoproduction using
383: linearly polarized photons \cite{we1,we2,we3}. The fourth cross section, $\hat{\sigma}_{I}$,
384: originates from interference between longitudinal and transverse components \cite{dombey}.
385:
386: \section{\label{II}Photon-Quark Scattering Cross Sections at NLO}
387: \begin{figure}
388: \begin{center}
389: \mbox{\epsfig{file=QSgraph.eps,width=445pt}}
390: \end{center}
391: \caption{\label{Fg.2}\small The LO (a) and NLO (b and c) photon-quark scattering diagrams.}
392: \end{figure}
393:
394: At leading order, ${\cal O}(\alpha _{em})$, the only quark scattering subprocess is
395: \begin{equation}
396: \gamma ^{*}(q)+Q(k_{Q})\rightarrow Q(p_{Q}). \label{21.2}
397: \end{equation}
398: The $\gamma ^{*}Q$ cross sections, $\hat{\sigma}_{i}^{(0)}$ ($i=2,L,A,I$), corresponding to the
399: Born diagram (see Fig.~\ref{Fg.2}a) are:
400: \begin{eqnarray}
401: \hat{\sigma}_{2}^{(0)}(z,\lambda)&=&\hat{\sigma}_{B}(z)\sqrt{1+4\lambda z^{2}}\,\delta(1-z), \nonumber\\
402: \hat{\sigma}_{L}^{(0)}(z,\lambda)&=&\hat{\sigma}_{B}(z)\frac{4\lambda z^{2}}{\sqrt{1+4\lambda
403: z^{2}}}\,\delta(1-z), \label{22.2}\\
404: \hat{\sigma}_{A}^{(0)}(z,\lambda)&=&\hat{\sigma}_{I}^{(0)}(z,\lambda)=0,\nonumber
405: \end{eqnarray}
406: with
407: \begin{equation}\label{23.2}
408: \hat{\sigma}_{B}(z)=\frac{(2\pi)^2e_{Q}^{2}\alpha _{em}}{Q^{2}}\,z,
409: \end{equation}
410: where $e_{Q}$ is the quark charge in units of electromagnetic coupling constant.
411:
412: To take into account the NLO ${\cal O}(\alpha_{em}\alpha_{s})$ contributions, one needs to
413: calculate the virtual corrections to the Born process (given in Fig.~\ref{Fg.2}c) as well as the
414: real gluon emission (see Fig.~\ref{Fg.2}b):
415: \begin{equation}
416: \gamma ^{*}(q)+Q(k_{Q})\rightarrow Q(p_{Q})+g(p_{g}). \label{24.2}
417: \end{equation}
418:
419: The NLO $\varphi$-dependent cross sections, $\hat{\sigma}_{A}^{(1)}$ and $\hat{\sigma}_{I}^{(1)}$,
420: are described by the real gluon emission only. Corresponding contributions are free of any type of
421: singularities and the quantities $\hat{\sigma}_{A}^{(1)}$ and $\hat{\sigma}_{I}^{(1)}$ can be
422: calculated directly in four dimensions.
423:
424: In the $\varphi$-independent case, $\hat{\sigma}_{2}^{(1)}$ and $\hat{\sigma}_{L}^{(1)}$, we also
425: work in four dimensions. The virtual contribution (Fig.~\ref{Fg.2}c) contains ultraviolet (UV)
426: singularity that is removed using the on-mass-shell regularization scheme. In particular, we
427: calculate the absorptive part of the Feynman diagram which has no UV divergences. The real part is
428: then obtained by using the appropriate dispersion relations. As to the infrared (IR) singularity,
429: it is regularized with the help of an infinitesimal gluon mass. This IR divergence is cancelled
430: when we add the bremsstrahlung contribution (Fig.~\ref{Fg.2}b).
