Exclusive ρ^{0} production in deep inelastic scattering at HERA
- ZEUS Collaboration^{}
DOI: 10.1186/1754-0410-1-6
© Zeus Collaboration; 2007
Received: 13 August 2007
Accepted: 12 November 2007
Published: 12 November 2007
Abstract
Exclusive ρ^{0} electroproduction at HERA has been studied with the ZEUS detector using 120 pb^{-1} of integrated luminosity collected during 1996–2000. The analysis was carried out in the kinematic range of photon virtuality 2 <Q^{2} < 160 GeV^{2}, and γ*p centre-of-mass energy 32 <W < 180 GeV. The results include the Q^{2} and W dependence of the γ*p → ρ^{0}p cross section and the distribution of the squared-four-momentum transfer to the proton. The helicity analysis of the decay-matrix elements of the ρ^{0} was used to study the ratio of the γ*p cross section for longitudinal and transverse photon as a function of Q^{2} and W. Finally, an effective Pomeron trajectory was extracted. The results are compared to various theoretical predictions.
PACS Codes: 13.60.Hb, 13.60.Le
1 Introduction
Two of the most surprising aspects of high-energy deep inelastic scattering (DIS) observed at the HERA ep collider have been the sharp rise of the proton structure function, F_{2}, with decreasing value of Bjorken x and the abundance of events with a large rapidity gap in the hadronic final state [1]. The latter are identified as due to diffraction in the deep inelastic regime. A contribution to the diffractive cross section arises from the exclusive production of vector mesons (VM).
High-energy exclusive VM production in DIS has been postulated to proceed through two-gluon exchange [2, 3], once the scale, usually taken as the virtuality Q^{2} of the exchanged photon, is large enough for perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics (pQCD) to be applicable. The gluons in the proton, which lie at the origin of the sharp increase of F_{2}, are also expected to cause the VM cross section to increase with increasing photon proton centre-of-mass energy, W, with the rate of increase growing with Q^{2}. Moreover, the effective size of the virtual photon decreases with increasing Q^{2}, leading to a flatter distribution in t, the four-momentum-transfer squared at the proton vertex. All these features, with varying levels of significance, have been observed at HERA [4–10] in the exclusive production of ρ^{0}, ω, φ, and J/ψ mesons.
This paper reports on an extensive study of the properties of exclusive ρ^{0}-meson production,
γ*p → ρ^{0}p,
based on a high statistics data sample collected with the ZEUS detector during the period 1996–2000, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of about 120 pb^{-1}.
2 Theoretical background
Calculations of the VM production cross section in DIS require knowledge of the $q\overline{q}$ wave-function of the virtual photon, specified by QED and which depends on the polarisation of the virtual photon. For longitudinally polarised photons, ${\gamma}_{L}^{\ast}$, $q\overline{q}$ pairs of small transverse size dominate [3]. The opposite holds for transversely polarised photons, ${\gamma}_{T}^{\ast}$, where $q\overline{q}$ configurations with large transverse size dominate. The favourable feature of exclusive VM production is that, at high Q^{2}, the longitudinal component of the virtual photon is dominant. The interaction cross section in this case can be fully calculated in pQCD [11], with two-gluon exchange as the leading process in the high-energy regime. For heavy vector mesons, such as the J/ψ or the ϒ, perturbative calculations apply even at Q^{2} = 0, as the smallness of the $q\overline{q}$ dipole originating from the photon is guaranteed by the mass of the quarks.
• Irrespective of particular calculations [12], in the region dominated by perturbative QCD the following features are predicted:
the total γ*p → Vp cross section, σ_{γ*p}, exhibits a steep rise with W, which can be parameterised as σ ~ W^{ δ }, with δ increasing with Q^{2};
• the Q^{2} dependence of the cross-section, which for a longitudinally polarised photon is expected to behave as Q^{-6}, is moderated to become Q^{-4} by the rapid increase of the gluon density with Q^{2};
• the distribution of t becomes universal, with little or no dependence on W or Q^{2};
• breaking of the s-channel helicity conservation (SCHC) is expected.
In the region where perturbative calculations are applicable, exclusive vector-meson production could become a complementary source of information on the gluon content of the proton. At present, the following theoretical uncertainties have been identified:
• the calculation of σ(γ*p → Vp) involves the generalised parton distributions [13, 14], which are not well tested; in addition [15], it involves gluon densities outside the range constrained by global QCD analyses of parton densities;
• higher-order corrections have not been fully calculated [16]; therefore the overall normalisation is uncertain and the scale at which the gluons are probed is not known;
• the rapid rise of σ_{γ*p}with W implies a non-zero real part of the scattering amplitude, which is not known;
• the wave-functions of the vector mesons are not fully known.
In spite of all these problems, precise measurements of differential cross sections separated into longitudinal and transverse components [17], should help to resolve the above theoretical uncertainties.
It is important in these studies to establish a region of phase space where hard interactions dominate over the non-perturbative soft component. If the relative transverse momentum of the $q\overline{q}$ pair is small, the colour dipole is large and perturbative calculations do not apply. In this case the interaction looks similar to hadron-hadron elastic scattering, described by soft Pomeron exchange as in Regge phenomenology [18].
where F(t) is an arbitrary function. This approach has the advantage that no assumption needs to be made about the t dependence. The first indications from measurements of α_{ℙ}(t) in exclusive J/ψ photoproduction [8, 22] are that α_{ℙ}(0) is larger and ${{\alpha}^{\prime}}_{\mathbb{P}}$ is smaller than those of the above soft Pomeron trajectory.
3 Experimental set-up
The present measurement is based on data taken with the ZEUS detector during two running periods of the HERA ep collider. During 1996–1997, protons with energy 820 GeV collided with 27.5 GeV positrons, while during 1998–2000, 920 GeV protons collided with 27.5 GeV electrons or positrons. The sample used for this study corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 118.9 pb^{-1}, consisting of 37.2 pb^{-1} e^{+} p sample from 1996–1997 and 81.7 pb^{-1} from the 1998–2000 sample (16.7 pb^{-1} e^{-} and 65.0 pb^{-1} e^{+})^{1}.
A detailed description of the ZEUS detector can be found elsewhere [23, 24]. A brief outline of the components that are most relevant for this analysis is given below.
Charged particles are tracked in the central tracking detector (CTD) [25–27]. The CTD consists of 72 cylindrical drift chamber layers, organised in nine superlayers covering the polar-angle^{2} region 15° <θ <164°. The CTD operates in a magnetic field of 1.43 T provided by a thin solenoid. The transverse-momentum resolution for full-length tracks is σ(p_{ T })/p_{ T }= 0.0058p_{ T }⊕ 0.0065 ⊕ 0.0014/p_{ T }, with p_{ T }in GeV.
The high-resolution uranium-scintillator calorimeter (CAL) [28–31] covers 99.7% of the total solid angle and consists of three parts: the forward (FCAL), the barrel (BCAL) and the rear (RCAL) calorimeters. Each part is subdivided transversely into towers and longitudinally into one electromagnetic section (EMC) and either one (in RCAL) or two (in BCAL and FCAL) hadronic sections. The CAL energy resolutions, as measured under test-beam conditions, are σ(E)/E = 0.18/$\sqrt{E}$ for electrons and σ(E)/E = 0.35/$\sqrt{E}$ for hadrons, with E in GeV.
The position of the scattered electron was determined by combining information from the CAL, the small-angle rear tracking detector [32] and the hadron-electron separator [33].
In 1998, the forward plug calorimeter (FPC) [34] was installed in the 20 × 20 cm^{2} beam hole of the FCAL with a small hole of radius 3.15 cm in the centre to accommodate the beam pipe. The FPC increased the forward calorimeter coverage by about one unit in pseudorapidity to η ≤ 5.
The leading-proton spectrometer (LPS) [35] detected positively charged particles scattered at small angles and carrying a substantial fraction, x_{ L }, of the incoming proton momentum; these particles remained in the beam-pipe and their trajectories were measured by a system of silicon microstrip detectors, located between 23.8 m and 90.0 m from the interaction point. The particle deflections induced by the magnets of the proton beam-line allowed a momentum analysis of the scattered proton.
During the 1996–1997 data taking, a proton-remnant tagger (PRT1) was used to tag events in which the proton dissociates. It consisted of two layers of scintillation counters perpendicular to the beam at Z = 5.15 m. The two layers were separated by a 2 mm-thick lead absorber. The pseudorapidity range covered by the PRT1 was 4.3 <η < 5.8.
The luminosity was measured from the rate of the bremsstrahlung process ep → eγp. The photon was measured in a lead-scintillator calorimeter [36–38] placed in the HERA tunnel at Z = -107 m.
4 Data selection and reconstruction
The following kinematic variables are used to describe exclusive ρ^{0} production and its subsequent decay into a π^{+}π^{-} pair:
• the four-momenta of the incident electron (k), scattered electron (k'), incident proton (P), scattered proton (P') and virtual photon (q);
• Q^{2} = -q^{2} = -(k - k')^{2}, the negative squared four-momentum of the virtual photon;
• W^{2} = (q + P)^{2}, the squared centre-of-mass energy of the photon-proton system;
• y = (P·q)/(P·k), the fraction of the electron energy transferred to the proton in its rest frame;
• M_{ ππ }, the invariant mass of the two decay pions;
• t = (P - P')^{2}, the squared four-momentum transfer at the proton vertex;
• three helicity angles, Φ_{ h }, θ_{ h }and φ_{ h }(see Section 9).
The kinematic variables were reconstructed using the so-called "constrained" method [10, 39], which uses the momenta of the decay particles measured in the CTD and the reconstructed polar and azimuthal angles of the scattered electron.
The online event selection required an electron candidate in the CAL, along with the detection of at least one and not more than six tracks in the CTD.
