text:
# References

Heavy top limit and double-logarithmic contributions to Higgs production at $`m_H^2/s1`$

F. Hautmann

Physics Department, University of Oregon

Eugene OR 97403, USA

and

Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Regensburg

D-93040 Regensburg, Germany

Abstract

Next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) QCD corrections to Higgs boson hadroproduction have recently been calculated in the heavy top-quark limit $`m_t\mathrm{}`$. The $`m_t\mathrm{}`$ limit introduces double-logarithmic corrections in $`\mathrm{ln}x`$, with $`xm_H^2/s`$. We identify these corrections order by order in $`\alpha _s`$. As an application, we derive an analytic expression for the dominant $`x1`$ part of the NNLO coefficient.

Recently, Harlander and Kilgore  have completed the calculation of the next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) QCD correction to Higgs boson production in hadron-hadron collisions. The calculation is done in the heavy top quark limit, in which $`m_t\mathrm{}`$ and all other quark masses vanish. In this limit, the effective Lagrangian of  is used for coupling the Higgs boson to gluons. The hard scattering coefficient expanded through NNLO has the structure

$`C(\alpha _s,x,m_H^2/\mu ^2)`$ $`=`$ $`c^{(0)}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\left[c^{(1)}(x)+\overline{c}^{(1)}(x)L\right]`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^2\left[c^{(2)}(x)+\overline{c}^{(2)}(x)L+\overline{\overline{c}}^{(2)}(x)L^2\right]+\mathrm{}`$
where $`L\mathrm{ln}(m_H^2/\mu ^2)`$, with $`m_H`$ the Higgs boson mass and $`\mu `$ the factorization scale; $`x=m_H^2/s`$, with $`s`$ the center-of-mass energy. The term in $`c^{(0)}`$ is the leading-order term ; the term in $`c^{(1)},\overline{c}^{(1)}`$ is the next-to-leading-order term .

Ref.  presents the result for $`c^{(2)}`$ as an expansion in powers of $`(1x)`$, $`x=1`$ being the production threshold. Explicit numerical results are given up to a very high order in this expansion, $`(1x)^{16}`$. Once the hard scattering coefficient is convoluted with the parton densities, this expansion leads to a corresponding expansion for the cross section. This is demonstrated numerically to converge well . As discussed by Catani, de Florian and Grazzini  and by Harlander and Kilgore , the reason for the convergence of the $`(1x)`$ expansion is mainly kinematical, and depends on the steeply rising behavior of parton luminosities for decreasing momentum fractions. This behavior also explains why results based only on soft  and virtual  contributions give a reasonably good approximation to the full answer.

In this note we focus on the influence of the $`m_t\mathrm{}`$ approximation on the $`x1`$ part of the coefficient. It was observed in  that a local Higgs-gluon coupling gives rise to double-logarithmic corrections in $`\mathrm{ln}x`$. In this note we identify these corrections explicitly order by order in $`\alpha _s`$. In particular we obtain an analytic result for the dominant $`x1`$ part of the NNLO coefficient.

Although the $`x1`$ behavior is unlikely to affect the convergence of the inclusive cross section at NNLO, it may however affect distributions associated to less inclusive observables. This analysis may thus be useful for further evaluations of the hard scattering.

Let us consider the $`x1`$ corrections in the framework of the effective Lagrangian  for the Higgs boson coupling to gluons:

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=(G_F\sqrt{2})^{1/2}K(\alpha _s)G_{\mu \nu }^aG^{a\mu \nu }H,$$
(2)
where $`K(\alpha _s)=\alpha _s/(12\pi )+𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ is the coefficient function containing the dependence on the top quark mass, and is known to order $`\alpha _s^4`$ . The $`x1`$ corrections come, in higher order graphs, from integrating two-gluon irreducible amplitudes over the transverse momenta $`𝐤_1`$ and $`𝐤_2`$ of the gluons that couple to the Higgs boson. In the full theory, contributions from $`|𝐤_1|,|𝐤_2|m_t`$ are suppressed by the top quark loop. In the effective theory, large values of $`|𝐤_1|`$ and $`|𝐤_2|`$ are allowed all the way up to the kinematic limit $`\sqrt{s}`$. This results  in the perturbative coefficients having stronger singularities in the complex $`N`$ plane as $`N0`$ (with $`N`$ the moment variable of Eq. (3)). More precisely, double poles $`\alpha _s/N^2`$ appear order by order in $`\alpha _s`$.