431:
432: The final (real+virtual) results for $\gamma ^{*}Q$ cross sections can be cast into the following
433: form:
434: \begin{eqnarray}
435: \hat{\sigma}_{2}^{(1)}(z,\lambda)=\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi}C_{F}\hat{\sigma}_{B}(1)
436: \sqrt{1+4\lambda}\,\delta(1-z)\Bigl\{-2+4\ln\lambda-\sqrt{1+4\lambda }\,\ln r+
437: \frac{1+2\lambda}{\sqrt{1+4\lambda}}\Bigl[2\text{Li}_{2}(r^{2})+4\text{Li}_{2}(-r)&& \nonumber\\
438: +3\ln^{2}(r)-4\ln r+4\ln r \ln(1+4\lambda)-2\ln r\ln\lambda\Bigr]\Bigr\}&& \nonumber \\
439: +\frac{\alpha_{s}}{4\pi}C_{F}\hat{\sigma}_{B}(z)\frac{1}{(1+4\lambda z^{2})^{3/2}}\biggl\{
440: \frac{1}{\left[1-(1-\lambda)z\right]^{2}}\Bigl[1-3z-4z^{2}+6z^{3}+8z^{4}-8z^{5} \qquad \qquad \qquad \;&& \nonumber \\
441: +6\lambda z\left(3-18z+13z^{2}+10z^{3}-8z^{4}\right) \qquad \qquad&& \nonumber \\
442: +4\lambda^{2}z^{2}\left(8-77z+65z^{2}-2z^{3}\right)\biggr. \qquad \qquad \qquad \; \,&& \label{25.2} \\
443: +16\lambda^{3}z^{3}\left(1-21z+12z^{2}\right)-128\lambda^{4}z^{5}\Bigr] \qquad \quad \; \,&& \nonumber \\
444: +\frac{2\ln D(z,\lambda)}{\sqrt{1+4\lambda z^{2}}}\Bigl[-\left(1+z+2z^{2}+2z^{3}\right)+2\lambda
445: z\left(2-11z-11z^{2}\right)+8\lambda^{2}z^{2}\left(1-9z\right)\Bigr]&& \nonumber \\
446: -\frac{8(1+4\lambda)^{2}z^{4}}{\left(1-z\right)_{+}}-
447: \frac{4(1+2\lambda)(1+4\lambda)^{2}z^{4}}{\sqrt{1+4\lambda z^{2}}}\frac{\ln
448: D(z,\lambda)}{\left(1-z\right)_{+}}\biggr\},&& \nonumber
449: \end{eqnarray}
450: \begin{eqnarray}
451: \hat{\sigma}_{L}^{(1)}(z,\lambda)=\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}C_{F}\hat{\sigma}_{B}(1)
452: \frac{2\lambda}{\sqrt{1+4\lambda}}\delta(1-z)\Bigl\{-2+4\ln\lambda-\frac{4\lambda}{\sqrt{1+4\lambda
453: }}\,\ln r+\frac{1+2\lambda}{\sqrt{1+4\lambda}}\Bigl[2\text{Li}_{2}(r^{2})+4\text{Li}_{2}(-r)&& \nonumber\\
454: +3\ln^{2}(r)-4\ln r+4\ln r \ln(1+4\lambda)-2\ln r\ln\lambda\Bigr]\Bigr\}&& \nonumber \\
455: +\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}C_{F}\hat{\sigma}_{B}(z)\frac{1}{(1+4\lambda z^{2})^{3/2}}\biggl\{
456: \frac{z}{\left[1-(1-\lambda)z\right]^{2}}\Bigl[(1-z)^{2}-
457: \lambda z\left(13-19z-2z^{2}+8z^{3}\right)\Bigr. \qquad \qquad&& \nonumber \\
458: -2\lambda^{2}z^{2}\left(31-39z+8z^{2}\right)\Bigr. \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad \; \,&& \label{26.2} \\
459: -8\lambda^{3}z^{3}\left(10-7z\right)-32\lambda^{4}z^{4}\Bigr]\Bigr. \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad&& \nonumber \\
460: -\frac{2\lambda z^{2}\ln D(z,\lambda)}{\sqrt{1+4\lambda z^{2}}}\left[3+3z+16\lambda z\right]\Bigr.