In the offline selection, the following further requirements were imposed:
• the presence of a scattered electron, with energy in the CAL greater than 10 GeV and with an impact point on the face of the RCAL outside a rectangular area of 26.4 × 16 cm^{2};
• E - P_{ Z }> 45 GeV, where E - P_{ Z }= ∑_{ i }(E_{ i }- ${p}_{{Z}_{i}}$) and the summation is over the energies and longitudinal momenta of the final-state electron and pions, was imposed. This cut excludes events with high energy photons radiated in the initial state;
• the Z coordinate of the interaction vertex within ± 50 cm of the nominal interaction point;
• in addition to the scattered electron, exactly two oppositely charged tracks, each associated with the reconstructed vertex, and each having pseudorapidity |η| less than 1.75 and transverse momentum greater than 150 MeV; this excluded regions of low reconstruction efficiency and poor momentum resolution in the CTD. These tracks were treated in the following analysis as a π^{+}π^{-} pair;
• events with any energy deposit larger than 300 MeV in the CAL and not associated with the pion tracks (so-called 'unmatched islands') were rejected [40–42].
In addition, the following requirements were applied to select kinematic regions of high acceptance:
• the analysis was restricted to the kinematic regions 2 <Q^{2} < 80 GeV^{2} and 32 <W < 160 GeV in the 1996–1997 data and 2 <Q^{2} < 160 GeV^{2} and 32 <W < 180 GeV in the 1998–2000 sample;
• only events in the π^{+}π^{-} mass interval 0.65 <M_{ ππ }< 1.1 GeV and with |t| < 1 GeV^{2} were taken. The mass interval is slightly narrower than that used previously [10], in order to reduce the effect of the background from non-resonant π^{+}π^{-} production. In the selected M_{ ππ }range, the resonant contribution is ≈ 100% (see Section 8).
The above selection yielded 22,400 events in the 1996–1997 sample and 49,300 events in the 1998–2000 sample, giving a total of 71,700 events for this analysis.
5 Monte Carlo simulation
The relevant Monte Carlo (MC) generators have been described in detail previously [10]. Here their main features are summarised.
The program ZEUSVM [43] interfaced to HERACLES4.4 [44] was used. The effective Q^{2}, W and t dependences of the cross section were parameterised to reproduce the data [42].
The decay angular distributions were generated uniformly and the MC events were then iteratively reweighted using the results of the present analysis for the 15 combinations of matrix elements ${r}_{ik}^{04}$, ${r}_{ik}^{\alpha}$ (see Section 9).
The contribution of the proton-dissociative process was studied with the EPSOFT [45] generator for the 1996–1997 data and with PYTHIA [46] for the 1998–2000 data. The Q^{2}, W and t dependences were parameterised to reproduce the control samples in the data. The decay angular distributions were generated as in the ZEUSVM sample.
The generated events were processed through the same chain of selection and reconstruction procedures as the data, thus accounting for trigger as well as detector acceptance and smearing effects. For both MC sets, the number of simulated events after reconstruction was about a factor of seven greater than the number of reconstructed data events.
6 Systematics
The systematic uncertainties of the cross section were evaluated by varying the selection cuts and the MC simulation parameters. The following selection cuts were varied:
• the E - P_{ Z } cut was changed within the appropriate resolution of ±3 GeV;
• the p_{ T } of the pion tracks (default 0.15 GeV) was increased to 0.2 GeV;
• the distance of closest approach of the extrapolated track to the matched island in the CAL was changed from 30 cm to 20 cm;
• the π^{+}π^{-}-mass window was changed to 0.65–1.2 GeV;
• the Z vertex cut was varied by ±10 cm;
• the rectangular area of the electron impact point on the CAL was increased by 0.5 cm in X and Y ;
• the energy of an unmatched island was lowered to 0.25 GeV and then raised to 0.35 GeV.
The dependence of the results on the precision with which the MC reproduces the performance of the detector and the data was checked by varying the following inputs within their estimated uncertainty:
• the reconstructed position of the electron was shifted with respect to the MC by ±1 mm;
• the electron-position resolution was varied by ±10% in the MC;
• the W^{ δ }-dependence in the MC was changed by varying δ by ±0.03;
• the exponential t-distribution in the MC was reweighted by changing the nominal slope parameter b by ±0.5 GeV^{-2};
• the angular distributions in the MC were reweighted assuming SCHC;
• the Q^{2}-distribution in the MC was reweighted by (Q^{2} + ${M}_{\rho}^{2}$)^{ k }, where k = ±0.05.
The largest uncertainty of about ± 4% originated from the variation of the energy of the unmatched islands. All the other checks resulted on average in a 0.5% change in the measured cross sections. All the systematic uncertainties were added in quadrature. In addition, the cross-section measurements have an overall normalisation uncertainty of ±2% due to the luminosity measurement.
7 Proton dissociation
The production of ρ^{0} mesons may be accompanied by the proton-dissociation process, γ*p → ρ^{0}N. For low masses M_{ N }of the dissociative system N, the hadronisation products may remain inside the beam-pipe, leaving no signals in the main detector. The contribution of these events to the exclusive ρ^{0} cross section was estimated from MC generators for proton-dissociative processes.
In the 1996–1997 data-taking period, a similar procedure was applied, after tuning the EPSOFT MC to reproduce events with hits in the PRT1 or energy deposits in the FCAL. The proton-dissociative contribution for |t| < 1 GeV^{2} was determined to be 0.07 ± 0.02 after rejecting events with hits in the PRT1 or energy deposits in the FCAL. This number is consistent with that determined from the LPS and FPC because of the different angular coverage of the PRT1.
After subtraction of the proton-dissociative contribution, a good agreement between the cross sections derived from the two data-taking periods was found. For all the quoted cross sections integrated over t, the overall normalisation uncertainty due to the subtraction of the proton-dissociative contributions was estimated to be ± 4% and was not included in the systematic uncertainty. The proton-dissociative contribution was statistically subtracted in each analysed bin, unless stated otherwise.
8 Mass distributions
In order to estimate the non-resonant π^{+}π^{-} background under the ρ^{0}, the Söding parameterisation [47] was fitted to the data, with results shown in the figure. The resulting mass and width values are in agreement with those given in the Particle Data Group [48] compilation. The integrated non-resonant background is of the order of 1% and is thus neglected.
9 Angular distributions and decay-matrix density
The exclusive electroproduction and decay of ρ^{0} mesons is described, at fixed W, Q^{2}, M_{ ππ }and t, by three helicity angles: Φ_{ h }is the angle between the ρ^{0} production plane and the electron scattering plane in the γ*p centre-of-mass frame; θ_{ h }and φ_{ h }are the polar and azimuthal angles of the positively charged decay pion in the s-channel helicity frame. In this frame, the spin-quantisation axis is defined as the direction opposite to the momentum of the final-state proton in the ρ^{0} rest frame. In the γ*p centre-of-mass system, φ_{ h }is the angle between the decay plane and the ρ^{0} production plane. The angular distribution as a function of these three angles, W(cos θ_{ h }, φ_{ h }, Φ_{ h }), is parameterised by the ρ^{0} spin-density matrix elements, ${\rho}_{ik}^{\alpha}$, where i, k = -1, 0, 1 and by convention α = 0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 for an unpolarised charged-lepton beam [49]. The superscript denotes the decomposition of the spin-density matrix into contributions from the following photon-polarisation states: unpolarised transverse photons (0); linearly polarised transverse photons (1,2); longitudinally polarised photons (4); and from the interference of the longitudinal and transverse amplitudes (5,6).
where ε is the ratio of the longitudinal- to transverse-photon fluxes and R = σ_{ L }/σ_{ T }, with σ_{ L }and σ_{ T }the cross sections for exclusive ρ^{0} production from longitudinal and transverse virtual photons, respectively. In the kinematic range of this analysis, the value of ε varies between 0.96 and 1 with an average value of 0.996; hence ${\rho}_{ik}^{0}$ and ${\rho}_{ik}^{4}$ cannot be distinguished.
Spin density matrix elements for electroproduction of ρ^{0}, for different intervals of Q^{2}. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic.
