text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One of the most remarkable results arising from the study of deep-inelastic $`ep`$ scattering (DIS) at HERA is the large range of squared four-momentum transfer $`Q^2`$ over which perturbative QCD calculations are able to describe the measurements of the inclusive cross section. Next-to-leading order (NLO) calculations are successful from values of $`Q^2`$ as low as a few GeV2 up to $`Q^2\mathrm{35\hspace{0.17em}000}`$GeV2 . Investigations of the hadronic final state have shown that QCD is also able to describe events containing two highly energetic jets . Such investigations have tended to require large inter-jet separations, that is, a large relative jet transverse momentum, or a large transverse jet energy in the Breit frame . Typically only about a tenth of the DIS sample is then classified as dijet events. These large scales are chosen to avoid the region in which multiple parton emission is likely to become significant. Here, we examine the possibility that fixed order perturbative QCD is able to describe the hadronic final state in DIS even where jet separations are small. Some hints that this may be possible have been seen in measurements of event shape variables .

The study proceeds by first identifying the minimum inter-jet separation for which the rate of dijet production is successfully described by NLO QCD calculations. Using this separation, about $`1/3`$ of DIS events are classified as dijet. Based on this sample a number of measurements is made and compared with perturbative QCD. At the lower end of the $`Q^2`$ range studied, $`Q^2150`$GeV2, the sample is dominated by gluon induced events, $`egeq\overline{q}`$, whereas at the upper end quark induced events predominate, $`eqeqg`$. The data thus provide a thorough test of the QCD calculations.

An alternative QCD based description of the measurements is provided by Monte Carlo models which describe DIS using leading order (LO) QCD matrix elements matched to parton showers. The inclusion of the latter would suggest that these might describe dijet data in the region in which jet separations are very small. Indeed, studies have been made of sub-jet multiplicities and jet shapes, in which Monte Carlo models incorporating parton showers have performed reasonably well . The LO calculations incorporated in these models should ensure they are also able to describe data at large jet separations. However, their overall performance in describing the hadronic final state in DIS has not yet been satisfactory . In the present analysis, we confront our measurements with the QCD model RAPGAP  which was not considered in .

## 2 Experimental procedure

### 2.1 Selection of DIS events

The present analysis is based on a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $``$ 35 pb-1 recorded in 1995-97 with the H1 detector at HERA. In this period HERA operated with positron and proton beams of 27.5 GeV and 820 GeV energy, respectively, yielding a centre-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ of 300 GeV.

A detailed description of the H1 detector is given in . The detector components of most importance for this study are the central tracking system and the liquid argon calorimeter. We use a coordinate system with its origin at the nominal interaction point and its positive $`z`$ axis along the direction of the outgoing proton beam. Polar angles are denoted by $`\theta `$ and the “forward” region is that with $`\theta <90^{}`$. Neutral current DIS events are selected using criteria similar to those described in . These include the requirement that a scattered positron be identified in the liquid argon calorimeter at a polar angle $`\theta _e<150^{}`$. The positron reconstruction method and the fiducial cuts on the positron impact position in the liquid argon calorimeter are described in . The value of $`Q^2`$, determined from the energy and polar angle of the scattered positron, must exceed $`150`$GeV2. The Bjorken scaling variable $`y`$ must satisfy $`0.1<y<0.7`$. At low $`y`$, measurements of $`y`$ using the polar angles of the positron and of the reconstructed hadronic final state , $`y_{da}`$, are more precise than those using the energy and polar angle of the scattered positron, $`y_e`$. At high $`y`$ the situation is reversed. The low $`y`$ requirement is thus applied using the double angle measurement, $`0.1<y_{da}`$, whereas the high $`y`$ restriction is applied using the positron measurement, $`y_e<0.7`$. The selection yields a sample of $`\mathrm{60\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ DIS events with negligible background .

### 2.2 Jet algorithm and observables

Jets are reconstructed with the modified Durham algorithm, described in more detail in , which is applied in the laboratory frame. Hadronic energy deposits measured in the liquid argon calorimeter and the backward “SpaCal” calorimeter are used, as are tracks reconstructed in the central tracking chambers, avoiding double counting of energy. All of these are referred to as “proto-jets” in the following and are required to have a polar angle greater than 7 to ensure that they are well measured. The proton remnant, which escapes direct detection, is included in the jet reconstruction by forming a missing-momentum four-vector, which is treated as an additional proto-jet.

The algorithm uses the relative $`k_{Tij}^2=2\mathrm{min}[E_i^2,E_j^2](1\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij})`$ of proto-jets $`i`$$`j`$ as a measure of their separation, where $`E_i`$ and $`E_j`$ are the energies of the proto-jets $`i`$ and $`j`$, and $`\theta _{ij}`$ the angle between them. The pair $`i`$, $`j`$ with the minimum $`k_{Tij}`$ is combined to form a new proto-jet by adding the four-momenta $`p_i`$ and $`p_j`$. The iterative clustering procedure is ended when exactly two final state jets and the proton remnant jet remain.

In order to select a sample of dijet events we define the variable $`y_2`$:

$$y_2=\frac{\underset{i,j,ij}{\mathrm{min}}k_{Tij}^2}{W^2},$$
(1)
where $`i,j`$ may be any of the two final state jets or the remnant jet, and $`W`$ is the invariant mass of all objects entering the jet algorithm, including the missing-momentum vector. It is ensured that the jets are well contained within the liquid argon calorimeter by requiring that, for both non-remnant jets, $`10^{}<\theta _{\text{jet}}<140^{}`$.

We study the following observables: $`y_2`$ as defined above; the polar angles of the forward and the backward (non-remnant) jets in the laboratory frame $`\theta _{\text{fwd}}`$ and $`\theta _{\text{bwd}}`$; the dimensionless variables $`x_p`$ and $`z_p`$; and the average transverse energy of the two final state (non-remnant) jets in the Breit frame $`\overline{E}_{T\mathrm{Breit}}`$. In order to calculate $`\overline{E}_{T\mathrm{Breit}}`$, the jets found in the laboratory frame are boosted into the Breit frame111The Breit frame is related to the hadronic centre-of-mass frame by a longitudinal boost. In both frames, the total transverse momentum of the hadronic final state is zero whereas in the laboratory frame it is constrained to balance the scattered lepton’s transverse momentum.. We calculate $`z_p`$ and $`x_p`$ according to

$$z_p\frac{\mathrm{min}_{i=1,2}E_i(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _i)}{_{i=1,2}E_i(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _i)}\mathrm{and}x_p\frac{Q^2}{Q^2+m_{12}^2},$$

where $`E_i`$ and $`\theta _i`$ are the energies and polar angles of the two (non-remnant) jets, and $`m_{12}`$ is the invariant dijet mass. Matrix elements for dijet production are frequently expressed using these variables . In leading order QCD, the cross section diverges for $`z_p0`$ and $`x_p1`$ due to collinear and infrared singularities.

In the QCD models and the NLO calculations, jets are defined by applying the above algorithm to the four-momenta of hadrons or partons. In particular, the requirement that the polar angle be greater than $`7^{}`$ is always applied.

### 2.3 Data correction and systematic uncertainties

The procedures used for data correction and the determination of the systematic uncertainties are similar to those described in . The measured jet distributions are corrected for the effects of the limited detector acceptance and resolution, and for the effects of QED radiation. This is done using bin-by-bin correction factors determined with the QCD Monte Carlo models ARIADNE  and LEPTO , both of which are incorporated in DJANGO . The average of the measured jet distributions corrected with ARIADNE or LEPTO is taken as the final result. As a cross check, some distributions are also corrected using a regularized unfolding technique  (for a brief description see ). The two correction methods lead to very similar results.

The dominant systematic errors are due to the model dependence of the corrections and the uncertainty of the electromagnetic and hadronic energy scales of the calorimeters. The errors are added in quadrature to yield the total systematic error. The model uncertainty is taken to be the difference between the averaged correction factors and those determined with a single model, and is of the order of $`5\%`$. The uncertainty of the electromagnetic energy scale of the liquid argon calorimeter ranges from $`\pm 0.7\%`$ to $`\pm 3\%`$, depending on the scattered positron’s impact position. The changes in the measured dijet distributions resulting from the variation of this scale within its uncertainty lead to a systematic error of less than $`1\%`$. The hadronic energy scale of the liquid argon calorimeter is varied by $`\pm 4\%`$, which leads to an average uncertainty of $`4\%`$ in the dijet measurements.

### 2.4 Perturbative QCD and model calculations

The perturbative QCD predictions presented in the following are calculated using the DISENT program . The agreement of DISENT with other NLO programs is discussed in . In the calculations, we use the CTEQ5M parton density functions , choose $`Q`$ as the renormalization and factorization scale if not otherwise stated and set the value of $`\alpha _s(M_Z)`$ to 0.1183. This gives a good description of the inclusive DIS cross section in the kinematic range of this analysis . Other choices of recent parton density parameterizations, for example those determined by the H1 collaboration in , are found to yield very similar NLO predictions. The size of the hadronization effects is determined using the QCD Monte Carlo models LEPTO and ARIADNE. Hadronization correction factors are obtained by dividing the jet distributions for hadrons by those determined from the partons after the parton shower or dipole cascade, respectively. The average of the hadronization corrections obtained from the two models is applied to the NLO calculations in the comparisons. The uncertainty of this procedure is conservatively estimated to be half the size of the correction. This is significantly larger than the difference between the corrections determined with ARIADNE and LEPTO.

Comparisons are also made with the QCD based Monte Carlo program RAPGAP. This models QCD radiation with initial and final state parton showers  combined with leading order QCD matrix elements . Hadronization is simulated using the Lund string model . We use the default model parameters222The cut-off parameter for the LO matrix element calculation PT2CU is set to 5 GeV2. and the CTEQ4L parton density functions .