461: \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \; \,&& \nonumber \\
462: -\frac{8\lambda(1+4\lambda)z^{4}}{\left(1-z\right)_{+}}-
463: \frac{4\lambda(1+2\lambda)(1+4\lambda)z^{4}}{\sqrt{1+4\lambda z^{2}}}\frac{\ln
464: D(z,\lambda)}{\left(1-z\right)_{+}}\biggr\},&& \nonumber
465: \end{eqnarray}
466: \begin{equation}\label{27.2}
467: \hat{\sigma}_{A}^{(1)}(z,\lambda)=\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi}C_{F}\hat{\sigma}_{B}(z)\frac{z(1-z)}{(1+4\lambda
468: z^{2})^{3/2}}\biggl\{ \frac{1}{\left[1-(1-\lambda)z\right]}\left[1+2\lambda(4-3z)+8\lambda^2
469: z\right]+\frac{2\lambda \ln D(z,\lambda)}{\sqrt{1+4\lambda z^{2}}}\left[2+z+4\lambda
470: z\right]\biggr\},
471: \end{equation}
472: \begin{eqnarray}
473: \hat{\sigma}_{I}^{(1)}(z,\lambda)=\frac{\alpha_{s}}{8\sqrt{2}}C_{F}\hat{\sigma}_{B}(z)
474: \frac{1}{(1+4\lambda z^{2})^{2}}\frac{\sqrt{z}}{\left[1-(1-\lambda)z\right]^{3/2}}\biggl\{
475: -(1-z)(1+2z)-4\lambda z\left(10-10z-z^{2}+2z^{3}\right) \qquad \quad \; \;&& \nonumber \\
476: -8\lambda^{2}z^{2}\left(25-29z+8z^{2}\right)-96\lambda^{3}z^{3}\left(3-2z\right)-
477: 128\lambda^{4}z^{4}\biggr.\;&& \label{28.2} \\
478: +8\sqrt{\lambda z\left[1-(1-\lambda)z\right]}\left[1-z^{2}+\lambda
479: z(13-11z)+4\lambda^{2}z^{2}(7-4z)+16\lambda^{3}z^{3}\right]\biggr\}.&& \nonumber
480: \end{eqnarray}
481: In Eqs.~(\ref{25.2}-\ref{28.2}), $C_{F}=(N_{c}^{2}-1)/(2N_{c})$, where $N_{c}$ is number of colors,
482: while
483: \begin{equation}\label{29.2}
484: D(z,\lambda)=\frac{1+2\lambda z -\sqrt{1+4\lambda z^{2}}}{1+2\lambda z +\sqrt{1+4\lambda
485: z^{2}}},\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
486: r=\sqrt{D(z=1,\lambda)}=\frac{\sqrt{1+4\lambda}-1}{\sqrt{1+4\lambda}+1}.
487: \end{equation}
488: The so-called "plus" distributions are defined by
489: \begin{equation}\label{30.2}
490: \left[g(z)\right]_{+}=g(z)-\delta(1-z)\int\limits_{0}^{1}\text{d}\zeta\,g(\zeta).
491: \end{equation}
492: For any sufficiently regular test function $h(z)$, Eq.~(\ref{30.2}) gives
493: \begin{equation}\label{31.2}
494: \int\limits_{a}^{1}\text{d}z\,h(z)\left[\frac{\ln^{k}(1-z)}{1-z}\right]_{+}=
495: \int\limits_{a}^{1}\text{d}z\frac{\ln^{k}(1-z)}{1-z}\left[h(z)-h(1)\right]+
496: h(1)\frac{\ln^{k+1}(1-a)}{k+1}.
497: \end{equation}
498:
499: \section{\label{III}Comparison with Available Results}
500: For the first time, the NLO ${\cal O}(\alpha_{em}\alpha_{s})$ corrections to the
501: $\varphi$-independent IC contribution have been calculated a long time ago by Hoffmann and Moore
502: (HM) \cite{HM}. However, authors of Ref.~\cite{HM} don't give explicitly their definition of the
503: partonic cross sections that leads to a confusion in interpretation of the original HM results. To
504: clarify the situation, we need first to derive the relation between the lepton-quark DIS cross
505: section, $\text{d}\hat{\sigma}_{lQ}$, and the partonic cross sections, $\sigma^{(2)}$ and
506: $\sigma^{(L)}$, used in \cite{HM}. Using Eqs.~(C.1) and (C.5) in Ref.~\cite{HM}, one can express
507: the HM tensor $\sigma_{R}^{\mu\nu}$ in terms of "our" cross sections $\hat{\sigma}_{2}$ and
508: $\hat{\sigma}_{L}$ defined by Eq.~(\ref{27}) in the present paper. Comparing the obtained results
509: with the corresponding definition of $\sigma_{R}^{\mu\nu}$ via the HM cross sections $\sigma^{(2)}$
510: and $\sigma^{(L)}$ (given by Eqs.~(C.16) and (C.17) in Ref.~\cite{HM}), we find that
511: \begin{eqnarray}
512: \hat{\sigma}_{2}(z,\lambda)&\equiv &\hat{\sigma}_{B}(z)\sqrt{1+4\lambda
513: z^{2}}\,\sigma^{(2)}(z,\lambda), \label{35.3} \\
514: \hat{\sigma}_{L}(z,\lambda)&\equiv &\frac{2\hat{\sigma}_{B}(z)}{\sqrt{1+4\lambda
515: z^{2}}}\left[\sigma^{(L)}(z,\lambda)+2\lambda z^{2}\sigma^{(2)}(z,\lambda)\right]. \label{36.3}
516: \end{eqnarray}
517: Now we are able to compare our results with original HM ones. It is easy to see that the LO cross
518: sections (defined by Eqs.~(37) in \cite{HM} and Eqs.~(\ref{22.2}) in our paper) obey both above
519: identities. Comparing with each other the quantities $\sigma^{(2)}_{1}$ and
520: $\hat{\sigma}_{2}^{(1)}$ (given by Eq.~(51) in \cite{HM} and Eq.~(\ref{25.2}) in this paper,
521: respectively), we find that identity (\ref{35.3}) is satisfied at NLO too. The situation with
522: longitudinal cross sections is more complicated. We have uncovered two misprints in the NLO
523: expression for $\sigma^{(L)}$ given by Eq.~(52) in \cite{HM}. First, the r.h.s. of this Eq. must be
524: multiplied by $z$. Second, the sign in front of the last term (proportional to $\delta (1-z)$) in
525: Eq.~(52) in Ref.~\cite{HM} must be changed \footnote{Note that this term originates from virtual
526: corrections and the virtual part of the longitudinal cross section given by Eq.~(39) in
527: Ref.~\cite{HM} also has wrong sign.}. Taking into account these typos, we find that relation
528: (\ref{36.3}) holds at NLO as well. So, our calculations of $\hat{\sigma}_{2}$ and
529: $\hat{\sigma}_{L}$ agree with the HM results.