Element | 2 <Q^{2} < 3 GeV^{2} | 3 <Q^{2} < 4 GeV^{2} | 4 <Q^{2} < 6 GeV^{2} | 6 <Q^{2} < 10 GeV^{2} | 10 <Q^{2} < 100 GeV^{2} |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
${r}_{00}^{04}$ | $0.590\pm {0.006}_{-0.010}^{+0.012}$ | $0.659\pm {0.008}_{-0.015}^{+0.009}$ | $0.725\pm {0.008}_{-0.008}^{+0.014}$ | $0.752\pm {0.008}_{-0.008}^{+0.011}$ | $0.814\pm {0.010}_{-0.019}^{+0.008}$ |
Re(${r}_{10}^{04}$) | $0.024\pm {0.005}_{-0.009}^{+0.003}$ | $0.025\pm {0.007}_{-0.009}^{+0.008}$ | $0.007\pm {0.007}_{-0.017}^{+0.004}$ | $0.014\pm {0.007}_{-0.010}^{+0.005}$ | $0.014\pm {0.009}_{-0.007}^{+0.016}$ |
${r}_{1-1}^{04}$ | $-0.009\pm {0.007}_{-0.012}^{+0.008}$ | $-0.010\pm {0.008}_{-0.016}^{+0.006}$ | $0.000\pm {0.007}_{-0.006}^{+0.015}$ | $-0.016\pm {0.007}_{-0.004}^{+0.018}$ | $-0.001\pm {0.010}_{-0.006}^{+0.021}$ |
${r}_{11}^{1}$ | $-0.008\pm {0.007}_{-0.019}^{+0.006}$ | $-0.023\pm {0.008}_{-0.016}^{+0.008}$ | $-0.015\pm {0.008}_{-0.019}^{+0.010}$ | $-0.032\pm {0.008}_{-0.001}^{+0.017}$ | $-0.002\pm {0.011}_{-0.020}^{+0.008}$ |
${r}_{00}^{1}$ | $-0.037\pm {0.019}_{-0.014}^{+0.047}$ | $-0.014\pm {0.026}_{-0.015}^{+0.046}$ | $0.020\pm {0.028}_{-0.013}^{+0.072}$ | $0.019\pm {0.030}_{-0.060}^{+0.008}$ | $-0.018\pm {0.042}_{-0.034}^{+0.053}$ |
Re(${r}_{10}^{1}$) | $-0.032\pm {0.007}_{-0.004}^{+0.018}$ | $-0.023\pm {0.010}_{-0.024}^{+0.008}$ | $-0.016\pm {0.009}_{-0.013}^{+0.018}$ | $-0.006\pm {0.011}_{-0.030}^{+0.003}$ | $-0.042\pm {0.016}_{-0.009}^{+0.029}$ |
${r}_{1-1}^{1}$ | $0.195\pm {0.009}_{-0.019}^{+0.012}$ | $0.151\pm {0.011}_{-0.011}^{+0.014}$ | $0.121\pm {0.011}_{-0.011}^{+0.016}$ | $0.095\pm {0.011}_{-0.029}^{+0.006}$ | $0.100\pm {0.016}_{-0.032}^{+0.023}$ |
Im(${r}_{10}^{2}$) | $0.040\pm {0.007}_{-0.020}^{+0.010}$ | $0.024\pm {0.009}_{-0.020}^{+0.005}$ | $0.029\pm {0.009}_{-0.011}^{+0.012}$ | $0.031\pm {0.009}_{-0.012}^{+0.016}$ | $0.026\pm {0.015}_{-0.005}^{+0.028}$ |
Im(${r}_{1-1}^{2}$) | $-0.186\pm {0.009}_{-0.024}^{+0.009}$ | $-0.148\pm {0.011}_{-0.015}^{+0.019}$ | $-0.124\pm {0.012}_{-0.013}^{+0.029}$ | $-0.107\pm {0.011}_{-0.027}^{+0.004}$ | $-0.052\pm {0.016}_{-0.012}^{+0.039}$ |
${r}_{11}^{5}$ | $0.018\pm {0.003}_{-0.005}^{+0.004}$ | $0.018\pm {0.004}_{-0.004}^{+0.006}$ | $0.007\pm {0.003}_{-0.007}^{+0.005}$ | $0.018\pm {0.004}_{-0.002}^{+0.005}$ | $0.004\pm {0.005}_{-0.003}^{+0.007}$ |
${r}_{00}^{5}$ | $0.085\pm {0.009}_{-0.015}^{+0.007}$ | $0.089\pm {0.013}_{-0.016}^{+0.019}$ | $0.106\pm {0.013}_{-0.016}^{+0.010}$ | $0.093\pm {0.013}_{-0.010}^{+0.013}$ | $0.168\pm {0.018}_{-0.020}^{+0.011}$ |
Re(${r}_{10}^{5}$) | $0.167\pm {0.003}_{-0.003}^{+0.007}$ | $0.164\pm {0.004}_{-0.006}^{+0.005}$ | $0.143\pm {0.005}_{-0.013}^{+0.004}$ | $0.132\pm {0.005}_{-0.003}^{+0.004}$ | $0.110\pm {0.007}_{-0.008}^{+0.011}$ |
${r}_{1-1}^{5}$ | $0.000\pm {0.005}_{-0.008}^{+0.006}$ | $-0.006\pm {0.006}_{-0.006}^{+0.009}$ | $0.001\pm {0.005}_{-0.003}^{+0.009}$ | $0.000\pm {0.006}_{-0.003}^{+0.018}$ | $0.001\pm {0.007}_{-0.002}^{+0.011}$ |
Im(${r}_{10}^{6}$) | $-0.157\pm {0.003}_{-0.004}^{+0.006}$ | $-0.147\pm {0.004}_{-0.007}^{+0.004}$ | $-0.145\pm {0.004}_{-0.009}^{+0.003}$ | $-0.135\pm {0.004}_{-0.003}^{+0.007}$ | $-0.125\pm {0.006}_{-0.002}^{+0.012}$ |
Im(${r}_{1-1}^{6}$) | $0.010\pm {0.005}_{-0.013}^{+0.004}$ | $-0.005\pm {0.005}_{-0.005}^{+0.008}$ | $-0.001\pm {0.005}_{-0.017}^{+0.005}$ | $0.008\pm {0.005}_{-0.006}^{+0.003}$ | $-0.002\pm {0.007}_{-0.007}^{+0.005}$ |
10 Cross section
The measured γ*p cross sections are averaged over intervals listed in the appropriate tables and are quoted at fixed values of Q^{2} and W. The cross sections are corrected for the mass range 0.28 <M_{ ππ }< 1.5 GeV and integrated over the full t-range, where applicable.
10.1 t dependence of σ(γ*p → ρ^{0}p)
The differential cross-section dσ/dt for the reaction γ*p → ρ^{0}p for different Q^{2} intervals. The first column gives the Q^{2} bin, while the second column gives the Q^{2} value at which the cross section is quoted. The normalisation uncertainty due to luminosity (± 2%) and proton-dissociative background (± 4%), is not included.
dσ/dt | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Q^{2} bin (GeV^{2}) | Q^{2} (GeV^{2}) | |t| (GeV^{2}) | (nb/GeV^{2}) | stat. | syst. |
2–4 | 2.7 | 0.05 | 2636.4 | ± 49.5 | $\begin{array}{c}+117.3\\ -155.3\end{array}$ |
2–4 | 2.7 | 0.15 | 1284.2 | ± 32.8 | $\begin{array}{c}+65.4\\ -87.7\end{array}$ |
2–4 | 2.7 | 0.29 | 450.7 | ± 13.5 | $\begin{array}{c}+30.8\\ -39.1\end{array}$ |
2–4 | 2.7 | 0.53 | 127.5 | ± 6.2 | $\begin{array}{c}+17.2\\ -17.0\end{array}$ |
2–4 | 2.7 | 0.83 | 28.1 | ± 3.3 | $\begin{array}{l}+10.3\hfill \\ -5.1\hfill \end{array}$ |
4–6.5 | 5.0 | 0.05 | 842.7 | ± 23.7 | $\begin{array}{l}+33.3\hfill \\ -40.5\hfill \end{array}$ |
4–6.5 | 5.0 | 0.15 | 415.8 | ± 15.4 | $\begin{array}{l}+18.9\hfill \\ -26.1\hfill \end{array}$ |
4–6.5 | 5.0 | 0.29 | 159.8 | ± 7.0 | $\begin{array}{l}+10.6\hfill \\ -13.8\hfill \end{array}$ |
4–6.5 | 5.0 | 0.53 | 43.7 | ± 3.2 | $\begin{array}{l}+5.7\hfill \\ -5.8\hfill \end{array}$ |
4–6.5 | 5.0 | 0.83 | 12.5 | ± 1.8 | $\begin{array}{l}+2.2\hfill \\ -2.2\hfill \end{array}$ |
6.5–10 | 7.8 | 0.05 | 338.4 | ± 10.8 | $\begin{array}{l}+15.4\hfill \\ -15.0\hfill \end{array}$ |
6.5–10 | 7.8 | 0.15 | 156.2 | ± 7.4 | $\begin{array}{l}+5.3\hfill \\ -13.3\hfill \end{array}$ |
6.5–10 | 7.8 | 0.29 | 67.3 | ± 3.3 | $\begin{array}{l}+4.9\hfill \\ -4.7\hfill \end{array}$ |
6.5–10 | 7.8 | 0.53 | 22.1 | ± 1.6 | $\begin{array}{l}+2.3\hfill \\ -3.1\hfill \end{array}$ |
6.5–10 | 7.8 | 0.83 | 5.03 | ± 0.94 | $\begin{array}{l}+1.48\hfill \\ -0.92\hfill \end{array}$ |
10–15 | 11.9 | 0.05 | 118.0 | ± 5.0 | $\begin{array}{l}+5.5\hfill \\ -5.7\hfill \end{array}$ |
10–15 | 11.9 | 0.15 | 70.2 | ± 3.9 | $\begin{array}{l}+5.2\hfill \\ -3.6\hfill \end{array}$ |
10–15 | 11.9 | 0.29 | 26.8 | ± 1.7 | $\begin{array}{l}+1.7\hfill \\ -2.6\hfill \end{array}$ |
10–15 | 11.9 | 0.53 | 8.40 | ± 0.76 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.97\hfill \\ -1.36\hfill \end{array}$ |
10–15 | 11.9 | 0.83 | 2.67 | ± 0.51 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.48\hfill \\ -0.52\hfill \end{array}$ |
15–30 | 19.7 | 0.05 | 39.6 | ± 2.2 | $\begin{array}{l}+1.7\hfill \\ -3.3\hfill \end{array}$ |
15–30 | 19.7 | 0.15 | 20.4 | ± 1.5 | $\begin{array}{l}+1.9\hfill \\ -1.4\hfill \end{array}$ |
15–30 | 19.7 | 0.29 | 9.12 | ± 0.71 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.59\hfill \\ -0.94\hfill \end{array}$ |
15–30 | 19.7 | 0.53 | 2.73 | ± 0.31 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.39\hfill \\ -0.38\hfill \end{array}$ |
15–30 | 19.7 | 0.83 | 0.84 | ± 0.19 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.19\hfill \\ -0.30\hfill \end{array}$ |
30–80 | 41.0 | 0.05 | 5.44 | ± 0.83 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.76\hfill \\ -0.80\hfill \end{array}$ |
30–80 | 41.0 | 0.15 | 2.28 | ± 0.50 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.37\hfill \\ -0.54\hfill \end{array}$ |
30–80 | 41.0 | 0.29 | 1.40 | ± 0.26 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.26\hfill \\ -0.35\hfill \end{array}$ |
30–80 | 41.0 | 0.53 | 0.42 | ± 0.11 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.07\hfill \\ -0.11\hfill \end{array}$ |
30–80 | 41.0 | 0.83 | 0.15 | ± 0.07 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.06\hfill \\ -0.07\hfill \end{array}$ |
The slope b resulting from a fit to the differential cross-section dσ/dt to an exponential form for the reaction γ*p → ρ^{0}p, for different Q^{2} intervals. The first column gives the Q^{2} bin, while the second column gives the Q^{2} value at which the differential cross sections are quoted. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic.