To determine these contributions, recall the structure of the hard scattering coefficient in the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ subtraction scheme for $`N0`$ :

$`C_N(\alpha _s,m_H^2/\mu ^2)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xx^{N1}C(\alpha _s,x,m_H^2/\mu ^2)`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`R_N^2(\gamma _N)(m_H^2/\mu ^2)^{2\gamma _N}h_N(\gamma _N,\gamma _N).`$
Here $`R_N`$ is a normalization factor associated with the choice of the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ scheme ; $`\gamma _N`$ is a known, universal anomalous dimension, with the perturbation expansion

$$\gamma _N=\frac{C_A}{N}\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }+𝒪\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{N}\right)^4;$$
(4)
the function $`h_N`$ is constructed from the matrix element $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ for the off-shell amplitude $`g(k_1)+g(k_2)H`$ by taking the following integral transform

$`h_N(\gamma _1,\gamma _2)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _1\gamma _2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐤_1}{\pi 𝐤_1^2}\left(\frac{𝐤_1^2}{m_H^2}\right)^{\gamma _1}\frac{d^2𝐤_2}{\pi 𝐤_2^2}\left(\frac{𝐤_2^2}{m_H^2}\right)^{\gamma _2}}`$ (5)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}x^N\widehat{\sigma }(x,{\displaystyle \frac{𝐤_1}{m_H}},{\displaystyle \frac{𝐤_2}{m_H}}).`$
The matrix element $`\widehat{\sigma }`$, although off-shell, is defined gauge-invariantly by coupling the gluons with eikonal polarizations, as in . It is readily calculated using the effective Lagrangian (2):

$`\widehat{\sigma }(x,{\displaystyle \frac{𝐤_1}{m_H}},{\displaystyle \frac{𝐤_2}{m_H}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2m_H^2G_F\sqrt{2}}{288\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_H^4}{x^2𝐤_1^2𝐤_2^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(𝐤_1𝐤_2)^2}{\left(m_H^2+𝐤_1^2+𝐤_2^2\right)^2}}`$ (6)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}1{\displaystyle \frac{(𝐤_1+𝐤_2)^2}{m_H^2}}\right).`$
Now consider the function $`h_N`$. The $`x`$ integral in Eq. (5) can be done using the $`\delta `$-function of Eq. (6):

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}x^N\widehat{\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2m_H^2G_F\sqrt{2}}{288\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_H^4}{𝐤_1^2𝐤_2^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(𝐤_1𝐤_2)^2}{\left(m_H^2+𝐤_1^2+𝐤_2^2\right)^2}}`$ (7)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(m_H^2)^{N2}}{\left[m_H^2+(𝐤_1+𝐤_2)^2\right]^{N2}}}.`$
Notice that when $`N0`$ the matrix element is unsuppressed for large $`|𝐤_1|,|𝐤_2|`$. This is a consequence of approximating the Higgs coupling by a local vertex, and is in contrast with the general case of a finite top-quark mass . The behavior at large transverse momenta in Eq. (7) causes the function $`h`$ to have $`N=0`$ singularities not only through its dependence on the anomalous dimension (4) but also through its explicit $`N`$ dependence. Introducing the notation

$$\xi _1=𝐤_1^2/m_H^2,\xi _2=𝐤_2^2/m_H^2$$
(8)
and performing the angular integral in Eq. (5) we get

$`h_N(\gamma _1,\gamma _2)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2m_H^2G_F\sqrt{2}}{288\pi }}\gamma _1\gamma _2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\xi _1\xi _1^{\gamma _11}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\xi _2\xi _2^{\gamma _21}`$ (9)
$`\times `$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(1+\xi _1+\xi _2)^N}}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{N1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{N2}{2}},2,{\displaystyle \frac{4\xi _1\xi _2}{(1+\xi _1+\xi _2)^2}})`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _1\xi _2(N1)(N2)}{2(1+\xi _1+\xi _2)^{2+N}}}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{N+1}{2}},3,{\displaystyle \frac{4\xi _1\xi _2}{(1+\xi _1+\xi _2)^2}})\},`$
where $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ is the hypergeometric function. The integration region of large $`\xi _1`$ and $`\xi _2`$ in Eq. (9) gives rise to a pole at $`\gamma _1+\gamma _2=N`$. This pole is the origin of the double-logarithmic terms.

To approximate $`h`$ near $`N=0`$ taking the contribution of this pole into account, we expand the hypergeometric functions in Eq. (9) to the lowest order around $`N=0`$,

$$_2F_1(\frac{N1}{2},\frac{N2}{2},2,\frac{4\xi _1\xi _2}{(1+\xi _1+\xi _2)^2})1+\frac{\xi _1\xi _2}{(1+\xi _1+\xi _2)^2}+𝒪(N),$$
(10)
$$(N1)(N2)_2F_1(\frac{N}{2},\frac{N+1}{2},3,\frac{4\xi _1\xi _2}{(1+\xi _1+\xi _2)^2})2+𝒪(N),$$
(11)
but retain the $`N`$ dependence in the factor $`(1+\xi _1+\xi _2)^N`$. The integrations in $`\xi _1`$ and $`\xi _2`$ can now be carried out simply in terms of Euler $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ functions:

$`h_N(\gamma _1,\gamma _2)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2m_H^2G_F}{288\pi \sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\gamma _1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\gamma _2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(N\gamma _1\gamma _2)`$ (12)
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N)}}+3\gamma _1\gamma _2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N+2)}}\right],N1.`$
We can now expand $`h`$ for small anomalous dimensions, setting $`\gamma _1=\gamma _2=\gamma _N`$, with $`\gamma _N`$ given in Eq. (4), and determine the leading $`N1`$ part of the perturbative coefficients through the second order:

$`h_N(\gamma _N,\gamma _N)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2m_H^2G_F}{288\pi \sqrt{2}}}`$
$`\times `$ $`\left(1+2\gamma _N{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}+4\gamma _N^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}+\mathrm{}\right)(\gamma _N1,N1)`$
Via Eq. (4), Eq. (S0.Ex9) gives the double-pole terms $`\alpha _s/N^2`$ order by order in perturbation theory. These terms are generated by the pole $`(N2\gamma _N)^1`$ in $`h`$, see Eq. (12).

We are now in a position to find the NNLO correction to the gluon-gluon coefficient for $`x1`$. Higher order contributions to $`K(\alpha _s)`$  in Eq. (2) are subleading for $`x1`$. The factor $`R_N`$ in Eq. (3) is a single-logarithmic factor  that starts to contribute one order higher than NNLO:

$$R_N=1+𝒪(\alpha _s/N)^3.$$
(14)
The $`(m_H^2/\mu ^2)^{2\gamma _N}`$ factor in Eq. (3) is to be expanded for small $`\gamma _N`$, as has been done with $`h`$. Then, by taking an inverse transform from moment space to $`x`$-space, we get

$`C_{gg}(\alpha _s,x,m_H^2/\mu ^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2m_H^2G_F}{288\pi \sqrt{2}}}[\delta (1x)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}C_A(2\mathrm{ln}x+2L)`$
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^2C_A^2({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{ln}^3x+2\mathrm{ln}^2xL2\mathrm{ln}xL^2)+\mathrm{}]`$
The first two terms in the square bracket reproduce respectively the leading-order result  and the $`x1`$ piece of the next-to-leading-order result ; the third term determines the $`x1`$ pieces of the coefficients $`c_{gg}^{(2)}`$, $`\overline{c}_{gg}^{(2)}`$, $`\overline{\overline{c}}_{gg}^{(2)}`$ in Eq. (1).

The quark components of the coefficient also contain double-logarithmic corrections. These can be determined in an analogous manner. We find

$`C_{qg}(\alpha _s,x,m_H^2/\mu ^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2m_H^2G_F}{288\pi \sqrt{2}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}C_F(\mathrm{ln}x+L)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^2C_FC_A`$ (16)
$`\times `$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^3x+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2xL{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{ln}xL^2)+\mathrm{}],`$
$`C_{q\overline{q}}(\alpha _s,x,m_H^2/\mu ^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2m_H^2G_F}{288\pi \sqrt{2}}}`$
$`\times `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^2C_F^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{ln}^3x+\mathrm{ln}^2xL\mathrm{ln}xL^2\right)+\mathrm{}`$
In summary, perturbative corrections to Higgs production are double-logarithmic for $`x1`$ in the $`m_t\mathrm{}`$ effective theory, while single-logarithmic in the full theory. We have given simple formulas that incorporate all the double logarithms to any order in $`\alpha _s`$ in the $`m_t\mathrm{}`$ case. The formulas also contain subleading $`N0`$ terms, mostly of kinematical origin, which may be relevant for matching the $`x1`$ contributions with expansions around the soft limit $`x1`$ . For observables sensitive to the $`x1`$ region, it will be relevant to include finite top-mass corrections.


format: text

text:
# 1 The H1 data for 𝐹_𝐿 are compared with the predictions from the GVD/CDP.

BI-TH 2002/04

The longitudinal structure function of the proton for small x

Dieter Schildknecht

Fakultät für Physik, Universität Bielefeld

D-33501 Bielefeld, Germany

and

Mikhail Tentyukov∗∗

Fakultät für Physik, Universität Bielefeld

D-33501 Bielefeld, Germany

Abstract
A comparison of the H1 data on the longitudinal structure function, $`F_L`$, at small $`x`$ with the predictions from the generalized vector dominance / color dipole picture (GVD/CDP) is presented. Using the set of parameters previously determined in the fits to the total cross section, $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}`$, we find good agreement with the data for $`F_L`$. Scaling in $`\eta =(Q^2+m_0^2)/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2)`$ is discussed in detail for the longitudinal and transverse photoabsorption cross sections.

Supported by the BMBF, Contract 05 HT9PBA2
∗∗ On leave from BLTP JINR, Dubna, Russia

A confrontation of predictions for polarisation phenomena with experimental data has frequently in the past provided crucial tests of a theoretical ansatz. This was also true for an analysis of the nucleon structure functions when discriminating between longitudinal and transverse virtual photons.

The H1 collaboration at HERA has recently presented data  for the longitudinal structure function of the proton, $`F_L(x,Q^2)`$, in the diffraction region of small valus of $`xQ^2/W^21`$. In the present note, we compare the experimental data with the predictions from the generalized vector dominance/color dipole picture (GVD/CDP) 111For somewhat related approaches compare refs.. We will present our analysis of the data in terms of the longitudinal structure function, $`F_L(x,Q^2)`$, and in terms of the longitudinal part of the photoabsorption cross section, $`\sigma _L(W^2,Q^2)`$. In the case of the longitudinal cross section, $`\sigma _L(W^2,Q^2)`$, we will employ the scaling variable

$$\eta (W^2,Q^2)=\frac{Q^2+m_0^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2)},$$
(1)
recently introduced  in our analysis of the total cross section, where in good approximation

$`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}(W^2,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _T(W^2,Q^2)+\sigma _L(W^2,Q^2)`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}(\eta (W^2,Q^2)).`$
Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2)`$ is a slowly increasing function of $`W^2`$ proportional to the effective gluon momentum transfer squared, and $`m_0`$ denotes a threshold mass. We will provide a detailed discussion of the behavior of $`\sigma _T`$ and $`\sigma _L`$ with respect to their dependence on $`\eta `$, in particular in the $`Q^20`$ photoproduction limit, where $`\eta \eta _{\mathrm{Min}}=m_0^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2)`$.

The GVD/CDP was described and compared with the experimental data for the total cross section, $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}`$, in refs.. The GVD/CDP, equivalently, may be formulated in transverse position space or in momentum space.

The evaluation of the two-gluon exchange diagrams  in the low-$`x`$ limit, upon transition to transverse position space, leads to the representation

$$\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}(W^2,Q^2)=_0^1𝑑zd^2r_{}|\psi |^2(\stackrel{}{r}_{}^2,z(1z),Q^2)\sigma _{(q\overline{q})p}(\stackrel{}{r}_{}^2,z(1z),W^2),$$
(3)
where $`\psi `$ denotes the so-called photon wave function, explicitly given in . The color-dipole cross section, $`\sigma _{(q\overline{q})p}`$, fulfills a Fourier representation of the form

$$\sigma _{(q\overline{q})p}(\stackrel{}{r}_{}^2,z(1z),W^2)=d^2l_{}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{(q\overline{q})p}(\stackrel{}{l}_{}^2,z(1z),W^2)\left(1e^{i\stackrel{}{l}_{}\stackrel{}{r}_{}}\right).$$
(4)
In (3) and (4), the variables $`\stackrel{}{r}_{}`$ and $`z`$ denote the two-dimensional vector of the transverse interquark separation and the fraction of the photon momentum taken over by one of the incoming quarks. The representation (3), with (4), contains the underlying generic structure of two-gluon exchange, and, accordingly, it encorporates “color transparency” as well as hadronic unitarity provided appropriate convergence properties are readily fulfilled. The empirical scaling behavior (2) (compare ) is embodied in (3) by adopting the simple ansatz of

$$\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{(q\overline{q})p}(\stackrel{}{l}_{}^2,z(1z),W^2)=\sigma ^{(\mathrm{})}\frac{1}{\pi }\delta (\stackrel{}{l}_{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2)z(1z))$$
(5)
for the gluon-gluon-proton-proton vertex function, $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{(q\overline{q})p}`$, in (4). Substitution of (5) into (4) yields

$$\sigma _{(q\overline{q})p}(\stackrel{}{r}_{}^2,z(1z),W^2)=\sigma ^{(\mathrm{})}(1J_0(r_{}\sqrt{z(1z)}\mathrm{\Lambda }(W^2))),$$
(6)
where $`J_0`$ denotes a Bessel function. The asymptotic value of the dipole cross section for $`r_{}\mathrm{}`$ as well as $`W^2\mathrm{}`$ has been denoted by $`\sigma ^{(\mathrm{})}`$. Actually, $`\sigma ^{(\mathrm{})}`$ is constant in good approximation, and it is of typical hadronic magnitude. Equations (3) and (6) may be considered as the basic formulae of the GVD/CDP. They yield $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}=\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}(\eta )`$, and accordingly, $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}`$ depends on the (threshold) mass $`m_0^2`$ and on the adjustable parameters describing the increase of of the average or effective gluon transverse momentum, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2)`$, with energy.

Actually, the evaluation of the GVD/CDP was carried out  in momentum space. Inserting (4) into (3) together with the Fourier representation of the photon wave function for longitudinal and transverse (virtual) photons takes us back to momentum space and leads to

$$\sigma _{\gamma _{T,L}^{}p}(W^2,Q^2)=\frac{\alpha R_{e^+e^{}}}{3\pi }\sigma ^{(\mathrm{})}I_{T,L}(\eta ,\frac{m_0^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2)})$$
(7)
with

$$R_{e^+e^{}}=3Q_i^2,$$
(8)
where $`R_{e^+e^{}}=2`$ is to be inserted, since upon specifying (7) to photoproduction, $`Q^2=0`$, only three flavors $`(u,d,s)`$ with charges $`Q_i`$ contribute appreciably, while $`\sigma ^{(\mathrm{})}80GeV^231mb`$ 222As long as no detailed treatment of the influence of the charm-quark mass is included in (7), the dependence on the product $`R_{e^+e^{}}\sigma ^{(\mathrm{})}`$ allows one to equally well insert $`R_{e^+e^{}}=10/3`$ and $`\sigma ^{(\mathrm{})}=48GeV^2=18.7mb`$. The (dimensionless) functions $`I_{T,L}(\eta ,m_0^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2))`$ in (7) denote integrals of the form of mass dispersion relations reminiscent of off-diagonal generalized vector dominance . They were represented  as a sum of two terms,

$$I_{T,L}=I_{T,L}^{(1)}+I_{T,L}^{(2)}.$$
(9)
The main transverse and longitudinal, contributions $`I_{T,L}^{(1)}`$, are given by

$`I_T^{(1)}(\eta ,{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2)}})`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{m_0^2}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑M^2{\displaystyle _{(M\mathrm{\Lambda }(W^2))^2}^{(M+\mathrm{\Lambda }(W^2))^2}}𝑑M^2\omega (M^2,M^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2))`$ (10)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{(Q^2+M^2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2+M^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2)}{2(Q^2+M^2)(Q^2+M^2)}}\right],`$
and

$`I_L^{(1)}(\eta ,{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2)}})`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{m_0^2}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑M^2{\displaystyle _{(M\mathrm{\Lambda }(W^2))^2}^{(M+\mathrm{\Lambda }(W^2))^2}}𝑑M^2\omega (M^2,M^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2))`$ (11)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{(Q^2+M^2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{2(Q^2+M^2)(Q^2+M^2)}}\right].`$
The terms $`I_{T,L}^{(2)}`$ in (9) assure the correct threshold behavior of $`I_{T,L}`$ in the off-diagonal contribution333Numerically, it turns out that $`I_T^{(2)}`$ is practically negligible in the HERA energy range, while $`I_L^{(2)}`$ contributes about 20% at the lowest HERA energy and becomes negligible, when the energy reaches the highest HERA energy. Note that explicit analytic formulae are available  for $`I_{T,L}^{(1)}`$, and accordingly only the correction term $`I_L^{(2)}`$ must be evaluated by numerical integration.. They are given by

$`I_T^{(2)}(\eta ,{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2)}})`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{m_0^2}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑M^2\mathrm{\Theta }(m_0^2(M\mathrm{\Lambda }(W^2))^2){\displaystyle _{(M\mathrm{\Lambda }(W^2))^2}^{m_0^2}}𝑑M^2`$ (12)
$`\times \omega (M^2,M^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2)){\displaystyle \frac{M^2+M^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2)}{2(Q^2+M^2)(Q^2+M^2)}},`$
and

$`I_L^{(2)}=(\eta ,{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2)}})`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{m_0^2}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑M^2\mathrm{\Theta }(m_0^2(M\mathrm{\Lambda }(W^2))^2){\displaystyle _{(M\mathrm{\Lambda }(W^2))^2}^{m_0^2}}𝑑M^2`$ (13)
$`\times \omega (M^2,M^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2)){\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{(Q^2+M^2)(Q^2+M^2)}}.`$
We note the relative minus sign between the diagonal $`(M^2=M^2)`$ and the off-diagonal propagator term in (10) and (11) that is characteristic for off-diagonal generalized vector dominance . The two contributions with their relative minus sign are an outgrowth of the two-gluon exchange structure. Concerning $`\omega (M^2,M^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2))`$, we only note the integration formulae,

$$\frac{1}{\pi }_{(M\mathrm{\Lambda }(W^2))^2}^{(M+\mathrm{\Lambda }(W^2))^2}𝑑M^2\omega (M^2,M^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2))=1,$$
(14)
and

$$\frac{1}{\pi }_{(M\mathrm{\Lambda }(W^2))^2}^{(M+\mathrm{\Lambda }(W^2))^2}𝑑M^2\omega (M^2,M^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2))M^2=M^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2),$$
(15)
and refer to ref.  for the explicit expressions.

In , we gave explicit analytical expressions for $`I_{T,L}^{(1)}`$, and an approximation formula for the sum $`I_T^{(2)}+I_L^{(2)}`$. These formulae allowed us to perform a fit to the data for the total cross section, $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}(W^2,Q^2)`$. The fit gave the parameters

$$m_0^2=0.16\pm 0.01\mathrm{GeV}^2,$$
(16)
as well as the parameters describing the increase of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2)`$ with energy, alternatively by a power law or a logarithm,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2)=\{\begin{array}{cc}& C_1(W^2+W_0^2)^{C_2},\\ & C_1^{}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{W^2}{W_0^2}+C_2^{}\right),\end{array}$$
(17)
where

$`C_1`$ $`=`$ $`0.34\pm 0.05(\mathrm{GeV}^2)^{1C_2},`$
$`C_2`$ $`=`$ $`0.27\pm 0.01,`$ (18)
$`W_0^2`$ $`=`$ $`882\pm 246\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}^2,`$
and

$`C_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`1.64\pm 0.14(\mathrm{GeV}^2),`$
$`C_2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`4.1\pm 0.4,`$ (19)
$`W_0^2`$ $`=`$ $`1015\pm 334\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}^2.`$
Note that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2)`$ varies between $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^22\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^27\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}^2`$ in the HERA energy range of $`W^21000\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}^2`$ to $`90000\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}^2`$. Averaging over the configuration variable $`z`$ yields $`\stackrel{}{l}_{}^2_{W^2}=(1/6)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ , i.e. a reasonable value of $`\stackrel{}{l}_{}^20.3\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ to $`\stackrel{}{l}_{}^21\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}^2`$ for the average or effective gluon transverse momentum squared absorbed by one of the quarks.

In fig. 1, we compare our results for

$$F_L(x,Q^2)=\frac{Q^2}{4\pi ^2\alpha }\sigma _L(x,Q^2),(x1),$$
(20)
with the H1 data using the parameters (16) as well as (18) or (19) previously determined in the fits to $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}`$. There is reasonable agreement with the experimental data.

From the point of view of the GVD/CDP it is more appropriate to plot the data in terms of the longitudinal part of the total cross section. In fig. 2, we show the data for $`\sigma _L`$, calculated from the data for $`F_L`$ according to (20), plotted against the scaling variable $`\eta `$. As expected from fig. 1, there is reasonable agreement, with a tendency for the data to lie somewhat lower than the theoretical predictions, as also seen in fig. 1.

The lower limit of $`\eta `$ determined by the photoproduction limit of $`Q^2=0`$,

$$\eta \eta _{\mathrm{Min}}(Q^2=0,W^2)=\frac{m_0^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2)},$$
(21)
decreases with increasing energy. The vanishing of $`\sigma _L(\eta ,\eta _{\mathrm{Min}})`$ with $`\eta \eta _{\mathrm{Min}}=Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2)0`$ as a function of $`\eta `$, accordingly, occurs at values of $`\eta _{\mathrm{Min}}`$ that decrease with increasing energy. Compare fig. 2. In the low $`Q^2`$ regime of $`\eta \eta _{\mathrm{Min}}`$, the longitudinal cross section, $`\sigma _L`$, strongly depends on $`\eta _{\mathrm{Min}}`$ at fixed $`\eta `$. Scaling in $`\eta `$ is strongly violated. This is in contrast, as previously discussed , to the total cross section, where $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}=\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}(\eta )`$.

The behavior of $`\sigma _T,\sigma _L`$ as well as $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}=\sigma _T+\sigma _L`$ as a function of $`\eta `$ is shown in fig. 3. In order to illuminate the behavior of the different contributions to the total cross section, we note that $`I_T^{(1)}`$ and $`I_L^{(1)}`$ from (10) and (11) depend on $`\eta `$ and $`\eta _{\mathrm{Min}}`$,

$$I_{T,L}=I_{T,L}(\eta ,\eta _{\mathrm{Min}}).$$
(22)
Explicit formulae were given in ref. 444Compare Appendix B in Eur. Phys. J C20 (2001) 77 . Numerically, $`\eta _{\mathrm{Min}}<0.1`$. Expressing $`I_{T,L}`$ in (22) in terms of $`\eta `$ and

$$ϵ=\eta \eta _{\mathrm{Min}},$$
(23)
by substitution of $`\eta _{\mathrm{Min}}=\eta ϵ`$, and noting that $`ϵ\eta `$ as soon as $`\eta >1`$, we immediately see that $`I_{T,L}=I_{T,L}(\eta )`$ for $`\eta >1`$; we have scaling in $`\eta `$ for $`\sigma _T`$ as well as $`\sigma _L`$ for $`\eta >1`$. We turn to $`\eta \eta _{\mathrm{Min}}<1`$. From the analytic expressions given in Appendix B of ref. , one immediately notes that $`I_T`$ contains an additive contribution, opposite in sign, but equal in magnitude to $`I_L`$. The violent increase of $`I_L`$ at fixed $`\eta `$ with decreasing $`\eta _{\mathrm{Min}}`$ for $`\eta \eta _{\mathrm{Min}}<1`$ is indeed seen to be entirely cancelled, once the sum of $`I_T`$ and $`I_L`$ is taken. An expansion of the sum of $`I_T`$ and $`I_L`$ at fixed $`\eta `$ as a function of $`\eta _{\mathrm{Min}}`$ shows that any additional dependence on $`\eta _{\mathrm{Min}}`$ is negligible .

In summary, we have shown that the GVD/CDP with the parameters previously determined in a fit to $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}`$ describes the longitudinal structure function, $`F_L`$, or, equivalently, the longitudinal photoabsorption cross section, $`\sigma _L`$, at low $`x`$. We have given a detailed discussion on how scaling in $`\eta `$ for $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}`$, i.e. $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}=\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}(\eta )`$, arises despite the fact that scaling is strongly violated for the longitudinal cross section in the region of $`\eta \eta _{\mathrm{Min}}`$.

Acknowledgement

It is a pleasure to thank Nikolai Nikolaev for useful discussions.