530:
531: Recently, the heavy quark initiated contributions to the $\varphi$-independent DIS structure
532: functions, $F_{2}$ and $F_{L}$, have been calculated by Kretzer and Schienbein (KS) \cite{KS}. The
533: final KS results are expressed in terms of the parton level structure functions $\hat{H}^{q}_{1}$
534: and $\hat{H}^{q}_{2}$. Using the definition of $\hat{H}^{q}_{1}$ and $\hat{H}^{q}_{2}$ given by
535: Eqs.~(7,8) in Ref.~\cite{KS}, we obtain that
536: \begin{equation}\label{37.3}
537: \hat{\sigma}_{T}(z,\lambda)\equiv
538: \frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi}\frac{\hat{\sigma}_{B}(z)}{\sqrt{1+4\lambda}}\frac{\hat{H}^{q}_{1}(\xi^{\prime},
539: \lambda)}{\sqrt{1+4\lambda z^{2}}},\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \hat{\sigma}_{2}(z,\lambda)\equiv
540: \frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi}\hat{\sigma}_{B}(z)\sqrt{\frac{1+4\lambda}{1+4\lambda
541: z^{2}}}\,\hat{H}^{q}_{2}(\xi^{\prime},\lambda),
542: \end{equation}
543: where $\hat{\sigma}_{T}=\hat{\sigma}_{2}-\hat{\sigma}_{L}$ and $\hat{\sigma}_{L}$ are defined by
544: Eq.~(\ref{27}) in our paper and
545: $\xi^{\prime}=z\left(1+\sqrt{1+4\lambda}\right)\left/\left(1+\sqrt{1+4\lambda
546: z^{2}}\right)\right.$. To test identities (\ref{37.3}), one needs only to rewrite the NLO
547: expressions for the functions $\hat{H}^{q}_{1}(\xi^{\prime},\lambda)$ and
548: $\hat{H}^{q}_{2}(\xi^{\prime},\lambda)$ (given in Appendix C in Ref.~\cite{KS}) in terms of
549: variables $z$ and $\lambda$. Our analysis shows that relations (\ref{37.3}) hold at both LO and
550: NLO. Hence we coincide with the KS predictions for the $\gamma^{*}Q$ cross sections.
551:
552: However, we disagree with the conclusion of Refs.~\cite{KS,KS-thesis} that there are errors in the
553: NLO expression for $\sigma^{(2)}$ given in Ref.~\cite{HM}. As explained above, a correct
554: interpretation of the quantities $\sigma^{(2)}$ and $\sigma^{(L)}$ used in \cite{HM} leads to a
555: complete agreement between the HM, KS and our results for $\varphi$-independent cross sections.