Q^{2} bin (GeV^{2}) | Q^{2} (GeV^{2}) | b (GeV^{-2}) |
---|---|---|
2–4 | 2.7 | $6.6\pm {0.1}_{-0.2}^{+0.2}$ |
4–6.5 | 5.0 | $6.3\pm {0.2}_{-0.2}^{+0.2}$ |
6.5–10 | 7.8 | $5.9\pm {0.2}_{-0.2}^{+0.2}$ |
10–15 | 11.9 | $5.5\pm {0.2}_{-0.2}^{+0.2}$ |
15–30 | 19.7 | $5.5\pm {0.3}_{-0.3}^{+0.2}$ |
30–80 | 41.0 | $4.9\pm {0.6}_{-0.5}^{+0.8}$ |
10.2 Q^{2} dependence of σ(γ*p → ρ^{0}p)
Cross-section measurements at Q^{2} and W = 90 GeV averaged over the Q^{2} and W intervals given in the table. The normalisation uncertainty due to luminosity (± 2%) and proton-dissociative background (± 4%) is not included.
σ(γ*p → ρ^{0}p) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Q^{2} bin (GeV^{2}) | W bin (GeV) | Q^{2} (GeV^{2}) | W (GeV) | (nb) | stat. | syst. |
2–3 | 40–100 | 2.4 | 90 | 647.1 | ± 8.7 | $\begin{array}{l}+28.4\hfill \\ -41.7\hfill \end{array}$ |
3–4 | 40–100 | 3.4 | 90 | 396.7 | ± 6.7 | $\begin{array}{l}+14.6\hfill \\ -19.4\hfill \end{array}$ |
4–5 | 40–100 | 4.4 | 90 | 247.8 | ± 5.8 | $\begin{array}{l}+8.9\hfill \\ -12.6\hfill \end{array}$ |
5–7 | 40–120 | 5.8 | 90 | 140.3 | ± 2.6 | $\begin{array}{l}+3.9\hfill \\ -5.9\hfill \end{array}$ |
7–10 | 40–140 | 8.2 | 90 | 71.9 | ± 1.4 | $\begin{array}{l}+1.7\hfill \\ -2.8\hfill \end{array}$ |
10–15 | 40–140 | 12 | 90 | 29.73 | ± 0.68 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.75\hfill \\ -1.14\hfill \end{array}$ |
15–20 | 40–140 | 17 | 90 | 12.77 | ± 0.50 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.27\hfill \\ -0.42\hfill \end{array}$ |
20–30 | 40–140 | 24 | 90 | 6.03 | ± 0.31 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.37\hfill \\ -0.13\hfill \end{array}$ |
30–50 | 40–140 | 37 | 90 | 1.88 | ± 0.16 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.07\hfill \\ -0.15\hfill \end{array}$ |
50–80 | 40–140 | 60 | 90 | 0.36 | ± 0.07 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.04\hfill \\ -0.03\hfill \end{array}$ |
80–160 | 40–140 | 100 | 90 | 0.05 | ± 0.03 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.02\hfill \\ -0.01\hfill \end{array}$ |
with the normalisation and n as free parameters, failed to produce results with an acceptable χ^{2}. The data appear to favour an n value which increases with Q^{2}.
10.3 W dependence of σ(γ*p → ρ^{0}p)
Cross-sections values obtained at Q^{2} and W as a result of averaging over bins of the Q^{2} and W intervals given in the table. The normalisation uncertainty due to luminosity (± 2%) and proton-dissociative background (± 4%), are not included.
σ(γ*p → ρ^{0}p) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Q^{2} bin (GeV^{2}) | W bin (GeV) | Q^{2} (GeV^{2}) | W (GeV) | (nb) | stat. | syst. |
2–3 | 32–40 | 2.4 | 36.0 | 451.9 | ± 15.1 | $\begin{array}{l}+25.2\hfill \\ -43.6\hfill \end{array}$ |
2–3 | 40–60 | 2.4 | 50.0 | 554.1 | ± 11.5 | $\begin{array}{l}+31.6\hfill \\ -39.2\hfill \end{array}$ |
2–3 | 60–80 | 2.4 | 70.0 | 599.9 | ± 13.9 | $\begin{array}{l}+28.5\hfill \\ -38.5\hfill \end{array}$ |
2–3 | 80–100 | 2.4 | 90.0 | 622.5 | ± 17.3 | $\begin{array}{l}+33.8\hfill \\ -43.2\hfill \end{array}$ |
2–3 | 100–120 | 2.4 | 110.0 | 690.1 | ± 30.3 | $\begin{array}{l}+40.8\hfill \\ -66.9\hfill \end{array}$ |
3–5 | 32–40 | 3.7 | 36.0 | 240.8 | ± 8.0 | $\begin{array}{l}+9.5\hfill \\ -15.5\hfill \end{array}$ |
3–5 | 40–60 | 3.7 | 50.0 | 277.5 | ± 5.9 | $\begin{array}{l}+12.2\hfill \\ -15.3\hfill \end{array}$ |
3–5 | 60–80 | 3.7 | 70.0 | 303.7 | ± 7.3 | $\begin{array}{l}+11.1\hfill \\ -14.4\hfill \end{array}$ |
3–5 | 80–100 | 3.7 | 90.0 | 344.6 | ± 9.4 | $\begin{array}{l}+10.4\hfill \\ -17.2\hfill \end{array}$ |
3–5 | 100–120 | 3.7 | 110.0 | 404.7 | ± 15.5 | $\begin{array}{l}+15.2\hfill \\ -22.5\hfill \end{array}$ |
5–7 | 32–40 | 6.0 | 36.0 | 88.5 | ± 5.1 | $\begin{array}{l}+6.0\hfill \\ -4.1\hfill \end{array}$ |
5–7 | 40–60 | 6.0 | 50.0 | 104.9 | ± 3.6 | $\begin{array}{l}+3.6\hfill \\ -6.9\hfill \end{array}$ |
5–7 | 60–80 | 6.0 | 70.0 | 113.6 | ± 4.1 | $\begin{array}{l}+6.0\hfill \\ -3.9\hfill \end{array}$ |
5–7 | 80–100 | 6.0 | 90.0 | 127.6 | ± 4.9 | $\begin{array}{l}+4.0\hfill \\ -5.8\hfill \end{array}$ |
5–7 | 100–120 | 6.0 | 110.0 | 144.0 | ± 6.1 | $\begin{array}{l}+8.6\hfill \\ -8.4\hfill \end{array}$ |
7–10 | 40–60 | 8.3 | 50.0 | 52.3 | ± 1.9 | $\begin{array}{l}+1.7\hfill \\ -2.7\hfill \end{array}$ |
7–10 | 60–80 | 8.3 | 70.0 | 61.7 | ± 2.4 | $\begin{array}{l}+2.1\hfill \\ -2.9\hfill \end{array}$ |
7–10 | 80–100 | 8.3 | 90.0 | 70.1 | ± 2.9 | $\begin{array}{l}+2.0\hfill \\ -3.3\hfill \end{array}$ |
7–10 | 100–120 | 8.3 | 110.0 | 75.2 | ± 3.4 | $\begin{array}{l}+3.1\hfill \\ -3.0\hfill \end{array}$ |
7–10 | 120–140 | 8.3 | 130.0 | 87.5 | ± 4.7 | $\begin{array}{l}+2.5\hfill \\ -4.1\hfill \end{array}$ |
10–22 | 40–60 | 13.5 | 50.0 | 16.4 | ± 0.6 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.6\hfill \\ -0.7\hfill \end{array}$ |
10–22 | 60–80 | 13.5 | 70.0 | 20.2 | ± 0.8 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.8\hfill \\ -0.7\hfill \end{array}$ |
10–22 | 80–100 | 13.5 | 90.0 | 21.9 | ± 0.9 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.7\hfill \\ -0.9\hfill \end{array}$ |
10–22 | 100–120 | 13.5 | 110.0 | 24.3 | ± 1.1 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.9\hfill \\ -1.2\hfill \end{array}$ |
10–22 | 120–140 | 13.5 | 130.0 | 27.7 | ± 1.4 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.9\hfill \\ -1.0\hfill \end{array}$ |
10–22 | 140–160 | 13.5 | 150.0 | 30.7 | ± 2.3 | $\begin{array}{l}+1.2\hfill \\ -1.1\hfill \end{array}$ |
22–80 | 40–60 | 32.0 | 50.0 | 1.5 | ± 0.2 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.2\hfill \\ -0.1\hfill \end{array}$ |
22–80 | 60–80 | 32.0 | 70.0 | 2.3 | ± 0.2 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.1\hfill \\ -0.1\hfill \end{array}$ |
22–80 | 80–100 | 32.0 | 90.0 | 2.6 | ± 0.3 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.3\hfill \\ -0.2\hfill \end{array}$ |
22–80 | 100–120 | 32.0 | 110.0 | 3.6 | ± 0.4 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.1\hfill \\ -0.3\hfill \end{array}$ |
22–80 | 120–140 | 32.0 | 130.0 | 4.0 | ± 0.5 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.2\hfill \\ -0.4\hfill \end{array}$ |
22–80 | 140–160 | 32.0 | 150.0 | 4.2 | ± 0.6 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.2\hfill \\ -0.4\hfill \end{array}$ |
22–80 | 160–180 | 32.0 | 170.0 | 3.6 | ± 0.7 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.3\hfill \\ -0.3\hfill \end{array}$ |
In order to quantify the rate of growth and its significance, the W dependence for each Q^{2} value was fitted to the functional form
σ ~ W^{ δ }.
