text:
# Nuclear Effects on Heavy Boson Production at RHIC and LHC

## I Introduction

With the commissioning of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), nuclear collision physics entered the collider era. New phenomena have been presented in $`Au+Au`$ collisions at the center-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 130 GeV/nucleon. Negative hadron multiplicities are significantly increased compared to proton-antiproton collisions. Some of the data, such as the antiproton-to-proton ratios, are reported to contradict perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics (pQCD) calculations. Initial efforts to understand hadron spectra from nuclear reactions at RHIC using pQCD have been published recently. However, there is still a strong debate on how to apply pQCD to hadron production even in proton-proton ($`pp`$) collisions. With RHIC running at the full energy, and experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at several TeV/nucleon soon to follow, “clean” processes, where pQCD works well in $`pp`$ collisions, are needed to test pQCD in nuclear reactions at collider energies. It is particularly important to distinguish between expected nuclear effects and “new physics”.

The production of $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z^0`$ bosons has been extensively studied at Tevatron energy ($`\sqrt{s}=1.8`$ TeV). Perturbative QCD proved to be very successful in explaining the CDF and D0 data. Due to the large mass of $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z^0`$, and no final state rescattering in their production process, power corrections are expected to be small. Therefore, $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z^0`$ production could provide a bench mark test for pQCD at RHIC and LHC in both $`pp`$ and nuclear collisions. Luminosity remains a concern at RHIC, in particular in $`pp`$ collisions.

The bulk of the data for $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z^0`$ production is concentrated in the small transverse momentum ($`p_T`$) region, where $`p_T`$ is much smaller than the corresponding heavy boson mass ($`M`$). When $`p_TM`$, the $`p_T`$ distributions calculated order-by-order in $`\alpha _s`$ in conventional fixed-order perturbation theory receive a large logarithm, $`\mathrm{ln}(M^2/p_T^2)`$, at every power of $`\alpha _s`$, even in the leading order in $`\alpha _s`$. Therefore, at sufficiently small $`p_T`$, the convergence of the conventional perturbative expansion in powers of $`\alpha _s`$ is impaired, and the logarithms must be resummed.

Resummation of the large logarithms in QCD can be carried out either in $`p_T`$-space directly, or in the so-called “impact parameter”, $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$-space, which is a Fourier conjugate of the $`p_T`$-space. (Since we are also interested in nuclear collisions, we reserve the notation $`b`$ for the usual impact parameter associated with the geometry of colliding heavy nuclei, and denote the mathematical tool used in the resummation procedure by the symbol $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$.) Using the renormalization group equation technique, Collins and Soper improved the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$-space resummation to resum all logarithms as singular as, $`\mathrm{ln}^m(M^2/p_T^2)/p_T^2`$, as $`p_T0`$ . In the frame work of this renormalization group improved $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$-space resummation, Collins, Soper, and Sterman (CSS) derived a formalism for the transverse momentum distribution of vector boson production in hadronic collisions. In the CSS formalism, non-perturbative input is needed for the large $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ region. The dependence of the pQCD results on the non-perturbative input is not weak if the original extrapolation proposed by CSS is used. Recently, a new extrapolation scheme was proposed, based on solving the renormalization group equations, including power corrections. Using the new extrapolation formula, the dependence of the pQCD result on the non-perturbative input was significantly reduced. This was achieved without matching the fixed-order calculations. The results agree with the D0 nd CDF data very well in the entire $`p_T`$ interval from $`p_T1`$ GeV to $`p_T`$ as large as the the vector mass. In addition, in this new extrapolation formalism, power corrections can be studied systematically for $`pp`$ to proton-nucleus ($`pA`$) to nucleus-nucleus ($`AB`$) collisions.

Factorization plays a key role in pQCD predictions of observables. At RHIC and LHC, nuclear collisions reach an unprecedented energy scale. Factorization can not be extrapolated easily to $`AB`$ collisions from hadron-hadron collisions, and power corrections may become important . There are two types of power corrections: (1) Power corrections directly to the physical observables (type-I) and (2) power corrections to the evolution of renormalization group equations (type-II). Type-I power correction are proportional to powers of $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}/Q)`$, Q being the physical large scale (momentum). These are small for $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z^0`$ production as a result of the large mass of the particles in question. Type-II power corrections are proportional to powers of $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}/\mu )`$, with evolution scale $`\mu `$. Therefore, physical observables carry the effect of type-II power corrections for all $`\mu [Q_0,Q]`$, with the boundary condition at the scale $`Q_0`$. Even with large mass, $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z^0`$ can still carry a large effect of type-II power corrections. However, Ref.  provides a way to study the effect of type-II power corrections numerically. Based on the numerical results presented in Ref. , the effect of type-II power corrections is also expected to be small for heavy vector boson production in $`pp`$ collisions. In nuclear collisions, type-II power corrections will be enhanced by the nuclear size. Here we study the effects of enhanced power correction in $`pA`$ and $`AB`$ collisions.

The rapidity distribution of $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z^0`$ bosons at LHC was calculated recently and the effect of shadowing was discussed in this context. The decay spectrum of $`Z^0`$ was suggested as an alternative reference process for $`J/\psi `$ suppression at LHC, since the Drell-Yan lepton pairs at low mass are expected to be dominated by $`b\overline{b}`$ decay. As most of the $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z^0`$ bosons observed in the experiment will be in the small transverse momentum region, it is of great interest to study the nuclear effects on massive gauge boson transverse momentum distributions. These effects include both the nuclear modification of the parton distribution function (shadowing), and the initial state power corrections. The second part of the present paper is devoted to these subjects.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we review the CSS $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$-space resummation formalism and the new procedure to extrapolate the pQCD calculation to the large $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ region is outlined. We give predictions for $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z^0`$ transverse momentum distributions from $`pp`$ collision at both RHIC and LHC energies. The sensitivity of the prediction to the non-perturbative parameters is discussed. Nuclear effects on $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z^0`$ transverse momentum distributions in $`pA`$ and $`AB`$ collisions are studied in Sections III and IV. In Section V, we present our conclusions. To make the paper reasonably self-contained, the Appendix summarizes relevant details of the CSS formalism. We use $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$ units.

## II Transverse momentum distribution of heavy vector bosons in proton-proton collisions

In this Section, we briefly review the CSS $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$-space resummation formalism (Section II A). In Section II B we introduce the recently-proposed new formalism to extrapolate the perturbative calculation to the large $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ region, and discuss the transverse momentum distribution of heavy vector bosons in $`pp`$ collisions at RHIC and LHC energies.

### A  Collins-Soper-Sterman (CSS) formalism

In the production of heavy vector bosons (of mass $`M`$), when $`p_TM`$, the $`p_T`$ distribution calculated order-by-order in $`\alpha _s`$ in conventional fixed-order perturbation theory receives a large logarithm, $`\mathrm{ln}(M^2/p_T^2)`$, at every power of $`\alpha _s`$. Even at the leading order in $`\alpha _s`$, the cross section $`d\sigma /dM^2dydp_T^2`$ contains a term proportional to $`(\alpha _s/p_T^2)\mathrm{ln}(M^2/p_T^2)`$ coming from the partonic subprocess $`q+\overline{q}V+g`$, where $`V=\gamma ^{},W^\pm `$ or $`Z^0`$. Beyond the leading order, we actually get two powers of the logarithm for every power of $`\alpha _s`$, due to soft and collinear gluons emitted by the incoming partons. Therefore, at sufficiently small $`p_T`$, the convergence of the conventional perturbative expansion in powers of $`\alpha _s`$ is impaired, and the logarithms must be resummed.

For vector boson production in hadronic collisions between hadrons $`h_A`$ and $`h_B`$, $`h_A+h_BV(M)+X`$ with $`V=\gamma ^{},W^\pm `$, or $`Z^0`$, the CSS resummation formalism yields the following generic form :

$$\frac{d\sigma (h_A+h_BV+X)}{dM^2dydp_T^2}=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}d^2\stackrel{~}{b}e^{i\stackrel{}{p}_T\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{b}}}\stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{b},M,x_A,x_B)+Y(p_T,M,x_A,x_B),$$
(1)
where $`x_A=e^yM/\sqrt{s}`$ and $`x_B=e^yM/\sqrt{s}`$, with rapidity $`y`$ and collision energy $`\sqrt{s}`$. In Eq. (1), the $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ term dominates the $`p_T`$ distributions when $`p_TM`$, and the $`Y`$ term gives corrections that are negligible for small $`p_T`$, but become important when $`p_TM`$. In the CSS formalism, the function $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ appears as a superposition,

$$\stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{b},M,x_A,x_B)=\underset{ij}{}\stackrel{~}{W}_{ij}(\stackrel{~}{b},M,x_A,x_B)\sigma _{ijV}(M),$$
(2)
where $`\sigma _{ijV}(M)`$ is the lowest order cross section for a quark-antiquark pair of invariant mass $`M`$ to annihilate into a vector boson $`V`$, and the $`_{ij}`$ runs over all possible quark and antiquark flavors that can annihilate into the vector boson at the Born level. In Eq. (2), $`\stackrel{~}{W}_{ij}(\stackrel{~}{b},M,x_A,x_B)`$ is an effective flux to have partons of flavor $`i`$ and $`j`$ from the respective hadrons $`h_A`$ and $`h_B`$, and it has the form