556:
557: As to the $\varphi$-dependent DIS, pQCD predictions for the $\gamma^{*}Q$ cross sections
558: $\hat{\sigma}_{A}(z,\lambda)$ and $\hat{\sigma}_{I}(z,\lambda)$ in the case of arbitrary values of
559: $m^{2}$ and $Q^{2}$ are not, to our knowledge, available in the literature. For this reason, we
560: have performed several cross checks of our results against well known calculations in two limits:
561: $m^{2}\rightarrow 0$ and $Q^{2}\rightarrow 0$. In particular, in the chiral limit, we reproduce the
562: original results of Georgi and Politzer \cite{GP} and M\'{e}ndez \cite{Mendez} for
563: $\hat{\sigma}_{I}(z,\lambda\rightarrow 0)$ and $\hat{\sigma}_{A}(z,\lambda\rightarrow 0)$. In the
564: case of $Q^{2}\rightarrow 0$, our predictions for $\hat{\sigma}_{2}(s,Q^{2}\rightarrow 0)$ and
565: $\hat{\sigma}_{A}(s,Q^{2}\rightarrow 0)$ given by Eqs.~(\ref{25.2},\ref{27.2}) reduce to the QED
566: textbook results for the Compton scattering of polarized photons \cite{Fano}.
567:
568: \section{\label{IV}Some Properties of the Azimuth-Dependent Cross Sections}
569: To perform a numerical investigation of the inclusive partonic cross sections, $\hat{\sigma}_{i}$
570: ($i=2,L,A,I$),{\large \ } it is convenient to introduce the dimensionless coefficient functions
571: $c_{i}^{(n,l)}$,
572: \begin{equation}\label{32.4}
573: \hat{\sigma}_{i}(\eta ,\lambda ,\mu ^{2})=\frac{e_{Q}^{2}\alpha _{em}\alpha _{s}(\mu
574: ^{2})}{m^{2}}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }\left( 4\pi \alpha _{s}(\mu ^{2})\right)
575: ^{n}\sum_{l=0}^{n}c_{i}^{(n,l)}(\eta ,\lambda )\ln ^{l}\left( \frac{\mu ^{2}}{m^{2}}\right),
576: \end{equation}
577: where $\mu$ is a factorization scale (we use $\mu=\mu_{F}=\mu_{R}$) and the variable $\eta$
578: measures the distance to the partonic threshold:
579: \begin{equation}\label{33.4}
580: \eta =\frac{s}{m^{2}}-1=\frac{1-z}{\lambda z},\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad s =(q+k)^{2}.
581: \end{equation}
582:
583: Our analysis of the quantity $c_{A}^{(0,0)}(\eta ,\lambda)$ is given in Fig.~\ref{Fg.3}. One can
584: see that $c_{A}^{(0,0)}$ is negative at low $Q^{2}$ ($\lambda^{-1}\lesssim 1$) and positive at high
585: $Q^{2}$ ($\lambda^{-1}> 20$). For the intermediate values of $Q^{2}$, $c_{A}^{(0,0)}(\eta
586: ,\lambda)$ is an alternating function of $\eta$.
587: \begin{figure}
588: \begin{center}
589: \begin{tabular}{cc}
590: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cAQ_p.eps,width=250pt}}
591: & \mbox{\epsfig{file=cIQ_p.eps,width=253pt}}\\
592: \end{tabular}
593: \caption{\label{Fg.3}\small $c_{A}^{(0,0)}(\eta,\lambda )$ and $c_{I}^{(0,0)}(\eta,\lambda )$
594: coefficient functions at several values of $\lambda$.}
595: \end{center}
596: \end{figure}
597:
598: Let us discuss the coefficient function $c_{A}^{(0,0)}(s,Q^{2})$ for the case of on-mass-shell
599: photon, $Q^{2}\rightarrow 0$. In this limit,
600: \begin{equation}\label{35.4}
601: c_{A}^{(0,0)}(s,Q^{2}\rightarrow 0)=8\pi C_{F}\frac{m^{4}}{(s-m^{2})^{2}}\left[
602: 2+\frac{s+m^{2}}{s-m^{2}}\ln\frac{m^{2}}{s}\right]+ {\cal{O}}(Q^{2}).
603: \end{equation}
604: Considering now the threshold behavior of Eq.~(\ref{35.4}), we find:
605: $\displaystyle{\lim_{s\rightarrow m^{2}}}c_{A}^{(0,0)}(s,Q^{2}\rightarrow 0)=-4\pi C_{F}/3$. Taking
606: also into account that $\displaystyle{\lim_{s\rightarrow m^{2}}}c_{A}^{(0,0)}(s,Q^{2}\neq 0)=0$, we
607: see that the mass-shell, $Q^{2}\rightarrow 0$, and threshold, $s\rightarrow m^{2}$, limits do not
608: commutate with each other for the quantity $c_{A}^{(0,0)}(s,Q^{2})$. This property of the cross
609: section $c_{A}^{(0,0)}(s,Q^{2})$ illustrates the well-known fact that there is no, generally
610: speaking, a smooth transition between the lepto- and photoproduction.