The value of δ obtained from fitting ${\sigma}^{{\gamma}^{\ast}p\to {\rho}^{0}p}\propto {W}^{\delta}$. The first column gives the Q^{2} bin, while the second column gives the Q^{2} value at which the cross section was quoted.
Q^{2} bin (GeV^{2}) | Q^{2} (GeV^{2}) | δ | stat. | syst. |
---|---|---|---|---|
2–3 | 2.4 | 0.321 | ± 0.035 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.068\hfill \\ -0.043\hfill \end{array}$ |
3–5 | 3.7 | 0.412 | ± 0.036 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.029\hfill \\ -0.035\hfill \end{array}$ |
5–7 | 6.0 | 0.400 | ± 0.052 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.048\hfill \\ -0.045\hfill \end{array}$ |
7–10 | 8.3 | 0.503 | ± 0.057 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.047\hfill \\ -0.041\hfill \end{array}$ |
10–22 | 13.5 | 0.529 | ± 0.051 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.030\hfill \\ -0.035\hfill \end{array}$ |
22–80 | 32.0 | 0.834 | ± 0.118 | $\begin{array}{l}+0.043\hfill \\ -0.112\hfill \end{array}$ |
11 R = σ_{ L }/σ_{ T }and ${r}_{00}^{04}$
and thus can be extracted from the θ_{ h }distribution alone.
In the kinematic range of the measurements presented in this paper, the non-zero value of Δ implies a correction of ~3% on R up to the highest Q^{2} value, where it is ~10%, and is neglected.
where σ_{tot} = σ_{ L }+ σ_{ T }. When the value of ${r}_{00}^{04}$ is close to one, as is the case for this analysis, the error on R becomes large and highly asymmetrical. It is then advantageous to study the properties of ${r}_{00}^{04}$ itself which carries the same information, rather than R.
The spin matrix element ${r}_{00}^{04}$ and the ratio of cross sections for longitudinally and transversely polarised photons, R = σ_{ L }/σ_{ T }, as a function of Q^{2}, averaged over the Q^{2} and W bins given in the table. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic.
Q^{2} bin (GeV^{2}) | Q^{2} (GeV^{2}) | W bin (GeV) | ${r}_{00}^{04}$ | R = σ_{ L }/σ_{ T } |
---|---|---|---|---|
2–3 | 2.4 | 32–120 | $0.60\pm {0.01}_{-0.03}^{+0.03}$ | ${1.50}_{-0.05\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.15}^{+0.05\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.20}$ |
3–5 | 3.7 | 32–120 | $0.68\pm {0.01}_{-0.02}^{+0.02}$ | ${2.10}_{-0.08\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.14}^{+0.08\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.18}$ |
5–7 | 5.9 | 40–140 | $0.73\pm {0.01}_{-0.02}^{+0.01}$ | ${2.70}_{-0.13\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.28}^{+0.14\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.26}$ |
7–10 | 8.3 | 40–140 | $0.76\pm {0.01}_{-0.02}^{+0.01}$ | ${3.20}_{-0.18\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.27}^{+0.20\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.25}$ |
10–15 | 12.0 | 40–140 | $0.78\pm {0.01}_{-0.01}^{+0.01}$ | ${3.50}_{-0.24\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.26}^{+0.26\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.30}$ |
15–30 | 19.5 | 40–140 | $0.82\pm {0.02}_{-0.02}^{+0.01}$ | ${4.60}_{-0.45\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.44}^{+0.54\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.48}$ |
30–100 | 40.5 | 40–160 | $0.86\pm {0.04}_{-0.02}^{+0.03}$ | ${6.10}_{-1.56\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.85}^{+2.75\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+2.15}$ |
The spin matrix element ${r}_{00}^{04}$ and the ratio of cross sections for longitudinally and transversely polarised photons, R = σ_{ L }/σ_{ T }, as a function of W for different values of Q^{2}, averaged over the Q^{2} and W bins given in the table. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic.
Q^{2} bin (GeV^{2}) | Q^{2} (GeV^{2}) | W bin (GeV) | W (GeV) | ${r}_{00}^{04}$ | R = σ_{ L }/σ_{ T } |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2–3 | 2.4 | 32–55 | 43 | $0.60\pm {0.01}_{-0.02}^{+0.03}$ | ${1.50}_{-0.06\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.15}^{+0.06\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.21}$ |
2–3 | 2.4 | 55–75 | 65 | $0.60\pm {0.01}_{-0.03}^{+0.05}$ | ${1.50}_{-0.06\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.17}^{+0.06\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.35}$ |
2–3 | 2.4 | 75–110 | 91 | $0.59\pm {0.01}_{-0.04}^{+0.04}$ | ${1.43}_{-0.06\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.23}^{+0.06\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.23}$ |
3–7 | 4.2 | 32–60 | 45 | $0.70\pm {0.01}_{-0.01}^{+0.01}$ | ${2.33}_{-0.09\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.09}^{+0.09\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.13}$ |
3–7 | 4.2 | 60–80 | 70 | $0.69\pm {0.01}_{-0.01}^{+0.02}$ | ${2.23}_{-0.11\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.10}^{+0.12\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.24}$ |
3–7 | 4.2 | 80–120 | 99 | $0.69\pm {0.01}_{-0.01}^{+0.01}$ | ${2.23}_{-0.09\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.09}^{+0.10\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.14}$ |
7–12 | 8.8 | 40–70 | 55 | $0.74\pm {0.01}_{-0.02}^{+0.01}$ | ${2.85}_{-0.22\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.26}^{+0.25\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.23}$ |
7–12 | 8.8 | 70–100 | 85 | $0.76\pm {0.02}_{-0.02}^{+0.01}$ | ${3.17}_{-0.32\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.28}^{+0.38\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.19}$ |
7–12 | 8.8 | 100–140 | 120 | $0.76\pm {0.02}_{-0.02}^{+0.01}$ | ${3.17}_{-0.32\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.26}^{+0.38\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.23}$ |
12–50 | 18.0 | 40–70 | 55 | $0.84\pm {0.03}_{-0.01}^{+0.01}$ | ${5.25}_{-0.84\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.34}^{+1.16\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.54}$ |
12–50 | 18.0 | 70–100 | 85 | $0.82\pm {0.03}_{-0.02}^{+0.01}$ | ${4.55}_{-0.70\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.43}^{+0.94\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.47}$ |
12–50 | 18.0 | 100–160 | 130 | $0.83\pm {0.02}_{-0.01}^{+0.02}$ | ${4.88}_{-0.67\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.39}^{+0.87\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.64}$ |
The spin matrix element ${r}_{00}^{04}$ and the ratio of cross sections for longitudinally and transversely polarised photons, R = σ_{ L }/σ_{ T }, as a function of |t| for two values of Q^{2}, averaged over the Q^{2} and W bins given in the table. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic.
Q^{2} bin (GeV^{2}) | Q^{2} (GeV^{2}) | W bin (GeV) | |t| (GeV^{2}) | ${r}_{00}^{04}$ | R = σ_{ L }/σ_{ T } |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2–5 | 3.0 | 32–120 | 0.04 | $0.62\pm {0.01}_{-0.02}^{+0.02}$ | ${1.63}_{-0.06\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.13}^{+0.07\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.15}$ |
2–5 | 3.0 | 32–120 | 0.14 | $0.62\pm {0.01}_{-0.03}^{+0.01}$ | ${1.63}_{-0.09\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.19}^{+0.09\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.10}$ |
2–5 | 3.0 | 32–120 | 0.27 | $0.63\pm {0.01}_{-0.02}^{+0.04}$ | ${1.70}_{-0.11\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.14}^{+0.11\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.24}$ |
2–5 | 3.0 | 32–120 | 0.45 | $0.64\pm {0.02}_{-0.03}^{+0.02}$ | ${1.78}_{-0.13\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.21}^{+0.14\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.16}$ |
2–5 | 3.0 | 32–120 | 0.76 | $0.63\pm {0.03}_{-0.05}^{+0.07}$ | ${1.70}_{-0.22\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.32}^{+0.26\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.63}$ |
5–50 | 10.0 | 40–160 | 0.04 | $0.74\pm {0.01}_{-0.01}^{+0.01}$ | ${2.84}_{-0.17\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.15}^{+0.18\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.16}$ |
5–50 | 10.0 | 40–160 | 0.15 | $0.75\pm {0.01}_{-0.02}^{+0.01}$ | ${3.00}_{-0.23\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.30}^{+0.26\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.17}$ |
5–50 | 10.0 | 40–160 | 0.27 | $0.74\pm {0.02}_{-0.04}^{+0.02}$ | ${2.84}_{-0.24\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.51}^{+0.26\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.32}$ |
5–50 | 10.0 | 40–160 | 0.45 | $0.72\pm {0.02}_{-0.02}^{+0.03}$ | ${2.57}_{-0.25\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.22}^{+0.29\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.41}$ |
5–50 | 10.0 | 40–160 | 0.76 | $0.73\pm {0.04}_{-0.05}^{+0.03}$ | ${2.70}_{-0.43\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}-0.57}^{+0.56\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}+0.45}$ |
12 Effective Pomeron trajectory
An effective Pomeron trajectory can be determined from exclusive ρ^{0} electroproduction by using Eq. (2). Since the W dependence of the proton-dissociative contribution was established to be the same as the exclusive ρ^{0} sample, no subtraction for proton-dissociative events was performed.
The values of the effective Pomeron trajectory α_{ℙ}(t) as a function of |t|, for two Q^{2} values. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic.
Q^{2} bin (GeV^{2}) | Q^{2} (GeV^{2}) | |t| (GeV^{2}) | α_{ℙ}(t) |
---|---|---|---|
2–5 | 3 | 0.04 | $1.104\pm {0.011}_{-0.010}^{+0.010}$ |
2–5 | 3 | 0.14 | $1.099\pm {0.014}_{-0.025}^{+0.011}$ |
2–5 | 3 | 0.28 | $1.048\pm {0.016}_{-0.014}^{+0.038}$ |
2–5 | 3 | 0.57 | $1.013\pm {0.021}_{-0.017}^{+0.041}$ |
5–50 | 10 | 0.04 | $1.149\pm {0.012}_{-0.006}^{+0.015}$ |
5–50 | 10 | 0.16 | $1.134\pm {0.014}_{-0.027}^{+0.005}$ |
5–50 | 10 | 0.35 | $1.104\pm {0.017}_{-0.011}^{+0.012}$ |
5–50 | 10 | 0.68 | $1.085\pm {0.028}_{-0.031}^{+0.042}$ |
The values of the effective Pomeron trajectory intercept α_{ℙ}(0) and slope ${{\alpha}^{\prime}}_{\mathbb{P}}$, for two Q^{2} values. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic.
Q^{2} bin (GeV^{2}) | Q^{2}(GeV^{2}) | α_{ℙ}(0) | ${{\alpha}^{\prime}}_{\mathbb{P}}$ (GeV^{-2}) |
---|---|---|---|
2–5 | 3 | $1.113\pm {0.010}_{-0.012}^{+0.009}$ | $0.185\pm {0.042}_{-0.057}^{+0.022}$ |
5–50 | 10 | $1.152\pm {0.011}_{-0.006}^{+0.006}$ | $0.114\pm {0.043}_{-0.024}^{+0.026}$ |
The slope b resulting from a fit of the differential cross section dσ/dt for the reaction γ*p → ρ^{0}p to an exponential form, for different W values, for two Q^{2} values. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic.
Q^{2}(GeV^{2}) | W (GeV) | b (GeV^{-2}) |
---|---|---|
3.5 | 38 | $6.3\pm {0.2}_{-0.3}^{+0.4}$ |
3.5 | 57 | $6.3\pm {0.1}_{-0.3}^{+0.3}$ |
3.5 | 82 | $6.6\pm {0.2}_{-0.3}^{+0.2}$ |
3.5 | 107 | $6.9\pm {0.2}_{-0.3}^{+0.3}$ |
3.5 | 134 | $7.0\pm {0.3}_{-0.3}^{+0.4}$ |
11 | 38 | $5.8\pm {0.3}_{-0.4}^{+0.3}$ |
11 | 57 | $5.8\pm {0.2}_{-0.3}^{+0.2}$ |
11 | 82 | $5.7\pm {0.2}_{-0.2}^{+0.2}$ |
11 | 107 | $5.9\pm {0.2}_{-0.2}^{+0.3}$ |
11 | 134 | $6.1\pm {0.2}_{-0.2}^{+0.3}$ |
13 Comparison to models
In this section, predictions from several pQCD-inspired models are compared to the measurements.
13.1 The models
All models are based on the dipole representation of the virtual photon, in which the photon first fluctuates into a $q\overline{q}$ pair (the colour dipole), which then interacts with the proton to produce the ρ^{0}. The ingredients necessary in such calculations are the virtual-photon wave-function, the dipole-proton cross section, and the ρ^{0} wave-function. The photon wave-function is known from QED. The models differ in the treatment of the dipole-proton cross section and the assumed ρ^{0} wave-function.
The models of Frankfurt, Koepf and Strikman (FKS) [57, 58] and of Martin, Ryskin and Teubner (MRT) [59, 60] are based on two-gluon exchange as the dominant mechanism for the dipole-proton interaction. The gluon distributions are derived from inclusive measurements of the proton structure function. In the FKS model, a three-dimensional Gaussian is assumed for the ρ^{0} wave-function, while MRT use parton-hadron duality and normalise the calculations to the data. For the comparison with the present measurements the MRST99 [61] and CTEQ6.5M [62] parameterisations for the gluon density were used.
Kowalski, Motyka and Watt (KMW) [63] use an improved version of the saturation model [64, 65], with an explicit dependence on the impact parameter and DGLAP [66–69] evolution in Q^{2}, introduced through the unintegrated gluon distribution [70]. Forshaw, Sandapen and Shaw (FSS) [71] model the dipole-proton interaction through the exchange of a soft [56] and a hard [72] Pomeron, with (Sat) and without (Nosat) saturation, and use the DGKP and Gaussian ρ^{0} wave-functions. In the model of Dosch and Ferreira (DF) [73], the dipole cross section is calculated using Wilson loops, making use of the stochastic vacuum model for the non-perturbative QCD contribution.
While the calculations based on two-gluon exchange are limited to relatively high-Q^{2} values (typically ~4 GeV^{2}), those based on modelling the dipole cross section incorporate both the perturbative and non-perturbative aspects of ρ^{0} production.
13.2 Comparison with data
In summary, none of the models considered above is able to describe all the features of the data presented in this paper. The high precision of the measurements can be used to refine models for exclusive ρ^{0} electroproduction.
14 Summary and Conclusion
Exclusive ρ^{0} electroproduction has been studied by ZEUS at HERA in the range 2 <Q^{2} < 160 GeV^{2} and 32 <W < 180 GeV with a high statistics sample. The Q^{2} dependence of the γ*p → ρ^{0}p cross section is a steeply falling function of Q^{2}. The cross section rises with W and its logarithmic derivative in W increases with increasing Q^{2}. The exponential slope of the t distribution decreases with increasing Q^{2} and levels off at about b = 5 GeV^{-2}. The decay angular distributions of the ρ^{0} indicate s-channel helicity breaking. The ratio of cross sections induced by longitudinally and transversely polarised virtual photons increases with Q^{2}, but is independent of W and of |t|, suggesting suppression of large-size configurations of the transversely polarised photon. The effective Pomeron trajectory, averaged over the full Q^{2} range, has a larger intercept and a smaller slope than those extracted from soft interactions. All these features are compatible with expectations of perturbative QCD. However, none of the available models which have been compared to the measurements is able to reproduce all the features of the data.
The ZEUS Collaboration
S. Chekanov^{1}, M. Derrick, S. Magill, B. Musgrave, D. Nicholass^{2}, J. Repond, R. Yoshida
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439-4815, USA ^{ n }
M.C.K. Mattingly
Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan 49104-0380, USA
M. Jechow, N. Pavel^{†}, A.G. Yagües Molina
Institut für Physik der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany ^{ b }
S. Antonelli, P. Antonioli, G. Bari, M. Basile, L. Bellagamba, M. Bindi, D. Boscherini, A. Bruni, G. Bruni, L. Cifarelli, F. Cindolo, A. Contin, M. Corradi, S. De Pasquale, G. Iacobucci, A. Margotti, R. Nania, A. Polini, G. Sartorelli, A. Zichichi
University and INFN Bologna, Bologna, Italy ^{ e }
D. Bartsch, I. Brock, H. Hartmann, E. Hilger, H.-P. Jakob, M. Jüngst, O.M. Kind^{3}, A.E. Nuncio-Quiroz, E. Paul^{4}, R. Renner^{5}, U. Samson, V. Schönberg, R. Shehzadi, M. Wlasenko
Physikalisches Institut der Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany ^{ b }
N.H. Brook, G.P. Heath, J.D. Morris
H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom ^{ m }
M. Capua, S. Fazio, A. Mastroberardino, M. Schioppa, G. Susinno, E. Tassi
Calabria University, Physics Department and INFN, Cosenza, Italy ^{ e }
J.Y. Kim^{6}, K.J. Ma^{7}
Chonnam National University, Kwangju, South Korea ^{ g }
Z.A. Ibrahim, B. Kamaluddin, W.A.T. Wan Abdullah
Jabatan Fizik, Universiti Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ^{ r }
Y. Ning, Z. Ren, F. Sciulli
Nevis Laboratories, Columbia University, Irvington on Hudson, New York 10027 ^{ o }
J. Chwastowski, A. Eskreys, J. Figiel, A. Galas, M. Gil, K. Olkiewicz, P. Stopa, L. Zawiejski
The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Cracow, Poland ^{ i }
L. Adamczyk, T. Bold, I. Grabowska-Bold, D. Kisielewska, J. Lukasik, M. Przybycień, L. Suszycki
Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science, AGH-University of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland ^{ p }
A. Kotański^{8}, W. Slomiński^{9}
Department of Physics, Jagellonian University, Cracow, Poland
V. Adler^{10}, U. Behrens, I. Bloch, C. Blohm, A. Bonato, K. Borras, R. Ciesielski, N. Coppola, A. Dossanov, V. Drugakov, J. Fourletova, A. Geiser, D. Gladkov, P. Göttlicher^{11}, J. Grebenyuk, I. Gregor, T. Haas, W. Hain, C. Horn^{12}, A. Hüttmann, B. Kahle, I.I. Katkov, U. Klein^{13}, U. Kötz, H. Kowalski, E. Lobodzinska, B. Löhr, R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, S. Miglioranzi, A. Montanari, T. Namsoo, D. Notz, L. Rinaldi, P. Roloff, I. Rubinsky, R. Santamarta, U. Schneekloth, A. Spiridonov^{14}, H. Stadie, D. Szuba^{15}, J. Szuba^{16}, T. Theedt, G. Wolf, K. Wrona, C. Youngman, W. Zeuner
Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Hamburg, Germany
W. Lohmann, S. Schlenstedt
Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Zeuthen, Germany
G. Barbagli, E. Gallo, P. G. Pelfer
University and INFN Florence, Florence, Italy ^{ e }
A. Bamberger, D. Dobur, F. Karstens, N.N. Vlasov^{17}
Fakultät für Physik der Universität Freiburg i.Br., Freiburg i.Br., Germany ^{ b }
P.J. Bussey, A.T. Doyle, W. Dunne, M. Forrest, D.H. Saxon, I.O. Skillicorn
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom ^{ m }
I. Gialas^{18}, K. Papageorgiu
Department of Engineering in Management and Finance, Univ. of Aegean, Greece
T. Gosau, U. Holm, R. Klanner, E. Lohrmann, H. Salehi, P. Schleper, T. Schörner-Sadenius, J. Sztuk, K. Wichmann, K. Wick
Hamburg University, Institute of Exp. Physics, Hamburg, Germany ^{ b }
C. Foudas, C. Fry, K.R. Long, A.D. Tapper
Imperial College London, High Energy Nuclear Physics Group, London, United Kingdom ^{ m }
M. Kataoka^{19}, T. Matsumoto, K. Nagano, K. Tokushuku^{20}, S. Yamada, Y. Yamazaki^{21}
Institute of Particle and Nuclear Studies, KEK, Tsukuba, Japan ^{ f }
A.N. Barakbaev, E.G. Boos, N.S. Pokrovskiy, B.O. Zhautykov
Institute of Physics and Technology of Ministry of Education and Science of Kazakhstan, Almaty, Kazakhstan
V. Aushev^{1}, M. Borodin, A. Kozulia, M. Lisovyi
Institute for Nuclear Research, National Academy of Sciences, Kiev and Kiev National University, Kiev, Ukraine
D. Son
Kyungpook National University, Center for High Energy Physics, Daegu, South Korea ^{ g }
J. de Favereau, K. Piotrzkowski
Institut de Physique Nucléaire, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium ^{ q }
F. Barreiro, C. Glasman^{22}, M. Jimenez, L. Labarga, J. del Peso, E. Ron, M. Soares, J. Terrón, M. Zambrana
Departamento de Física Teórica, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain ^{ l }
F. Corriveau, C. Liu, R. Walsh, C. Zhou
Department of Physics, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3A 2T8 ^{ a }
T. Tsurugai
Meiji Gakuin University, Faculty of General Education, Yokohama, Japan ^{ f }
A. Antonov, B.A. Dolgoshein, V. Sosnovtsev, A. Stifutkin, S. Suchkov
Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, Moscow, Russia ^{ j }
R.K. Dementiev, P.F. Ermolov, L.K. Gladilin, L.A. Khein, I.A. Korzhavina, V.A. Kuzmin, B.B. Levchenko^{23}, O.Yu. Lukina, A.S. Proskuryakov, L.M. Shcheglova, D.S. Zotkin, S.A. Zotkin
Moscow State University, Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow, Russia ^{ k }
I. Abt, C. Büttner, A. Caldwell, D. Kollar, W.B. Schmidke, J. Sutiak
Max-Planck-Institut für Physik, München, Germany
G. Grigorescu, A. Keramidas, E. Koffeman, P. Kooijman, A. Pellegrino, H. Tiecke, M. Vázquez^{19}, L. Wiggers
NIKHEF and University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands ^{ h }
N. Brümmer, B. Bylsma, L.S. Durkin, A. Lee, T.Y. Ling
Physics Department, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210 ^{ n }
P.D. Allfrey, M.A. Bell, A.M. Cooper-Sarkar, R.C.E. Devenish, J. Ferrando, B. Foster, K. Korcsak-Gorzo, K. Oliver, S. Patel, V. Roberfroid^{24}, A. Robertson, P.B. Straub, C. Uribe-Estrada, R. Walczak
Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford United Kingdom ^{ m }
P. Bellan, A. Bertolin, R. Brugnera, R. Carlin, F. Dal Corso, S. Dusini, A. Garfagnini, S. Limentani, A. Longhin, L. Stanco, M. Turcato
Dipartimento di Fisica dell' Università and INFN, Padova, Italy ^{ e }
B.Y. Oh, A. Raval, J. Ukleja^{25}, J.J. Whitmore^{26}
Department of Physics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802 ^{ o }
Y. Iga
Polytechnic University, Sagamihara, Japan ^{ f }
G. D'Agostini, G. Marini, A. Nigro
Dipartimento di Fisica, Università 'La Sapienza' and INFN, Rome, Italy ^{ e }
J.E. Cole, J.C. Hart
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, United Kingdom ^{ m }
H. Abramowicz^{27}, R. Ingbir, S. Kananov, A. Kreisel, A. Levy, O. Smith, A. Stern
Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences, School of Physics, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel ^{ d }
M. Kuze, J. Maeda
Department of Physics, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan ^{ f }
R. Hori, S. Kagawa^{28}, N. Okazaki, S. Shimizu, T. Tawara
Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan ^{ f }
R. Hamatsu, H. Kaji^{29}, S. Kitamura^{30}, O. Ota, Y.D. Ri
Tokyo Metropolitan University, Department of Physics, Tokyo, Japan ^{ f }
M.I. Ferrero, V. Monaco, R. Sacchi, A. Solano
Università di Torino and INFN, Torino, Italy ^{ e }
M. Arneodo, M. Ruspa
Università del Piemonte Orientale, Novara, and INFN, Torino, Italy ^{ e }
S. Fourletov, J.F. Martin
Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A7 ^{ a }
S.K. Boutle^{18}, J.M. Butterworth, C. Gwenlan^{31}, T.W. Jones, J.H. Loizides, M.R. Sutton^{31}, M. Wing
Physics and Astronomy Department, University College London, London, United Kingdom ^{ m }
B. Brzozowska, J. Ciborowski^{32}, G. Grzelak, P. Kulinski, P. Łużniak^{33}, J. Malka^{33}, R.J. Nowak, J.M. Pawlak, T. Tymieniecka, A. Ukleja, A.F. Żarnecki
Warsaw University, Institute of Experimental Physics, Warsaw, Poland
M. Adamus, P. Plucinski^{34}
Institute for Nuclear Studies, Warsaw, Poland
Y. Eisenberg, I. Giller, D. Hochman, U. Karshon, M. Rosin
Department of Particle Physics, Weizmann Institute, Rehovot, Israel ^{ c }
E. Brownson, T. Danielson, A. Everett, D. Kçira, D.D. Reeder^{4}, P. Ryan, A.A. Savin, W.H. Smith, H. Wolfe
Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA ^{ n }
S. Bhadra, C.D. Catterall, Y. Cui, G. Hartner, S. Menary, U. Noor, J. Standage, J. Whyte
Department of Physics, York University, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3 ^{ a }
^{1} supported by DESY, Germany
^{2} also affiliated with University College London, UK
^{3} now at Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany
^{4} retired
^{5} self-employed
^{6} supported by Chonnam National University in 2005
^{7} supported by a scholarship of the World Laboratory Björn Wiik Research Project
^{8} supported by the research grant no. 1 P03B 04529 (2005–2008)
^{9} This work was supported in part by the Marie Curie Actions Transfer of Knowledge project COCOS (contract MTKD-CT-2004-517186)
^{10} now at Univ. Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium
^{11} now at DESY group FEB, Hamburg, Germany
^{12} now at Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford, USA
^{13} now at University of Liverpool, UK
^{14} also at Institut of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
^{15} also at INP, Cracow, Poland
^{16} on leave of absence from FPACS, AGH-UST, Cracow, Poland
^{17} partly supported by Moscow State University, Russia
^{18} also affiliated with DESY
^{19} now at CERN, Geneva, Switzerland
^{20} also at University of Tokyo, Japan
^{21} now at Kobe University, Japan
^{22} Ramón y Cajal Fellow
^{23} partly supported by Russian Foundation for Basic Research grant no. 05-02-39028-NSFC-a
^{24} EU Marie Curie Fellow
^{25} partially supported by Warsaw University, Poland
^{26} This material was based on work supported by the National Science Foundation, while working at the Foundation.
^{27} also at Max Planck Institute, Munich, Germany, Alexander von Humboldt Research Award
^{28} now at KEK, Tsukuba, Japan
^{29} now at Nagoya University, Japan
^{30} Department of Radiological Science
^{31} PPARC Advanced fellow
^{32} also at Łódź University, Poland
^{33} Łódź University, Poland
^{34} supported by the Polish Ministry for Education and Science grant no. 1 P03B 14129
^{†} deceased
^{ a }supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
^{ b }supported by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF), under contract numbers 05 HZ6PDA, 05 HZ6GUA, 05 HZ6VFA and 05 HZ4KHA
^{ c }supported in part by the MINERVA Gesellschaft für Forschung GmbH, the Israel Science Foundation (grant no. 293/02-11.2) and the U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation
^{ d }supported by the German-Israeli Foundation and the Israel Science Foundation
^{ e }supported by the Italian National Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN)
^{ f }supported by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and its grants for Scientific Research
^{ g }supported by the Korean Ministry of Education and Korea Science and Engineering Foundation
^{ h }supported by the Netherlands Foundation for Research on Matter (FOM)
^{ i }supported by the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research, grant no. 620/E-77/SPB/DESY/P-03/DZ 117/2003–2005 and grant no. 1P03B07427/2004–2006
^{ j }partially supported by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF)
^{ k }supported by RF Presidential grant N 8122.2006.2 for the leading scientific schools and by the Russian Ministry of Education and Science through its grant Research on High Energy Physics
^{ l }supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science through funds provided by CICYT
^{ m }supported by the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, UK
^{ n }supported by the US Department of Energy
^{ o }supported by the US National Science Foundation. Any opinion, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
^{ p }supported by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education as a scientific project (2006–2008)
^{ q }supported by FNRS and its associated funds (IISN and FRIA) and by an Inter-University Attraction Poles Programme subsidised by the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office
^{ r }supported by the Malaysian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation/Akademi Sains Malaysia grant SAGA 66-02-03-0048
Note
^{1}From now on, the word "electron" will be used as a generic term for both electrons and positrons.
^{2}The ZEUS coordinate system is a right-handed Cartesian system, with the Z axis pointing in the proton direction, referred to as the "forward direction", and the X axis pointing left towards the centre of HERA. The coordinate origin is at the nominal interaction point.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
It is a pleasure to thank the DESY Directorate for their strong support and encouragement. The remarkable achievements of the HERA machine group were essential for the successful completion of this work and are greatly appreciated. The design, construction and installation of the ZEUS detector has been made possible by the efforts of many people who are not listed as authors. We thank E. Ferreira, J. Forshaw, M. Strikman, T. Teubner and G. Watt, for providing the results of their calculations.
References
- Abramowicz H, Caldwell A: Rev Mod Phys. 1999, 71: 1275-10.1103/RevModPhys.71.1275. This is an example reference.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Abramowicz H, Frankfurt L, Strikman M: Surveys High Energy Phys. 1997, 11: 51-View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Brodsky SJ, et al: Phys Rev D. 1994, 50: 3134-10.1103/PhysRevD.50.3134.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- ZEUS Coll, Breitweg J, et al: Phys Lett B. 2000, 487: 273-10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00794-2.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- ZEUS Coll, Chekanov S, et al: Nucl Phys B. 2005, 718: 3-10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.04.009.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- ZEUS Coll, Chekanov S, et al: Nucl Phys B. 2004, 695: 3-10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2004.06.034.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- H1 Coll, Adloff C, et al: Phys Lett B. 2000, 483: 360-10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00613-4.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- H1 Coll, Aktas A, et al: Eur Phys J C. 2006, 46: 585-10.1140/epjc/s2006-02519-5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- H1 Coll, Adloff C, et al: Eur Phys J C. 2000, 13: 371-ADSGoogle Scholar
- ZEUS Coll, Derrick M, et al: Eur Phys J C. 1999, 6: 603-View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Collins JC, Frankfurt L, Strikman M: Phys Rev D. 1997, 56: 2982-10.1103/PhysRevD.56.2982.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Ivanov IP, Nikolaev NN, Savin AA: Phys Part Nucl. 2006, 37: 1-10.1134/S1063779606010011. This is an example reference.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Radyushkin AV: Phys Rev D. 1997, 56: 5524-10.1103/PhysRevD.56.5524.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Ji XD: J Phys G. 1998, 24: 1181-10.1088/0954-3899/24/7/002.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Frankfurt L, McDermott M, Strikman M: JHEP. 2001, 103: 45-10.1088/1126-6708/2001/03/045.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Yu Ivanov D, Szymanowski L, Krasnikov G: J Exp Theor Phys Lett. 2004, 80: 226-10.1134/1.1813676.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- McDermott MF: The Dipole picture of small x physics: A Summary of the Amirim meeting, DESY-00-126. 2000Google Scholar
- Collins PDB: An Introduction to Regge Theory and High Energy Physics. 1977, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, EnglandView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cudell JR, Kang K, Kim S: Phys Lett B. 1997, 395: 311-10.1016/S0370-2693(97)00046-4.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Donnachie A, Landshoff PV: Nucl Phys B. 1984, 231: 189-10.1016/0550-3213(84)90283-9.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- H1 Coll, Adloff C, et al: Phys Lett B. 2001, 520: 183-10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01074-7.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- ZEUS Coll, Chekanov S, et al: Eur Phys J C. 2002, 24: 345-10.1007/s10052-002-0953-7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- ZEUS Coll, Holm U, (ed): The ZEUS Detector, Status Report(unpublished), DESY. 1993, [http://www-zeus.desy.de/bluebook/bluebook.html]Google Scholar
- ZEUS Coll, Derrick M, et al: Phys Lett B. 1992, 293: 465-10.1016/0370-2693(92)90914-P.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Harnew N, et al: Nucl Inst Meth A. 1989, 279: 290-10.1016/0168-9002(89)91096-6.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Foster B, et al: Nucl Phys Proc Suppl B. 1993, 32: 181-10.1016/0920-5632(93)90023-Y.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Foster B, et al: Nucl Inst Meth A. 1994, 338: 254-10.1016/0168-9002(94)91313-7.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Derrick M, et al: Nucl Inst Meth A. 1991, 309: 77-10.1016/0168-9002(91)90094-7.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Andersen A, et al: Nucl Inst Meth A. 1991, 309: 101-10.1016/0168-9002(91)90095-8.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Caldwell A, et al: Nucl Inst Meth A. 1992, 321: 356-10.1016/0168-9002(92)90413-X.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Bernstein A, et al: Nucl Inst Meth A. 1993, 336: 33-10.1016/0168-9002(93)91078-2.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Bamberger A, et al: Nucl Inst Meth A. 1996, 382: 419-10.1016/S0168-9002(96)00776-0.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Dwuraźny A, et al: Nucl Inst Meth A. 1989, 277: 176-10.1016/0168-9002(89)90550-0.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Bamberger A, et al: Nucl Inst Meth A. 2000, 450: 235-10.1016/S0168-9002(00)00274-6.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- ZEUS Coll, Derrick M, et al: Z Phys C. 1997, 73: 253-10.1007/s002880050314.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Andruszkow J, et al: First measurement of HERA luminosity by ZEUS lumi monitor, Preprint DESY-92-066, DESY. 1992Google Scholar
- ZEUS Coll, Derrick M, et al: Z Phys C. 1994, 63: 391-10.1007/BF01580320.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Andruszkow J, et al: Acta Phys Pol B. 2001, 32: 2025-ADSGoogle Scholar
- ZEUS Coll, Derrick M, et al: Phys Lett B. 1995, 356: 601-10.1016/0370-2693(95)00879-P.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Beier H: PhD thesis. 1997, Hamburg University, DESY Internal Report F35D-97-06Google Scholar
- Monteiro T: PhD thesis. 1998, Hamburg University, DESY Internal Report DESYTHESIS-1998–027Google Scholar
- Kreisel A: PhD thesis. 2004, Tel Aviv University, DESY Internal Report DESYTHESIS-2004–012Google Scholar
- Muchorowski K: PhD thesis. 1998, Warsaw UniversityGoogle Scholar
- Kwiatkowski A, Spiesberger H, Möhring H.-J: Proceedings of the Workshop on Physics at HERA. Edited by: Buchmueller W, Ingelman G. 1991, DESY, Hamburg, III: 1294-Google Scholar
- Kasprzak M: PhD thesis. 1995, Warsaw UniversityGoogle Scholar
- Sjöstrand T, et al: Comp Phys Comm. 2001, 135: 238-10.1016/S0010-4655(00)00236-8.View ArticleADSMATHGoogle Scholar
- Söding P: Phys Lett B. 1966, 19: 702-View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Particle Data Group, Yao W-M, et al: J Phys G. 2006, 33: 1-10.1088/0954-3899/33/1/001.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Schilling K, Wolf G: Nucl Phys B. 1973, 61: 381-10.1016/0550-3213(73)90371-4.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- ZEUS Coll, Breitweg J, et al: Eur Phys J C. 2000, 12: 3-ADSGoogle Scholar
- Ivanov YuD, Kirschner R: Phys Rev D. 1998, 58: 114026-10.1103/PhysRevD.58.114026.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- H1 Coll, Adloff C, et al: Phys Lett B. 2002, 539: 25-10.1016/S0370-2693(02)02035-X.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- ZEUS Coll, Breitweg J, et al: Eur Phys J C. 1998, 2: 2-Google Scholar
- H1 Coll, Aktas A, et al: Eur Phys J C. 2005, 44: 1-Google Scholar
- Ryskin MG, Shabelski Yu: Phys Atom Nucl. 1998, 61: 81-and correction in σ_{ L }/σ_{ T }in the ρ^{0} meson diffractive electroproduction. [arXiv:hep-ph/9704279]ADSGoogle Scholar
- Donnachie A, Landshoff PV: Phys Lett B. 1992, 296: 227-10.1016/0370-2693(92)90832-O.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Frankfurt L, Koepf W, Strikman M: Phys Rev D. 1996, 54: 3194-10.1103/PhysRevD.54.3194.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Frankfurt L, Koepf W, Strikman M: Phys Rev D. 1998, 57: 512-10.1103/PhysRevD.57.512.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Martin AD, Ryskin MG, Teubner T: Phys Rev D. 1997, 55: 4329-10.1103/PhysRevD.55.4329.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Martin AD, Ryskin MG, Teubner T: Phys Rev D. 2000, 62: 014022-10.1103/PhysRevD.62.014022.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Martin AD, et al: Eur Phys J C. 1998, 4: 463-10.1007/s100529800904.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- CTEQ Coll, Tung WK, et al: JHEP. 2007, 0702: 053-Google Scholar
- Kowalski H, Motyka L, Watt G: Phys Rev D. 2006, 74: 074016-10.1103/PhysRevD.74.074016.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Golec-Biernat K, Wuesthoff M: Phys Rev D. 1999, 59: 014017-10.1103/PhysRevD.59.014017.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Golec-Biernat K, Wuesthoff M: Phys Rev D. 1999, 60: 114023-10.1103/PhysRevD.60.114023.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Gribov VN, Lipatov LN: Sov J Nucl Phys. 1972, 15: 438-Google Scholar
- Lipatov LN: Sov J Nucl Phys. 1975, 20: 94-Google Scholar
- Altarelli G, Parisi G: Nucl Phys B. 1977, 126: 298-10.1016/0550-3213(77)90384-4.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Dokshitzer Yu: Sov Phys JETP. 1977, 46: 298-Google Scholar
- Kimber MA, Martin AD, Ryskin MG: Phys Rev D. 2001, 63: 114027-10.1103/PhysRevD.63.114027.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Forshaw JR, Sandapen R, Shaw G: Phys Rev D. 2004, 69: 094013-10.1103/PhysRevD.69.094013.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Donnachie A, Landshoff PV: Phys Lett B. 2001, 518: 63-10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01048-6.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Dosch HG, Ferreira E: Euro Phys J C. 2007, , 51: 83-10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0293-8.Google Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.