## 3 Determination of minimum required jet separation

A direct way of determining the minimum jet separation necessary to ensure that NLO QCD describes the dijet production rate is to compare measurements of the jet separation itself with calculations. The measured $`y_2`$ distribution, normalized to the inclusive DIS cross section $`\sigma _{DIS}`$ in the region defined by $`Q^2>150`$GeV2, $`0.1<y<0.7`$ and $`\theta _e<150^{}`$, is shown with the results of various calculations in Figure 1 and listed in Table 1.

We observe that the NLO perturbative QCD calculations combined with hadronization corrections overestimate the measured cross section drastically in the region $`y_2<0.001`$, where jet separations are smallest. Here the difference between LO and NLO predictions is large. The renormalization scale dependence, estimated by varying $`\mu _R`$ in the range $`Q/2<\mu _R<2Q`$, and the hadronization corrections are also large. All three criteria suggest that fixed order perturbative QCD predictions are not reliable in the region $`y_2<0.001`$, and agreement of the calculations with the data cannot be expected. The situation is much improved at $`y_2>0.001`$, and a good description of the data is observed from $`y_20.001`$ up to the largest $`y_2`$ values, where jet structures are most distinct. (The deviation of NLO QCD in the highest $`y_2`$ bin can be explained by the exceptionally large parton density function dependence in this region of the dijet phase space.)

The $`y_2`$ distribution of Figure 1 is also compared to the QCD model RAPGAP, which describes the $`y_2`$ cross section over the full measured range. In particular, the region of very low $`y_2`$ is well described, which suggests that the combination of parton showers and Lund string hadronization used in RAPGAP accurately models multi-parton emissions.

## 4 Study of dijet sample

Motivated by the agreement of NLO perturbative QCD with the data at $`y_2>0.001`$ in Figure 1, we investigate this sample of dijet events in more detail. This sample contains about $`1/3`$ of the selected DIS events.

The dijet cross section $`d\sigma _2/d\overline{E}_{T\mathrm{Breit}}`$ in several ranges of $`Q^2`$ is shown in Figure 2 and listed in Table 2. The normalization is again to $`\sigma _{DIS}`$, the DIS cross section in the region defined by $`0.1<y<0.7`$, $`\theta _e<150^{}`$ and the indicated $`Q^2`$ range. For a sizable fraction of the events, $`\overline{E}_{T\mathrm{Breit}}`$ is smaller than $`5`$GeV and the mean value of $`\overline{E}_{T\mathrm{Breit}}`$ over the dijet sample is $`6`$GeV. The more restrictive dijet samples used in other QCD analyses typically require that one of the jets have $`E_{T\mathrm{Breit}}>7.5`$GeV or higher . We compare the measurements with perturbative QCD calculations in NLO for two choices of renormalization scale, $`\mu _R=Q`$ and $`\mu _R=\overline{E}_{T\mathrm{Breit}}`$.333For the choice $`\mu _R=\overline{E}_{T\mathrm{Breit}}`$, the cut $`\overline{E}_{T\mathrm{Breit}}>0.5`$ GeV is applied to improve the convergence of the DISENT calculations. This has a negligible effect in the selected dijet phase space. Perturbative QCD in NLO describes the $`\overline{E}_{T\mathrm{Breit}}`$ distributions well, including the region $`\overline{E}_{T\mathrm{Breit}}<5`$GeV. Although the numerical values of $`Q^2`$ and $`\overline{E}_{T\mathrm{Breit}}^2`$ are very different for most events, the difference between the NLO predictions for the different scales is small. RAPGAP also describes the $`\overline{E}_{T\mathrm{Breit}}`$ distributions well.

The measured distributions of the forward and backward jet polar angles, $`\theta _{\text{fwd}}`$ and $`\theta _{\text{bwd}}`$, are shown in Figure 3 (and Table 3) in five $`Q^2`$ ranges. The $`\theta _{\text{fwd}}`$ distributions increase strongly towards small angles and are less dependent on $`Q^2`$ than the $`\theta _{\text{bwd}}`$ distributions, as expected if the forward jets are largely due to initial state radiation off the constituents of the proton. The distributions are well described by NLO perturbative QCD and by the RAPGAP model. In particular at small jet polar angles and at relatively small $`Q^2`$, the LO calculations differ considerably from the NLO ones and are unable to describe the data. A prediction including only the phase space contribution, without the QCD matrix elements, results in relatively flat $`\theta _{\text{fwd}}`$ distributions and does not describe the data.

The $`\theta _{\text{bwd}}`$ distribution has its maximum at large polar angles in the kinematic region $`150<Q^2<275`$ GeV2. With increasing $`Q^2`$, the maximum shifts into the forward region of the detector. Again, this is as expected due to the increasing fraction of the proton’s momentum transferred to the hadronic final state as $`Q^2`$ grows. Perturbative QCD in NLO and the QCD model RAPGAP describe the distributions well, while the LO QCD predictions fail.

The $`x_p`$ and $`z_p`$ distributions are shown in Figure 4 and listed in Table 4. The $`z_p`$ distribution is well described by both NLO QCD and RAPGAP. The NLO calculations without hadronization corrections are also shown. They describe the data fairly well since the hadronization corrections are small. (Note that, by definition, the error band includes half of the hadronization corrections.) The $`x_p`$ distribution is also well described by NLO QCD. The NLO predictions including only the quark contribution ($`eqeqg`$) to the dijet cross section are shown separately. The proportion of the dijet cross section that is quark-induced is expected to be largest at large $`x_p`$ values, and varies from $``$ 30% at the lowest $`Q^2`$ range to nearly 100% at $`Q^2>\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ GeV2. This illustrates that our measurements are sensitive tests of both the gluon- and the quark-initiated NLO matrix elements.

## 5 Summary

We have investigated the minimum inter-jet separation necessary to ensure that next-to-leading order QCD calculations are able to accurately describe dijet production in deep-inelastic scattering. Using data in the kinematic range $`150<Q^2<\mathrm{35\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ GeV2, the required separation is found to be small, resulting in the selection of a dijet sample containing about $`1/3`$ of the DIS events, a significantly larger proportion than the approximately $`1/10`$ obtained with more typical jet selection criteria. Measurements of the distribution of variables sensitive to the dynamics of jet production are well described by NLO QCD calculations, for either choice of renormalization scale $`Q`$ or $`\overline{E}_{T\mathrm{Breit}}`$. This good description extends to unexpectedly small jet separations and covers regions in which both gluon and quark induced processes dominate.

Due to their precision and to the large phase space covered, the measurements also significantly constrain QCD Monte Carlo models. A good description of the data may be achieved by models which combine leading order QCD matrix elements with parton showers, as demonstrated here in the case of RAPGAP.

## Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to the HERA machine group whose outstanding efforts made this experiment possible. We acknowledge the support of the DESY technical staff. We appreciate the big effort of the engineers and technicians who constructed and maintain the detector. We thank the funding agencies for financial support of this experiment. We wish to thank the DESY directorate for the support and hospitality extended to the non-DESY members of the collaboration.


format: text

text:
# DESY 01–167 Low-lying fermion modes of 𝑁_f=2 improved Wilson fermionsTalk given by D. Pleiter at the Lattice Conference 2001, Berlin, Germany.

## 1 INTRODUCTION

For several reasons there is particular interest in the low-lying eigenmodes of the Dirac operator in QCD. From phenomenological models it is expected that for sufficiently light quark masses physics, e.g. hadron correlators, is dominated by these modes. Calculations on the lattice enable us to study the relevance of low-lying eigenmodes for various observables directly.

Furthermore, the eigenmodes of the Dirac operator carry information about the topological content of the background gauge field. The topological properties can also be probed using gluonic methods. These however typically suffer from large fluctuations on very short scales and therefore require some sort of smoothing procedures. Usually the quantities of interest are affected by the applied filtering method.

Results from fermionic methods on the other hand are expected to be sensitive to the effects caused by explicitly breaking chiral symmetry when using Wilson fermions. Although the symmetry is expected to be restored in the continuum limit, these effects are potentially large on coarse lattices. However, these can be reduced by applying Symanzik’s improvement program. Removing discretization effects of $`O(a)`$, where $`a`$ is the lattice spacing, is achieved by adding a single counterterm to the action. The improved Wilson-Dirac operator then reads:

$$M=1\kappa \left[H+\frac{i}{2}c_{\mathrm{SW}}F_{\mu \nu }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\right],$$
(1)
where $`H`$ is the hopping term of the usual Wilson fermion action.

For the calculations presented here we used O(20-50) dynamical configurations with $`N_\mathrm{f}=2`$ flavours of degenerate quarks for six different combinations of $`\beta `$ and $`\kappa ^{\mathrm{sea}}`$. We used lattices of size $`16^3\times 32`$ with a lattice spacing $`a`$ that varies between 0.104(1) and 0.095(1) fm (using the force scale $`r_0=0.5`$ fm). For the lightest and heaviest sea quarks the ratio $`m_{\mathrm{PS}}/m_\mathrm{V}`$ was 0.60 and 0.83, respectively. For comparison we performed the same calculations using quenched configurations at $`\beta =6.0`$ and $`a=0.093(1)`$ fm.

## 2 COMPUTING LOW-LYING EIGENVALUES

The Wilson-Dirac operator $`M`$ is a non-hermitian operator. The chirality $`\omega _i`$ of an eigenmode $`\lambda _i`$ can be calculated using the corresponding right eigenvector $`v_i`$:

$$\omega _i=\underset{t}{}\omega _i(t)=\underset{t}{}\underset{x}{}v_i^{}(x,t)\gamma _5v_i(x,t).$$
(2)
We can distinguish between two types of eigenmodes. Firstly, complex modes with non-vanishing imaginary part and $`\omega _i=0`$ and, secondly, real modes with vanishing imaginary part and $`\omega _i0`$.

In principle, it is possible to find the real modes by determining the zero modes of the hermitian operator $`\gamma _5M`$. If $`\lambda =1\kappa \sigma `$ is a real mode of $`M`$, then $`\gamma _5M`$ will have a zero mode for $`\kappa =1/\sigma `$. In practice it might however be difficult to detect several real modes which lie close to each other. We therefore decided to calculate the 70-100 smallest eigenvalues of the non-hermitian operator $`M`$ using the Arnoldi algorithm . Results for the massless Dirac operator

$$D=\frac{1}{2\kappa }M\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\kappa _\mathrm{c}}\frac{1}{\kappa }\right)$$
(3)
are plotted in Fig. 1.

## 3 REAL MODES

For dynamical fermions one would expect eigenmodes around zero to be suppressed. As can be seen from Fig. 1, this seems indeed to be the case. This effect is more pronounced if one looks at the density of the real modes (Fig. 2).

Real modes close to (or below) zero, which correspond to zero modes of $`\gamma _5M`$ at $`\kappa \kappa _\mathrm{c}`$, are believed to be the origin of so-called exceptional configurations, which are encountered frequently in the quenched approximation when approaching the chiral regime. Although these modes are expected to be suppressed for dynamical fermions, there is a non-zero probability for this kind of configurations to occur (see Fig. 2).

The correlation of the chirality $`c_i(r)=(1/V)_{x,t}\omega _i(x,t)\omega _i(x+r,t)`$ shown in Fig. 3 was found to be narrow, confirming the observations made in . Typically the chirality of small real modes is concentrated in a few time slices.

## 4 TOPOLOGICAL SUSCEPTIBILITY

The topological susceptibility normalised by the volume is defined by

$$\chi =\frac{Q_{\mathrm{top}}^2}{V}.$$
(4)
The topological charge $`Q_{\mathrm{top}}`$ can be obtained via the Atiyah-Singer index theorem, which is approximately true on the lattice. It establishes a relation between the difference in the number of real modes with negative ($`n^+`$) and positive ($`n^{}`$) chirality and the topological charge:

$$Q_{\mathrm{top}}=n^+n^{}$$
(5)
For a subset of configurations we compared the results for $`Q_{\mathrm{top}}`$ with those obtained from gluonic operators using the Boulder smoothing technique. The maximum difference found was $`\pm 2`$. For a more detailed comparison see .

The results for the topological susceptibility are plotted in Fig. 4. The discrepancy between the results from the fermionic method applied in this work and from the gluonic method used by Hart and Teper is likely to be explained by a lack of statistics. Another source of uncertainty arises from the fact that we only calculated the lowest 70-100 eigenvalues. Although the probability for real modes is expected to decrease when moving away from zero, it does not become zero. To check for this possible error, we looked at the topological susceptibility as a function of the largest real mode taken into account (see Fig. 5). For all data sets we found a reasonable plateau.

## 5 CONCLUSIONS

Comparing real modes of quenched and dynamical configurations we found evidence for an expected depopulation of the region around zero. The results for $`Q_{\mathrm{top}}`$ obtained by using the Atiya-Singer-theorem were in reasonable agreement with numbers obtained from gluonic methods. Our preliminary results for the topological susceptibility were found to be similar to other calculations using the same configurations but gluonic methods.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The numerical calculations were performed on the Hitachi SR8000 at LRZ (Munich), the Cray T3E at EPCC (Edinburgh) and ZIB (Berlin). We wish to thank all institutions for their support.


text:
# The formation of stars in clusters

## 1. Introduction

Massive stars form in the densest regions of the most massive molecular clouds and they do so in groups. To study massive star formation, therefore, requires that we learn about the processes by which stars form in clusters.

Much of what we have learnt about star formation, however, has come from studying nearby, isolated, low mass stars (e.g. Evans 1999). Protostellar evolution passes through four stages, Class 0 to III, that are defined on the basis of their observed spectral energy distribution and is physically related to the mass of the molecular envelope around the star (André, Ward-Thompson, & Barsony 2000). As a protostar grows through accretion while simultaneously dispersing the surrounding gas through outflows, the column density of the envelope around it decreases and the emergent spectral energy distribution shifts to shorter wavelengths from far-infrared (Class 0) to visible (Class III). The earliest stages are the shortest lived, with statistically based estimates of the lifetime of the Class 0 stage $`5\times 10^4`$ yr, and Class I $`10^5`$ yr compared to Class II and III lifetimes $`>10^6`$ yr (Mundy, Looney, & Welch 2000).

Just as the availability of infrared arrays facilitated the study of clusters of Class II sources in the 1990s (e.g., Lada 1992), so the arrival of millimeter and sub-millimeter wavelength bolometer arrays has made possible large scale studies of clusters at the earlier Class 0–I stages of protostellar evolution (e.g. Johnstone, this volume) We are now in a position to address questions about cluster formation and evolution with a level of detail that approaches the case of isolated star formation.

There are important differences between the formation of stars in clusters and in isolation. For instance, cluster forming clouds may initiate collapse through the dissipation of turbulent support (Nakano 1998) rather than the quasi-static gravitational contraction of a magnetically supported core (Shu, Adams, & Lizano 1987) and may form stars more efficiently (Lada 1992). Massive stars in particular, drastically alter their environment (e.g., Walborn, this volume) and may induce further star formation through cloud compression (Elmegreen & Lada 1977). On the other hand, they may also be the principal agents of cloud destruction (Williams & McKee 1997).

To learn about the processes by which clouds gather the material to form clusters and the effect of newly formed stars back on the cloud requires observations of the intra-cluster gas and dust. Here I discuss radio observations of two highly embedded, Class 0 and I protostellar groups and present a potential new method for following cluster evolution at these early stages.

## 2. Millimeter wavelength observations of NGC2264

NGC2264 lies in the northern region of Monoceros, 760 pc distant, and contains about 300 near-infrared and 30 IRAS sources. The former are mostly Class II protostars and the latter Class I. Using the Heinrich Hertz Telescope on Mt. Graham, AZ we observed dust continuum emission at $`870\mu `$m and $`J=32`$ lines of HCO+ and H13CO+ toward three protostellar groups in NGC2264 to search for redder, younger sources and to follow the motions of the gas around them. Details of the observing procedure and data analysis can be found in Williams & Garland (2001).

The location of the observations is shown in Figure 1. IRS1 is a bright, compact group centered on an early B star situated just north of the Cone nebula. IRS2 and IRS3 are less luminous IRAS dust condensations lying $`6^{}`$ and $`11^{}`$, respectively, to the north.

Figure 1: Digital sky survey and IRAS $`100\mu `$m images of the NGC2264 cluster forming region. Color selected IRAS and MSX point sources (stars and circles respectively) and the boundaries of the HHT $`870\mu `$m bolometer maps are overlaid on each image.

### 2.1. Structure

Thermal dust emission at $`870\mu `$m toward IRS1 and IRS2 is shown in Figure 2. IRS1 is the bright, compact source to the south. Its elongated shape shows signs of substructure; Ward-Thompson et al. (2000) resolve five distinct condensations with higher resolution IRAM and JCMT observations. IRS2 lies to the north and is more fragmented with several low intensity peaks, suggestive of a slightly more evolved cluster in which the individual protostars are beginning to shed their circumstellar envelopes and migrate away from their birthplace. IRS3 was not detected in a short integration and is only included here in speculative comments toward the end of the paper.

Figure 2: $`870\mu `$m continuum emission toward IRS1 and IRS2. Black contours are at 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 Jy beam-1, and white contours are at 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5 Jy beam-1. The boundary of the map is marked by the heavy solid line and the $`21^{\prime \prime }`$ beam size is indicated in the lower left corner.

The integrated fluxes, for flux densities greater than 0.5 Jy beam-1, of the two clusters are similar, 94 Jy for IRS1 and 84 Jy for IRS2 indicating that they have similar dust masses and make a good comparative study. This implies total (gas + dust) masses of $`790M_{}`$ (IRS1) and $`710M_{}`$ (IRS2) for the envelopes around each protostellar group, for a mass opacity $`\kappa =0.009`$ cm2 g-1 and dust temperature $`T_d=17`$ K, The projected area of each group, 0.45 pc2 for IRS1 and 0.62 pc2 for IRS2, implies average column and volume densities, $`N_{\mathrm{H}_2}=8\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2, $`n_{\mathrm{H}_2}=5\times 10^4`$ $`\mathrm{cm}^3`$ for IRS1 and $`N_{\mathrm{H}_2}=5\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2, $`n_{\mathrm{H}_2}=3\times 10^4`$ $`\mathrm{cm}^3`$ for IRS2.

The high column densities toward the protostars imply $`A_\mathrm{V}\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}50`$ and suggest they are indeed young (Class 0–I) objects. The average density of the envelopes traced by the continuum observations is similar to the critical density of HCO+. Further, integrated line maps show a similar morphology to the dust (Williams & Garland 2001) and we therefore use the line data to investigate the dynamics of the gas around the clusters and the protostars within. Each group is discussed separately: the $`29^{\prime \prime }0.1`$ pc resolution of the line data is too coarse to investigate the dynamics around the individual protostars in IRS1 and we focus on global properties for this group; in the larger IRS2 group, individual objects are resolved and the gas motions around each one are analyzed.

### 2.2. Dynamics

Both the optically thin H13CO+ and optically thick HCO+ $`J=32`$ lines were observed. The former allows us to analyze the systemic velocity, linewidth, and abundance in the clumps around each cluster and the latter provides information on relative motions, i.e. infall and outflow, in the gas. Because of the limited space, I can only discuss the infall motions here and refer the reader to Williams & Garland (2001) for the H13CO+ velocity and abundance analysis.

The HCO+ spectra generally show two peaks and a central dip at the mean velocity of H13CO+. Such self-absorbed profiles can be used to diagnose relative motions in the gas (e.g., Walker et al. 1986). Average spectra are shown toward IRS1 in Figure 3. The averages were computed over different regions of the clump corresponding to different $`870\mu `$m flux densities. This is similar to radial averaging but takes into account the non-circular shape of the clump. At low flux densities, corresponding to the outer regions, the average spectra are relatively weak and the optical depths are low. Nevertheless, the HCO+ spectra are clearly asymmetric and show the red-shifted self-absorption characteristic of collapse. At higher flux densities, toward the clump center, the line intensities and optical depths increase and the central self-absorption dip becomes more prominent. However, the spectra also become more symmetric with increasing flux density suggesting a decrease in the net inflow.

Determining the infall speed profile requires detailed modeling. We ran the 1-d radiative transfer code, RATRAN, of Hogerheijde & van der Tak (2000) and used the continuum and H13CO+ observations to fix the size, temperature, density profile, abundance, mean velocity and dispersion. Only the relative velocity profile and \[12C\]/\[13C\] isotope ratio remain as variables in the the modeled output HCO+ line profiles.

Model spectra are shown as dotted lines in Figure 3 and reproduces the qualitative features in the HCO+ spectra reasonably well given the tight constraints from the dust and H13CO+ observations. The model consists of a spherical shell at a radius $`r_{\mathrm{in}}=0.32`$ pc, with mass $`400M_{}`$, infalling at speed $`v_{\mathrm{in}}=0.3`$ $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ onto an expanding inner layer moving outwards at $`v_{\mathrm{exp}}=1.0`$ $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The abundance of HCO+ was constant and equal to $`1.5\times 10^9`$ relative to H2, similar to values in other OB star forming regions (Bergin 1997). The inferred mass infall rate onto the cluster is,

$$\dot{M}_{\mathrm{in}}=M_{\mathrm{in}}v_{\mathrm{in}}/r_{\mathrm{in}}=4\times 10^4M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1.$$

This is one to two orders of magnitude greater than infall rates onto solar and intermediate mass protostars Zhou (1995) as expected for a global infall onto a group of such objects and is similar to the value expected for a gravitational flow, $`\dot{M}=\sigma ^3/G`$, where $`\sigma =1.0`$ $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ is the average velocity dispersion of the core and $`G`$ is the gravitational constant (Shu 1977).

Figure 3: Global properties in IRS1. The left panel shows the continuum emission smoothed to the $`29^{\prime \prime }`$ resolution of the line data. Contours are at 1,2,3,4,5 Jy beam-1, and spectra averaged within each contour interval are shown on the right hand side (HCO+ in light, H13CO+ in dark and multiplied by 3 for clarity). At low flux densities/large radii, the HCO+ optical depth is low and the self-absorption effect is small but a clear asymmetry can be seen indicating collapse. At high flux densities/small radii, the self-absorption dip is strong but the spectra are more symmetric indicating a smaller net infall rate. Model fits, as described in the text, are shown as dotted lines.

The expanding inner region is likely due to the protostellar outflows in the region, one of which appears to be directed along our line of sight (Schreyer et al. 1997). Shu et al. (1987) hypothesize that (low mass) stars self-determine their final mass through the removal of a collapsing envelope by their outflows. By comparing clusters in different evolutionary states and examining the gas flows around them, it will be possible to see if such a process is relevant in a clustered, massive star forming, environment, and therefore assess its role in the origin of the stellar IMF (Adams & Fatuzzo 1996).

The average HCO+ spectra toward the IRS2 cluster also shows red-shifted self-absorption and model fits imply a similar infall speed and mass infall rate (Williams & Garland 2001). However, the cluster is more widely dispersed and its more irregular appearance precludes a similar radial average study as in IRS1. On the other hand, the greater separation of the protostars allows an investigation of the flows around each one individually. Spectra toward each of six identified cores are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Spectra toward individual protostars in IRS2. The central panel shows the continuum emission smoothed to the spectral line resolution of $`29^{\prime \prime }`$. Contours begin at and are in steps of 0.2 Jy beam-1. Six distinct peaks of emission are labeled a-f and spectra (light: HCO+; dark: H13CO+, multiplied by 3 for clarity) toward each one are shown in the panels on either side.

Core c shows the clearest infall signature with a deep, red-shifted, absorption dip. A model fit using the RATRAN code implies an infall speed $`v_{\mathrm{in}}=0.3`$ $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, and mass infall rate $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{in}}=2\times 10^5M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. The speed is the same as the collapse onto the entire cluster but $`\dot{M}`$ is a factor of 3 less than the total mass infall rate divided by the number of protostars: apparently not all the material falling onto the cluster makes it all the way to the scale of protostars. This is similar to the case in IRS1 but here we witness the effect on a star-by-star basis as in core d which has a reversed (outflow) spectrum.

The six cores have a dispersion $`\sigma _{\mathrm{c}\mathrm{c}}=0.90`$ $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and extend over an area with an equivalent circular radius $`r=0.44`$ pc. Together, these imply a virial mass, $`M_{\mathrm{virial}}=3r\sigma _{\mathrm{c}\mathrm{c}}^2/G=250M_{}`$. This is less than the total interstellar mass estimated from the continuum observations but is likely much greater than the final stellar mass of the system (Lada et al. 1993). Thus, although the system is currently bound, as the surrounding gas is dispersed through, e.g., stellar outflows, it is likely to become unbound (Hills 1980).

An unbound cluster expands and its age may be estimated from its size and expansion rate. This effect is seen in optically visible clusters in Orion over a range of ages $`312`$ Myr (Blaauw 1991). The morphology of the two groups in Figure 2 hint that this process may begin even in the protostellar stage: the relatively low column densities toward IRS2 suggest that it is more evolved than IRS1 and offer a natural explanation for its greater size. Working backwards from its size and velocity dispersion implies a kinematic age, $`t=r/\sigma _{\mathrm{c}\mathrm{c}}=5\times 10^5`$ yr, characteristic of late Class I sources. Given the continued infall onto the cluster and the large envelope mass, it is not clear if the cluster is actually expanding and whether this simple age estimate is a useful measure at these early stages in a cluster’s formation. However, it offers the following simple, testable, picture of cluster evolution.

## 3. A possible scenario for cluster evolution

Do clusters evolve from a compact state such as IRS1 to a more extended state such as IRS2 as the circumcluster (and circumstellar) envelope is dispersed? Additional observations of other embedded stellar groups in NGC2264 and other regions will show if there is a consistent pattern between cluster age (as judged by the SEDs of the cluster and protostars within) and morphology. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the widely separated group of MSX sources in IRS3 (see Figure 1) was not detected at $`870\mu `$m to the same noise level (0.1 Jy beam-1) as IRS1 and 2. Thus we might imagine the cartoon model of cluster evolution in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Schematic model of cluster evolution. This simple toy model consists of a group of stars expanding at a constant velocity embedded in individual protostellar envelopes and surrounded by a circumcluster envelope that spreads out linearly with time. The left panel represents a stellar group at early (Class 0) times: protostars are closely spaced and deeply embedded within a common, compact envelope. As the cluster evolves, the envelope begins to disperse and the (Class I) protostars migrate away from each other although there is still substantial circumcluster emission. At later stages, in the rightmost panel, the circumcluster gas has mostly dispersed, and the stars are widely separated, surrounded only by relatively low mass (Class II) protostellar envelopes.

Observations of the early, bright, compact phase of cluster evolution is well suited to interferometry. In later stages, large scale mapping with sub-millimeter bolometer arrays are necessary to image the more extended groups and targeted radio observations to detect remnants of low mass cores around more evolved sources (Saito et al. 2001) can provide essential kinematic information to determine the gravitational stability of a group and estimate its age.

Studies of young clusters are essential for understanding the way in which most, and particularly massive, stars form. The above cartoon model best applies to the accretion model of massive star formation (Maeder; McKee, this volume) but the agglomeration model (Bonnell, this volume) requires an earlier stage, lasting for $`10^5`$ yr, consisting of a large group of low mass protostars that first contracts before creating massive stars. Searches for such protoclusters provide a test of the competing theories.

The Heinrich Hertz Telescope is operated by the Submillimeter Telescope Observatory on behalf of Steward Observatory and the Max-Planck-Institut fuer Radioastronomie. I thank Michiel Hogerheijde and Floris van der Tak for their advice in the use of the RATRAN program.

## References

Adams, F. C., & Fatuzzo, M. 1996, ApJ, 464, 256

André, P., Ward-Thompson, D., & Barsony, M. 2000, in Protostars and Planets IV, eds. V. Mannings, A.P. Boss & S.S. Russell, 59

Bergin, E.A., Ungerechts, H., Goldsmith, P. F., Snell, R. L., Irvine, W. M., & Schloerb, F. P. 1997, ApJ, 482, 267

Blaauw, A. 1991, in The Physics of Star Formation and Early Stellar Evolution, eds. C.J. Lada & N.D. Kylafis, 125

Elmegreen, B.G., & Lada, C.J. 1977, ApJ, 214, 725

Evans, N.J. 1999, ARA&A, 37, 311

Hills, J.G. 1980, ApJ, 225, 986

Hogerheijde, M. R., & van der Tak, F. F. S. 2000, A&A, 362, 697

Lada, C. J., Young, E. T., & Greene, T. P. 1993, ApJ, 408, 471

Lada, E. A. 1992, ApJ, 393, L25

Mundy, L.G., Looney, L.W., & Welch, W.J. 2000, in Protostars and Planets IV, eds. V. Mannings, A.P. Boss & S.S. Russell, 355

Nakano, T. 1998, ApJ, 494, 587

Saito, M., Kawabe, R., Kitamura, Y., & Sunada, K. 2001, ApJ, 547, 840

Schreyer, K., Helmich, F. P., van Dishoeck, E. F., & Henning, Th. 1997, A&A, 326, 347

Shu, F. H. 1977, ApJ, 214, 488

Shu, F. H., Adams, F. C., and Lizano, S. 1987, ARA&A, 25, 23

Walker, C.K., Lada, C.J., Young, E.T., Maloney, P.R., & Wilking, B.A. 1986, ApJ, 309, L47

Ward-Thompson, D., Zylka, R., Mezger, P. G., & Sievers, A. W. 2000, A&A, 344, 1122

Williams, J. P., & McKee, C. F. 1997, ApJ, 476, 166

Williams, J. P., & Garland, C. A. 2001, ApJ, in press

Zhou, S. 1995, ApJ, 442, 685


text:
# Testing the Standard Model at the Fermilab Tevatron 1footnote 11footnote 1contribution to the proceedings of the Snowmass Workshop 2001

## I $`W`$ boson mass

The measurement of the $`W`$ boson mass from Tevatron Run 1 data achieved a precision of 68 MeVWmass . A variety of methods can be used to measure the $`W`$ boson mass with different tradeoffs between statistical and systematic uncertainties. These include fits of the transverse mass and lepton $`p_T`$ spectra to templates from Monte Carlo simulations. Most systematics, such as the detector calibration and the recoil model, are driven by the number of $`Z`$ boson decays observedFNAL\_QCDWZ . Measurements of the charge asymmetry in $`W\mathrm{}\nu `$ decays will help constrain the parton distribution functions. New QED calculations will reduce theoretical uncertainties. In the ratio method, developed by DØD0\_Wmass\_ratio , the $`Z`$ boson data are rescaled to fit the $`W`$ boson data. This reduces most experimental and some theoretical uncertainties at the cost of statistical sensitivity. In all cases, systematic uncertainties are expected to dominate. Since the main systematics differ, these methods can be used to check the results for consistency at the 10 MeV level.

Table 1 shows the expected precision of the $`W`$ mass measurement from the transverse mass fit, extrapolated from the Run 1b measurement by DØD0\_Wmass\_1B\_PRD . The calorimeter scale and linearity assume constraints from $`Z`$ data only, not the $`J/\psi `$ and $`\pi ^0`$ data used in Run 1. By about 30 fb-1, the determination of the energy resolution will be systematically limited by the uncertainty in the width of the $`Z`$ boson. The uncertainty due to electron removal was conservatively assumed to decrease only by half. Table 1 also shows an extrapolation of the uncertainty for the ratio method from Run 1 results by DØ. The systematic uncertainty for this method is smaller than for the transverse mass fit and it may well be the best for high integrated luminosities. We conclude that the $`W`$ boson mass will be measured at the end of Run 2 to a precision of 15 MeV, perhaps even 10 MeV, combining the results from both experiments, using several methods and the $`We\nu `$ and $`W\mu \nu `$ channels.

## II Top quark mass

In Run 1, the top quark mass was measured to $`5`$ GeVCDF\_topmass ; D0\_topmass\_lj\_PRD . For Run 2, $`t\overline{t}`$ data samples will be large enough to allow a double $`b`$-tag. For 15 fb-1, per experiment 3200 double-tagged single-lepton and 1200 untagged dilepton events are expected.

The main systematic uncertainty for the top quark mass measurement is the jet energy scale. Using Run 1 methods, this uncertainy cannot be reduced below a couple of GeV. However, both experiments plan to use $`p\overline{p}Zb\overline{b}`$ events, which will help set the energy scale to a precision of about half a GeVHeintz\_Zbb . In addition, the hadronically decaying $`W`$ in single-lepton $`t\overline{t}`$ events provides an independent calibration pointSnowmass96\_top .

The next most important systematic uncertainty is modeling of gluon radiation in the initial or final state of $`t\overline{t}`$ events. In Run 1, this uncertainty was estimated mainly by comparing predictions of different event generators. In Run 2, the modeling of jet activity in top quark events can be constrained better by comparing double-tagged events with simulations. We estimate this uncertainty to be about 1 GeV, and expect it to decrease only slightly with increasing integrated luminosity. Other systematics will scale inversely with the square root of the integrated luminosity.

We extrapolate the uncertainty on the top mass based on Run 1 DØ results in the single-lepton channelD0\_topmass\_lj\_PRD  in Table 2. We take the higher cross section at $`\sqrt{s}=2`$ TeV in account and we assume double $`b`$-tagging with an efficiency per $`b`$-jet of 65%. Double $`b`$-tagging will essentially eliminate the uncertainty due to $`W`$+jets background. The uncertainty in the dilepton channelD0\_topmass\_ll\_PRD  is also extrapolated in Table 2. No $`b`$-tagging is assumed here. For each channel and each experiment, a precision of abut 1.2 GeV is projected. By combining both channels and experiments an overall precision close to 1 GeV should be achievable.

## III Forward-Backward Asymmetry

The forward-backward asymmetry $`A_{FB}`$ in the process $`u\overline{u}+d\overline{d}Z\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, measured near the $`Z`$ pole, gives a value of the weak mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w`$. CDF published $`A_{FB}=0.070\pm 0.015(\text{stat})\pm 0.004(\text{syst})`$ based on data from Run 1CDF\_ZAFB\_1B . The statistical uncertainty scales to 0.0016 for 10 fb-1 and to 0.0009 for 30 fb-1. The most important systematic uncertainty arises from the parton distribution functions. These can be constrained by the charge asymmetry in $`W`$ decays. A theoretical uncertainty arises from the limited rapidity coverage and the $`p_T`$ distribution of the $`Z`$. Both the rapidity and $`p_T`$ distribution of the $`Z`$ will be measured and this uncertainty will be reduced. It is expected that the statistical uncertainty will dominate all systematicsFNAL\_QCDWZ .

Combining the electron and muon channels from both experiments leads to a projection for the precision of the $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w`$ measurement of 0.00028 for 10 fb-1 and 0.00016 for 30 fb-1FNAL\_QCDWZ , comparable to the current world averagePDG . This should clarify the 3.5$`\sigma `$ discrepancy between $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w`$ from $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ measured at SLDSLD\_ALR  and $`A_{FB}^{0,b}`$, measured at LEPLEPEWWG .

## IV Constraints on the Higgs boson mass

A significant uncertainty in inferring constraints on the Higgs boson mass from precision electroweak measurements arises from $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{had}^{(5)}\left(M_Z^2\right)`$, the contribution of light quarks to the running of $`\alpha _{EM}`$. Its calculation employs $`R^{had}(s)=\sigma (e^+e^{}\text{hadrons})/\sigma (e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ from low energy data. The LEP electroweak working group uses a data-driven valueBurkhardt  and also considers a more theory-guided valueMartin . BES has recently improved the precision of $`R^{had}(s)`$ to 7% for $`2<\sqrt{s}<5`$ GeVBES\_R . There are plans to measure $`R^{had}(s)`$ more precisely at CLEO-cGibbons\_CLEO-c  in the next six years. We assume that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{had}^{(5)}\left(M_Z^2\right)`$ will be known to $`10^4`$, a value already achieved in a recent theory-driven determinationYndurian .

To estimate the effect of the improvements in the measurements described so far, we take the current central values and shrink the uncertainties to 20 MeV for the $`W`$ mass, 1 GeV for the top mass, and $`10^4`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{had}^{(5)}\left(M_Z^2\right)`$. We are not using the $`A_{FB}`$ measurement here, since we do not understand the systematics well enough. We then repeat the global electroweak fit. Figure 1 shows the resulting $`\chi ^2`$ as a function of the Higgs boson mass compared to the results from the global fit with the winter 2001 valuesLEPEWWG .

If there is no observation of the Higgs boson in Run 2, the Tevatron can exclude standard model Higgs boson masses below about 185 GeV at the 95% confidence levelFNAL\_SUSYHiggs . Putting the tight indirect constraints together with the direct lower limit on the Higgs boson mass could severely challenge the standard model. The degree of inconsistency between these data will depend on how much the central values shift. To maximize the potential of the Tevatron to push this test of the standard model, a goal of 30 fb-1 of integrated luminosity for Run 2 would be crucial.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was in part supported by the U.S. Department of Energy. U. Heintz is an A. P. Sloan Fellow and a Cottrell Scholar of Research Corporation.


text:
# Quasi-classical ∂̄-method: Generating equations for dispersionless integrable hierarchies

## 1 Introduction

Dispersionless integrable equations and corresponding hierarchies have attracted a considerable interest during the last two decades. Their study is of great importance since dispersionless integrable hierarchies constitute an essential part of the general theory of integrable systems (see e.g. -) and they arise in the analysis of many problems in physics, mathematics and applied mathematics (see e.g. -).

Recently it was shown that dispersionless integrable hierarchies are amenable to the quasi-classical $`\overline{}`$-dressing method .This approach provides us with a simple and elegant method of constructing and solving dispersionless integrable hierarchies. Moreover, it establishes a connection between these hierarchies and the theory of quasi-conformal mappings on the plane .

In the present paper we use the quasi-classical $`\overline{}`$-dressing method in order to derive compact generating equations for dispersionless integrable hierarchies. These equations, in particular, imply the existence of $`\tau `$-functions and, in a very simple way, provide us with the corresponding dispersionless addition formulae (Hirota equations). The dispersionless KP (dKP) and 2DTL (d2DTL) hierarchies are considered as illustrative examples of the general approach.

## 2 Quasi-classical $`\overline{}`$-method

The quasi-classical $`\overline{}`$-dressing method proposed in  is based on the quasi-classical $`\overline{}`$-problem

$$S_{\overline{z}}=W(z,\overline{z},S_z),$$
(2.1)
where $`z`$, bar means complex conjugation,

$$S_z=\frac{S(z,\overline{z})}{z}$$

and $`W`$ (quasi-classical $`\overline{}`$-data) is an analytic function of $`S_z`$. We are looking for solutions of equation (2.1) in the form

$$S=S_0+\stackrel{~}{S},$$

where $`S_{0}^{}{}_{\overline{z}}{}^{}=0`$ for $`zG`$ ($`G`$ is certain domain in $``$) and $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{\overline{z}}=0`$ for $`zG`$. Parameterizing a function $`S_0`$ which is analytic in $`G`$ by certain (infinite) set of parameters (times), i.e., $`S_0=S_0(z;t_1,t_2,\mathrm{})`$, one thus has solutions of equation (2.1) depending on these parameters: $`S=S(z,\overline{z};t_1,t_2,\mathrm{})`$. A standard way to describe such a dependence is provided by partial differential equations for $`S`$ with $`t_1,t_2,\mathrm{}`$ as independent variables.

To derive these equations, one notices that equation (2.1) implies that

$$\left(\frac{S}{t_i}\right)_{\overline{z}}=W^{}(z,\overline{z};S_z)\left(\frac{S}{t_i}\right)_z,i=1,2,3,\mathrm{},$$
(2.2)
where

$$W^{}(z,\overline{z};\xi )=\frac{W(z,\overline{z};\xi )}{\xi }.$$

The Beltrami equation on the plane

$$f_{\overline{z}}=\mu f_z$$

has a number of remarkable properties (see e.g. ). Two of them are crucial for the quasi-classical $`\overline{}`$-method. They are:
1. if $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ are solutions of the Beltrami equation then $`F(f_1,f_2)`$ where $`F`$ is an arbitrary differentiable function is a solution too;
2. if $`f`$ is the solution of the Beltrami equation which is bounded in $``$ and $`f0`$ as $`zz_0`$ ($`z_0\mathrm{}`$), then (under certain mild conditions) $`f=0`$.

These two properties imply that, first, $`F(\frac{S}{t_1},\frac{S}{t_2},\mathrm{})`$, where $`F`$ is an arbitrary differentiable function, obeys the Beltrami equation $`F_{\overline{z}}=\mu F_z`$ and second, if $`F`$ is bounded as a function of $`z`$ and $`F0`$ as $`zz_0`$, then $`F0`$. Thus such functions provide us with equations

$$F_i(\frac{S}{t_1},\frac{S}{t_2},\mathrm{})=0,i=1,2,\mathrm{}$$
(2.3)
These equations are our desired differential equations for dispersionless hierarchies. The form of equations (2.3) is completely determined by the choice of the domain $`G`$ and parameterization of $`S_0(z;t_1,t_2,\mathrm{})`$.

Thus, the quasi-classical $`\overline{}`$-dressing method consists basically in rather elementary operations of complex analysis applied to equation (2.1).

## 3 dKP hierarchy

In the paper  the quasi-classical $`\overline{}`$-dressing method has been used to derive dKP, dmKP and d2DTL hierarchies in their usual formulations. Here we present the derivation of generating equations which encode different forms of dispersionless hierarchies, and thus play a central role in their theory.

We begin with the dKP hierarchy. In this case the domain $`G`$ is the unit disk ($`|z|1`$), $`W=0`$ for $`|z|>1`$, and $`S_0=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}z^nt_n`$ . We also require $`\stackrel{~}{S}\stackrel{~}{S}_1z^1+\stackrel{~}{S}_2z^2+\mathrm{}`$ as $`z\mathrm{}`$. The quantity $`p=\frac{S}{t_1}`$ is a basic homeomorphism  and

$$p=z+\frac{1}{z}\frac{\stackrel{~}{S}_1}{t_1}+\mathrm{}$$

as $`z\mathrm{}`$. Let us introduce the well-known operator

$$D(z)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n}\frac{1}{z^n}\frac{}{t_n}.$$

In virtue of the properties of equation (2.1) and Beltrami equation (2.2) the function $`D(z_1)S(z)`$ ($`z`$, $`z_1G`$) and consequently $`\mathrm{exp}(D(z_1)S(z))`$ obey equation (2.2). Since $`D(z_1)S_0(z)=\mathrm{log}(1\frac{z}{z_1})`$, one has

$$\mathrm{exp}(D(z_1)S(z))=\left(1\frac{z}{z_1}\right)\mathrm{exp}(D(z_1)\stackrel{~}{S}(z)).$$
(3.1)
Thus, $`\mathrm{exp}(D(z_1)S(z))\frac{1}{z_1}z+O(1)`$ as $`z\mathrm{}`$. Using these properties of the functions $`p(z)`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(D(z_1)S(z))`$, one constructs an equation of the form (2.3). Namely,

$$p(z)+z_1\mathrm{exp}(D(z_1)S(z))(z_1+D(z_1)\stackrel{~}{S}_1)=0.$$
(3.2)
On the other hand, evaluating the l.h.s. of (3.2) at $`z=z_1`$ and using (3.1), one gets its equivalent form

$$p(z)p(z_1)+z_1\mathrm{exp}(D(z_1)S(z))=0,z,z_1G.$$
(3.3)
It is easy to check this equation directly. Indeed, the l.h.s. is a bounded solution of Beltrami equation (2.2) having zero at $`z=z_1`$. Then the properties of Beltrami equation imply that it is zero identically.

Equation (3.3) occupies the central place in the theory of dKP hierarchy. This fact has been already understood in .However, we would like to emphasize that in equation (3.3) $`z`$ is an arbitrary point in $``$, while the corresponding equation in  is valid for $`zG`$ only. The fact that $`z`$ in equation (3.3) will be essential in some of further constructions.

An immediate consequence of equation (3.3) together with (3.1) is that for $`z,z_1G`$

$$D(z_1)\stackrel{~}{S}(z,𝐭)=D(z)\stackrel{~}{S}(z_1,𝐭).$$

So, there exists a function $`F(𝐭)`$ such that

$$\stackrel{~}{S}(z,𝐭)=D(z)F(𝐭),zG.$$

Thus, one has (see also )

$$p(z_1)p(z_2)=(z_1z_2)\mathrm{exp}(D(z_1)D(z_2)F),z_1,z_2G.$$
(3.4)
Considering equation (3.4) for pairs of parameters $`(z_1,z_2)`$, $`(z_2,z_3)`$, $`(z_3,z_1)`$ and summing them up, one gets

$`(z_1z_2)e^{D(z_1)D(z_2)F}+(z_2z_3)e^{D(z_2)D(z_3)F}+(z_3z_1)e^{D(z_3)D(z_1)F}`$
$`=0,`$ (3.5)
$`z_1,z_2,z_3G,`$
that is the dispersionless Fay identity . Thus $`F=\mathrm{log}\tau _{\mathrm{dKP}}`$, where $`\tau _{\mathrm{dKP}}`$ is the $`\tau `$-function of the dKP hierarchy .

Equation (3.3) generates the hierarchy of Hamilton-Jacobi type equations for the dKP hierarchy. Indeed, rewriting (3.3) as

$$\frac{S(z)}{t_1}\frac{S(z_1)}{t_1}+z_1e^{D(z_1)S(z)}=0,$$
(3.6)
and expanding its l.h.s. as $`z_1\mathrm{}`$, one gets the equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{S}_1(t)}{t_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{S(z)}{t_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S(z)}{t_1}}\right)^2=0,`$ (3.7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{S}_2(t)}{t_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{S(z)}{t_3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{S(z)}{t_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{S(z)}{t_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S(z)}{t_1}}\right)^3=0`$
and so on, that represents one of the equivalent forms of the known Hamilton-Jacobi type equations for dKP hierarchy.

Equation (3.3) allows us to derive an equation which generates the hierarchy of equations for $`S(z,\overline{z};𝐭)`$ only. In fact, acting by $`D(z_k)`$ on equation (3.2) (with substitution $`z_1z_i`$), one gets

$`D(z_k)p(z)D(z_k)D(z_i)\stackrel{~}{S}_1+z_iD(z_k)e^{D(z_k)S(z)}=0,`$ (3.8)
$`z,z_i,z_kG.`$
Taking equation (3.8) with all possible pairs $`z_i,z_k`$ ($`i,k=1,2,3`$) and summing up, one obtains the equation

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}}ϵ_{ijk}z_iD(z_k)\left(e^{D(z_i)S(z,\overline{z};𝐭)}\right)=0,`$ (3.9)
$`z,z_1,z_2,z_3G,`$
where $`ϵ_{ijk}`$ is the totally antisymmetric tensor (with $`ϵ_{123}=1`$) and summation is performed over all $`i,j,k1,2,3`$. Considering equation (3.9) for $`z_1,z_2,z_3\mathrm{}`$ and collecting the terms of different orders in $`z_1^1,z_2^1`$ and $`z_3^1`$, one gets an infinite hierarchy of differential equations for $`S(z,\overline{z};𝐭)`$. In the lowest nontrivial order ($`z_3^1z_1^2,z_3^1z_2^2,\mathrm{}`$) one has

$$\frac{^2S(z,\overline{z};𝐭)}{t_1t_3}\frac{3}{4}\frac{^2S}{t_2^2}\frac{3}{2}\frac{^2S}{t_1^2}\left(\frac{S}{t_2}\left(\frac{S}{t_1}\right)^2\right)=0,$$
(3.10)
which, of course, is also a consequence of equations (3.7).

Further, expanding the l.h.s. of (3.9) in the Taylor series in $`z^1`$ as $`z\mathrm{}`$, one gets (in the order $`z^1`$)

$$\underset{i,j,k}{}ϵ_{ijk}z_iD(z_k)\left(z_iD(z_i)\stackrel{~}{S}_1+\frac{1}{2}\left(D(z_i)\stackrel{~}{S}_1\right)^2\right)=0.$$
(3.11)
This equation is the generating equation of the whole dKP hierarchy (for $`u(𝐭)=2\frac{\stackrel{~}{S}_1}{t_1}`$). it is a simple check that the expansion of (3.11) at $`z_1,z_2,z_3\mathrm{}`$ gives rise to the dKP equation

$$u_{t_1t_3}=\frac{3}{2}(uu_{t_1})_{t_1}+\frac{3}{4}u_{t_2t_2}$$

and higher equations.

Thus, equation (3.9) is one of the fundamental equations for the dKP hierarchy. Note that since $`S(z,\overline{z};𝐭)`$ defines a quasi-conformal mapping of the domain $`G`$ , equation (3.9) is also the central equation for the integrable deformations of quasi-conformal mappings.

Finally, we present one more equation associated with the dKP hierarchy. Using (3.3), one gets

$`e^{D(z_1)(S(z_2)S(z))}+e^{D(z_2)(S(z_1)S(z))}=1,`$ (3.12)
$`z,z_1,z_2G.`$
Consequently,

$`e^{D(z_i)(S_j(𝐭)S_k(𝐭))}+e^{D(z_j)(S_i(𝐭)S_k(𝐭))}=1,`$ (3.13)
where $`i,j,k1,2,3`$, $`ijk1`$, $`S_i(𝐭)=S(z_i,\overline{z}_i;𝐭)`$, $`z_1,z_2,z_3G`$. This system of three equations for three functions $`S_1(𝐭),S_2(𝐭),S_3(𝐭)`$ can be considered as a dispersionless version of the Darboux system.

## 4 2DTL hierarchy

For the dispersionless 2DTL hierarchy the domain $`G`$ is an annulus $`a<|z|<b`$, where $`a,b`$ ($`a,b`$, $`a,b>0`$; $`b>a`$) are arbitrary. To set the quasi-classical $`\overline{}`$-problem (2.1) correctly, in general we do not need to require analyticity of the function $`S_0`$ in $`G`$, it is enough to have analyticity of its derivative $`S_{0}^{}{}_{z}{}^{}`$. A generic function $`S_0`$ with $`S_{0}^{}{}_{z}{}^{}`$ analytic in $`G`$ can be represented as

$$S_0=t\mathrm{log}z+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}z^nx_n+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}z^ny_n,$$

where $`t,x_n,y_n`$ are free parameters . We assume that $`\stackrel{~}{S}(z)_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{S_n}{z^n}`$ as $`z\mathrm{}`$ and denote $`\stackrel{~}{S}(0)=\varphi `$, $`G_+=\{z,|z|>b\}`$, $`G_{}=\{z,|z|<a\}`$. The functions $`p_+=\frac{S}{x_1}`$ and $`p_{}=\frac{S}{y_1}`$ have pole singularities while $`p=\frac{S}{t}`$ has a logarithmic singularity. The functions $`\mathrm{exp}(D_+(z_1)S(z))`$, $`\mathrm{exp}(D_{}(z_2)S(z))`$, $`\mathrm{exp}(DS(z))`$, where $`z`$, $`z_1G_+`$, $`z_2G_{}`$ and

$$D_+(z)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n}\frac{1}{z^n}\frac{}{x_n},D_{}(z)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n}z^n\frac{}{y_n},D=\frac{}{t},$$

are solutions of the Beltrami equation and have pole singularities too.

Using these functions, one gets the following equations

$`p_+(z)p_+(z_1)+z_1e^{D_+(z_1)S(z)}=0,z,z_1G_+,`$ (4.1)
$`p_{}(z)p_{}(z_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_2}}e^{D_{}(z_2)(\varphi S(z))}=0,z,z_2G_{},`$ (4.2)
$`p_+(z)=e^{p(z)D\stackrel{~}{S}_1},z,`$ (4.3)
$`p_{}(z)=e^{D\varphi p(z)},z,`$ (4.4)
Equation (4.1) coincides with (3.3) and gives rise to the dKP hierarchy in variables $`x_n`$. In particular, one has

$$\stackrel{~}{S}(z_1)=D_+(z_1)F_+,z_1G_+$$

as well as the corresponding dKP addition formula and generating equations.

Equation (4.2) encodes the dmKP hierarchy. It implies that

$$\stackrel{~}{S}(z_2)=\varphi D_{}(z_2)F_{},z_2G_{},$$

the function $`F_{}`$ obeys the dmKP addition formula which coincides with (3.5) under the substitution $`FF_{}`$, $`DD_{}`$ and $`zz^1`$. It is a simple exercise to derive the corresponding generating equations.

The formulae (4.3) and (4.4) allow us to connect these two pieces into the d2DTL hierarchy. Using (4.3), one rewrites (4.4) as

$$e^{DS(z)}e^{DS(z_1)}+z_1e^{D_+(z_1)S(z)}=0,z,z_1G_+,$$
(4.5)
while using the relation $`p_{}(z_2)=z_2^1\mathrm{exp}(D_{}(z_2)\varphi )`$ and (4.4), one transforms (4.2) into

$$e^{DS(z)}\left(1e^{D_{}(z_2)S(z)}\right)=z_2e^{(DD_{}(z_2))\varphi },z,z_2G_{}.$$
(4.6)
Evaluating the l.h.s. of equation (4.5) at $`z=0`$, one gets

$$\mathrm{exp}(DS(z_1))=z_1\mathrm{exp}(D_+(z_1)\varphi ).$$

It implies that $`\varphi =DF_+`$. On the other hand, evaluation of relation (4.6) around $`z_2=0`$ gives

$$\frac{S(z)}{y_1}\mathrm{exp}(DS(z))=\mathrm{exp}(D\varphi ).$$

Expanding the l.h.s. of this relation around $`z=0`$, one gets

$$\frac{^2F_{}}{y_1t}=\frac{\varphi }{y_1}=\frac{^2F_+}{y_1t}$$

and so on. Thus, $`F_+=F_{}=F`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{S}(z_1)=D_+(z_1)F`$ $`(z_1G_+)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{S}(z_2)=D\varphi D_{}(z_2)F`$ $`(z_2G_{})`$, one obtains from (4.5) and (4.6) the following known addition formulae (dispersionless Hirota equations) for the d2DTL hierarchy (see ):

$`\stackrel{~}{z}_1e^{DD_+(\stackrel{~}{z}_1)F}z_1e^{DD_+(z_1)F}+(z_1\stackrel{~}{z}_1)e^{D_+(z_1)D_+(\stackrel{~}{z}_1)F}=0,`$ (4.7)
$`z_1,\stackrel{~}{z}_1G_+,`$
$`1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{z_2}{z_1}}1\right)e^{D_{}(z_2)D_+(z_1)F}{\displaystyle \frac{z_2}{z_1}}e^{(D_+(z_1)+DD_{}(z_2))DF}=0,`$ (4.8)
$`z_1G_+,z_2G_{}`$
plus the dKP addition formula (3.5). Note that evaluating the l.h.s. of equation (4.5) as $`z\mathrm{}`$, one also gets

$$\frac{^2F}{x_1y_1}=1e^{D^2F}.$$
(4.9)
Equations (4.5) and (4.6) are also the generating equations for the hierarchy of the Hamilton-Jacobi type equations. Indeed, expansion of the l.h.s. of equation (4.5) for $`z_1\mathrm{}`$ gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S(z)}{x_1}}e^{\frac{S}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{S}_1}{t}}=0,`$ (4.10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{x_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{x_1}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{S}_2}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{S}_1}{t}}\right)^2=0`$
and so on, while the expansion of the equations around $`z_2=0`$ provides us with the equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{y_1}}e^{\frac{\varphi }{t}\frac{S}{t}}=0,`$ (4.11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{y_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{y_1}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{y_1}}e^{\frac{\varphi }{t}\frac{S}{t}}=0`$
plus higher equations which are equivalent to those found in .

Now let us derive generating equations for $`S(z,\overline{z};t,𝐱,𝐲)`$ and $`\varphi (t,𝐱,𝐲)`$. First, equation (4.5) implies

$$D_+(z_1)\varphi =\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{1}{z_1}e^{DS(z)}+e^{D_+(z_1)S(z)}\right),z_1G_+,z,$$
(4.12)
while from (4.6) one obtains

$$(DD_{}(z_2))\varphi =\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{1}{z_2}e^{DS(z)}\frac{1}{z_2}e^{(DD_{}(z_2))S(z)}\right),z_2G_{},z.$$
(4.13)
Eliminating $`\varphi `$ from these equations, one gets

$`(DD_{}(z_2))\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_1}}e^{DS(z)}+e^{D_+(z_1)S(z)}\right)`$
$`+D_+(z_1)\mathrm{log}\left(e^{DS(z)}e^{(DD_{}(z_2))S(z)}\right)=0,`$ (4.14)
where $`z`$, $`z_1G_+`$, $`z_2G_{}`$. Considering the limit $`z_1\mathrm{}`$, $`z_20`$, one obtains in the lowest order the equation

$$\frac{^2S}{x_1y_1}+\frac{S}{y_1}\frac{}{t}\left(e^{\frac{S}{t}}\right)=0,$$
(4.15)
which has been already found in . Higher terms in the expansion give rise to higher equations for $`S(z,\overline{z};t,𝐱,𝐲)`$.

To derive generating equations for $`\varphi `$ let us rewrite equation (4.8) as

$`D_{}(z_2)D_+(z_1)F=\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{z_1z_2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{z_2}{z_1}}e^{(D_+(z_1)+DD_{}(z_2))DF}\right)\right).`$
Applying $`D`$ to this equation and using the relation $`DF=\varphi `$, one gets

$`D_{}(z_2)D_+(z_1)\varphi =D\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{z_1z_2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{z_2}{z_1}}e^{(D_+(z_1)+DD_{}(z_2))\varphi }\right)\right),`$ (4.16)
$`z_1G_+,z_2G_{}.`$
An expansion of both sides of equation (4.16) as $`z_1\mathrm{}`$ and $`z_20`$ in the lowest nontrivial order ($`z_1^1,z_2`$)gives the d2DTL equation (see e.g. )

$$\frac{^2\varphi }{x_1y_1}+\frac{}{t}\left(e^{\frac{\varphi }{t}}\right)=0,$$
(4.17)
while considering higher order terms, one gets higher equations from the d2DTL hierarchy.

The generating equations (3.9) and (4.14) represent also the compact forms of integrable deformations of quasi-conformal mappings $`S(z,\overline{z};t,𝐱,𝐲)`$ of the unit disk and an annulus respectively. Note that one can derive the same formulae using the finite number of ‘logarithmic’ times $`\xi _i`$ defined by

$$S_0(z,\xi )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\xi _i\mathrm{log}(zz_i)$$

instead of infinite sets of times $`t_n`$ or $`x_n,y_n`$.

### Acknowledgments

This work has been done in the framework of the grant INTAS-99-1782. LVB was also supported in part by RFBR grants 01-01-00929 and 00-15-96007; BGK was supported in part by the grant COFIN 2000 ‘Sintesi’; LMA was supported in part by CICYT proyecto PB98-0821.

B.G.Konopelchenko is grateful to the organizers of the Programme ‘Integrable Systems’ held in the Isaac Newton Institute, Cambridge, UK for the support. L.Martinez Alonso wishes to thank the Fundacion Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria for its generous support during his stay at Cambridge University.


text:
# STRUCTURE OF VIRTUAL PHOTONS AT HERA 11footnote 1Talk given at PHOTON 2001 Conference, Ascona, Switzerland, September 2001

## 1 Dijet Production at HERA

The production of dijet events at HERA is dominated by processes, in which a virtual photon, radiated from the electron, interacts with a parton in the proton. In the region of photon virtuality $`Q^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Q}CD}^2`$, hard collisions of the photons do not necessitate the introduction of the concept of the resolved photon (as for the real photon) and the process can in principle be described by the direct photon contribution alone, in which the photon interacts as a whole with partons from the proton.

The analyses presented here explore the region $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Q}CD}^2Q^2`$ $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ $`E_t^2`$, where different theoretical approaches can be used to take into account higher order corrections.

a) LO direct and resolved interactions based on the DGLAP evolution equations and parton showers allows the effects of transversally and also longitudinally polarized resolved photon interactions to be studied . Since the cross section for longitudinal photons vanishes in the photoproduction regime due to gauge invariance, and the concept of a resolved photon breaks down for $`Q^2>E_t^2`$, the only evidence for this phenomena can be observed in the region $`0<Q^2E_t^2`$. The main difference between the longitudinal ($`\gamma _L^{}`$) and transverse ($`\gamma _T^{}`$) virtual photon arises from the dependence of the respective fluxes on $`y`$. While for $`y0`$, both transverse and longitudinal fluxes are approximately same, the longitudinal flux vanishes for $`y1`$. Also the dependence of the point-like (i.e. perturbatively calculable) part of the photon Parton Distribution Functions (PDF) on $`Q^2`$ and $`E_t^2`$ differs – while the $`\gamma _T^{}`$ PDF is proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}(E_t^2/Q^2)`$, the $`\gamma _L^{}`$ PDF depends on the scale in a typically hadron-like manner.

b) $`𝐤_t`$ unordered initial QCD cascades accompanying the hard process, employed for example in BFKL or CCFM evolution, can lead to final states in which the partons with the largest $`k_t`$ may come from the cascade, and not, as in DGLAP evolution, from the hard subprocess. Such events may have a similar topology as is observed for the resolved interactions introduced in the previous paragraph. This possibility is investigated using the CASCADE generator  based on the CCFM evolution equation.

c) NLO calculations with and without the concept of the resolved virtual photon offer another natural possibility to be examined. Such comparisons are envisaged.

All of these three approaches include higher order corrections to the LO QCD matrix elements; however, each of the approaches treats them differently.

## 2 Measurement of Dijet Cross-Section

The selection criteria defining the H1 and ZEUS dijet samples are summarized in Table 1:

$`Q^2`$ denotes the photon virtuality, $`y`$ is the inelasticity, $`s`$ is the total electron-proton centre-of-mass energy, $`E_t^{\mathrm{jet}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},2}`$ and $`\eta ^{\mathrm{jet}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},2}`$ are the transverse energy and pseudorapidity of the jet with the highest or second highest $`E_t`$, and $`\overline{E_t}`$ is defined as $`(E_t^{\mathrm{jet}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}+E_t^{\mathrm{jet}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})/2`$.

The measured data are corrected for detector effects using a bin-to-bin method (ZEUS) or Bayesian unfolding (H1). The largest source of systematic errors arises from the main calorimeter calibration uncertainty and, in the case of H1, also from a model dependence of the detector correction. The ZEUS measurement was presented in more detail at the EPS 2001 .

## 3 Results and Discussion

The corrected triple-differential dijet cross-section measured by ZEUS as a function of $`Q^2`$ , $`\overline{E}_t^2`$ and $`x_\gamma `$ is shown in Fig. 1. A prediction of HERWIG with the SaS1D parameterization of the $`\gamma _T^{}`$ PDF, as well as the direct contribution of HERWIG is compared to the data. Since the overall normalization of the LO Monte Carlo simulation is to some extent uncertain, the HERWIG prediction has been normalized to the highest $`x_\gamma `$ bin $`(x_\gamma >0.75)`$ in the data. The normalization is done separately for each $`(Q^2,\overline{E}_t^2)`$ bin.

In the region where $`Q^2>\overline{E}_t^2`$, the data are well described by the direct HERWIG component only. Resolved interactions are needed if $`Q^2<\overline{E}_t^2`$. However, even with the $`\gamma _T^{}`$ resolved processes included, HERWIG tends to underestimate the data in the lowest $`Q^2`$ region for $`x_\gamma <0.75`$.

This fact is also demonstrated in Fig. 2 by the ratio of $`\sigma (x_\gamma <0.75)/\sigma (x_\gamma >0.75)`$. The slope of this distribution can be interpreted as a suppression of the virtual photon structure with increasing photon virtuality.

The corrected triple-differential dijet cross-section measured at H1 as a function of $`Q^2`$ , $`\overline{E}_t^2`$ and $`x_\gamma `$ is shown in Fig. 3. The H1 measurement is performed in a different phase space (see Table 1) and Monte Carlo predictions are not normalized to the data.

A comparison of the H1 measurement with HERWIG leads to similar conclusions as drawn above for ZEUS. In addition, we can see that for the highest $`Q^2`$ range ($`25<Q^2<80\mathrm{GeV}^2`$) and $`x_\gamma <0.75`$, the HERWIG direct contribution almost describes the data in the lowest $`\overline{E}_t^2`$ bin, but is too low in the highest $`\overline{E}_t^2`$ bin. This indicates an importance of the resolved processes even at high $`Q^2`$ , once the hard scale, $`\overline{E}_t^2`$ , is high enough.

Standard HERWIG with direct and $`\gamma _T^{}`$ resolved contributions underestimates the data. The description is improved by adding $`\gamma _L^{}`$ resolved photon interactions, which is done using a slightly modified HERWIG with the correct longitudinal photon flux and a recent $`\gamma _L^{}`$ PDF parameterization . As demonstrated in Fig. 3, the $`\gamma _L^{}`$ resolved contribution is significant, and brings HERWIG closer to the measurement.

On the other hand, a simple enhancement of the PDF of the $`\gamma _T^{}`$ in the resolved contribution could lead to a similar prediction as the introduction of $`\gamma _L^{}`$. To eliminate this ambiguity, the dijet cross-section has also been studied as a function of $`Q^2`$ , $`x_\gamma `$ and $`y`$, which is shown in Fig. 4. HERWIG is below the data, even if the resolved $`\gamma _L^{}`$ is added. This may be due to the uncertainty of the overall normalization of the LO Monte Carlo prediction. In the region where $`x_\gamma <0.75`$, the slope of the HERWIG prediction depends significantly on whether $`\gamma _L^{}`$ processes are included or not. The $`\gamma _L^{}`$ contributes significantly at low $`y`$, while it becomes very small compared to $`\gamma _T^{}`$ at high $`y`$. Unlike a pure enhancement of $`\gamma _T^{}`$ resolved processes by a constant factor, the addition of $`\gamma _L^{}`$ brings the $`y`$ dependence of HERWIG much closer to the measurement.

As motivated in Section 1, the measured cross-sections in Fig. 3 are also compared to a prediction of the CASCADE MC program based on the CCFM evolution approach. This theoretical concept does not involve any information about the virtual photon structure and involves many fewer free parameters for tuning than the usual DGLAP-like MC programs. Nevertheless, CASCADE describes the data well, except for the $`Q^2`$ dependence. The $`Q^2`$ behavior, however, is related to the parameterization of the unintegrated PDFs used in the program, which are not yet constrained unambiguously.

## 4 Conclusions

The dijet cross-sections measured as a function of $`Q^2`$ , $`\overline{E}_t^2`$ , $`x_\gamma `$ and $`Q^2`$ , $`x_\gamma `$ , $`y`$ at H1 and ZEUS have been presented.

In the DGLAP evolution scheme, the importance of the $`\gamma _T^{}`$ resolved photon interactions is clearly demonstrated in the region where $`\overline{E}_t^2>Q^2`$. Additional $`\gamma _L^{}`$ resolved photon contributions further improve the agreement of the HERWIG 5.9 prediction with the measurement.

Exploring the CCFM approach, the MC program CASCADE 1.0 gives a qualitative description of the measured differential cross-sections; however, the $`Q^2`$ dependence is not reproduced. On the other hand, the $`x_\gamma `$ dependence in CASCADE is comparable to the sum of the direct and resolved contributions in DGLAP-like MC programs.