611:
612: Our results for the coefficient function $c_{I}^{(0,0)}(\eta,\lambda )$ at several values of
613: $\lambda$ are presented in Fig.~\ref{Fg.3}. It is seen that $c_{I}^{(0,0)}$ is negative at all
614: values of $\eta$ and $\lambda$. Note also the threshold behavior of the coefficient function:
615: \begin{equation}\label{34.4}
616: c_{I}^{(0,0)}(\eta\rightarrow 0,\lambda )=-\sqrt{2}\,\pi^{2}C_{F}\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{1+4\lambda}+
617: {\cal{O}}(\eta).
618: \end{equation}
619: This quantity takes its minimum value at $\lambda_{m}=1/4$: $c_{I}^{(0,0)}(\eta = 0,\lambda_{m})
620: =-\pi^{2}C_{F}/\left(2\sqrt{2}\right)$.
621:
622: In the chiral limit, $m^{2}\rightarrow 0$, the $\varphi$-dependent cross section are as follows:
623: \begin{equation}\label{36.4}
624: c_{A}^{(0,0)}(z,\lambda\rightarrow 0)=2\pi C_{F}\lambda z^{2}+ {\cal{O}}(\lambda^{2}),\qquad \qquad
625: \qquad c_{I}^{(0,0)}(z,\lambda\rightarrow 0)=-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4}\pi^{2}C_{F}\lambda
626: z(1+2z)\sqrt{\frac{z}{1-z}}+ {\cal{O}}(\lambda^{2}).
627: \end{equation}
628:
629: Let us analyze the numerical significance of the $\cos\varphi$- and $\cos2\varphi$-distributions
630: for the QS component. It is difficult to compare directly the $\hat{\sigma}^{(1)}_{A}(z,\lambda)$
631: and $\hat{\sigma}^{(1)}_{I}(z,\lambda)$ cross section given by the usual functions (\ref{27.2}) and
632: (\ref{28.2}) with the $\varphi$-independent contributions $\hat{\sigma}^{(0)}_{2}(z,\lambda)$ and
633: $\hat{\sigma}^{(1)}_{2}(z,\lambda)$ described by the generalized functions (\ref{22.2}) and
634: (\ref{25.2}). For this reason, we consider the Mellin moments of the corresponding quantities
635: defined as
636: \begin{equation}\label{37.4}
637: \hat{\sigma}_{i}(N,\lambda)=\int\limits^{1}_{0}\hat{\sigma}_{i}(z,\lambda)z^{N-1}\text{d}z, \qquad
638: \qquad \qquad (i=2,L,A,I).
639: \end{equation}
640: The Mellin transform of the Born level cross sections is trivial:
641: $\hat{\sigma}^{(0)}_{2}(N,\lambda)=\hat{\sigma}_{B}(1)\sqrt{1+4\lambda}$. The Mellin moments of the
642: NLO results have been calculated numerically. We use for $\alpha_{s}(\mu_{F})$ the one-loop
643: approximation with $\Lambda_{4}=326$ MeV, $\mu_{F}=\sqrt{m^{2}+Q^{2}}$ and $m=1.3$ GeV.
644: \begin{figure}
645: \begin{center}
646: \begin{tabular}{cc}
647: \mbox{\epsfig{file=rNA2Q_p.eps,width=250pt}}
648: & \mbox{\epsfig{file=rNI2Q_p.eps,width=247pt}}\\
649: \end{tabular}
650: \caption{\label{Fg.4}\small The quantities
651: $\hat{\sigma}^{(1)}_{A}(N,\lambda)/\hat{\sigma}^{(0)}_{2}(N,\lambda)$ (\emph{left panel}) and
652: $2\sqrt{2}\,\hat{\sigma}^{(1)}_{I}(N,\lambda)/\hat{\sigma}^{(0)}_{2}(N,\lambda)$ (\emph{right
653: panel}) at several values of $\lambda$.}
654: \end{center}
655: \end{figure}
656:
657: The left panel of Fig.~\ref{Fg.4} presents the ratio
658: $\hat{\sigma}^{(1)}_{A}(N,\lambda)/\hat{\sigma}^{(0)}_{2}(N,\lambda)$ as a function of $N$ for
659: several values of variable $\lambda$: $\lambda^{-1}=1,4,10,20$ and 100. One can see that this ratio
660: is negligibly small (of the order of 1$\%$). Moreover, our analysis shows that the ratio
661: $\hat{\sigma}^{(1)}_{A}(N,\lambda)/\hat{\sigma}^{(0)}_{2}(N,\lambda)$ is less than $1.5\%$ for all
662: values of $\lambda$ and $N>0$. This implies that the photon-quark scattering contribution is
663: practically $\cos2\varphi$-independent.