$$\stackrel{~}{W}_{ij}(\stackrel{~}{b},M,x_A,x_B)=\mathrm{e}^{S(\stackrel{~}{b},M)}\stackrel{~}{w}_{ij}(\stackrel{~}{b},c/\stackrel{~}{b},x_A,x_B),$$
(3)
where $`S(\stackrel{~}{b},M)`$ is given in the Appendix, and $`c`$ is a constant of order unity. The functions $`\stackrel{~}{w}_{ij}(\stackrel{~}{b},c/\stackrel{~}{b},x_A,x_B)`$ in Eq. (3) depend on only one momentum scale, $`1/\stackrel{~}{b}`$, and are perturbatively calculable as long as $`1/\stackrel{~}{b}`$ is large enough. All large logarithms from $`\mathrm{ln}(1/\stackrel{~}{b}^2)`$ to $`\mathrm{ln}(M^2)`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{W}_{ij}(\stackrel{~}{b},M,x_A,x_B)`$ are completely resummed into the exponential factor $`\mathrm{exp}[S(\stackrel{~}{b},M)]`$.

Since the perturbatively resummed $`\stackrel{~}{W}_{ij}(\stackrel{~}{b},M,x_A,x_B)`$ in Eq. (3) is only reliable for the small $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ region, an extrapolation to the large $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ region is necessary in order to complete the Fourier transform in Eq. (1). This is the point where the dependence of the result on the nonperturbative parameters enters into the formalism, possibly limiting the predicative power of pQCD , especially for small $`p_T`$. We will next discuss this in detail.

### B Improved extrapolation formula with power corrections

The CSS formalism in its original form introduces a modification to the output of the perturbative calculation (see Appendix, Eq. (34)). The size of the modification depends on the non-perturbative input parameters, and can be as large as 50% of the perturbative result. Therefore the predictive power of the CSS formalism was questioned and new efforts have been devoted to resum the large logarithms directly in $`p_T`$ space .

In oder to improve the predictive power of the CSS $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$-space resummation formalism, the following new form was proposed by solving the renormalization group equation including power corrections:

$$\stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{b},M,x_A,x_B)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{b},M,x_A,x_B)\hfill & \stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}_{max}\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{b}_{max},M,x_A,x_B)F^{NP}(\stackrel{~}{b},M,x_A,x_B;\stackrel{~}{b}_{max},\alpha )\hfill & \stackrel{~}{b}>\stackrel{~}{b}_{max}\hfill \end{array},$$
(4)
where the nonperturbative function $`F^{NP}`$ in Eq. (4) is given by

$`F^{NP}(\stackrel{~}{b},M,x_A,x_B;\stackrel{~}{b}_{max},\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\{\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^2\stackrel{~}{b}_{max}^2}{c^2}}\right)[g_1((\stackrel{~}{b}^2)^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{b}_{max}^2)^\alpha )+g_2(\stackrel{~}{b}^2\stackrel{~}{b}_{max}^2)]`$ (5)
$`\overline{g}_2(\stackrel{~}{b}^2\stackrel{~}{b}_{max}^2)\}.`$ (6)
In Eq. (4) $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{max}`$ is a parameter to separate the perturbatively calculated part from the non-perturbative input. Unlike in the original CSS formalism, when $`\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}_{max}`$, the perturbatively calculated $`\stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{b},M,x_A,x_B)`$ is not altered and is independent of the nonperturbative parameters. In addition, the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$-dependence in Eq. (6) is separated according to different physics origins. The $`(\stackrel{~}{b}^2)^\alpha `$-dependence mimics the summation of the perturbatively calculable leading power contributions to the kernels $`K`$ and $`G`$ in Eq.s (14) and (15) of the Appendix, respectively, to all orders in the running coupling constant $`\alpha _s(\mu )`$ with the scale $`\mu `$ running into the nonperturbative region . The $`\stackrel{~}{b}^2`$-dependence of the $`g_2`$ term is a direct consequence of dynamical power corrections to the renormalization group equations of the kernels $`K`$ and $`G`$, and has an explicit dependence on $`M`$. The $`\overline{g}_2`$ term represents the effect of the non-vanishing intrinsic parton transverse momentum. As we discuss later, these two terms behave differently in nuclear collisions.

A remarkable feature of the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$-space resummation formalism is that the resummed exponential factor $`\mathrm{exp}[S(\stackrel{~}{b},M)]`$ (see Eq. (3)) suppresses the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$-integral when $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ is larger than $`1/M`$. Therefore, when $`M\mu _0`$, (where $`\mu _01/\stackrel{~}{b}_{max}`$ represents the scale at which pQCD starts to be applicable), it is possible that the Fourier transform in Eq. (1) is dominated by a region of $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ much smaller than $`1/\mu _0`$, and the calculated $`p_T`$ distributions are insensitive to the nonperturbative information at large $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$. In fact, it was shown using the saddle point method that, for a large enough $`M`$, a QCD perturbation calculation is valid even at $`p_T=0`$. As discussed in Ref. , the value of the saddle point strongly depends on the collision energy $`\sqrt{s}`$, in addition to its well-known $`M^2`$ dependence. Because of the steep evolution of parton distributions at small $`x`$, the $`\sqrt{s}`$ dependence of the $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ in Eq. (1) significantly decreases the value of the saddle point and improves the predictive power of the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$-space resummation formalism at collider energies.

To display the saddle point clearly, let us rewrite the first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (1), taking into account that there is no preferred transverse direction and that $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ in Eq. (1) is a function of $`\stackrel{~}{b}=|\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{b}}|`$ only:

$$\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}d^2\stackrel{~}{b}e^{i\stackrel{}{p}_T\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{b}}}\stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{b},M,x_A,x_B)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}J_0(p_T\stackrel{~}{b})\stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{b},M,x_A,x_B),$$
(7)
where $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ contains the exponential factor $`\mathrm{exp}[S(\stackrel{~}{b},M)]`$, and $`J_0(z)`$ with $`z=p_T\stackrel{~}{b}`$ represents the Bessel function of order zero. When $`p_T>0`$, the Bessel function suppresses the large $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ region of the integration. Because the argument of the Bessel function is proportional to $`p_T`$, the large $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ region is more suppressed if $`p_T`$ is larger. In the following, we focus on the saddle point at $`p_T=0`$. Fig. 1 is a graph (on an arbitrary scale) of the integrand of the right hand side of Eq. (7) with $`p_T=0`$ for the case of $`Z^0`$ production at the collision energies where we intend to carry out our calculations: $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 350 GeV (dotted line), $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 500 GeV (short dashes), and at $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 5.5 TeV (solid). The position of the saddle point decreases as the collision energy increases. We will show that the predictive power of the formalism is very good at RHIC. As a consequence of the behavior of the saddle point position, we expect excellent precision at $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 5.5 TeV. At the LHC $`pp`$ energy of $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 14 TeV, the saddle point moves to even smaller values of $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$, improving the accuracy of the calculation even further.

The parameters $`g_1`$ and $`\alpha `$ of Eq. (6) are fixed by the requirement of continuity of the function $`\stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{b})`$ and its derivative at $`\stackrel{~}{b}=\stackrel{~}{b}_{max}`$. (The results are insensitive to changes of $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{max}`$ in the interval 0.3 GeV$`{}_{}{}^{1}\stackrel{~}{b}_{max}`$ 0.7 GeV-1. We use $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{max}=`$ 0.5 GeV-1 in Ref.  and here.) The value of $`g_2`$ and $`\overline{g}_2`$ can be obtained by fitting the low-energy Drell-Yan data, and are taken to be $`\overline{g}_20.27`$ GeV2, and $`g_20.01`$ GeV2 following Ref.s  and . As the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ dependence of the $`g_2`$ and $`\overline{g}_2`$ terms in Eq. (6) is identical, it is convenient to combine these terms and define

$$G_2=\mathrm{ln}(\frac{M^2\stackrel{~}{b}_{max}^2}{c^2})g_2+\overline{g}_2.$$
(8)
Using the values of the parameters listed above, we get $`G_20.4`$ GeV2 for $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z^0`$ production in $`pp`$ collisions. The parameter $`G_2`$ can be considered the only free parameter in the non-perturbative input in Eq. (6), arising from the power corrections in the renormalization group equation. Our results are not sensitive to small variations of $`G_2`$ around its estimated value. We use $`G_2=0.4`$ GeV2 in the following. An impression about the importance of power corrections can be obtained by comparing results with $`G_2=0.4`$ GeV2 to those with power corrections turned off ($`G_2=0`$). We therefore define the ratio of these quantities:

$$R_{G_2}(p_T)\frac{d\sigma ^{(G_2)}(p_T)}{dp_T}/\frac{d\sigma (p_T)}{dp_T}.$$
(9)
The cross sections in the above equation and in the results presented in this paper have been integrated over rapidity and invariant mass squared from Eq. (1). For the integration over $`dM^2`$, we use the “narrow width approximation”. With respect to rapidity, we integrate over the interval $`[1,1]`$ for RHIC, and over \[-2.4,2.4\] for LHC, representing the central acceptances of the appropriate detectors. For the parton distribution functions, we use the CTEQ5M set in the present work.

The following figures display differential cross sections and the corresponding $`R_{G_2}`$ ratios for $`Z^0`$ and $`W^\pm `$ production as functions of $`p_T`$, in order of increasing energy. (In what follows, by $`W^\pm `$ production cross section we mean the cross section for $`W^++W^{}`$.) In Fig. 2(a) we show the differential cross section for $`Z^0`$ production in $`pp`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV, where a RHIC $`pp`$ run is expected. The accompanying Fig. 2(b) displays $`R_{G_2}`$ of Eq. (9). It can be seen that the $`R_{G_2}`$ ratio converges to unity (i.e. very small power corrections) with increasing $`p_T`$, and the effect of power corrections is about five percent for $`p_T=0`$. However, when $`p_T>2`$ GeV, the deviation of $`R_{G_2}`$ from unity is under two percent. A very similar conclusion can be drawn from Fig. 3, concerning $`W^\pm `$ production in $`pp`$ collisions at the same energy: the dependence on the nonperturbative input is weak even at the lowest transverse momenta.

Fig.-s 4 and 5 contain similar information for $`Z^0`$ and $`W^\pm `$ production in $`pp`$ collisions at the planned LHC nucleus-nucleus collision energy of $`\sqrt{s}=5.5`$ TeV, while the cross section and $`R_{G_2}`$ are given for the LHC $`pp`$ energy of $`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV in Fig.-s 6 and 7. At all energies, the magnitude of the $`W^\pm `$ production cross section is about 3 to 5 times that of the $`Z^0`$ production cross section. Otherwise, the results for $`Z^0`$ and $`W^\pm `$ production are very similar, because the saddle points are almost at the same place in $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ space in the two cases. As it has been pointed out in Ref, the position of the saddle point is determined by two terms: the first term is inversely proportional to the mass of the vector boson, and the second term is proportional to the derivative of the parton distribution function with respect to the scale at $`x_A`$ or $`x_B`$. At the collider energies considered here, the second term is negative. While $`M_W`$ is a little smaller than $`M_Z`$, and thus the first term is larger for $`W^\pm `$ than for $`Z^0`$, the contribution from the second term will effect the saddle point for $`W^\pm `$ more than that of the $`Z^0`$ with a small $`x_A`$ and $`x_B`$.

As expected from Fig. 1, the dependence on the nonperturbative input decreases with increasing collision energy. The $`R_{G_2}`$ ratio is smaller than one percent at LHC for both $`\sqrt{s}=5.5`$ TeV and $`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV, even when $`p_T=0`$. These results confirm that the predictive power of the formalism is very good at RHIC and excellent at LHC. They also show that the effect of power corrections is very small at LHC for almost the whole $`p_T`$ region and it is also negligible for RHIC when $`p_T`$ is larger than $`2`$ GeV.

## III Isospin and shadowing effects in nuclear collisions

In lack of nuclear effects on the hard collision, the production of heavy vector bosons in nucleus-nucleus ($`AB`$) collisions should scale, compared to the production in $`pp`$ collisions, as the number of hard collisions, $`AB`$. However, there are several nuclear effects on the hard collision in a heavy-ion reaction. We distinguish three categories of these effects: isospin effects, the modification of the parton distribution function in the nucleus, and the enhancement of power corrections by the nuclear size. In this Section we discuss the first two of these nuclear effects. Power corrections will be treated separately in the next Section.

As the parton distribution of neutrons is different from that of the protons, the production cross section of heavy vector bosons in proton-neutron and neutron-neutron interactions differs from the corresponding production cross section in $`pp`$ collisions. This difference is the source of the so-called isospin effects. To study the isospin effects, let us introduce

$$R_{iso}(p_T)\frac{d\sigma (p_T,Z_A/A,Z_B/B)}{dp_T}/\frac{d\sigma (p_T)}{dp_T},$$
(10)
where $`Z_A`$ and $`Z_B`$ are the atomic numbers and $`A`$ and $`B`$ are the mass numbers of the colliding nuclei, and the cross section $`d\sigma (p_T,Z_A/A,Z_B/B)/dp_T`$ has been averaged over $`AB`$, while $`d\sigma (p_T)/dp_T`$ is the $`pp`$ cross section (with $`G_2=0`$). Since the $`u\overline{u}`$ coupling in $`Z^0`$ production is replaced by $`u\overline{d}`$ coupling to produce $`W^\pm `$ bosons, we expect $`R_{iso}`$ to be complementary for $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z^0`$ production, i.e. if one of these ratios is larger than one, the other ratio should be smaller than unity.

Next we turn to the phenomenon of shadowing. We use the term shadowing in the general sense, referring to all modifications of the parton distribution function in the environment of the nucleus. This includes, in different regions of $`x`$, the phenomena of shadowing (in the strict sense), anti-shadowing, and the EMC effect. It is also important to note that we define shadowing effects as leading twist effects, not including power corrections. Thus, shadowing effects and power correction are clearly separated in the present work.

In general, shadowing is expected to be a function of $`x`$, the scale $`Q`$, and of the position in the nucleus. The latter dependence means that in heavy-ion collisions, shadowing should be impact parameter ($`b`$) dependent. The parameterizations of shadowing in the literature take into account some of these effects, but no complete parameterization exists to date to our knowledge. For example, the HIJING parameterization includes impact parameter dependence, but does not deal with the scale dependence. On the other hand, the EKS98 and HKM parameterizations have a scale dependence, but do not consider impact parameter dependence. (The latter parameterizations have been compared recently.) Since in this paper we concentrate on impact-parameter integrated results, where the effect of the $`b`$-dependence of shadowing is relatively unimportant, and we focus more attention on scale dependence, we find the EKS98 shadowing parameterization most appropriate for our present purposes. Therefore we use EKS98 shadowing in this work.

Similarly to Eq. (10) for isospin effects, we define a shadowing ratio,

$$R_{sh}(p_T)\frac{d\sigma ^{(sh)}(p_T,Z_A/A,Z_B/B)}{dp_T}/\frac{d\sigma (p_T)}{dp_T}.$$
(11)
Thus, $`R_{sh}`$ incorporates the effects of both shadowing and the isospin composition of the nuclei. Furthermore, in this Section we take $`G_2=0`$ throughout, switching off power corrections. The enhanced power corrections in $`pA`$ and $`AB`$ collisions will be discussed separately in the next Section.

Fig. 8 displays $`R_{iso}`$ (dashed lines) and $`R_{sh}`$ (full lines) as functions of $`p_T`$ for $`Z^0`$ production (Fig. 8(a)) and $`W^\pm `$ production (Fig. 8(b)), respectively, at $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 350 MeV. The same information is presented at $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 5.5 TeV in Fig. 9. We find that $`R_{iso}>1`$ for $`Z^0`$ production and $`R_{iso}<1`$ for $`W^\pm `$ production at both energies, complementing each other, as expected. How close $`R_{iso}`$ is to unity depends on the region of $`x`$ that has the dominant contribution to the cross section. At LHC, $`x0.02`$, and the magnitude of the isospin effects is about 2%. This is because when $`x`$ is in this range, the difference of the distributions of $`u(\overline{u})`$ and $`d(\overline{d})`$ quarks in the nucleus is very small. At RHIC, where the dominant $`x0.26`$, the isospin effects are about 20% in the small $`p_T`$ region. We have also checked that the scale dependence of isospin effects is not important. In Fig. 8, we also show a dotted line, which is the ratio of $`R_{sh}`$ to $`R_{iso}`$, and thus can be considered to display the effect of “pure shadowing”. Pure shadowing appears as an approximately constant reduction of 3-5% at $`x0.26`$.

The appearance of $`R_{sh}`$ (full lines) is more surprising at $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 5.5 TeV (Fig. 9). Since at LHC, even at $`p_T=90`$ GeV, $`x0.05`$, we are still in the “strict shadowing” region. Therefore, the fact that $`R_{sh}>1`$ for 20 GeV $`p_T`$ 70 GeV is not “antishadowing”; rather, it is a consequence of the change of the shape of the cross section from $`pp`$ to $`AB`$ reactions. In $`pp`$ collisions, the maximum of the cross section is at $`p_T`$ 3.7 GeV. In $`AB`$ collisions, the peak is shifted by about 0.4 GeV in the direction of large transverse momenta. On the other hand, the contributions from the scale $`\mu p_T`$ to $`M`$ have been resummed. Resummation plays a more important role for small $`p_T`$ than for large $`p_T`$. In EKS98, the strict shadowing effect is more important for small scales, such as $`p_T25`$ GeV, than for $`p_TM`$. Thus, a relatively small shift in the peak position brings about the rise of $`R_{sh}`$ above unity. The shadowing ratio $`R_{sh}`$ dips below one again at a certain $`p_T`$, to approach the fixed-order pQCD result when $`p_TM`$. The situation in Fig. 9 can be understood by noting that shadowing in the resummed transverse momentum distributions is sensitive to the scale used to describe the nuclear effects on the parton distribution function.

After this discussion one may want to revisit Fig. 8 and ask why is $`R_{sh}`$ flat at RHIC energies. The answer lies in the observation that the EMC region of $`x`$ dominates the cross section at $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 350 MeV. There is no sensitivity to the scale in that region in EKS98.

In summary, the shadowing effects in the $`p_T`$ distribution of heavy bosons at RHIC and LHC are sensitive to the scale of the nuclear parton distribution. The available data on the scale dependence of nuclear parton distribution functions are very limited. Theoretical studies (such as EKS98) are based on the the assumption that the nuclear parton distribution functions differ from the parton distributions in the free proton, but obey the same DGLAP evolution. Therefore, the tranverse momentum distribution of heavy bosons at LHC in $`Pb+Pb`$ collisions can provide a further test of our understanding of the nuclear parton distributions.

## IV Enhanced power corrections in nuclear collisions

We have seen in Section II that the effect of power corrections on the resummed cross section is very weak in $`pp`$ collisions at both RHIC and LHC. In $`pA`$ and $`AB`$ collisions, power corrections will be enhanced due to rescattering in the nucleus. In this Section we discuss the enhancement of power corrections in nuclear collisions.

As $`\overline{g}_2`$ represents the effect of the partons’ non-vanishing intrinsic transverse momentum, it should not have a strong nuclear dependence. On the other hand, $`g_2`$ arises as a result of dynamical power corrections, and should be enhanced by the nuclear size, i.e. proportional to $`A^{1/3}`$. Considering the enhancement, we get $`G_20.8`$ GeV2 for $`p+Au`$ and $`G_21.5`$ GeV2 for $`Pb+Pb`$ reactions.

In order to study the effects of power corrections, we now define $`R_{G_2}^{sh}`$ in nuclear collision as follows:

$$R_{G_2}^{sh}(p_T)\frac{d\sigma ^{(G_2,sh)}(p_T,Z_A/A,Z_B/B)}{dp_T}/\frac{d\sigma ^{(sh)}(p_T,Z_A/A,Z_B/B)}{dp_T},$$
(12)
where the numerator represents the result of the full calculation, with isospin effects, shadowing, and power corrections taken into account, and the denominator was introduced in connection with Eq. (11) and contains no power corrections ($`G_2=0`$).

Fig.10(a) and Fig.11(a) present the $`d\sigma ^{(G_2,sh)}(p_T,Z_A/A,Z_B/B)`$ for $`W^\pm `$ production at $`\sqrt{s}=350`$ GeV in $`p+Au`$ reactions and $`\sqrt{s}=5.5`$ TeV in $`Pb+Pb`$ collisions, respectively. In Fig. 10(b) the solid line is $`R_{G_2}^{sh}`$ in $`p+Au`$ collisions and the dashed line is $`R_{G_2}`$ in $`pp`$ collisions at the same energy. At $`p_T0`$ GeV, $`R_{G_2}^{sh}`$ is about 0.88, in contrast to about 0.95 in $`pp`$ collisions. The effects of power corrections are enhanced about three times in $`p+Au`$ collision relative to $`pp`$ collisions. However, even for $`p_T0`$, the effect of power corrections is only about 10%, and for $`p_T>2`$ GeV, the effect remains under 5%. Thus the effect of power corrections is weak in $`p+Au`$ collisions at RHIC. As for the situation at LHC in $`Pb+Pb`$ collisions, displayed in Fig. 11, the effects of power corrections appear to be enhanced by a similar factor (about three) from $`pp`$ to $`Pb+Pb`$ collisions at LHC. The reason for the similar enhancement is the interplay of the higher energy and the larger value of $`G_2`$ mentioned above. In any case, the enhanced power corrections remain under 3% in the  GeV $`p_T`$ interval for $`Pb+Pb`$ at LHC. The results for $`Z^0`$ production are similar to those for $`W^\pm `$ production.

## V Discussion and conclusion

We have demonstrated that the predictive power of a resummed pQCD calculation for heavy boson production is very good at RHIC and excellent at LHC, because the dependence of the cross sections on the non-perturbative input is weak. This makes $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z^0`$ production reliably calculable at the energies considered. On the experimental side, $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z^0`$ production should be an early observable at LHC (with sufficiently high production rates) in both $`pp`$ and nuclear collisions. At RHIC, production rates may remain on the low side, in particular in $`pp`$ collisions. In all cases, the cross sections peak at relatively low transverse momenta, and we calculate the peak position for all systems considered.

We have examined the effects of the isospin composition of nuclei and of shadowing in nuclear collisions. We find that isospin effects are modest in $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z^0`$ production at the energies considered, while shadowing is relatively unimportant at RHIC, but plays an important role at LHC in shaping the transverse momentum distributions. This comes about because of the sensitivity of shadowing effects to the scale of the parton distribution functions. We also studied the magnitude of power corrections in $`pp`$ and nuclear collisions. Power corrections are small in $`pp`$ collisions, and, even though part of these corrections is enhanced in nuclear collisions by a factor of $`A^{1/3}`$, they remain below 10% (even at very low transverse momenta) in $`AB`$ reactions.

As indicated by the above observations, the resummed pQCD formalism yields accurate results for $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z^0`$ transverse momentum distributions at RHIC and LHC. The production of heavy bosons can therefore serve as a further test of the nuclear parton distributions. In more general terms, $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z^0`$ production at RHIC and LHC provides a bench mark test of resummed pQCD for $`pp`$ and nuclear collisions at these energies. We hope that our predictions will soon be compared to data.

## Acknowledgments

We thank T. Hallman, D. Keane, and R. Vogt for stimulating discussions and J.W. Qiu for a careful reading of the manuscript. This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG02-86ER-40251 and by the NSF under Grant INT-0000211.

## VI Appendix

Here we summarize relevant details of the CSS formalism concerning the structure of the terms in Eq. (1). We address, in particular, the construction of the exponential factor $`\mathrm{exp}[S(\stackrel{~}{b},M)]`$ in Eq. (3).

It was shown in Ref.  that for $`\stackrel{~}{b}1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, the function $`\stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{b},M,x_A,x_B)`$ of Eq. (1) is directly related to the singular parts of the $`p_T`$ distribution as $`p_T0`$. More precisely, $`\stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{b},M,x_A,x_B)`$ includes all singular terms like $`\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{p}_T)`$ and $`[\mathrm{ln}^m(p^2/p_T^2)/p_T^2]_{\mathrm{reg}}`$ with $`m0`$. Less singular terms as $`p_T0`$ are included in the $`Y`$ term of Eq. (1). The QCD resummation of the large logarithms in the CSS formalism is achieved by solving the evolution equation for the $`\stackrel{~}{W}_{ij}`$ of Eq. (2),

$$\frac{}{\mathrm{ln}M^2}\stackrel{~}{W}_{ij}(\stackrel{~}{b},M,x_A,x_B)=\left[K(\stackrel{~}{b}\mu ,\alpha _s(\mu ))+G(M/\mu ,\alpha _s(\mu ))\right]\stackrel{~}{W}_{ij}(\stackrel{~}{b},M,x_A,x_B),$$
(13)
and the corresponding renormalization group equations for the kernels $`K`$ and $`G`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2}}K(\stackrel{~}{b}\mu ,\alpha _s(\mu ))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _K(\alpha _s(\mu )),`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2}}G(M/\mu ,\alpha _s(\mu ))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _K(\alpha _s(\mu )).`$ (15)
The anomalous dimension $`\gamma _K(\alpha _s(\mu ))=_{n=1}\gamma _K^{(n)}(\alpha _s(\mu )/\pi )^n`$ in Eqs. (14) and (15) is perturbatively calculable . The renormalization group equations (14) and (15) for $`K`$ and $`G`$ ensure the correct renormalization scale dependence,

$$\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2}\stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{b},M,x_A,x_B)=0.$$
(16)
The solution given in Eq. (3) corresponds to simultaneously solving the evolution equation (13) from $`\mathrm{ln}(c^2/\stackrel{~}{b}^2)`$ to $`\mathrm{ln}(M^2)`$, and the renormalization group equations (14) and (15) from $`\mathrm{ln}(c^2/\stackrel{~}{b}^2)`$ to $`\mathrm{ln}(\mu ^2)`$ and from $`\mathrm{ln}(M^2)`$ to $`\mathrm{ln}(\mu ^2)`$, respectively, where $`c`$ is a constant of order unity.

Integrating Eq. (14) from $`\mathrm{ln}(c^2/\stackrel{~}{b}^2)`$ to $`\mathrm{ln}(\mu ^2)`$, and Eq. (15) from $`\mathrm{ln}(M^2)`$ to $`\mathrm{ln}(\mu ^2)`$, one derives

$$K(\stackrel{~}{b}\mu ,\alpha _s(\mu ))+G(M/\mu ,\alpha _s(\mu ))=_{c^2/\stackrel{~}{b}^2}^{M^2}\frac{d\overline{\mu }^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}A(\alpha _s(\overline{\mu }))B(\alpha _s(M)),$$
(17)
where $`A`$ is a function of $`\gamma _K(\alpha _s(\overline{\mu }))`$ and $`K(c,\alpha _s(\overline{\mu }))`$ while $`B`$ depends on both $`K(c,\alpha _s(M))`$ and $`G(1,\alpha _s(M))`$. The functions $`A`$ and $`B`$ do not have large logarithms and have perturbative expansions $`A=_{n=1}A^{(n)}(\alpha _s/\pi )^n`$ and $`B=_{n=1}B^{(n)}(\alpha _s/\pi )^n`$, respectively. The first two coefficients in the perturbative expansions are known:

$`A^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`C_F,`$ (18)
$`A^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{2}}\left[N\left({\displaystyle \frac{67}{18}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{10}{9}}T_Rn_f\right],`$ (19)
$`B^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}C_F,`$ (20)
$`B^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{2}}\right)^2\left[\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}12\zeta (3)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{2}}N\left[{\displaystyle \frac{11}{18}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{193}{24}}+3\zeta (3)\right]`$ (21)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{2}}T_Rn_f\left[{\displaystyle \frac{17}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\pi ^2\right],`$ (22)
where $`N=3`$ for SU(3) color, the color factor $`C_F=(N^21)/2N=4/3`$ for quarks, $`T_R=1/2`$, and $`n_F`$ is the number of active quark flavors. The coefficients $`A`$ and $`B`$ given in Eq. (22) are derived from the general expressions in Ref.  with renormalization constant $`c=2\mathrm{e}^{\gamma _E}`$, where $`\gamma _E0.577`$ is Euler’s constant.

Substituting Eq. (17) into Eq. (13), and integrating from $`\mathrm{ln}(c^2/\stackrel{~}{b}^2)`$ to $`\mathrm{ln}(M^2)`$, one obtains the $`\stackrel{~}{W}_{ij}`$ given in Eq. (3) with

$$S(\stackrel{~}{b},M)=_{c^2/\stackrel{~}{b}^2}^{M^2}\frac{d\overline{\mu }^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{M^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}\right)A(\alpha _s(\overline{\mu }))+B(\alpha _s(\overline{\mu }))\right].$$
(23)
In Eq. (3), all large logarithms from $`\mathrm{ln}(c^2/\stackrel{~}{b}^2)`$ to $`\mathrm{ln}(M^2)`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{W}_{ij}(\stackrel{~}{b},M,x_A,x_B)`$ are completely resummed into the exponential factor $`\mathrm{exp}[S(\stackrel{~}{b},M)]`$, leaving the $`\stackrel{~}{w}_{ij}(\stackrel{~}{b},c/\stackrel{~}{b},x_A,x_B)`$ with only one momentum scale $`1/\stackrel{~}{b}`$. The $`\stackrel{~}{w}_{ij}(\stackrel{~}{b},c/\stackrel{~}{b},x_A,x_B)`$ in Eq. (3) is then perturbatively calculable when the momentum scale $`1/\stackrel{~}{b}`$ is large enough, and is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{w}_{ij}(\stackrel{~}{b},c/\stackrel{~}{b},x_A,x_B)=f_{i/A}(x_A,\mu =c/\stackrel{~}{b})f_{j/B}(x_B,\mu =c/\stackrel{~}{b}).$$
(24)
The functions $`f_{i/A}`$ and $`f_{j/B}`$ are the modified parton distributions ,

$$f_{i/A}(x_A,\mu )=\underset{a}{}_{x_A}^1\frac{d\xi }{\xi }C_{i/a}(x_A/\xi ,\mu ))\varphi _{a/A}(\xi ,\mu ),$$
(25)
where $`_a`$ runs over all parton flavors. In Eq. (25), $`\varphi _{a/A}(\xi ,\mu )`$ is the normal parton distribution for finding a parton of flavor $`a`$ in hadron $`A`$, and $`C_{i/a}=_{n=0}C_{i/a}^{(n)}(\alpha _s/\pi )^n`$ are perturbatively calculable coefficient functions for finding a parton $`i`$ in the modified parton distribution $`f_{i/A}(x_A,\mu )`$ from a parton $`a`$ in the normal parton distribution $`\varphi _{a/A}(\xi ,\mu )`$. The first two coefficients of the $`C_{i/a}`$ are available:

$`C_{i/j}^{(0)}(z,\mu =c/\stackrel{~}{b})`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}\delta (z1),`$ (26)
$`C_{i/g}^{(0)}(z,\mu =c/\stackrel{~}{b})`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (27)
$`C_{i/j}^{(1)}(z,\mu =c/\stackrel{~}{b})`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{2}}\left[(1z)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2}}4\right)\delta (1z)\right],`$ (28)
$`C_{i/g}^{(1)}(z,\mu =c/\stackrel{~}{b})`$ $`=`$ $`T_Rz(1z),`$ (29)
where $`i`$ and $`j`$ represent quark or antiquark flavors and $`g`$ represents a gluon. The coefficient functions given in Eq. (29) are derived from the general functional forms in Ref.  by setting the renormalization constants and the factorization scale as, $`C_1=c`$, $`C_2=1`$, and $`\mu =c/\stackrel{~}{b}`$.

The $`\sigma _{ijV}(M)`$ in Eq. (2) is the lowest order cross section for a quark-antiquark pair to annihilate into the vector boson ($`V=\gamma ^{}`$, $`W^\pm ,`$ or $`Z^0`$). For $`V=Z^0`$, we have

$$\sigma _{ijZ^0}(M_Z)=Q_{ij}\left(\frac{4\pi ^3\alpha _{EM}^2(M_z)}{3s}\right),$$
(30)
where $`Q_{ij}`$ is the weak charge,

$$Q_{ij}=\frac{[14|e_q|\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W]^2+1}{16\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W},$$
(31)
with $`\theta _W`$ denoting the Weinberg angle and $`e_q`$ denoting the charge of the quark. Here, $`i`$ and $`j`$ must represent a quark-antiquark pair of the same flavor. For the Weinberg angle we use $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.23`$. The $`\sigma _{ijV}(M)`$ for $`V=W^\pm `$ and $`\gamma ^{}`$ can be found in Refs. .

In the CSS resummation formalism, the $`Y`$ term in Eq. (1) represents a small correction to the $`p_T`$ distribution when $`p_TM`$. However, the $`Y`$ term dominates the $`p_T`$-distributions when $`p_TM`$. The $`Y`$ term has the perturbative expansion $`Y=_{n=1}Y^{(n)}(\alpha _s(\mu )/\pi )^n`$, and the coefficients $`Y^{(n)}`$ have the factorized form

$`Y^{(n)}(p_T,M,x_A,x_B;\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a,b}{}}{\displaystyle _{x_A}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _A}{\xi _A}}\varphi _{a/A}(\xi _A,\mu ){\displaystyle _{x_B}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _B}{\xi _B}}\varphi _{b/B}(\xi _B,\mu )`$ (32)
$`\times `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^3\alpha _{EM}^2(M_z)}{3s}}\right)R_{abV}^{(n)}(p_T,M,x_A/\xi _A,x_B/\xi _B;\mu ),`$ (33)
where $`_{a,b}`$ runs over all possible parton flavors and $`\mu `$ represents both the factorization and renormalization scales. The $`R_{abV}^{(n)}`$ in Eq. (33) are perturbatively calculable and have the same normalization as those introduced in Ref. .

Since the perturbatively resummed $`\stackrel{~}{W}_{ij}(\stackrel{~}{b},M,x_A,x_B)`$ in Eq. (3) is only reliable for the small $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ region, an extrapolation to the large $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ region is necessary in order to complete the Fourier transform in Eq. (1). In the original CSS formalism, a variable $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{}`$ and a nonperturbative function $`F_{CSS}^{NP}(\stackrel{~}{b},M,x_A,x_B)`$ were introduced in such a way that $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ was modified for all $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ (except $`\stackrel{~}{b}=0`$) as

$$\stackrel{~}{W}^{\mathrm{CSS}}(\stackrel{~}{b},M,x_A,x_B)\stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{b}_{},M,x_A,x_B)F_{CSS}^{NP}(\stackrel{~}{b},M,x_A,x_B),$$
(34)
where $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{}=\stackrel{~}{b}/\sqrt{1+(\stackrel{~}{b}/\stackrel{~}{b}_{max})^2}`$, with $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{max}=0.5`$ GeV-1. This construction ensures that $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{}\stackrel{~}{b}_{max}`$ for all values of $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$. The function $`F_{CSS}^{NP}`$ is a Gaussian in $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$, $`F_{CSS}^{NP}\mathrm{exp}(\kappa \stackrel{~}{b}^2)`$ with $`\kappa `$ having a certain $`M^2`$, $`x_A`$, and $`x_B`$ dependence.

As it has been pointed out in this paper and earlier, the original CSS extrapolation introduces a modification to the perturbative calculation, and the size of the modifications depends on the non-perturbative parameters in $`F_{CSS}^{NP}(\stackrel{~}{b},M,x_A,x_B)`$. This motivated the development of the alternative extrapolation formula used in the present work.


format: text

text:
# PHOTON COLLIDERS IN PHYSICAL PROGRAM FOR LARGE COLLIDERS Talk given at Workshop on Electromagnetic Probes of Fundamental Physics, Eriche, Sicily, 16-21 October 2001

## 1 Introduction

Photon Collider will be a specific mode of Linear Collider (LC) obtained with the aid of laser light backscattering on the accelerated electrons in Linear Collider near the collision point $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. Let us enumerate its main characteristics in the frame of TESLA project $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

1. Characteristic photon energy $`E_\gamma 0.8E`$ ($`E`$ – energy of electron in the basic $`e^+e^{}`$ collider).
2. For high energy peak, $`E_{\gamma 1,2}>0.7E_{\gamma max}`$ (separated well from low energy part of spectrum)

* Luminosity $`_{\gamma \gamma }_{ee}/3`$, $`_{e\gamma }_{ee}/4`$ with $`_{\gamma \gamma }𝑑t,_{e\gamma }𝑑t200÷150`$ fb-1/year.
    * Mean energy spread $`<\mathrm{\Delta }E_\gamma >0.07E_\gamma `$ (by factor $`2÷3`$ worse than in $`e^+e^{}`$ mode considering beamstrahlung and ISR).
    * Mean photon helicity $`<\lambda _\gamma >0.95`$, with easily variable sign. One can also get the linear polarization. (In the $`e^+e^{}`$ mode only longitudinal polarization is relevant.)
3. The $`e\gamma `$ conversion region is $`e\gamma `$ collider with $`\sqrt{s_{e\gamma }}1.2`$ MeV and $`0.1`$ fb-1/sec!
4. The total additional cost is estimated as about 10% from that of $`{}_{}{}^{+}e_{}^{}`$ LC.

The Standard Model (SM) is verified now with high precision except for mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB). The new large colliders are constructed with the dream to find New Physics and understand EWSB mechanism. We discuss different physical pictures obtained after running of large colliders of next generation  (Tevatron, LHC and LC):

1. Clear signals of New Physics (new particles, strong deviations from SM) will be found.
2. The physical picture will coincide with that expected in SM within experimental precision — SM–like scenario, determined for the time of observations:

* No new particles and interactions will be discovered except for single Higgs boson.
    * The couplings of Higgs boson to $`W`$, $`Z`$ and quarks will coincide with those predicted in SM within the experimental precision.

We discuss the potential of Photon Collider in both these scenarios separately. For more details on some mentioned points see refs. $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$.

## 2 Hunting for New Physics

### 2.1 Discovery of new particles

The discovery of a new particle will be a clean signal of some definite form of a new theory. In the discussion below we denote the kinematically allowed discovery bound for its mass as $`M_b`$.

The production of pair of charged particles in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions near the threshold is described by QED with reasonable accuracy. The corrections due to other (even strong) interactions can be neglected in the estimates of opportunity to discover the particle. Therefore, the real discovery limit of new particle in $`\gamma \gamma `$ channel is close to $`M_b0.8E`$, it is lower than that in $`{}_{}{}^{+}e_{}^{}`$ mode.

The $`e\gamma `$ collisions provide us with final states which cannot be produced with similar intensity other ways. In reactions like $`e\gamma BA`$ with light particle $`A`$ and new particle $`B`$ the kinematical discovery bound $`M_b`$ can be much higher than in other reactions, $`M_b1.8E`$. However, the cross section of such process depends on new coupling constants like $`eAB`$. Therefore – in contrast to $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions – the absence of such signals can be explained by absence of new particle $`B`$ as well as by its ”electrofobic” nature (very small $`eAB`$ coupling).

$`\mathrm{}`$ The $`e\gamma `$ mode provides the best opportunities for discovering a number of new particles. The discovery limits $`M_b`$ of some new states are presented in Table 1.

For the excited electron the expected cross section is high enough to observe it even with the weak enough coupling constant.

$`\mathrm{}`$ The $`\gamma \gamma `$ mode. Pair production. The cross section of the pair production $`\gamma \gamma P^+P^{}`$ ($`P=S`$ – scalar, $`P=F`$ – fermion, $`P=W`$ – gauge boson) not far from the threshold is given by QED as ($`\lambda _i`$ – circular, $`\mathrm{}_i`$ – linear polarization of photons, $`\varphi =\mathrm{}(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}_1,\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}_2)`$)

$$\begin{array}{c}\sigma =\frac{\pi \alpha ^2}{M_P^2}C_qf_P\left(\frac{s}{4M_P^2}\right)65\left(\frac{1TeV}{M_P}\right)^2C_qf_P\left(\frac{s}{4M_P^2}\right)\text{fb};\\ f_P(x)f_P^0(x)+\lambda _1\lambda _2g_P^a+\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{cos}2\varphi g_P^\tau ;C_q=\{\begin{array}{ccc}1& \text{ if }& Q=1,\hfill \\ 3Q^4& \text{ if }& Q\text{ is noninteger}\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(1)
(with functions $`f_P^0`$, $`g_P^a`$ and $`g_P^\tau `$ written e.g. in ref. $`^\mathrm{?}`$). These $`f_P^0`$ (for the unpolarized photons) are shown in Fig. 1 ($`W^2=s`$). The $`\gamma \gamma `$ cross sections are evidently higher than the corresponding $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions, which are also shown here aaa The observable $`e^+e^{}P^+P^{}`$ cross section includes also $`Z^{}`$ contribution, dependent on other quantum numbers besides charge and spin. At $`sM_Z^2`$ typically $`\sigma (e^+e^{}P^+P^{})<1.3\sigma (e^+e^{}\gamma ^{}P^+P^{})`$..

With expected luminosities the first discovery of new particle is preferable in $`e^+e^{}`$ mode. After that, the key problem will be to study the nature of the discovered particle. In this respect, the $`\gamma \gamma `$ production provides essential advantages compared to $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions:

* These cross sections decrease slow with energy growth. Therefore, one can study these processes relatively far from the threshold where the decay products don’t overlap.
* Near the threshold $`f_P(1+\lambda _1\lambda _2\pm \mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{cos}2\varphi )`$ with + sign for $`P=S`$ (scalar) and – sign for $`P=F`$ (fermion). This polarization dependence provides the opportunity to know spin of produced particle independent on its charge. (This problem arises, e.g., at the discovery of SUSY particles since spin of invisible neutral is unknown).
* The possible CP violation in the $`P\gamma `$ interaction can be seen as a variation of cross section with changing the sign of photon helicity.

$`\mathrm{}`$ The discovery of some other particles in $`\gamma \gamma `$ mode.

* The leptoquark $`(\mathrm{}q)`$ can be discovered in reactions like $`\gamma \gamma \overline{\mathrm{}}+t+(\mathrm{}t)`$ with $`M_b1.5E_\gamma `$.
* The scalar or tensor resonances $`R`$ appearing due to the strong interaction in Higgs sector can be discovered in process $`\gamma \gamma R`$ with $`M_b2E_\gamma `$.
* The gluino $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ can be produced in process $`\gamma \gamma \stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g}`$ (via quark loop) $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The maximal value of this cross section is $`(\alpha ^2\alpha _s^2/M_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2)\mathrm{ln}(M_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2/M_q^2)`$ at $`2M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}<\sqrt{s_{\gamma \gamma }}<2M_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$. For example, this cross section is about 1 pb at $`M_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=0.5`$ TeV, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=0.25`$ TeV for $`\sqrt{s_{\gamma \gamma }}=1.5`$ TeV.
* If the stop squark is not too heavy, the very narrow atom-like (scalar) stoponium with mass 200-400 GeV should also exist (such states cannot be observed at hadron collider). It can be clearly seen at $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider with cross section averaged over photon spectrum $`<\sigma >1050`$ fb and clear enough signature $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

### 2.2  Some problems with new interactions

.

$``$ Due to high values of the basic cross sections for the pair production of charged particles, Photon Collider would be an excellent place for observation of (even small) possible flavor changing neutral currents (FCNC), for example, with superparticles.

$``$ In the 2HDM or MSSM in the CP conserving case the masses of heavy Higgs scalar $`H`$ and pseudoscalar $`A`$ can be close to each other or they are mixed (in the CP violated – $`\text{CP}\mathrm{}`$ – case). The observations of decay products at LHC and $`e^+e^{}`$ LC cannot resolve these opportunities due to low resolution for these bosons. The polarization asymmetries in Higgs boson production at Photon Collider can resolve these variants, i.e. establish, whether CP parity in Higgs sector is violated or not.

$`\mathrm{}`$ Using the $`\gamma \gamma \mathbf{}\gamma \gamma `$, etc. processes for the search of effects from extra dimensions or heavy point–like Dirac monopole. In both cases the process is considered strongly below new mass scale $`M`$ or particle production threshold $`2M`$. In both cases the cross section can be written as

$$\sigma (\gamma \gamma \gamma \gamma )=\frac{A}{32\pi s}\left(\frac{s}{4M^2}\right)^4$$
(2)
with specific polarization dependence and angular distribution ($`S`$ and $`D`$ waves, roughly — isotropic). This wide angle elastic $`\gamma \gamma `$ scattering has very clear signature and small QED background. The observation of strong elastic $`\gamma \gamma `$ scattering raising quickly with energy will be the signal of one of these mechanisms. The study of polarization and angular dependence at photon collider and some similar processes can discriminate what mechanism is relevant.

$``$ Effects of extra dimensions $`^\mathrm{?}`$ are considered in the scenario where gravity propagates in the $`(4+n)`$–dimensional bulk of space-time, while gauge and matter fields are confined to the (3+1)–dimensional world volume of a brane configuration. The extra $`n`$ dimensions are compactified with scale $`R`$ what produces the Kaluza–Klein excitations having masses $`\pi n/R`$. The corresponding scale in our world is assumed to be $`M`$ few TeV. The particles of our world interact (as $`A\overline{A}B\overline{B}`$) via the set of Kaluza-Klein excitations having spin 2 or 0 as e.g. $`T^{\mu \nu }T^{\mu \nu }/M^4`$, where $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ is stress-energy tensor. The coefficients are accumulated in the definition of $`M`$ (with $`A1`$).

The $`\gamma \gamma `$ initial state has numerical advantage as compared to $`e^+e^{}`$ one. The $`\gamma \gamma `$ final state has the best signature and the lowest SM background. The interference (with SM) effect enhances this anomaly for $`\gamma \gamma WW`$ process (simultaneously with enhancement of background).

$``$ Point–like Dirac monopole $`^\mathrm{?}`$. This monopole existence would explain mysterious quantization of the electric charge. There is no place for it in modern theories of our world but there are no convincing reasons against its existence.

At $`sM^2`$ the electrodynamics of monopoles is expected to be similar to the standard QED. At $`g\sqrt{s}/(4\pi M)<1`$ (with $`g=n/(2e)`$) the effect is described by monopole loop, and one can use coefficient $`Ag^8`$, calculated within QED. Both $`A`$ and details of angular and polarization dependence depend strongly on spin of monopole $`J`$, e.g., $`A(J=1)/A(J=0)1900`$.

Effect can be seen at TESLA500 at $`M<410`$ TeV (depending on monopole spin). Modern limitation (Tevatron) is about 10 times lower.

## 3  SM and SM–like scenario

If after experiments at LHC and $`e^+e^{}`$ LC a SM–like scenario (defined in the beginning of report) will be realized, the main problems for study at Colliders become the following:

* The study of EWSB mechanism.
* Discovery of signals of New Physics via (small) deviations from SM predictions.
* Description of observed phenomena in SM, especially QCD:
$`\mathrm{}`$ Total cross sections, Pomeron and odderon, minijets.
$`\mathrm{}`$ Photon structure function.
$`\mathrm{}`$ Some problems with heavy quarks.

Photon Colliders provide new (sometimes unique) keys for solving all these problems.

### 3.1 The study of EWSB

Assuming Higgs mechanism for EWSB, one should consider 3 main opportunities:

$``$ SM with one Higgs doublet and $`M_h<400÷700`$ GeV – standard SM case.

$``$ More complex Higgs sector, the simplest variant – Two Doublet Higgs Model (2HDM).
In these cases Higgs boson will be discovered at the Tevatron or LHC, its spin and couplings to $`W,Z`$ and fermions will be precisely measured at $`e^+e^{}`$ LC.

$``$ SM with one Higgs doublet but with strong Higgs self–interaction. In this case standard Higgs particle does not exist and strong interaction in Higgs sector will manifest itself as the strong interaction of gauge bosons $`W`$ and $`Z`$ (their longitudinal components).

The measuring of $`h\gamma \gamma `$ and $`hZ\gamma `$ couplings is an excellent tool for these problems. Indeed,

* In the SM these couplings appear only at the loop level. Therefore, the S/B for new signals is better than that for the processes allowed at tree level.
* All fundamental charged particles contribute to these effective couplings.
* The expected accuracy in the measurement of the two-photon width is $`2`$% at the luminosity integral 30 fb-1 and $`M_h150`$ GeV $`^\mathrm{?}`$. This uncertainty can be reduced with the expected 3–year luminosity integral about 500 fb-1.

$`\mathrm{}`$The anomalous interactions of Higgs boson with light $`^\mathrm{?}`$ (CP conserving and nonconserving) can be summarized in an effective interaction

$$hv\left(\theta _\gamma \frac{F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma ^2}+2\theta _Z\frac{Z_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_Z^2}+i\theta _{P\gamma }\frac{F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{P\gamma }^2}+2i\theta _{PZ}\frac{Z_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{PZ}^2}\right),\left(\theta _i=e^{i\xi _i}\right).$$
(3)
Here $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`Z^{\mu \nu }`$ are standard field strengths for the electromagnetic and $`Z`$ field, $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }/2`$, $`v=(G_F\sqrt{2})^{1/2}`$ – v.e.v. of Higgs field. Finally, $`\xi _i`$ are the phases of couplings, in general not equal to 0 or $`\pi `$.

The CP conserving anomalies give the deviation of measured $`\gamma \gamma h`$ and $`e\gamma eh`$ cross sections from SM prediction. The $`\text{CP}\mathrm{}`$ anomalies give the polarization asymmetries – variation of cross sections with change of sign of photon helicities (longitudinal), or with the angle between directions of linear polarization of colliding photons (transverse). One example – the longitudinal asymmetry – is shown in Fig. 1. We see that the effects can be seen at reasonable values of anomaly scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ and phases $`\xi _i`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$ Distinguishing SM/2HDM in the SM–like scenario $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The SM–like scenario can be realized both in the SM and in other models. The simplest extension of Higgs sector is the 2HDM with the Model II for the Yukawa coupling (the same is realized in MSSM). It contains 2 Higgs doublet fields $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ with v.e.v.’s $`v\mathrm{cos}\beta `$ and $`v\mathrm{sin}\beta `$. The physical sector contain charged scalars $`H^\pm `$ and three neutral scalars $`h_i`$ with no definite CP parity, in the CP conserving case these $`h_i`$ become scalars $`h`$ and $`H`$ (with $`M_h<M_H`$) and pseudoscalar $`A`$.

Generally, 2HDM permits to have relatively strong $`\text{CP}\mathrm{}`$ and large FCNC. To make these effects naturally weak, the terms in Higgs potential, giving $`(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)`$ mixing should be relatively small, and the properties of the observed Higgs boson are close to those of $`h`$ or $`H`$. In this case masses $`M_H`$, $`M_A`$ and $`M_{H^\pm }`$ are $`3`$ TeV due to perturbativity constraint $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

The SM–like scenario means that the squared coupling constants (not coupling constants themselves) are close to the SM value. In the 2HDM it can be realized in many ways even in the CP conserving case (Table 2). The widely discussed decoupling limit corresponds to solution $`A_{h+}`$ supplemented with a demand of unnatural strong ($`\varphi _1,\varphi _2`$) mixing (giving heavy $`H`$, $`A`$ and $`H^\pm `$ with $`M_HM_AM_{H^\pm }`$ without perturbativity limitation).

In these SM-like cases the observed Higgs boson can be either $`h`$ or $`H`$. The pseudoscalar $`A`$ and other scalar, $`H`$ or $`h`$, are almost decoupled to gauge bosons and cannot be seen at $`e^+e^{}`$ LC in the standard processes. If mass of any of these elusive Higgs bosons is below 350 GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 1`$, it can be seen in $`\gamma \gamma \gamma \gamma `$ process (for $`h`$ – using the low energy part of photon spectrum) (and in $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}H`$ at $`2E>2M_t+M_H`$).

In any case, one can distinguish models via measurement of two–photon width of observed SM–like Higgs boson $`^\mathrm{?}`$. For $`M_{H^\pm }=800`$ GeV the ratios of the two-photon Higgs width and the of cross sections for $`e\gamma eh`$ process (for latter reaction – at $`\sqrt{s}=1.5`$ TeV for the left hand polarized photons) to their SM values are shown in Fig. 3 for the natural set of parameters of 2HDM.

The bands around central line represent possible difference of Higgs–fermion and Higgs–$`W`$ couplings (squared) from their SM values in the SM–like scenario according to anticipated uncertainty of future measurements $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

The deviations from SM, shown in Fig. 3 for solutions $`A`$ and $`B_d`$, are about $`10`$% (one may compare with anticipated 2% accuracy). These deviations are given by contribution of heavy charged Higgs bosons. For solutions $`B_u`$ changing of relative sign of contributions of $`t`$–loop and $`W`$–loop increases the observable cross section more than twice in comparison with SM. Therefore, measurement of two-photon width at Photon Collider can resolve these cases reliably.

$`\mathrm{}`$ The possible strong interaction in the Higgs sector should also be the strong interaction of longitudinal $`W`$’s. It is expected to be observed in the process $`\gamma \gamma WW`$. Based on the experience with process $`\gamma \gamma \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ the following picture is expected: The strong interaction modifies weakly the cross section near the threshold in comparison with its SM value (but the phase of amplitude reproduces that of strong interacting $`W_LW_L`$ scattering and it can be significant). It makes strong interaction in the Higgs sector hardly observable in the cross sections below the energies, given by the masses of resonances, 1.5–2 TeV.

The charge asymmetry in the process $`e\gamma eW^+W^{}`$ is sensitive to this phase of amplitude even at relatively low energy of TESLA (0.8–1 TeV) $`^\mathrm{?}`$, considerably below possible resonance production. Indeed, the essential contribution to this asymmetry is given by interference of two–photon production subprocess of $`WW`$ pair (in C–even state) and bremsstrahlung (one–photon) production subprocess (in C–odd state) like for the process $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$. (The interference with axial part of $`Z`$ exchange contributes additionally to this asymmetry).

### 3.2  Anomalous interactions of gauge bosons

At relatively low energies the New Physics cannot manifest itself via new heavy particles. Thus, it reveals itself as certain anomalies in the interactions of known particles. The goal of corresponding studies is to find and discriminate these anomalies. The correlation between coefficients of different anomalies will be the key for understanding what is the nature of New Physics.

The practically unique process under interest in the $`e^+e^{}`$ mode is $`e^+e^{}WW`$. With appropriate electron polarization the neutrino exchange contribution disappears, and residual cross section (described by photon and $`Z`$ boson exchange) has maximum about 2 pb within LEP operation interval and further decreases with energy. The cross sections of other processes with $`W`$ production are below 1pb at $`\sqrt{s}<1`$ TeV.

At Photon Collider main processes are $`\gamma \gamma WW`$, $`e\gamma W\nu `$. Their cross sections are about 80 pb, they are independent from energy at $`\sqrt{s}>200`$ GeV, what provides about $`10^7`$ $`W`$’s per year. Due to high value of these basic cross sections, many processes of 3-rd and 4-th order have large enough cross sections: $`e\gamma eWW`$, $`\gamma \gamma ZWW`$, $`e\gamma \nu WZ`$, $`\gamma \gamma WWWW`$, …, see Fig. 4.

Large variety of these processes allows to discover and separate well anomalies in specific processes and (or) distributions.

The cross section $`e\gamma \nu W(12\lambda _e)`$, it is switched on or off with variation of electron helicity $`\lambda _e`$. It gives very precise test of absence of right handed currents in the interaction of $`W`$ with the matter. The modern simulations of process $`e\gamma \nu W`$ with only lepton decay modes for $`W`$ decay show that the sensitivity of this reaction to the quadruple momentum of $`W`$ is twice higher than it can be reached at $`e^+e^{}`$ LC $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$ The two–loop radiative corrections to $`\gamma \gamma \mathbf{}WW`$ and $`e\gamma \mathbf{}\nu W`$ processes should be considered. They are measurable and sensitive to the (unsolved) problems of

$``$ construction of $`S`$–matrix in the theory with unstable particles;

$``$ gluon corrections (like Pomeron exchange) between quark components of $`W`$’s.

### 3.3  QCD and Hadron Physics, t-quarks, etc.

All the problems studied at HERA and LEP will be studied at Photon Collider but in the wider interval of parameters and with much higher accuracy. Among them we list those which look most interesting now.

$``$ Nature of growth of total cross sections. The widespread concepts assume standard Regge type factorization and universal energy behavior for different processes. With Photon Colliders, – for the first time in particle physics at high enough energies – one can have the set of mass shell cross sections of very high energy processes, appropriate for the testing of factorization or its violation. That are $`\sigma _{pp}`$, measured at Tevatron and LHC, $`\sigma _{\gamma p}`$, measured at HERA, THERA and $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }`$, measurable at Photon Collider. The preliminary stage of operations with low luminosity can be used to observe cross sections at small scattering angles.

$``$ The structure function of photon is a unique QCD object calculable completely without phenomenology impacts at high enough photon virtuality $`Q^2`$ and moderate $`x`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$. In modern data phenomenological hadronic component of photon dominates and accuracy of data is low. The experiments at $`e\gamma `$ collider would increase the obtainable region of $`Q^2`$ significantly and improve accuracy $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

$``$ The study of charge asymmetry of produced hadrons in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions will give quite new information about QCD at small distances. The charge asymmetry of the produced hadrons in the $`e\gamma `$ collisions with transverse momentum of scattered electron $`p_{}30`$ GeV will show in explicit form the relation between hadron states produced by vector and axial currents $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

$``$ In addition to the usually discussed problems related to the $`t`$ quarks, the specific one is the study of axial anomaly in the process $`e\gamma et\overline{t}`$ existing even in the SM. At small transverse momenta of scattered electrons $`p_{}0`$ the cross section of subprocess $`\gamma Z_Lt\overline{t}`$ with longitudinally polarized $`Z`$ diverges as $`M_t^2/p_{}^2`$ (in contrast to $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma _L\overline{t})`$ tending to 0) $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

$``$ The study of charge asymmetry in $`e\gamma eb\overline{b}`$ can help to discover S and D wave resonances in $`b\overline{b}`$.

## 4  The using of conversion region

The $`e\gamma `$ conversion region is $`e\gamma `$ collider with c.m.s. energy about 1.2 MeV and with huge luminosity about 0.1 fb-1/sec! It will be a unique source of light Goldstone particles (axions, majorons, etc. – LGP, $`a`$) $`^\mathrm{?}`$, weakly interacting with the matter. They are expected to exist in numerous schemes $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

The production processes are $`e+\gamma _0e+a`$ and $`\gamma \gamma _0a`$ (here $`\gamma _0`$ denotes laser photon). Denoting $`x=4E\omega _0/m_e^2`$ and $`a=m_a^2/m_e^2`$, we obtain that the LGP energy in these reactions is limited from above as

$$E_a\frac{x+a+\sqrt{(xa)^24a}}{2(x+1)}E\text{ for }e\gamma _0ea,\text{ or }E_a=\frac{m_a^2}{4\omega _0}\frac{x}{x+1}E\text{ for }\gamma \gamma _0a.$$
(4)
The angular spread of LGP is very narrow, in practice, it is given by angular spread of incident electrons within beam ($`10^5`$). Note that due to high density of laser photon in the conversion region the nonlinear processes like $`e+n\gamma _0e+a`$ $`(n=2,3,..)`$, etc., also become possible. The upper limit of LGP energy in these reactions is higher than that given by eq. (4).

Some numerical estimates for LGP being axion or arion with mass about 10 KeV and electron beam energy 250 GeV are presented in Table 3 (the production rate of LGP’s familon and majoron is negligibely low).

To observe these LGP’s, the special detector is proposed. It should be some pin–type lead rod with radius about 2 cm and length 300-500 m, placed in vacuum behind a shield to get rid of the background (Fig. 5). The LGP interacts with lead nuclei like pion but with much lower coupling constant, $`a+Pbh`$ (hadrons). The produced hadron jets with total energy $`ϵ_a`$ and characteristic transverse momentum $`p_{}300`$ MeV/c should be recorded in the round scinillator and calorimeter with diameter in 1-3 m in the end of the device.

The main background is given by neutrinos produced by photons in the shield (reactions like $`\gamma +p\pi +\mathrm{},\pi \mu \nu `$). The proposed scheme allows to reduce this background strongly. Indeed, the energy of the main part of such neutrinos is much lower than the upper limit (4). Besides, the produced neutrinos are spread over the angular interval which is about 3-4 orders of magnitude wider than that for LGP’s, reducing relative flux of neutrino in the lead rod by factor $`10^610^8`$.

## Acknowledgments

We are thankful D. Anipko, V.Ilyin, I. Ivanov, M. Krawczyk, P. Olsen, A. Pak, M. Vychugin for collaboration related different parts of paper and A. Djouadi, V. Serbo, M. Spira, V. Telnov, P.Zerwas for useful discussions. This work was supported by RFBR grants 99-02-17211 and 00-15-96691 and INTAS grant 00-00679. I.F.G. is also thankful by organizers of Eriche Workshop for invitation and support.

## References