664:
665: In the right panel of Fig.~\ref{Fg.4}, the $N$-dependence of the ratio
666: $2\sqrt{2}\,\hat{\sigma}^{(1)}_{I}(N,\lambda)/\hat{\sigma}^{(0)}_{2}(N,\lambda)$ is given for the
667: same values of $\lambda$. One can see that this ratio is of the order of 10-15$\%$ at small $N$ and
668: sufficiently high $Q^{2}$. This fact indicates that the $\cos\varphi$-distribution caused by the QS
669: component may be sizable.
670:
671: \section{\label{V}Conclusion}
672: We conclude by summarizing our main observations. In the present paper, we have studied the
673: azimuth-dependent photon-(heavy) quark DIS at NLO. It turns out that the $\cos2\varphi$ dependence
674: of the QS mechanism is negligible while the $\cos\varphi$ one may be sizable. The situation is
675: diametrically opposite to the one that takes place for the basic GF contribution. It is well known
676: that the GF predictions for the azimuthal $\cos2\varphi$ asymmetry in heavy quark photo-
677: \cite{Duke-Owens,we1} and leptoproduction \cite{LW1,Watson,we4} are large (about 20$\%$). As to the
678: $\cos\varphi$ dependence of the GF contribution, it vanishes at LO due to the charge symmetry
679: $Q\leftrightarrow\overline{Q}$ \cite{LW2}.
680:
681: Since the GF and QS mechanisms have strongly different azimuthal distributions, one could expect
682: that measurements of the $\varphi$-dependent DIS will directly probe the charm content of the
683: proton. In detail, hadron level predictions for the azimuthal asymmetries as well as the
684: possibility to discriminate experimentally between the GF and QS contributions will be investigated
685: in Ref.~\cite{we5}.
686: \begin{acknowledgments}
687: We thank S.J. Brodsky for stimulating discussions and useful suggestions. We also would like to
688: acknowledge interesting correspondence with I. Schienbein. This work was supported in part by the
689: ANSEF grants 04-PS-hepth-813-98, PS-condmatth-521 and NFSAT grant GRSP-16/06.
690: \end{acknowledgments}
691: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
692: \bibitem{BHPS} S.~J.~Brodsky, P.~Hoyer, C.~Peterson, and N.~Sakai,
693: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 93}, 451 (1980).
694: \bibitem{BPS} S.~J.~Brodsky, C.~Peterson, and N.~Sakai,
695: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 23}, 2745 (1981).
696: \bibitem{brod1} S.~J.~Brodsky, \emph{"Light-front QCD"}, hep-ph/0412101.
697: \bibitem{brod2} S.~J.~Brodsky, Few Body Syst. {\bf 36}, 35 (2005).
698: \bibitem{polyakov} M.~Franz, V.~Polyakov, and K.~Goeke,
699: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 074024 (2000).
700: \bibitem{ACOT} M.~A.~G.~Aivazis, J.~C.~Collins, F.~I.~Olness, and W.~-K.~Tung,
701: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50}, 3102 (1994).
702: \bibitem{collins} J.~C.~Collins, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 094002 (1998).
703: \bibitem{Thorne-NNLO} R.~S.~Thorne, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 054019 (2006).
704: \bibitem{CTEQ6-5HQ} W.~K.~Tung, H~.L.~Lai, A.~Belyaev, J.~Pumplin, D.~Stump,
705: and C.~-P.~Yuan, hep-ph/0611254.
706: \bibitem{CTEQ6HQ} S.~Kretzer, H.~L.~Lai, F.~I.~Olness and W.~-K.~Tung,
707: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 114005 (2004).
708: \bibitem{chi} W.~-K. Tung, S.~Kretzer, and C.~Schmidt, J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 28}, 983 (2002).
709: \bibitem{SACOT} M.~Kramer, F.~I.~Olness, and D.~E.~Soper,
710: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 096007 (2000).
711: \bibitem{pumplin} J.~Pumplin, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 114015 (2006).
712: \bibitem{brod-higgs} S.~J.~Brodsky, B.~Kopeliovich, I.~Schmidt, and J.~Soffer,
713: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 113005 (2006).
714: \bibitem{CTEQ6} J.~Pumplin, D.~R.~Stump, J.~Huston, H.~L.~Lai, P.~Nadolsky,
715: and W.~K.~Tung, JHEP {\bf 0207}, 012 (2002).
716: \bibitem{MRST2004} A.~D.~Martin, R.~G.~Roberts, W.~J.~Stirling, and R.~S.~Thorne,
717: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 604}, 61 (2004).
718: \bibitem{Mangano-N-R} M.~L.~Mangano, P.~Nason, and G.~Ridolfi,
719: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 373}, 295 (1992).
720: \bibitem{Frixione-M-N-R} S.~Frixione, M.~L.~Mangano, P.~Nason, and G.~Ridolfi,
721: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 412}, 225 (1994).
722: \bibitem{Ellis-Nason} R.~K.~Ellis and P.~Nason, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 312}, 551 (1989).
723: \bibitem{Smith-Neerven} J.~Smith and W.~L.~van Neerven,
724: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 374}, 36 (1992).
725: \bibitem{LRSN} E.~Laenen, S.~Riemersma, J.~Smith, and W.~L.~van Neerven,
726: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 392}, 162 (1993).
727: \bibitem{BKNS} W.~Beenakker, H.~Kuijf, W.~L.~van Neerven, and J.~Smith,
728: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 40}, 54 (1989).
729: \bibitem{Nason-D-E-1} P.~Nason, S.~Dawson, and R.~K.~Ellis,
730: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 303}, 607 (1988).
731: \bibitem{Nason-D-E-2} P.~Nason, S.~Dawson, and R.~K.~Ellis,
732: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 327}, 49 (1989).
733: \bibitem{Nason-D-E-3} P.~Nason, S.~Dawson, and R.~K.~Ellis,
734: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 335}, 260 (1990).
735: \bibitem{Contopanagos-L-S} H.~Contopanagos, E.~Laenen, and G.~Sterman,
736: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 484}, 303 (1997).
737: \bibitem{Laenen-O-S} E.~Laenen, G.~Oderda, and G.~Sterman,
738: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 438}, 173 (1998).
739: \bibitem{Kidonakis-O-S} N.~Kidonakis, G.~Oderda, and G.~Sterman,
740: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 531}, 365 (1998).
741: \bibitem{Laenen-Moch} E.~Laenen and S.~-O. Moch, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 034027 (1999).
742: \bibitem{kid2} N.~Kidonakis, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 034001 (2006).
743: \bibitem{kid1} N.~Kidonakis, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 014009 (2001).
744: \bibitem{we1} N.~Ya.~Ivanov, A.~Capella, and A.~B.~Kaidalov,
745: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 586}, 382 (2000).
746: \bibitem{we2} N.~Ya.~Ivanov, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 615}, 266 (2001).
747: \bibitem{we4} N.~Ya.~Ivanov, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 666}, 88 (2003).
748: \bibitem{we3} N.~Ya.~Ivanov, P.~E.~Bosted, K.~Griffioen, and S.~E.~Rock,
749: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 650}, 271 (2003).
750: \bibitem{HM} E.~Hoffman and R.~Moore, Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 20}, 71 (1983).
751: \bibitem{KS} S.~Kretzer and I.~Schienbein, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 094035 (1998).
752: \bibitem{KS-thesis} I. Schienbein, hep-ph/0110292.
753: \bibitem{we5} L.~N.~Ananikyan and N.~Ya.~Ivanov, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 762},
754: 256 (2007).
755: \bibitem{eRHIC} A.~Deshpande, R.~Milner, R.~Venugopalan, and W.~Vogelsang,
756: Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf 55}, 165 (2005).
757: \bibitem{EIC} See also http://www.bnl.gov/eic for information concernig
758: the eRHIC/EIC project.
759: \bibitem{LHeC} J.~B.~Dainton, M.~Klein, P.~Newman, E.~Perez, and F.~Willeke,
760: hep-ex/0603016.
761: \bibitem{AOT} M.~A.~G.~Aivazis, F.~I.~Olness, and W.~-K.~Tung,
762: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50}, 3085 (1994).
763: \bibitem{dombey} N.~Dombey, Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 41}, 236 (1969).
764: \bibitem{GP} H.~Georgi and H.~D.~Politzer, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 40}, 3 (1978).
765: \bibitem{Mendez} A.~M\'{e}ndez, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 145}, 199 (1978).
766: \bibitem{Fano} U.~Fano, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 93}, 121 (1954).
767: \bibitem{Duke-Owens} D.~W.~Duke and J.~F.~Owens,
768: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 44}, 1173 (1980).
769: \bibitem{LW1} J.~P.~Leveille and T.~Weiler, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 24}, 1789 (1981).
770: \bibitem{Watson} A.~D.~Watson, Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 12}, 123 (1982).
771: \bibitem{LW2} J.~P.~Leveille and T.~Weiler, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 147}, 147 (1979).
772: \end{thebibliography}
773:
774: \end{document}
775: