text:
# Process 𝜋𝑝→𝜋𝜋𝑁 at high energies and moderate momenta transferred to the nucleon and the determination of parameters of the 𝑓₀(980) and 𝑓₀(1300)

## I Introduction

The reactions of meson production in meson–nucleon collisions such as $`\pi p\pi \pi N`$, $`K\overline{K}N`$, $`\eta \eta N`$ and $`KN\pi KN`$ are traditionally a source of information about resonances in the two-meson spectra, namely, $`\pi \pi `$, $`K\overline{K}`$, $`\eta \eta `$, $`\pi K`$, see e.g. . So it would be important to know what resonance characteristics could be reliably determined from these reactions and where one may encounter problems.

A set of the $`K`$-matrix analyses  are based on the three-meson production data in the $`p\overline{p}`$ annihilation, together with data on the two-meson production in meson-nucleon high energy collisions. The GAMS data for the reaction $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$ at $`p_{lab}=38`$ GeV/c , which represent the production of $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ at relatively large momentum transfers, are important for the investigation of 1200–1400 MeV mass region: at $`|t|0.51.0`$ (GeV/c)2 a distinct peak was seen near 1300 MeV in $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ spectra.

The resonance $`f_0(1300)`$ (denoted as $`f_0(1370)`$ in the compilation ) had been observed in the analysis of the $`\pi \pi `$ and $`\eta \eta `$ spectra obtained from the annihilation of $`p\overline{p}(atrest,liquidH_2)\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$, $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\eta `$, $`\pi ^0\eta \eta `$ . In the most comprehensive analysis , where both resonance production (pole singularities of the amplitude) and the meson rescattering in the final state (logarithmic singularities of the amplitude ) were taken into account, the magnitude for the complex-valued mass was found to be $`Mi\mathrm{\Gamma }/2=(1335\pm 40)i(127_{20}^{+30})`$ MeV . In the analyses presented in , a simplified fitting procedure was carried out, without accounting for logarithmic singularities: one obtained $`(1340\pm 40)i(127_{20}^{+30})`$ MeV . In the Crystal Barrel Collaboration paper  the claimed mass was $`1365_{55}^{+20}`$ MeV reflecting an attempt to make it closer to a scalar resonance which was then defined at $`1430i125`$ MeV . Before that, the existence of a scalar-isoscalar resonance was also claimed to be at $`1430i73`$ MeV  or $`1420i110`$ MeV .

But now it became obvious that the mass shift towards higher value is due to not sufficiently correct account for the interference ”resonance/background”: the fact that, just due to a considerable interference in the $`\pi \pi `$ $`S`$-wave the resonance $`f_0(1300)`$ reveals itself not as a bump or minimum but as a shoulder in the spectrum, had been specially emphasized in . No visible structure had been observed in the two-meson spectra from Crystall Barrel reactions $`p\overline{p}(atrest,liquidH_2)\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$, $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\eta `$, $`\pi ^0\eta \eta `$, although this state was strongly needed for the combined description of the three-meson Dalitz-plots and the two-pion production reactions : the combined fits  provide a strong restriction for the position of this state — it could be not higher than 1350 MeV. The notation $`f_0(1370)`$ used in the PDG compilation  is a tribute to these early (and exaggerated) values ***Note that in , at the discussion of the status of $`f_0(1370)`$, the paper  with the most detailed analysis of this resonance was not mentioned..

There is no common belief in the existence of the $`f_0(1300)`$, and its parameters are supposed to be poorly defined: in the compilation  the mass and half-width are quoted as $`M(12001500)`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/2(75125)`$ MeV.

The data with a direct evidence for this state were obtained by the GAMS group  where the peak associated with $`f_0(1300)`$ was clearly seen at large momenta transferred to the target nucleon. (Note that a hint to a smallness of the background at large momentum transfers was given by the $`K\overline{K}`$ production data  where events were collected at $`0.2|t|0.5`$ GeV2 interval, and a strong bump was seen in the mass region $`1300`$ MeV).

The GAMS data , where a strong enhancement in the spectra was observed in the 1300 MeV mass region, were included into recent $`K`$-matrix analyses of the $`IJ^{PC}=00^{++}`$-amplitude . In , the mass $`(1300\pm 20)i(120\pm 20)`$ MeV was found for $`f_0(1300)`$. It became obvious that exchange by large momenta favours the production of this state, and new measurement of the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ spectra at moderately large $`|t|`$ in the reaction $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$ at $`p_{lab}=18`$ GeV/c performed by the E852 Collaboration  provided an important contribution into verification of parameters of this resonance. The signal from $`f_0(1300)`$ is clearly seen in the spectra $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ at $`|t|0.51.5`$ (GeV/c)2, for, as was said above, the background at such momenta transferred is small.

However, the account for the pion-pair-production data in the $`K`$-matrix analysis meets with a poor knowledge of the details of the $`t`$-channel exchange mechanism at such momenta. At small momenta, $`|t|\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.2`$ (GeV/c)2, the reggeized pion exchange dominates. At $`|t|(0.204)`$ (GeV/c)2, the behaviour of the two-pion production cross section with the growth of $`|t|`$ changes: the decrease of $`d\sigma /dtdM_{\pi \pi }`$ becomes less steep. The change of the regime can be due to the onset of different $`t`$-channel exchange mechanisms at moderate $`|t|`$ such as multi-reggeon rescatterings, say, $`\pi P,\pi PP`$, and so on ($`P`$ denotes the Pomeron) or to the contribution of the $`a_1`$ exchange and related branchings such as $`a_1P,a_1PP`$, etc.

In , by performing the $`K`$-matrix analysis of the GAMS $`\pi \pi `$-spectra in the vicinity of the $`f_0(980)`$, the $`t`$-distributions were approximated by the effective pion exchange. It was supposed that at small $`|t|`$ the reggeized pion exchange dominates, while at increasing $`|t|`$ the change of regime is accompanied by a change of sign in the amplitude (recall that the $`\pi P`$ branching changes the amplitude sign). In the analysis  of the $`\pi \pi `$ spectra in the region of $`f_0(980)`$ and $`f_0(1300)`$, a scenario with a large contribution of the reggeized $`a_1`$ exchange at $`|t|>0.5`$ (GeV/c)2 was realized in the $`K`$-matrix fit. The hypothesis that the change of regime in the $`t`$-distribution at $`M_{\pi \pi }1000`$ MeV is due to the $`a_1`$ exchange was also discussed in .

To decrease the uncertainties related to a poor knowledge of the $`t`$-channel exchange mechanism, the $`M_{\pi \pi }`$-distributions averaged over a broad $`t`$-intervals $`|t_1||t||t_2|`$ were used in  to fit to data:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dM_{\pi \pi }}=\underset{t_1}{\overset{t_2}{}}𝑑t\frac{d\sigma }{dtdM_{\pi \pi }},$$
(1)
for the $`t`$-intervals as follows: $`0<|t|<0.2`$, $`0.3<|t|<1.0`$, $`0.35<|t|<1.0`$, $`0.4<|t|<1.0`$, $`0.45<|t|<1.0`$, $`0.5<|t|<1.0`$ (GeV/c)2. The averaged distributions, as one may believe, are not sensitive to the details of the $`t`$-distribution, as the averaging over a broad momentum-transfer interval makes smoother the particularities of $`t`$-distributions. Fitting to the spectra confirmed this statement . In the analysis of $`t`$-distributions , where, together with pion exchange, the $`a_1`$ reggeized exchange was included, the parameters of the $`f_0(980)`$ and $`f_0(1300)`$ appeared to be weakly sensitive to different entries of the $`t`$-channel exchange mechanism, thus giving us a hope that a reliable determination of resonance pole singularities as well as pole residues (associated with partial widths) are possible in the framework of the averaging procedure (1).

Recent measurements of the $`M_{\pi \pi }`$ spectra in the reaction $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$ at $`|t|<1.5`$ (GeV/c)2  provide us an opportunity to enlighten the $`t`$-channel mechanism as well as to study to what extent the averaging of spectra (1) makes the extracted resonance parameters insensitive to the details of $`t`$-exchange mechanism. The present paper is devoted to the consideration of these problems.

As in previous studies , we analyse the $`\pi \pi `$ spectra in terms of the $`K`$-matrix amplitude. Because of that, in Section 2 we recall the necessary $`K`$-matix technique formulae. Section 3 presents the results of the fit. In Conclusion we summarize our understanding on the $`t`$-channel exchange mechanism and recall the properties of the $`f_0(980)`$ and $`f_0(1300)`$ resonances found in the $`K`$-matrix analysis based on the spectra measured by GAMS group  and E852 Collaboration .

## II The $`K`$-matrix amplitude

In this Section we present the formulae for the $`K`$-matrix analysis of the $`00^{++}`$ wave. The given analysis is a continuation of earlier work . In the latter paper  the $`00^{++}`$ wave had been reconstructed on the basis of the following data set:
(1) GAMS data on the $`S`$-wave two-meson production in the reactions $`\pi p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$, $`\eta \eta n`$ and $`\eta \eta ^{}n`$ at small nucleon momenta transferred, $`|t|<0.2`$ (GeV/$`c`$)2 ;
(2) GAMS data on the $`\pi \pi `$ $`S`$-wave production in the reaction $`\pi p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$ at large momenta transferred, $`0.30<|t|<1.0`$ (GeV/$`c`$)2 ;
(3) BNL data on $`\pi p^{}K\overline{K}n`$ ;
(4) Crystal Barrel data on $`p\overline{p}`$ (at rest, liquid $`H_2`$) $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$, $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\eta `$, $`\pi ^0\eta \eta `$ .

Now the experimental basis has been much broadened, and additional samples of data are included into current analysis of the $`00^{++}`$ wave, as follows:
(5) Crystal Barrel data on proton-antiproton annihilation in gas: $`p\overline{p}`$ (at rest, gaseous $`H_2`$ ) $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$, $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\eta `$, $`\pi ^0\eta \eta `$ ;
(6) Crystal Barrel Data on proton-antiproton annihilation in liquid $`H_2`$: $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$, $`K^+K^{}\pi ^0`$, $`K_SK_S\pi ^0`$ ;
(7) Crystal Barrel data on neutron-antiproton annihilation in liquid deuterium $`n\overline{p}`$ (at rest, liquid $`D_2`$) $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^{}`$, $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$, $`K_SK^{}\pi ^0`$, $`K_SK_S\pi ^{}`$ ;
(8) E852 Collaboration data on the $`\pi \pi `$ $`S`$-wave production in the reaction $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$ for nucleon momentum transfers squared $`0<|t|<1.5(\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$) .

Below we set out the $`K`$-matrix formulae used for the data analysis of the $`S`$-wave in the reaction $`\pi ^{}p(\pi \pi )_Sn`$.

### A The $`K`$-matrix scattering amplitude for the $`00^{++}`$ partial wave

The $`K`$-matrix technique is used for the description of the two-meson coupled channels:

$$\widehat{A}=\widehat{K}(\widehat{I}i\widehat{\rho }\widehat{K})^1,$$
(2)
where $`\widehat{K}`$ is $`n\times n`$ matrix ($`n`$ is the number of channels under consideration) and $`\widehat{I}`$ is the unity matrix. The phase space matrix is diagonal: $`\widehat{\rho }_{ab}=\delta _{ab}\rho _a`$. The phase space factor $`\rho _a`$ is responsible for the threshold singularities of the amplitude: to keep the amplitude analytical in the physical region under consideration we use analytical continuation for $`\rho _a`$ below threshold. For example, the $`\eta \eta `$ phase space factor $`\rho _{\eta \eta }=(14m_\eta ^2/s)^{1/2}`$ is equal to $`i(4m_\eta ^2/s1)^{1/2}`$ below $`\eta \eta `$ threshold ($`s`$ is the two-meson invariant energy squared). To avoid false singularity in the physical region, we use for the $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ channel the phase space factor $`\rho _{\eta \eta ^{}}=(1(m_\eta +m_\eta ^{})^2/s)^{1/2}`$.

For the multi-meson phase volume in the isoscalar sector, we use the four-pion phase space defined as either $`\rho \rho `$ or $`\sigma \sigma `$ phase space, where $`\sigma `$ denotes the $`S`$-wave $`\pi \pi `$ amplitude below 1.2 GeV. The result does not depend practically on whether we use $`\rho \rho `$ or $`\sigma \sigma `$ state for the description of multi-meson channel: below we provide formulae and the values of the obtained parameters for the $`\rho \rho `$ case, for which the fitted expressions are less cumbersome.

For the $`S`$-wave amplitude in the isoscalar sector, we use our standard parametrization :

$$K_{ab}^{00}(s)=\left(\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{g_a^{(\alpha )}g_b^{(\alpha )}}{M_\alpha ^2s}+f_{ab}\frac{1\text{GeV}^2+s_0}{s+s_0}\right)\frac{ss_A}{s+s_{A0}},$$
(3)
with the following notations for meson states: 1 = $`\pi \pi `$, 2 = $`K\overline{K}`$, 3 = $`\eta \eta `$, 4 = $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ and 5 = multi-meson states (four-pion state mainly at $`\sqrt{s}<1.6\text{GeV}`$). The $`g_a^{(\alpha )}`$ is a coupling constant of the bare state $`\alpha `$ to the meson channel; the parameters $`f_{ab}`$ and $`s_0`$ describe the smooth part of the $`K`$-matrix elements ($`s_0>1.5`$ GeV2). We use the factor $`(ss_A)/(s+s_{A0})`$ to suppress the effect of the false kinematical singularity at $`s=0`$ in the amplitude near the $`\pi \pi `$ threshold. Parameters $`s_A`$ and $`s_{A0}`$ are kept to be of the order of $`s_A(0.10.5)m_\pi ^2`$ and $`s_{A0}(0.10.5)`$ GeV2 (note that the upper limit of $`s_{A0}`$ coincides with the position of the $`\rho `$-meson left-hand singularity); for these intervals the results do not depend practically on precise values of $`s_A`$ and $`s_{A0}`$.

For the two-meson states, $`\pi \pi `$, $`K\overline{K}`$, $`\eta \eta `$, $`\eta \eta ^{}`$, the phase space matrix elements are equal to:

$$\rho _a(s)=\sqrt{\frac{s(m_{1a}+m_{2a})^2}{s}},a=1,2,3,4$$
(4)
where $`m_{1a}`$ and $`m_{2a}`$ are masses of the pseudoscalars. The multimeson phase space factor is defined as

$$\rho _5(s)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\rho _{51}\text{at}s<1\text{GeV}^2,& \\ \rho _{52}\text{at}s>1\text{GeV}^2,& \end{array}$$
(5)
$$\rho _{51}=\rho _0\frac{ds_1}{\pi }\frac{ds_2}{\pi }M^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_2)\sqrt{(s+s_1s_2)^24ss_1}\times $$

$$\times s^1[(M^2s_1)^2+M^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(s_1)]^1[(M^2s_2)^2+M^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(s_2)]^1,$$

$$\rho _{52}=\left(\sqrt{\frac{s16m_\pi ^2}{s}}\right)^n.$$

Here $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ are the two-pion energies squared, $`M`$ is $`\rho `$-meson mass and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)`$ is its energy-dependent width, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)=\gamma \rho _1^3(s)`$. The factor $`\rho _0`$ provides the continuity of $`\rho _5(s)`$ at $`s=1`$ GeV2. The power parameter $`n`$ is taken to be 1, 3, 5 for different variants of the fitting; the results are weakly dependent on these values (in our previous analysis  the value $`n=5`$ was used).

### B The $`S`$-wave $`\pi \pi `$, $`K\overline{K}`$, $`\eta \eta `$ and $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ production in the high-energy $`\pi p`$ collisions

Here we present formulae for the high-energy $`S`$-wave production of $`\pi \pi `$, $`K\overline{K}`$, $`\eta \eta `$, $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ at small and moderate momenta transferred to the nucleon. In , the $`\pi p`$ collisions were studied at $`p_{beam}(1540)`$ GeV/c (or $`s_{\pi N}2m_Np_{beam}3080`$ GeV2). At such energies, two pseudoscalar mesons are produced due to the $`t`$-channel exchange by reggeized mesons belonging to the $`\pi `$ and $`a_1`$ trajectories, leading and daughter ones.

The $`\pi `$ and $`a_1`$ reggeons have different signatures, $`\xi _\pi =+1`$ and $`\xi _{a1}=1`$. Accordingly, we write the $`\pi `$ and $`a_1`$ reggeon propagators as:

$$e^{i\frac{\pi }{2}\alpha _\pi (t)}\frac{s_{\pi N}^{\alpha _\pi (t)}}{\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi }{2}\alpha _\pi (t))},ie^{i\frac{\pi }{2}\alpha _{a1}(t)}\frac{s_{\pi N}^{\alpha _{a1}(t)}}{\mathrm{cos}(\frac{\pi }{2}\alpha _{a1}(t))}.$$
(6)
Following , we use for leading trajectories:

$$\alpha _{\pi (leading)}(t)0.015+0.72t,\alpha _{a1(leading)}(t)0.10+0.72t,$$
(7)
and for daughter ones:

$$\alpha _{\pi (daughter)}(t)1.10+0.72t,\alpha _{a1(daughter)}(t)1.10+0.72t.$$
(8)
Here the slope parameters are in GeV. In the centre-of mass frame, which is the most convenient for the consideration of reggeon exchanges, the incoming particles move along the $`z`$-axis with momentum $`p`$. In the leading order of the $`1/p`$ expansion, the spin factors for $`\pi `$ and $`a_1`$ trajectories read:

$$\pi \mathrm{trajectory}:(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{q}_{}),$$
(9)
$$a_1\mathrm{trajectory}:i(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{n}_z)$$

where $`\stackrel{}{n}_z=\stackrel{}{p}_{beam}/p_{beam}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}_{}`$ is the momentum transferred to the nucleon ($`tq_{}^2`$). The Pauli matrices $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ work in the two-component spinor space for the incoming and outgoing nucleons: $`(\phi _{out}^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\phi _{in})`$ (for more detail see, for example, ). Consistent removal from the vertices (9) of the terms decreasing with $`p\mathrm{}`$ is necessary for a correct inclusion of the daughter trajectories which should obey, similar to the leading ones, the constraints imposed by the $`t`$-channel unitarity condition.

In our calculations, we modify conventionally reggeon propagators in (6). We replace:

$$s_{\pi N}\frac{s_{\pi N}}{s_{\pi N0}},$$
(10)
where the normalization parameter $`s_{\pi N0}`$ is of the order of 4–20 GeV2. To eliminate the poles at $`t<0`$ we introduce additional factors into the reggeon propagators, the Gamma-functions, by replacing in (6):

$$\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\alpha _\pi (t)\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\alpha _\pi (t)\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\alpha _\pi (t)}{2}+1\right),$$
(11)
$$\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\alpha _{a1}(t)\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\alpha _{a1}(t)\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\alpha _{a1}(t)}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\right).$$

The $`K`$-matrix amplitude for the transitions $`\pi R(t)\pi \pi `$, $`K\overline{K}`$, $`\eta \eta `$, $`\eta \eta ^{}`$, $`\pi \pi \pi \pi `$, where $`R(t)`$ refers to reggeon, reads:

$$\widehat{A}_{\pi R}=\widehat{K}_{\pi R}(\widehat{I}i\widehat{\rho }\widehat{K})^1,$$
(12)
where $`\widehat{K}_{\pi R}`$ is the following vector:

$$K_{\pi R,b}^{00}=\left(\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{G_{\pi R}^{(\alpha )}(t)g_b^{(\alpha )}}{M_\alpha ^2s}+F_{\pi R,b}(t)\frac{1\text{GeV}^2+s_{R0}}{s+s_{R0}}\right)\frac{ss_A}{s+s_{A0}}.$$
(13)
Here $`G_{\pi R}^{(\alpha )}(t)`$ and $`F_{\pi R,b}(t)`$ are the reggeon $`t`$-dependent form factors. The following limits are imposed on the form factors:

$$G_{\pi \pi }^{(\alpha )}(tm_\pi ^2)=g_{\pi \pi }^{(\alpha )},F_{\pi \pi ,a}(tm_\pi ^2)=f_{\pi \pi ,a},$$
(14)
where $`g_{\pi \pi }^{(\alpha )}`$ and $`f_{\pi \pi ,a}`$ enter the matrix element (3).

Different parametrizations of the form factor $`t`$-dependence were investigated in our analysis. First, the t-dependence of the form factors is introduced in the exponential form (denoted as A-parametrization):

$$G_{\pi R}^{(\alpha )}(t)=g_{\pi R}\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta _R^{(\alpha )}(tm_\pi ^2)\right),F_{\pi \pi ,a}(t)=f_{\pi \pi ,a}\mathrm{exp}\left(\gamma _a(tm_\pi ^2)\right).$$
(15)
Here, for the sake of simplicity, we have used the same slopes, $`\gamma _\alpha `$, for non-resonance $`K`$-matrix terms in the channels $`\eta \eta `$, $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ and $`\pi \pi \pi \pi `$. Also for the trajectories $`a_{1(leading)}`$, $`\pi _{(daughter)}`$, $`a_{1(daughter)}`$, the non-resonance couplings were set to be zero.

In the second type of parametrization denoted as B, a more complicated $`t`$-dependence has been used for the $`\pi `$ trajectory: it is assumed to be a two-term exponential form for the form factor:

$`G_{\pi \pi }^{(\alpha )}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\pi \pi }[((1\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta _1^{(\alpha )}(tm_\pi ^2)\right)+\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta _2^{(\alpha )}(tm_\pi ^2)\right)].`$ (16)
$`G_{\pi \pi }^{(\alpha )}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\pi \pi }\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta _1^{(\alpha )}(tm_\pi ^2)\right)+\mathrm{\Lambda }(tm_\pi ^2)\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta _2^{(\alpha )}(tm_\pi ^2)\right)\right].`$ (17)
The parametrization C assumes a weaker decrease with $`|t|`$ for the second term, that corresponds to the so-called Orear behaviour :

$`G_{\pi \pi }^{(\alpha )}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\pi \pi }\left[(1\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta _1^{(\alpha )}(tm_\pi ^2)\right)+\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta _2^{(\alpha )}\sqrt{|tm_\pi ^2|}\right)\right],`$ (18)
$`G_{\pi \pi }^{(\alpha )}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\pi \pi }\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta _1^{(\alpha )}(tm_\pi ^2)\right)+\mathrm{\Lambda }(tm_\pi ^2)\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta _2^{(\alpha )}\sqrt{|tm_\pi ^2|}\right)\right].`$ (19)
The other form-factor terms are treated in the same way as in the parametrization A. As was said above, the change of regime at $`|t|>0.5`$ (GeV/c)2 is possible due to multi-Pomeron exchanges, thus leading to the Orear behaviour, see  and references therein.

## III Results

In this Section we present the $`K`$-matrix analysis results related to the reactions $`\pi ^{}p(\pi \pi )_Sn`$ at $`p_{lab}=38`$ GeV/c  and $`\pi ^{}p(\pi \pi )_Sn`$ at $`p_{lab}=18`$ GeV/c .

In the PWA analysis performed by the E852 Collaboration  two solutions had been found. We are fitting to the first one which is called in  a physical solution because of its characteristics at the low-mass region. However, near 1100 MeV both solutions give close results, thus creating a problem of separating these solutions above 1100 MeV. Therefore, along with fitting to the first solution, we have performed the analysis where in the mass region higher than 1100 MeV the points of the second solution are used. It occured that fitting to this modified second solution has not led to any qualitative change as compared to the first solution but a non-significant re-definition of parameters for the $`t`$-dependence of reggeon form factors. It is reason for not presenting parameters for the modified second solution, and we restrict ourselves only by the discussion of the results obtained from fitting to the first E852 solution.

### A The description of the $`M_{\pi \pi }`$\- and $`t`$-distributions in the reaction $`\pi p(\pi \pi )_Sn`$ at $`0<|t|<1.5`$ (GeV/$`c`$)2

A comparison of the spectra obtained at $`p_{lab}=38`$ GeV/c  and $`p_{lab}=18`$ GeV/c  points to a change of the $`t`$-dependence behaviour with energy. This is clearly seen in Fig. 1, where the E852 data are plotted in the interval $`|t|=0.30.4`$ (GeV/c)2 vesus the difference of GAMS spectra for the intervals $`|t|=0.31.0`$ (GeV/c)2 and $`|t|=0.41.0`$ (GeV/c)2 (unfortunately the E852 data are presented for other $`t`$ intervals than those measured by GAMS). A strong difference of spectra is seen for $`M_{\pi \pi }11001350`$ MeV, that reveals a significant contribution of daughter trajectories into formation of $`M_{\pi \pi }`$\- and $`t`$-distributions.

The description of data with form factors parametrized in the form A is shown in Figs. 2 and 3, and the corresponding $`t`$-dependence of the $`K`$-matrix coupling constants is presented in Fig. 4 (normalization constant being $`s_{\pi N0}=4`$ GeV2). In this solution, the $`a_1`$ exchange is responsible for the peak at 1-GeV region, while the peak at 1300 MeV at large $`|t|`$ is due to the $`\pi `$ daughter trajectory. At $`|t|`$ between 0.1 and 0.4 GeV2, the $`a_{1(leading)}`$ and $`\pi _{(daughter)}`$ contributions are responsible for a small peak at 1000 MeV region. For this solution the form factors do not cross the abscissas, see Fig. 4; that means the description of spectra is reached in terms of Regge poles, without Regge branchings. The description of GAMS data is quite satisfactory in this approach (see Fig. 3), although certain deviation is observed at small $`|t|`$ in the mass region below 1000 MeV. The $`f_0(1300)`$ at large $`|t|`$ is mainly described by the $`\pi _{(daughter)}`$ trajectory exchange. For this solution the $`a_{1(leading)}`$ contribution is rather large at small $`|t|`$ providing noticeable deviation from the one-term unitarized amplitude.

Futher improvement can be obtained with the form factor parametrizations for the $`\pi `$-trajectory in the form B: figures 5, 6, 7 demonstrate the results for one of the variants of this parametrization. For the variant shown in Figs. 5, 6, 7, which we denote as B1, we omitted the $`a_{1(daughter)}`$ trajectory. The $`a_{1(leading)}`$-exchange is quite large at $`|t|0.4`$ GeV2. At rather large $`|t|`$ the $`\pi _{(leading)}`$ and $`\pi _{(daughter)}`$ trajectories are responsible for the peak in the 1300 MeV mass region. The $`\pi _{(leading)}`$-exchange is also responsible for the peak at 1000 MeV while $`a_{1(leading)}`$-exchange becomes here very small. For this solution the pion-exchange form factors for the states $`f_0^{bare}(720)`$, $`f_0^{bare}(1230)`$ and $`f_0^{bare}(1600)`$ cross the abscissas, thus corresponding to the $`\pi P`$ branching effective contribution. The coupling of the $`f_0^{bare}(1230)`$ state grows with $`|t|`$ due to the increase of relative weight of the $`f_0(1300)`$ at large $`|t|`$. However, the description of the GAMS data within the parametrization B1 at small $`t`$-region is not perfect, see Fig. 6. Adding the $`a_{1(daughter)}`$ trajectory leads to a noticeable improvement of the description.

Adding the $`a_{1(daughter)}`$ trajectory, we obtained the solution shown in Figs. 8, 9, 10 (parametrization B2); it has no visible problems with the description of either E852 or GAMS data. For the $`\pi _{(leading)}`$ exchanges, this solution is similar to those found in our previous analyses  by fitting to GAMS data only: two resonance couplings cross the abscissas at moderate $`|t|`$.

We have also fitted to data under the assumption that the change of the $`t`$-distribution structure at $`|t|>0.4`$ (GeV/c)2 is due to the onset of the Orear regime, eqs. (18) and (19). For this case (parametrization C) the results are close to those of the B parametrization, so we do not present here the $`M_{\pi \pi }`$\- and $`t`$-distributions.

### B Resonance pole positions for the $`f_0(980)`$ and $`f_0(1300)`$ states

Using the found solutions, we have determined the positions of pole corresponding to the resonances $`f_0(980)`$ and $`f_0(1300)`$:

$`(1031\pm 10)i(35\pm 6)\mathrm{MeV},(1315\pm 20)i(150\pm 30)\mathrm{MeV}.`$ (20)
The pole for the $`f_0(980)`$ is under the $`\pi \pi `$ and $`\pi \pi \pi \pi `$ cuts, the closest physical region to this pole is located below the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold (for more details concerning the determination of sheets, see ).

Recall that in the previous $`K`$-matrix analysis  we obtained for $`f_0(1300)`$ the mass value $`(1300\pm 20)i(120\pm 20)`$ MeV, while for the $`f_0(980)`$ it was $`(1015\pm 15)i(43\pm 8)`$ MeV. One can see that the magnitudes quoted in  and (20) agree reasonably with each other.

By fitting to data on the two-meson spectra at $`|t|0.51.0`$ (GeV/c)2, we should definitely recognize that our a priory knowledge about the $`t`$-channel exchange mechanism is poor. In the considered $`t`$-region, together with the Regge pole terms ($`\pi `$ and $`a_1`$ exchanges), the Regge branching contributions with additional pomeron-induced interactions ($`\pi P`$, $`\pi PP`$, or $`a_1P`$, $`a_1PP`$, etc. $`t`$-channel exchanges) are to be significant. The contribution of Regge branchings is enhanced at moderately large $`|t|`$, this circumstance was known long ago, see e.g. . The presence of a number of terms in the $`t`$-channel exchange mechanism at $`|t|\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.5`$ (GeV/c)2 makes the model-independent reconstruction of the $`t`$-channel amplitude hardly plausible. Hence a necessity appears to use at moderately small momentum transfers the $`M_{\pi \pi }`$-distributions, which are not sensitive to the details of the $`t`$-channel mechanism. Let us stress once again that, in our opinion, the $`M_{\pi \pi }`$-distributions averaged over a broad interval of momentum transfers do respond to the problem of finding masses and widths of the resonances.

## IV Conclusion

We have performed the fitting to data to determine parameters of the $`f_0(980)`$ and $`f_0(1300)`$ observed in the $`(\pi \pi )_S`$ spectra in the reaction $`\pi ^{}p(\pi \pi )_Sn`$  by checking several hypotheses about the $`|t|`$ exchange mechanism.

Concerning the structure of the $`|t|`$-channel exchange mechanism, one can see that the E852 data satisfy well the suggestion about reggeized $`\pi `$-exchange dominating small momentum transfers, $`|t|<0.2`$ (GeV/c)2, this very mechanism worked at GAMS energies as well . With the increase of $`|t|`$, the change of regime occurs, and the E852 data definitely confirm this. Yet, the details of the change of regime remain unclear: this may happen due the inclusion of the $`a_1`$-exchange, or the branchings $`\pi P`$, $`a_1P`$ ($`P`$ is the Pomeron), or even due to multiple rescatterings (the Orear regime). The E852 data reveal that at $`|t|>0.2`$ (GeV/c)2 the daughter trajectories (pion or $`a_1`$-meson) contribute significantly, and the change of the structure of $`|t|`$-distributions with energy definitely proves it.

The fitting procedure uses the $`M_{\pi \pi }`$ spectra which are averaged over certain intervals of $`|t|`$. With different inputs for the $`t`$-channel exchange mechanism at $`|t|0.4`$ (GeV/c)2, we have observed a stability of the resonance parameters found for $`f_0(980)`$ and $`f_0(1300)`$, and they are close to those obtained in previous analysis . So our analysis does not confirm the statement of the paper  about a strong dependence of extracted parameters on the details of the $`t`$-channel exchange mechanism at $`|t|0.4`$ (GeV/c)2.

## Acknowledgement

We are grateful to A.V. Anisovich, D.V. Bugg, L.G. Dakhno and V.A. Nikonov for useful and stimulating discussions. The paper is supported by the RFBR grant No 01-02-17861.


format: text

text:
# Diffractive Physics in the Near Future

## 1 Introduction

Diffraction is certainly one of the oldest subject in physics. In particle physics we have seen a big development in the second half of the last century . More recently, with the discovery of Hard Diffraction by the UA8-Collaboration , we have had a significant development of Diffractive Physics both in theoretical and experimental points of view.

On the experimental side we have now many results coming from HERA (H1 and ZEUS) and the Tevatron (CDF and DØ) in a large number of topics including diffractive structure functions, diffractively produced jets, diffractive production of Heavy Flavors, etc.

On the theoretical side, a great deal of progress have been made in several issues, like factorization, diffractive structure functions, Large Rapidity Gap Survival Probability, etc.

Although the experimental results from HERA are showing a consistent improvement in the quality of data, the Tevatron results are still plagued by poor statistics. Not to mention that some processes, like Double Pomeron Exchange, have not been directly observed, and for most of the data sample, the kinematical information (t and $`\xi `$) is still missing.

Despite of the theoretical progress for the unification of the soft and hard aspects of the strong interaction, we still need more experimental data to guide some of the theoretical development. It is important to stress that currently about 40% of the $`p\overline{p}`$ total cross section is due to the Pomeron exchange, and at higher energies this value can be even larger. In this sense, it is extremely important to have precise data from the physical region of the proton anti-proton interaction at the Tevatron, to answer questions like: Is the Pomeron picture universal?, what are its hadronic characteristics?, Is it a glueball?, a dual object?, what is the diffractive contribution for the heavy flavor cross sections?, can the Higgs and Centauros be produced diffractively at Tevatron energies? and so on.

All of these questions lead to the proposal of new devices inserted at Tevatron. CDF reinstalled and improved its Roman Pots Spectrometer, and added a new Miniplug Calorimeter plus Beam Shower Counters. DØ added a new Forward Proton Detector (FPD).

Figure 1 shows the growing interest in diffractive physics. There is a clear growth in the number of papers on this subject in particle physics.

We are expecting a new period of diffractive results from several experiments in the near future. From the Tevatron, the upcoming Run II with CDF and DØ; From Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL)/Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) with the pp2pp experiment, polarized and unpolarized proton - proton interactions at energies of $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 60 - 500 GeV; From the Deutsches Elecktronen Synchroton (DESY), with H1 and ZEUS, the two detectors at HERA, in electron (positron) (27.5 GeV) proton (820-920 GeV) interactions. For the far future we will have a new era of experiments, with TOTEM  being integrated into Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) as one of the detectors of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)/CERN, for proton - proton at 14 TeV center of mass energy.

## 2 The Tevatron Upgrades for Diffractive Physics CDF and DØ

After the end of Run I, the Tevatron accelerator started its upgrade in order to achieve higher energy and luminosity. The main goals were to achieve energies up to $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 2.0 TeV, and the luminosities of $`3\times 10^{32}cm^2s^1`$. Besides, in order to implement the diffractive program at DØ, some modifications had to be done to the accelerator itself. The two collider detectors CDF and DØ were also submitted to several upgrades, but we will restrict our discussion here only to those that have direct relation with diffractive physics.

The Tevatron beam line had to be modified to accommodate the new DØ leading proton spectrometers. This included modifying the electrostatic separator girder, extending the cryogenic bypass, removal of a quadrupole magnet ($`Q_1`$), and other small modifications, like drilling a hole on the floor to allow the insertion and removal of detectors.

### 2.1 CDF

We will summarize the diffractive physics upgrades for CDF. For more details, please refer to the paper of Goulianos. The CDF upgrades for diffractive physics can be divided in 3 parts:

1. Improve dipole spectrometer (Roman Pots) as is shown in figure 2
2. Insertion of a Miniplug Calorimeter for triggering on diffractive events. This device, shown in figure 3, is composed by 50 1/4” thick lead plates corresponding to a total of 2 interaction lengths and $``$ 60 radiation lengths. 288 signal towers are viewed by 18 Multi Channel PMTs (16 channels each), covering a pseudorapidity region between 3.5 and 5.5.
3. Install new Beam Shower Counters at large rapidity region (5.5 - 7.5). These counters consist of regular plastic scintillators, read out by PMTs appropriate for high magnetic fields.

### 2.2

The whole DØ detector has been submitted to many modifications for the present run (RunII). Figure 4 summarize the main features.

Now we will describe the Forward Proton Detector, the main component of the DØ Diffractive Upgrade.

## 3 Forward Proton Detector

The idea of the Forward Proton Detector (FPD) is to cover experimentally a large number of topics which will be very important for the progress of diffractive physics. More details on the FPD can be read in the reference .

The Forward Proton Detector consists of 18 Roman Pots arranged on both sides of the DØ detector as shown in figure 5, which shows the Roman Pot locations in the Tevatron beam line. There are two castles111Structure that holds the Roman Pots, motors and vacuum equipment. on the proton side indicated by $`P1`$ and $`P2`$ as shown in figure 5. The orientation is indicated by the additional letter U for up position, D for down position, I for inside position and O for outside position of the pots ($`P1U,P1D,P1I,P1O`$, same notation for $`P2`$). On the antiproton side we have two similar castles, labeled $`A1`$ and $`A2`$ followed by the indication of the orientation similar for the proton side. In addition, two others half castles on the antiproton side hold the dipole spectrometer222Named in this way for their position after the dipole magnets. labeled $`D1`$ and $`D2`$. The approximated distances of the pots with respect to the interaction point (indicated by 0 on the scale) are also shown.

### 3.1 Roman Pots

The design of the Roman Pots for the DØ FPD is shown in figure 6. They were built by LNLS/Brazil (Laboratório Nacional de Luz Synchroton) as part of a regional collaboration ( LAFEX/CBPF - Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas; UFBA - Universidade Federal da Bahia; UFRJ - Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; UERJ - Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro; IFT/UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista; and LNLS) During two years we studied many options for the castle and detectors. The castle was made using 316L steel following the technical specifications to achieve a Ultra-High vacuum at the Tevatron. The combination of four view quadrupole stations, as shown in figure 6, and the dipole stations, give the possibility to cover a large portion of the available phase space, allowing for a better acceptance. In figure 6 we show the castle, indicating its main components. In order to have the best performance, the design of the pot window was submitted to a finite element analysis. The best results were obtained using a 150 microns foil, with elliptical cutout.

### 3.2 The Detectors

The FPD position detectors are based on square scintillating fibers, 800 micron thick, as shown in figure 7. In this figure we can see the frame of the scintillating fibers and 6 planes X X’, U U’ and V V’ which compose one detector. The scintillating fibers are spliced (fused) to clear fibers which guide the signal up to the multi-anode photomultipliers (MAPMT H6568 from Hamamatsu). There are 16 channels per X X’ plane and 20 channels for the U U’ and V V’ planes, giving a total of 112 channels per detector and 2016 channels in total. Studies about the signal, efficiency and resolution have been made. Scintillating fibers are the best option for our detectors among many other possible technologies. The frame is made of polyurethane plastic. The theoretical resolution is 80 microns.

The geometrical acceptance and the pot position acceptance are given in figure 8.

## 4 Some Physics Topics for the Run II at Tevatron

The new Tevatron detectors were designed to cover a large region of phase space, allowing us to revisit some old and interesting results, and create conditions to observe new physics topics in diffraction. The combination of the Dipole and Quadrupole stations in the DØ/FPD will allow us to get a good sample of data. Early estimates on the size of this sample can be seen on table 1, where we also make a comparison with the available data to date.

In figure 9 we show several topologies available for study using this detector, some of them, like the Hard Double Pomeron Exchange, have only been studied indirectly using Rapidity Gap techniques.

We will now give a short description of some of the physics topics that can be studied with the new Tevatron Detectors:

### 4.1  Low and High $`|t|`$ Elastic Scattering

The acceptance of the FPD spectrometers for low and high t will allow us to extract elastic scattering events in both of these physical regions. The measurements of elastic cross sections can be used to extract the total cross section via Optical Theorem. It is important to know the elastic slope of the differential cross section. The value of the slope for general differential cross sections characterizes a specific process which can be associated to a particular production (e.g. resonance production).

### 4.2 Total Cross Section

The results from Tevatron  experiments are not compatible between them, if we extrapolate to higher energies. It would be very important to have another measurement at these energies. It is important to know the behavior of the cross sections with energy since that is related to the Froissart-Martin bound. After the Tevatron only the LHC will offer a new opportunity to make these measurements.

### 4.3 Inclusive Single Diffraction

The inclusive single diffraction has many subtopics associated with it. Particularly for the Tevatron detectors, the Diffractive Mass available, for single diffraction events, $`M_x=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}450}GeV`$, makes the extraction of heavy flavor physics very comfortable. Inclusive single diffraction has been a good laboratory for several problems in diffractive physics. In particular one would like to study the cross section dependence on the diffractive mass ($`M_x)`$ and four momentum transfered (t).

### 4.4 Diffractive Jet production

Jets have been largely studied by QCD. The discovery of diffractively produced jets  by UA8 collaboration was very important for diffractive physics. This was the main starting point for hard diffraction. It is expected that single and double diffractive jet production be exhaustively studied in the near future with the Tevatron and HERA detectors, making it possible to verify the universality of Diffractive Parton Distributions. As we see in table 1 it will be possible to get dijet events with higher transverse energies at the Tevatron Run II.

### 4.5 Hard Double Pomeron Exchange

Due to the interesting topology and exciting physics topics, double Pomeron exchange has been largely discussed as the process for producing many different types of states. . An advantage of the large Diffractive Mass available at the Tevatron, in this case $`M_x\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}100}GeV`$, is the possibility to study, by direct observation, the Pomeron $`\times `$ Pomeron interactions and the associated physics. The instrumentation available at DØ is appropriated to face the challenges of the double Pomeron mechanism, and produce several objects not yet observed. Figure 9 shows the double Pomeron exchange graph and the gaps on its corresponding lego plot. Other topics like Glueballs, Centauros and Higgs can be exploited also in this topology.

### 4.6 Diffractive Heavy Flavor Production

Heavy Flavor Production, has been extensively studied in high $`p_t`$ physics. Because experimental results are scarce for diffractive heavy flavor production, there was not enough attention to this physics. For the lack of adequate instrumentation we have cross sections without a clear separation of diffractive and non-diffractive events. In principle we can split the studies of diffractive heavy flavor production based on the products: (i) The Charm, (ii) the Bottom and the (iii) Top Physics. Each one having some particularities to be taken into account in the diffractive production .

### 4.7 Diffractive W/Z boson production

Diffractively produced W and Z bosons have been observed at the Tevatron. However the present results are not satisfactory, we need more statistics for these kind of events, to help us understand and set constraints on the quark and gluon contents of the Pomeron. Both CDF  and DØ have made progress, and the current results are motivating the collaborations to proceed with this measurements.

### 4.8 Diffractive Structure Functions

The study of Diffractive Structure Functions at the Tevatron allows a comparison with the existing HERA results. To understand the structure of the Pomeron one must know its structure function. This type of study has to be pursued exhaustively to get better and accurate measurements, building a clear interpretation of the Pomeron. One should be able to answer how important are the gluon and the quark components of the Pomeron. The universality of the Pomeron components is also important for this interpretation. Practically all diffractive topics mentioned here depend on this knowledge.

### 4.9 Glueballs, Centauros and the Higgs

Since the origin of QCD, Glueballs has been studied by theoreticians and experimentalists. However, we do not have a significant progress in this field. Glueballs are perfectly valid states in QCD, so if we do not find them, there must be some unknown suppression rule for this bound states. That means we need dedicated experiments to search for glueballs without ambiguity with quark anti-quark bound states. The family of glueballs is large. Table 2 shows this family (oddballs are also shown). Oddballs should have the priority to be examined, due to the fact that they can not be mistaken by $`q\overline{q}`$ (meson) or qqq (baryon) bound states with the same quantum numbers. It is a common belief that Glueballs should be largely produced in the double Pomeron Exchange topology.

Another topic is the production of Centauros, which were never observed in accelerator experiments. These objects were discovered in Cosmic Ray Physics as events with several unusual characteristics, like the production of a large multiplicity of charged particles, accompanied by very few photons. For example, as many as 100 charged particles and no more than 3 $`\pi ^0`$.  There is enough center of mass energy at the Tevatron to produce Centauros, and since the diffractive mass is high enough, it is possible to produce them diffractively. The good calorimetry of the DØ detector can be very useful in observing this kind of events.

Higgs is one of the most exciting subjects for the Tevatron Run II. It has not been excluded the possibility that it can be produced also diffractively. We have two recent studies given by reference , showing the possibility of Higgs production by the double Pomeron mechanism.

## 5 Conclusions

There is a lot of exciting new results coming from the investigation of diffractive phenomena, in particular the ongoing Run II at Tevatron should give us a better picture of diffraction with the new detectors at CDF and DØ. Practically all possible subjects listed here can be studied with the data obtained from these detectors.

The main goal of the experiments in diffractive physics is hard diffraction. Many theoretical and phenomenological progress have been made with the precise data from HERA, but a corresponding set of data from the Tevatron is still missing to allow comparisons between the two regimes of production. This set of data will give us the opportunity to test assumptions like the universality of the Pomeron picture and the Diffractive Parton Distributions.

Another important topic concerns the measurement of the Total Cross Section at the highest energies of the Tevatron, for which there are conflicting results that can be settled by a new measurement from the FPD at DØ. This new measurement will also help to reduce uncertainties on the luminosity for all DØ physics processes.

The double Pomeron exchange and the physics that can be done with this topology is one of the very important subjects of this run at the Tevatron. It has not been excluded, as we called attention, that Centauros and Higgs  can be produced diffractively in this topology.

Finally the diffractive physics results from CDF and DØ will be very important for future projects at the LHC, since it is expected that the diffractive contribution becomes more important at increasing energies.

I would like to thank the organizing committee for the superb job in the organization a very enjoyable meeting. In particular I would like to thank Profs. J. Trampetic and J. Wess for the kind invitation and financial support.


text:
# 1.Introduction

## 1.Introduction

The photonuclear interaction of leptons is , by definition, the process of the inelastic lepton-nucleon or lepton-nucleus scattering,

$$l+Nl+(hadrons).$$
$`(1.1)`$
This process goes through a virtual photon exchange. In the particular case when the four-momentum transferred from the lepton to hadrons is large ($`\sqrt{q^2}>>1GeV`$) the process (1.1) is called the deep inelastic scattering; we are interested in the present work in the diffractive region of the kinematic variables (any $`q^20`$, transferred energy $`\nu (=q_0)`$ is large, such that $`x_{Bj}q^2/2q_0`$ is small). This region is especially important for applications in cosmic ray physics and neutrino astrophysics. The typical problem requiring a knowledge of the photonuclear cross section is the study of muon and tau propagation through thick layers of matter . High energy muons produced in collisions of cosmic primaries in atmosphere (the process is $`Z_{CR}+Z_{Atm}\pi \mu `$) are detected and studied by modern large underground (and underwater) telescopes. As for taus, they can be produced in the Earth by extragalactic high energy $`\tau `$neutrinos (such neutrinos must always present in an extragalactic neutrino flux, due to $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations).

The process (1.1) is reduced to the absorption of the virtual photon by the nucleon,

$$\gamma ^{}+N(hadrons),$$
$`(1.2)`$
and, by optical theorem, is connected with the Compton scattering of a virtual photon,

$$\gamma ^{}+N\gamma ^{}+N.$$
$`(1.3)`$
The Compton scattering in the diffractive region is described by the vacuum exchange which, in turn, is modelled in QCD by the exchange of two or more gluons in a colour singlet state. It becomes possible because, in laboratory system, the interaction region has a large longitudinal size, and the photon developes an internal structure due to its coupling to quark fields. In the diffractive region, i.e. at small $`x_{Bj}`$, the diffractive $`\gamma ^{}N`$scattering is dominant in the Compton amplitude, as compared to the direct contribution due to a photon’s bare component (although, the direct process cannot be neglected absolutely, especially at high energies of leptons).

These general statements (about diffractive, hadron-like, nature of $`\gamma ^{}N`$ interaction and even about the two-gluon exchange) are not enough for a quantitative calculation of the Compton amplitude or $`\gamma ^{}N`$ total cross section. One must know also the photon wave function or, by other words, the spectrum of hadron-like constituents of the photon and, besides, the amplitudes of the scattering of these constituents on a nucleon. In pre-QCD era these problems were considered, almost exclusively, in terms of vector dominance models. These models use a hadronic basis for a description of the spectrum of photon’s constituents. It is well known, however, that they can describe the main features of the $`\gamma ^{}N`$interaction (e.g., the Bjorken scaling) only by using rather unnatural assumptions on hadronic amplitudes (see, e.g., ). With advent of QCD it became clear that the description of the photon wave function in terms of purely hadronic constituents is not consistent: the $`\stackrel{}{qq}`$-component interacting with a target perturbatively must be added. Such a picture arises due to inherent QCD properties (asymptotic freedom, colour transparency).

The aim of the present work is twofold. In the first part of the work we formulate the two-component model of the electromagnetic structure functions of a nucleon separating, in the general form, the nonperturbative part which is described by a generalized vector dominance model. The difference with previous works on the subject  consists just in the use in our approach the generalized vector dominance, without limiting oneself by low-mass vector mesons ($`\rho ,\omega ,\varphi `$) only. At the second part of the work we consider the perturbative component and carry out the concrete calculations of photonuclear cross sections for leptons of superhigh energies.

The paper is organized as follows. In sec.2 the general formulas for the two-component structure functions are derived. The hard (nonperturbative) component of the structure functions is considered, in a framework of the colour dipole model, in Sec.3. In Sec.4. we show how the existing widely used formula  for the photonuclear cross section must be modified to take into account the contribution of the hard component. Results of numerical calculations and conclusions are presented in the last section.

## 2.Two-component model of structure functions

### A.Two-step picture of the Compton scattering

The starting point of our consideration is the expression based on the perturbative QCD and the two-step picture of the $`\gamma ^{}p`$ interaction: the first step is the $`\gamma ^{}\stackrel{}{qq}`$ conversion, and the second step is an interaction of the $`\stackrel{}{qq}`$-pair with the target proton. The total $`\gamma ^{}p`$ interaction cross section ( summed over all possible final hadronic states) is given by the contribution of the $`\stackrel{}{qq}`$-channel in the imaginary part of the Compton forward scattering amplitude ( fig.1):

$$\sigma _{T,L}(Q^2,s)=\frac{1}{16\pi ^3}\underset{f}{}\underset{r,r^{}}{}dzd^2k_{}dz^{}d^2k_{}^{}\times $$

$$\times \psi _{\gamma (r,r^{})}^{T,L}{}_{}{}^{}(\underset{}{\overset{}{\stackrel{}{k}}},z^{},Q^2)\frac{1}{s}𝒜_{\stackrel{}{qq}+p}(\underset{}{\overset{}{\stackrel{}{k}}},z^{},\underset{}{\overset{}{k}},z;s)\psi _{\gamma (r,r^{})}^{T,L}(\underset{}{\overset{}{k}},z,Q^2).$$
$`(2.1)`$
In this expression $`𝒜_{\stackrel{}{qq}+p}`$ is the imaginary part of the $`(\stackrel{}{qq})p`$ forward scattering amplitude, $`Q^2`$ and $`\sqrt{s}`$ are a virtuality of the photon and a $`\gamma ^{}p`$ center-of-mass energy, $`\psi _{\gamma (r,r^{})}`$ is the light cone wave function of $`\stackrel{}{qq}`$-fluctuations of a virtual photon with transverse or longitudinal polarization. This wave function depends on quark and antiquark helicities $`(r,r^{})`$, quark mass $`(m_f)`$ and quark momentum variables $`z,k_{}`$ ($`z=k_+/q_+`$ is the fraction of the photon light cone momentum carried by the quark, $`k_{}`$ is the transverse momentum of the incoming quark). In the following we will need the expressions for the squares of these wave functions summed over the quark helicities:

$$\underset{r,r^{}}{}\psi _{\gamma (r,r^{})}^{T}{}_{}{}^{}(\underset{}{\overset{}{\stackrel{}{k}}},z,Q^2)\psi _{\gamma (r,r^{})}^T(\stackrel{}{k_{}},z,Q^2)=2N_c\frac{e_f^2(\stackrel{}{k_{}^{}}\stackrel{}{k_{}}[z^2+(1z)^2]+m_f^2)}{(M^2+Q^2)(M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+Q^2)z^2(1z)^2},$$

$$\underset{r,r^{}}{}\psi _{\gamma (r,r^{})}^{L}{}_{}{}^{}(\underset{}{\overset{}{\stackrel{}{k}}},z,Q^2)\psi _{\gamma (r,r^{})}^L(\stackrel{}{k_{}},z,Q^2)=8N_c\frac{e_f^2Q^2}{(M^2+Q^2)(M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+Q^2)}.$$
$`(2.2)`$
In these formulas $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ are invariant masses of the incoming and outcoming $`\stackrel{}{qq}`$-pairs,

$$M^2=\frac{k_{}^2+m_f^2}{z(1z)},M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\frac{k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+m_f^2}{z(1z)}.$$
$`(2.3)`$
### B.Two gluon exchange approximation

We suppose, further, that the forward scattering amplitude in Eq.(2.1) can be written in the form

$$\frac{1}{s}𝒜_{\stackrel{}{qq}+p}(\underset{}{\overset{}{\stackrel{}{k}}},z^{},\underset{}{\overset{}{k}},z;s)=\{\delta (\underset{}{\overset{}{\stackrel{}{k}}}\stackrel{}{k_{}})d^2l_{}^{}B(l_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},s)B(l_{}^2,s)\}\delta (z^{}z),$$
$`(2.4)`$
$$\underset{}{\overset{}{l}}=\underset{}{\overset{}{\stackrel{}{k}}}\stackrel{}{k_{}}.$$
$`(2.4a)`$
Such a form of the $`(\stackrel{}{qq})p`$ amplitude is suggested by the model of the structure functions  based on the two-gluon exchange approximation of perturbative QCD \[7-10\]. The first term in Eq.(2.4) corresponds to the diagonal transition when $`M^2=M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$; the delta-function factor in this term arises due to zero transverse momentum transfer to the quark ( at high energies the value of $`z`$ is frozen during the scattering process, and the interaction can, in a general case, change only the transverse momentum of $`\stackrel{}{qq}`$ pair’s particles ). In the case of nondiagonal transitions ( the second term in Eq.(2.4)) the scattering amplitude depends on the square of the transverse momentum, $`\underset{}{\overset{}{l}}=\underset{}{\overset{}{\stackrel{}{k}}}\stackrel{}{k_{}}`$, transferred to the quark.

In spite of the fact that the expressions (2.1), (2.4) are based on the perturbation theory, they can be used for an approximated calculation of the photoabsorption cross section and electromagnetic structure functions of a nucleon at low $`Q^2`$, where nonperturbative effects are important. It is assumed in such an approach that the perturbative fluctuation of the $`\gamma ^{}`$ into a $`\stackrel{}{qq}`$ pair is the dominant process and the subsequent colour singlet exchange is realized by two gluons only. The problem of the inclusion of higher Fock states (i.e., $`\stackrel{}{qq}g`$ ) in the photon wave function was discussed in the third work of ref.. As for the two-gluon exchange appoximation for a description of the elastic $`(\stackrel{}{qq})p`$ \- amplitude, the nonperturbative effects are approximately taken into account by introducing an effective mass of the gluons and an effective quark-gluon coupling constant. The description of soft hadronic processes via the exchange of two effective gluons was suggested many years ago in the works .

Below we will use the simple ansatz for the function $`B(l_{}^2,s)`$ at small $`l_{}^2`$:

$$B(l_{}^2,s)=\frac{\sigma _0(s)}{l_{}^2}.$$
$`(2.5)`$
The $`l_{}`$ dependence of this type is obtained in the models of refs.\[6-10\] if, in addition to the two-gluon exchange, a constituent quark model of the target nucleon is used. More exactly, in this case one has

$$B(l_{}^2,s)=\frac{V(\stackrel{}{l_{}})}{(l_{}^2+\mu _G)^2},$$
$`(2.6)`$
where $`V(\stackrel{}{l_{}})`$ is the GGNN-vertex function,

$$V(\stackrel{}{l_{}})1e^{\frac{l_{}^2}{2<r_N^2>}},$$
$`(2.7)`$
$`\mu _G`$ is the effective mass of the gluon, $`<r_N^2>`$ is the mean square radius of a nucleon. If $`\mu _G`$ is small, there is the region,

$$\mu _G^2<<l_{}^2\stackrel{<}{}\frac{1}{<r_N^2>},$$
$`(2.8)`$
in which $`B(l_{}^2,s)1/l_{}^2`$, as in Eq.(2.5).

In purely perturbative QCD (colour dipole picture of the interaction \[6,10-12\], leading $`\alpha _sln\frac{1}{x}`$ approximation) one obtains for the $`B(l_{}^2,s)`$ function:

$$B(l_{}^2,s)\frac{4\pi }{3}f(x^{},l_{}^2)\alpha _s(l_{}^2)\frac{1}{l_{}^4},$$
$`(2.9)`$
$$x^{}=\frac{Q^2+M^2}{s}.$$
$`(2.9a)`$
Here, $`f(x,l_{}^2)`$ is the unintegrated gluon distribution in a proton. One can conclude, comparing Eqs.(2.5) and (2.9), that the ansatz(2.5) is not justified by the perturbative QCD calculation.

### C.Separation of perturbative and nonperturbative parts

Below, in this section, we use the general expressions (2.1-2.4) for a separation of soft (nonperturbative) and hard (perturbative) contributions in the structure functions.

A nature of the $`(\stackrel{}{qq})p`$ interaction is connected with a transverse size of the $`\stackrel{}{qq}`$-pair: only for a small $`r_{}`$ this nature is, due to the asymptotic freedom, perturbative while the pairs with a large enough $`r_{}`$ interact nonperturbatively. An average transverse separation between particles of the pair is

$$\underset{}{\overset{}{r}}=v_{,relative}\tau ,$$
$`(2.10)`$
where $`v_{,relative}`$ is an relative velocity in the transverse direction,

$$v_{,relative}=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{k_{}}{E}+\frac{k_{}}{E^{}}),$$

$$E=\sqrt{zk_\gamma +k_{}^2+m_f^2},E^{}=\sqrt{(1z)k_\gamma +k_{}^2+m_f^2},$$
$`(2.11)`$
and $`\tau `$ is the lifetime of the $`\stackrel{}{qq}`$-fluctuation,

$$\tau =\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_\gamma ^2+M^2}\sqrt{k_\gamma ^2Q^2}}\frac{2k_\gamma }{M^2+Q^2},$$
$`(2.12)`$
where $`k_\gamma `$ is the virtual photon’s three-momentum.

If follows from Eqs.(2.10-2.12) that

$$\underset{}{\overset{}{r}}\frac{1}{k_{}(1+\frac{Q^2}{M^2})}.$$
$`(2.13)`$
We use the following criterion of the nonperturbative nature of the interaction: the $`(\stackrel{}{qq})p`$ interaction is nonperturbative if

$$\underset{}{\overset{}{r}}r_0\frac{1}{k_0},$$
$`(2.14)`$
where $`k_0`$ is some parameter. This criterion, together with Eqs.(2.3) (where the approximation $`m_f=0`$ is used) and Eq.(2.13), leads to the corresponding constraint for the variable $`z`$,

$$z(1z)\frac{k_0^2M^2}{(M^2+Q^2)^2}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{k_0^2}{M^2},Q^2<<M^2\hfill & \\ & \\ \frac{k_0^2M^2}{Q^4},Q^2>>M^2,\hfill & \end{array}$$
$`(2.14a)`$
according to which the $`(\stackrel{}{qq})p`$ interaction is nonperturbative if the $`\stackrel{}{qq}`$-pair is asymmetric , i.e., $`EE^{}`$ or $`E^{}E`$. In turn, the high degree of asymmetry corresponds (in accordance with Eqs.(2.3)), at a given value of $`M`$, to a small $`k_{}`$ of pair’s particles and to their alignment in the direction of the virtual photon (the ”aligned jet” conjecture had been suggested in the work ).

### D.Hard component

It is convenient, for considering the structure functions in the perturbative domain, to use the impact parameter representation. The resulting formula for $`\sigma _{T,L}(Q^2,s)`$, which follows from Eqs.(2.1-2.4), is well known :

$$\sigma _{T,L}(Q^2,s)=𝑑zd^2r_{}\sigma (r_{},s)\psi _\gamma ^{T,L}(\underset{}{\overset{}{r}},z,Q^2)^2.$$
$`(2.15)`$
The squares of the photon wave functions in impact parameter space summed over helicities are given by the expressions

$$\psi _\gamma ^T(r_{},z,Q^2)^2=\frac{3\alpha }{2\pi ^2}\underset{f}{}(\frac{e_f}{e})^2\{[z^2+(1z)^2]\stackrel{}{Q^2}K_1^2(\stackrel{}{Q}r_{})+m_f^2K_0^2(\stackrel{}{Q}r_{})\},$$

$$\psi _\gamma ^L(r_{},z,Q^2)^2=\frac{3\alpha }{2\pi ^2}\underset{f}{}(\frac{e_f}{e})^24z^2(1z)^2Q^2K_0^2(\stackrel{}{Q}r_{})\},$$
$`(2.16)`$
$$\stackrel{}{Q^2}Q^2z(1z)+m_f^2.$$
$`(2.16a)`$
The factor $`\sigma (r_{},s)`$ in Eq.(2.15) is a total cross section of the interaction of the $`\stackrel{}{qq}`$-pair of the transverse size $`r_{}`$ with a target proton,

$$\sigma (r_{},s)=d^2l_{}(1e^{i\underset{}{\overset{}{l}}\underset{}{\overset{}{r}}})B(l_{}^2,s).$$
$`(2.17)`$
Using Eq.(2.9) for $`B(l_{}^2,s)`$, one obtains (for small values of $`r_{}`$)

$$\sigma (r_{},s)\frac{\pi ^2}{3}r_{}^2\alpha _s(\frac{1}{r_{}^2})x_{eff}^{}G(x_{eff}^{},\frac{1}{r_{}^2}),$$
$`(2.18)`$
where $`xG(x,Q^2)`$ is the gluon structure function of a proton. Approximately one has

$$x_{eff}^{}\frac{(k_{}^2)_{eff}}{s}\frac{1}{r_{}^2s},$$
$`(2.19)`$
and

$$\sigma (r_{},s)\frac{\pi ^2}{3}r_{}^2\alpha _s(\frac{1}{r_{}^2})[xG(x,\frac{1}{r_{}^2})]_{x=\frac{1}{r_{}^2s}}.$$
$`(2.20)`$
Below we will use, instead of Eq.(2.20), the phenomenological model  for $`\sigma (r_{},s)`$, containing except the colour transparency factor $`r_{}^2`$ also the cut-off factor at large $`r_{}`$ (which is necessary for a separation of the perturbative part of the structure functions). In such models one has

$$\sigma (r_{},s)r_{}^2e^{\frac{r_{}}{r_{}^0}}(r_{}^2s)^{\lambda _H}.$$
$`(2.21)`$
Note, that $`s`$-variable enters the r.h.s. of Eq.(2.21) in combination with $`r_{}^2`$ only, i.e., in the same manner as in the formula (2.20) obtained in perturbative QCD.

### E.Soft component

For considering the nonperturbative part of $`\sigma _{T,L}(Q^2,s)`$ we rewrite Eq.(2.1) in a form of the double dispersion relation. For this aim we perform the following change of variables:

$$𝑑zd^2k_{}d^2k_{}^{}=$$

$$=\pi 𝑑zz^2(1z)^2𝑑M^2𝑑M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{dl_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2MM^{}\sqrt{1cos^2\varphi }},$$
$`(2.22)`$
$$cos^2\varphi =\frac{1}{4M^2M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}(M^2+M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}l_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}),$$
$`(2.22a)`$
$$l_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{l_{}^2}{z(1z)},(MM^{})^2l_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(M+M^{})^2.$$
$`(2.22b)`$
Using this change of variables and the expressions (2.2) for the squares of the photon wave functions we have, instead of Eq.(2.1),

$$\sigma _{T,L}(Q^2,s)=\underset{f}{}\frac{dM^2}{M^2+Q^2}\times $$

$$\times \frac{dM_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+Q^2}dz\rho _{T,L}(z)\frac{1}{s}ImA_{\stackrel{}{qq}+p}^{T,L}(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},s),$$
$`(2.23)`$
$$\rho _T(z)=\frac{3}{2}[z^2+(1z)^2],$$
$`(2.23a)`$
$$\rho _L(z)=\frac{3}{2}4z(1z).$$
$`(2.23b)`$
The functions $`\rho _{T,L}(z)`$ are normalized densities of $`\stackrel{}{qq}`$ states in the $`z`$-space. Imaginary parts of the forward $`(\stackrel{}{qq})p`$ scattering amplitudes $`A_{\stackrel{}{qq}+p}^{T,L}(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},s)`$ are obtained using Eqs.(2.4,2.5):

$$\frac{1}{s}ImA_{\stackrel{}{qq}+p}^T(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},s)=\frac{1}{12\pi ^2}N_ce_f^2\{M^2\delta (M^2M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})[d^2l_{}^{}B(l_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},s)]$$

$$\frac{dl_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\sqrt{1cos^2\varphi }}B(l_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},s)\},$$
$`(2.24)`$
$$\frac{1}{s}ImA_{\stackrel{}{qq}+p}^L(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},s)=\frac{Q^2}{MM^{}}\frac{1}{s}ImA_{\stackrel{}{qq}+p}^T(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},s).$$
$`(2.24a)`$
For convenience we included the factor $`\frac{Q^2}{MM^{}}`$ in the definition of a longitudinal $`(\stackrel{}{qq})p`$ amplitude $`A_L`$.

It is important to underline that for the derivation of Eqs.(2.23-2.24) the expression (2.5) for the function $`B(l_{}^2,s)`$ was used. The factorization of a $`z`$-dependence and the simple form of this dependence given by the functions of Eqs.(2.23a,b) became possible just due to the assumption that $`B(l_{}^2,s)l_{}^2`$. The use of this assumption is leqitimate if we consider the nonperturbative component of the structure functions.

Now, for the separation of the nonperturbative contribution in the double dispersion relation (2.23) one must take into account the restriction of the $`\stackrel{}{qq}`$ pair’s phase space due to the constraint (2.14a). After such a restriction the nonperturbative part of $`\sigma _{T,L}(Q^2,s)`$ can be written in the form

$$\sigma _{T,L}(Q^2,s)=\underset{f}{}\frac{dM^2}{M^2+Q^2}\times $$

$$\times \frac{dM_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+Q^2}\eta _{T,L}(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},k_0^2)\frac{1}{s}ImA_{\stackrel{}{qq}+p}^{T,L}(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},s).$$
$`(2.25)`$
The cut-off functions $`\eta _{T,L}(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},k_0^2)`$ are obtained in the Appendix A. In the region $`M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}>>k_0^2,Q^2`$ they are given by the simple expressions:

$$\eta _T(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},k_0^2)3\frac{k_0^2}{MM^{}};\eta _L(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},k_0^2)6\frac{k_0^4}{M^2M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}.$$
$`(2.26)`$
The dispersion relation (2.25) can be rewritten by introducing (somewhat artificially) the discrete basis for a description of invariant mass spectra of $`\stackrel{}{qq}`$ pairs:

$$\sigma _{T,L}(Q^2,s)=\underset{f}{}\frac{M^2dM^2}{M^2+Q^2}\times $$

$$\times \frac{M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}dM_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+Q^2}\rho _{T,L}(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},k_0^2)\frac{1}{s}ImA_{\stackrel{}{qq}+p}^{T,L}(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},s),$$
$`(2.27)`$
$$\rho _{T,L}(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},k_0^2)=\underset{n,n^{}}{}\eta _{T,L}(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},k_0^2)\delta (M^2M_n^2)\delta (M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}M_n^{}^2).$$
$`(2.28)`$
Here, $`\rho _{T,L}(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},k_0^2)`$ are spectral functions giving densities of $`\stackrel{}{qq}`$ \- states of definite masses.

### F.Generalized vector dominance approach for the soft component

For a quantitative calculation of the nonperturbative contribution to the structure functions we use the approach based on generalized vector dominance (GVD) ideas . According to hte GVD approach, a $`\stackrel{}{qq}`$-pair’s quantum state which is modified by strong interactions of quark and antiquark can be presented by the sum of hadronic (vector meson) states with fixed masses,

$$\stackrel{free}{\stackrel{}{qq}},M>\stackrel{int.}{\stackrel{}{qq}},M>=\underset{n}{}\frac{e}{f_n}M_n^2\delta (M^2M_n^2)V_n,M_n>.$$
$`(2.29)`$
Further, it is assumed that the vector mesons are those observed in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation process and, correspondingly, the photon-meson coupling constants $`\frac{e}{f_n}`$ (i.e., the coefficients in the sum in Eq.(2.29)) are expressed through the vector meson’s leptonic widths.

Following the experience of vector dominance models , we will distinguish vector mesons of different polarizations. We assume that the meson’s polarization correlates with a polarization of the initial virtual photon.

We can write now the basic double dispersion relation of GVDM , in which the cut variables, $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$, are the masses of the incoming and outgoing vector meson states in the quasi-elastic forward amplitudes $`T^{T,L}`$ of the vector meson-proton scattering:

$$\sigma _{T,L}(Q^2,s)=\frac{M^2dM^2}{M^2+Q^2}\frac{M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}dM_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+Q^2}\times $$

$$\times \rho _{T,L}^{GVD}(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},s)\frac{e}{f(M^2)}\frac{e}{f(M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}\frac{1}{s}ImT^{T,L}(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},s),$$
$`(2.30)`$
and the spectral function $`\rho _{T,L}^{GVD}`$ is a density of the vector meson states. The connection between transverse and longitudinal amplitudes is

$$\frac{1}{s}ImT^L(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},s)=\xi \frac{Q^2}{MM^{}}\frac{1}{s}ImT^T(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},s),$$
$`(2.31)`$
where parameter $`\xi `$ takes into account the possible difference in interactions of vector mesons with different polarizations. The normalization of these amplitudes is given by the relations

$$\frac{1}{s}ImT^T(M_n^2,M_n^2,s)=\sigma _{V_np}(s),$$
$`(2.32a)`$
$$\frac{1}{s}ImT^L(M_n^2,M_n^2,s)=\frac{Q^2}{M_n^2}\xi \sigma _{V_np}(s).$$
$`(2.32b)`$
One must note that the introducing of the factor $`\xi `$ in Eq.(2.31) is at variance (if $`\xi <1`$) with the initial two-step formula (2.1) based on the assumption that there is the strict factorization (i.e., independence of a $`(\stackrel{}{qq})p`$ amplitude on the virtual photon’s polarization ).

The crucial assumption of our GVD approach consists in the following: the $`M^2`$\- and $`M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$\- dependencies of the spectral functions $`\rho _{T,L}^{GVD}`$ and $`\rho _{T,L}`$ (Eq.(2.28)) are the same, i.e.,

$$\rho _{T,L}^{GVD}(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},s)=\rho _{T,L}(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},k_0^2).$$
$`(2.33)`$
The physical sense of this equality is evident: the hadronic basis is applicable for a description of the spectrum of virtual photon fluctuations if (and only if) $`\stackrel{}{qq}`$ pairs produced in the $`\gamma ^{}\stackrel{}{qq}`$ transition interact with the target proton nonperturbatively. The separation of the nonperturbative component leads to the restriction of the phase space of $`\stackrel{}{qq}`$ pairs and, in turn, to the corresponding constraint on the spectral function, i.e., on the density of the vector meson states.

Inserting Eq.(2.33) into Eq.(2.30) one finally obtains

$$\sigma _{T,L}(Q^2,s)=\frac{e^2}{f_nf_n^{}}\frac{M_n^2}{M_n^2+Q^2}\frac{M_n^{}^2}{M_n^{}^2+Q^2}\eta _{T,L}(M_n^2,M_n^{}^2,k_0^2)\frac{1}{s}ImT_{n,n^{}}^{T,L}(s).$$
$`(2.34)`$
This expression differs from a standard GVDM formula only by the presence of the cut-off factors $`\eta _{T,L}(M_n^2,M_n^{}^2,k_0^2)`$, the expressions for which are given above. These cut-off factors, and the nonperturbative contribution to the structure functions given by Eq.(2.34), depend on the parameter $`r_0(1/k_0)`$.

In contrast with the two-component models developed in the works  our treatment of the nonperturbative part contains no restrictions on the vector meson mass spectrum: the masses of vector mesons may be arbitrarily large. At the same time, due to a presence of the cut-off factors, it needs no special cancellation mechanism (consisting, e.g.,in an introducing of unphysically large nondiagonal terms ) for ensuring a convergence of the sums in Eq.(2.34) .

The further consistent developing of the two-component model outlined here (first of all, the concrete realization of the modified GVDM based on Eq.(2.34)) is a subject of the next work of the present authors. Below, in Sec.5, we suggest the simplified approach for practical calculations of photonuclear cross sections at very high lepton energies ($`10^5GeV`$), integrated over $`Q^2`$, in which the nonperturbative component of the structure functions is appoximated by the known formulae based on the standard (nondiagonal) GVDM working rather well at lepton energies $`10^5GeV`$.

## 3.Hard component

For numerical caculations of the hard component we use the analytical form for the function $`\sigma (r_{},s)`$ suggested in ref.. Namely,

$$\sigma (r_{},s)=(a_1r_{}+a_2r_{}^2+a_3r_{}^3)^2e^{\frac{r_{}}{r_{}^0}}(r_{}^2s)^{\lambda _H}.$$
$`(3.1)`$
The numerical values of the coefficients $`a_1,a_2,a_3,r_{}^0,\lambda _H`$ were found by authors of work  by fitting the ZEUS data. The main practical aim of our work is the calculation of the cross section of the inelastic lepton (muon and tau) scattering at extremely high energies (up to $`10^9GeV`$). Correspondingly, we need structure functions $`\sigma (Q^2,s)`$ at very low values of Bjorken variable $`xQ^2/s`$ and, therefore, need extrapolation of HERA data to these values. The Regge-type $`s`$-dependence of $`\sigma (r_{},s)`$ in Eq.(3.1) is definitely incorrect at very high energies due to the unitarity constraint. So, we are forced to use additional assumptions connected with an unitarization procedure. The simplest way of the unitarization is the following (see, e.g., ). An amplitude for the elastic scattering of a $`\stackrel{}{qq}`$-pair in impact parameter space which is connected with the cross section $`\sigma (r_{},s)`$ by the relation

$$\sigma (r_{},s)=2d^2b_{}Ima(r_{},b_{},s),$$
$`(3.2)`$
is, by assumption, purely imaginary at high energies and can be expressed through the opacity function $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$:

$$a(r_{},b_{},s)=i\{1e^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }(r_{},b_{},s)}\}.$$
$`(3.3)`$
The $`b_{}`$-dependence of the opacity function $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ cannot be determined without a concrete model. We assume the form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(r_{},b_{},s)=\sigma (r_{},s)S(b_{}^2),$$
$`(3.4)`$
where the profile function $`S(b_{}^2)`$ is given by the formula

$$S(b_{}^2)=\frac{1}{\pi R^2}e^{\frac{b_{}^2}{R^2}},$$
$`(3.5)`$
$$R^210GeV^2.$$
$`(3.5a)`$
The unitarized cross section is given by the integral

$$\sigma ^{unit}(r_{},s)=2d^2b_{}(1e^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }(r_{},b_{},s)})=$$

$$=2\pi R^2\left\{ln\frac{\sigma (r_{},s)}{2\pi R^2}+CEi(\frac{\sigma (r_{},s)}{2\pi R^2})\right\},$$
$`(3.6)`$
where $`C=0.577`$.

Asymptotically

$$Ei(x)_x\mathrm{}\frac{1}{x}e^x,$$
$`(3.7)`$
so, in the limit of high energies

$$\sigma ^{unit}(r_{},s)2\pi R^2\lambda _Hlns,$$
$`(3.8)`$
if the $`s`$-dependence of $`\sigma (r_{},s)`$ is $`s^{\lambda _H}.`$

## 4.Cross section of photonuclear interaction

The differential cross section of the inelastic lepton-nucleon scattering is expressed through the electromagnetic structure functions $`W_1,W_2`$ of nucleons:

$$\frac{d^2\sigma }{d\nu dQ^2}=\frac{2\pi \alpha ^2}{Q^4}\frac{1}{E^2}\{(Q^22m_l^2)W_1(Q^2,\nu )+$$

$$+(2E(E\nu )\frac{Q^2}{2})W_2(Q^2,\nu )\},$$
$`(4.1)`$
where $`E`$ is an lepton energy in laboratory system and $`m_l`$ is the lepton mass. The variable $`\nu `$ in Eq.(4.1) is related with the $`\gamma ^{}p`$ center-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ used above,

$$\nu =\frac{Q^2}{2M_p}x_{Bj}^1=\frac{s+Q^2M_p^2}{2M_p}\frac{s}{2M_p}.$$
$`(4.2)`$
The functions $`W_1,W_2`$ are connected with the structure functions $`\sigma _{T,L}`$ by the simple relations:

$$\sigma _T(Q^2,\nu )=\frac{4\pi ^2\alpha }{K}W_1(Q^2,\nu ),$$

$$\sigma _T(Q^2,\nu )+\sigma _L(Q^2,\nu )=\frac{4\pi ^2\alpha }{K}\frac{Q^2+\nu ^2}{Q^2}W_2(Q^2,\nu ),$$
$`(4.3)`$
$$K=\nu \frac{Q^2}{2M_p}\nu .$$
$`(4.3a)`$
For problems of cosmic ray physics and high energy particle physics one needs the lepton-nucleon inelastic scattering cross section integrated over $`Q^2`$. Introducing the new variable $`v=\frac{\nu }{E}`$ (which is the fraction of the lepton energy transferred to newly produced particles) we obtain

$$v\frac{d\sigma }{dv}(E,v,m_l)=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }\underset{Q_{min}^2}{\overset{Q_{max}^2}{}}\frac{dQ^2}{Q^2}\times \frac{1\frac{Q^2}{2M_pvE}}{1+\frac{Q^2}{(vE)^2}}\times $$

$$\times \left\{v^2\sigma _T[1+\frac{Q^2}{(vE)^2}](1\frac{2m_l^2}{Q^2})+2(1v)(\sigma _T+\sigma _L)\right\},$$
$`(4.4)`$
$$Q_{min}^2\frac{m_l^2v^2}{1v},Q_{max}^2=2M_pvE.$$
$`(4.4a)`$
As it follows from Eq.(4.3), in the region of small $`x_{Bj}`$

$$\sigma _L(Q^2,\nu )+\sigma _T(Q^2,\nu )\nu W_2(Q^2,\nu )\frac{1}{Q^2}\frac{1}{Q^2},$$
$`(4.5)`$
therefore the contribution of small $`Q^2`$ (near $`Q_{min}^2`$) dominates in the integral in Eq.(4.4). So, as far as we are interested in $`Q^2`$integrated values (it is just the case of cosmic ray physics) we can safely use for a theoretical prediction of the structure functions $`\sigma _{T,L}(Q^2,\nu )`$ the models working well just in the small $`Q^2`$region. In particular, the structure functions $`\sigma _{T,L}(Q^2,\nu )`$ at small $`Q^2`$ and not very large $`\nu `$ (i.e., in the region where the perturbative component can be neglected) are well described by the nondiagonal GVDM \[21-23\].The sums over vector meson states in this model (analogous those in r.h.s. of Eq.(2.34)) contain no cut-off functions, and, instead, the convergence of these sums is provided by large cancellations between the diagonal and nondiagonal transitions. This model, being essentially nonperturbative, did not describe properly the region of very small $`x_{Bj}`$ values and therefore must be used in combination with models describing the hard component of structure functions.

The very simple and convenient for applications parameterization of numerical calculations of the structure functions within the framework of the nondiagonal GVDM was suggested in the paper . The corresponding formulae are given in the Appendix B.The simplicity of these parameterizations for the structure functions allows for the appoximate analytical integration in the right-hand-side of Eq.(4.4). The result is:

$$v\frac{d\sigma }{dv}(E,v,m_l)_{nonpert}\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }A\sigma _{\gamma p}(\nu )v^2\{0.75G_{sh}(x)[\varkappa ln(1+\frac{m_1^2}{Q_{min}^2})\frac{\varkappa m_1^2}{m_1^2+Q_{min}^2}$$

$$\frac{2m_l^2}{Q_{min}^2}\frac{m_1^2+2Q_{min}^2}{m_1^2+Q_{min}^2}+\frac{4m_l^2}{m_1^2}ln(1+\frac{m_1^2}{Q_{min}^2})]+0.25[(\varkappa +\frac{2m_l^2}{m_2^2})ln(1+\frac{m_2^2}{Q_{min}^2})$$

$$\frac{2m_l^2}{Q_{min}^2}]+\frac{2\xi m_l^2}{Q_{min}^2}[0.75G_{sh}(x)\frac{m_1^2}{m_1^2+Q_{min}^2}+0.25\frac{m_2^2}{Q_{min}^2}ln(1+\frac{Q_{min}^2}{m_2^2})]\},$$
$`(4.6)`$
$$\varkappa 1\frac{2}{v}+\frac{2}{v^2}.$$
$`(4.6a)`$
This expression is written for a nuclear target. For the case of a nucleon target one must put $`A=1,G_{sh}=1`$. The values of $`m_1^2,m_2^2,`$, and the definition of the function $`G_{sh}(x)`$ are given in the Appendix B.

The formula (4.6) differs from the corresponding result of ref. only by several new terms which are proportional to ratios $`\frac{m_l^2}{m_1^2}`$ and $`\frac{m_l^2}{m_2^2}`$. These new terms are negligibly small in the case of the muon projectile, but become noticeable in the taon’s case, especially in the limit of large $`v`$.

The perturbative part of $`v\frac{d\sigma }{dv}`$ is obtained by substitution in the integral in Eq.(4.4) the structure functions given by Eqs.(2.15,2.16) with $`(\stackrel{}{qq})p`$ cross section $`\sigma (r_{},s)`$ given by Eq.(3.1) (we use the framework of the colour dipole model in the variant elaborated in ) or, in unitarized form, by Eq.(3.6).

If the nonunitarized form of $`\sigma (r_{},s)`$ is used (supposing that the gluon saturation effects are small through the whole region of lepton energies considered in the present work (i.e., up to $`10^9GeV`$)), the energy dependence of $`v\frac{d\sigma }{dv}`$ is approximately factorized:

$$v\frac{d\sigma }{dv}(E,v,m_l)_{QCD}f(v,m_l)E^{\lambda _H}.$$
$`(4.7)`$
Here, $`\lambda _H`$ is the parameter entering the expressions (2.21,3.1). Correspondingly, in this case there is the power law rise with a lepton energy of the QCD part of the energy loss coefficient $`b(E,m_l)`$ defined by the integral

$$b(E,m_l)=N_A\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}v\frac{d\sigma }{dv}(E,v,m_l)𝑑vE^{\lambda _H}.$$
$`(4.8)`$
The relative magnitude of the unitarization effects depends, in our phenomenological approach, on the several model parameters, first of all on parameter $`R`$ which is supposed to be of the order of target size (see Eq.(3.5a)). The smaller parameter $`R`$, the sooner logarithmic regime of the energy dependence sets in.

The sum of two contributions given in Eqs.(4.6) and (4.7) is, by terminology of cosmic ray physicists, the cross section of the photonuclear interaction:

$$v\frac{d\sigma }{dv}(E,v,m_l)=v\frac{d\sigma }{dv}(E,v,m_l)_{nonpert}+v\frac{d\sigma }{dv}(E,v,m_l)_{QCD}.$$
$`(4.9)`$
The values of parameters in the expression (3.1) for the cross section $`\sigma (r_{},s)`$ must be determined from the comparison of our model predictions with experimental data for small $`x_{Bj}`$. The example of such a comparison for the particular value $`x_{Bj}=0.000032`$ is shown on fig.2. It is seen from this figure that our GVDM prediction for $`F_2(x_{Bj},Q^2)`$ is clearly at variance with data even in the region of relatively low values of $`Q^2`$, if $`x_{Bj}`$ is small enough. At the same time, one can see that even at very small $`x_{Bj}`$ there is a $`Q^2`$-region, in which the hard component is negligibly small and GVDM works well.

The set of parameter values in Eq.(3.1) found from this comparison and used for numerical calculations is the following:

$$a_1=0.99,a_2=0.7GeV,a_3=6.23GeV^2,$$

$$r_{}^0=0.219GeV^1,\lambda _H=0.387.$$
$`(4.10)`$
This set differs from that obtaned in ref. only by the smaller value of the parameter $`r_{}^0`$.

## 5.Results of calculations

We performed calculations of the photonuclear cross section and energy loss coefficient for muons and tau-leptons.

As is mentioned in the Introduction, muons and taus of super high energies ($`10^5GeV`$) are of natural origin: they appear as a result of interactions of superhigh energy cosmic rays in atmosphere (muons) and as a result of $`\nu _\mu `$( or $`\nu _e`$ )$`\nu _\tau `$ oscillations of extragalactic neutrinos on their way to the Earth with their subsequent interaction somewhere near the (underground) detector (taus). Therefore, we need, in practice, in the case of superhigh energies of leptons, the cross section of the inelastic lepton scattering on a nuclear target rather than on a nucleon one.

In the nonperturbative part of the cross section the nuclear shadowing effects are taken into account (formula (4.6)). As for the perturbative piece, the problem of the nuclear shadowing requires a special investigation which will be performed in a separate work. Qualitatively, the shadowing effects are small if the exponential term in the integral in the expression for the $`(\stackrel{}{qq})Z`$ interaction cross section,

$$\sigma _{\stackrel{}{qq}+Z}(r_{},s)=2d^2b\{1exp[\sigma (r_{},s)T(\stackrel{}{b})/2]\},$$
$`(5.1)`$
is close to 1. In this formula $`T(\stackrel{}{b})`$ is an optical thickness of the target nucleus at an impact parameter $`\stackrel{}{b}`$,

$$T(\stackrel{}{b})=\rho _A(b,z)𝑑z.$$
$`(5.2)`$
The shadowing effects are small if

$$\sigma ^2(r_{},s)\frac{T^2(\stackrel{}{b})}{8}<<\sigma (r_{},s)\frac{T(\stackrel{}{b})}{2},$$
$`(5.3)`$
or

$$\sigma _{max}(r_{},s)<<\frac{4}{T(\stackrel{}{b})}\frac{4}{2R_A\rho _A}\frac{8r_0^2}{A^{1/3}}.$$
$`(5.4)`$
Here, $`\sigma _{max}`$ is the maximum value of the $`(\stackrel{}{qq})p`$ interaction cross section, $`r_01.2`$fm. If $`A=22`$ (it is the value which we use in all numerical calculations in the present paper), Eq.(5.4) gives the condition

$$\sigma _{max}(r_{},s)<<40mb.$$
$`(5.5)`$
The example of the calculation of $`\sigma (r_{},s)`$ is shown on fig.3, and it is seen that the condition (5.5) is violated only at very high values of $`s`$, $`s>10^8GeV^2`$. It corresponds to typical lepton energies $`E=\nu /vs/(2M_p0.1)10^9GeV`$. Besides, the condition (5.5) is unnecessarily strong and can be weakened by taking into account that the nuclear shadowing effect in perturbative part of $`\sigma _{T,L}^A`$ strongly depends on $`Q^2`$ because, due to properties of Bessel functions in the expressions for photon wave functions (Eqs. 2.16), one has

$$\stackrel{}{Q}r_{}1,$$
$`(5.6)`$
and, correspondingly,

$$r_{char}^2\frac{1}{Q^2},$$
$`(5.7)`$
where $`r_{char}`$ is some characteristic value of a transverse size of the $`\stackrel{}{qq}`$-pair in the nonperturbative interaction. The integral over $`Q^2`$ determining the photonuclear cross section $`v\frac{d\sigma }{dv}`$ is dominated by $`Q^2`$ values near $`Q_{min}^2`$ and, therefore, the role of $`\stackrel{}{qq}`$-pairs with large $`r_{}`$, for which the cross section $`\sigma (r_{},s)`$ is relatively small, is, due to Eq.(5.7), sufficient.Accordingly, shadowing effects cannot be too large.

Note that the value of $`r_{}`$ at which the cross section $`\sigma (r_{},s)`$ has a maximum value does not coincide (even approximately) with a value of the parameter $`r_{}^0`$ in the formula (3.1) (it is due to a large value of the parameter $`a_3`$, leading to a fast reveal of the $`a_3r^3`$-term). So, the typical pair’s transverse size corresponding to the perturbative interaction is determined, in the parameterization of ref., by the combination of two parameters, $`a_3`$ and $`r_{}^0`$.

The results of our calculation of the perturbative part of $`v\frac{d\sigma }{dv}`$ are shown on figs.4,5(for $`\mu A`$ and $`\tau A`$ interactions). These results can be used, together with the corresponding nonperturbative parts (given by Eq.(4.6)), for calculations of a $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$ propagation through thick layers of matter and for calculations of detection probabilities of superhigh energy leptons passing through large underground telescopes. For completeness, we present on figs.6,7 also the nonperturbative parts of $`v\frac{d\sigma }{dv}`$. All calculations on figs.4-7 are done for standard rock, $`A=22`$.

For a rough estimate of the photonuclear range of leptons in matter it is useful to know the energy loss coefficients,

$$\frac{1}{E}\frac{dE}{dx}=b(E,m_l)=\frac{N_A}{A}v\frac{d\sigma }{dv}(E,v,m_l),$$
$`(5.8)`$
(in a case of the perturbative part, if there is no shadowing, $`v\frac{d\sigma }{dv}A`$ and we return to Eq.(4.8)). On figs.8,9 we show the results of calculations of such coefficients for standard rock. It is seen that at energies $`E10^810^9GeV`$ the contribution of the perturbative QCD part of the total photonuclear interaction in the lepton photonuclear energy losses is dominant ($`70\%`$).

The quantitatively similar results for the photonuclear energy loss coefficients $`b(E,m_l)`$ were obtained in ref., authors of which used for the description of the structure functions ALLM parameterization (based on the Regge approach), and in ref., for smaller energy interval ($`E<10^6GeV`$) and only for muons (authors of  used for $`\sigma _{T,L}`$ the predictions of CKMT model (also of Regge type)). Needless to say, that the theoretical approaches of refs. are completely different from the one presented here.

## Acknowledgments

Authors wish to thank I. A. Sokalski for the help in numerical calculations.

## Appendix A: The cut-off functions

In the case of transversely polarized virtual photons the criterion (2.14) and Eqs.(2.3) lead to the change (in the approximation $`m_f=0`$; $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ is the step function )

$$\frac{3}{2}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}dz[z^2+(1z)^2]\frac{3}{2}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}dz[z^2+(1z)^2\times $$

$$\times \mathrm{\Theta }(\frac{k_0^2}{M^2(1+\frac{Q^2}{M^2})^2}z(1z))\mathrm{\Theta }(\frac{k_0^2}{M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(1+\frac{Q^2}{M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}})^2}z(1z))$$

$$\eta _T(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},k_0^2).$$
$`(A1)`$
In diagonal approximation one obtains

$$\eta _T(M^2,M^2,k_0^2)\eta _T(M^2,k_0^2)=3z_03z_0^2+2z_0^3,$$
$`(A2)`$
$$z_0=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}\frac{k_0^2}{M^2(1+\frac{Q^2}{M^2})^2}}.$$
$`(A2a)`$
If $`M^2>>k_0^2`$ one has

$$z_0\frac{k_0^2}{M^2(1+\frac{Q^2}{M^2})^2},\eta _T(M^2,k_0^2)3\frac{k_0^2}{M^2(1+\frac{Q^2}{M^2})^2}.$$
$`(A3)`$
Having in mind that nonperturbative $`(\stackrel{}{qq})p`$ interaction amplitudes are essentially diagonal (it is known that, in the black disc limit, at least, the cross sections of nondiagonal diffractive processes should be small), we can approximate $`\eta _T(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},k_0^2)`$ by the formula

$$\eta _T(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},k_0^2)\sqrt{\eta _T(M^2,k_0^2)\eta _T(M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},k_0^2)}.$$
$`(A4)`$
In the case of longitudinally polarized photons the analogue of Eq.(A1) is

$$\frac{3}{2}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}dz4z(1z)\frac{3}{2}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}dz4z(1z)\mathrm{\Theta }(\frac{k_0^2}{M^2(1+\frac{Q^2}{M^2})^2}z(1z))\times $$

$$\times \mathrm{\Theta }(\frac{k_0^2}{M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(1+\frac{Q^2}{M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}})^2}z(1z))\eta _L(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},k_0^2),$$
$`(A5)`$
and, in diagonal approximation ,

$$\eta _L(M^2,M^2,k_0^2)\eta _L(M^2,k_0^2)=6z_0^24z_0^3.$$
$`(A6)`$
Similarly with the previous case we approximate $`\eta _L(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},k_0^2)`$ by the formula

$$\eta _L(M^2,M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},k_0^2)\sqrt{\eta _L(M^2,k_0^2)\eta _L(M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},k_0^2)}.$$
$`(A7)`$
## 1 Appendix B: Parameterization of structure functions in GVDM

In the GVDM version of ref., the electromagnetic structure functions of a proton are well parameterized by the following expressions:

$$\sigma _T(Q^2,\nu )=\sigma _{\gamma p}(\nu )\left\{0.75\frac{m_1^4}{(m_1^2+Q^2)^2}+0.25\frac{m_2^2}{m_2^2+Q^2}\right\},$$
$`(B1)`$
$$\sigma _L(Q^2.\nu )=\xi \sigma _{\gamma p}(\nu )\{0.75\frac{m_1^2Q^2}{(m_1^2+Q^2)^2}+$$

$$+0.25[\frac{m_2^2}{Q^2}ln(1+\frac{Q^2}{m_2^2})\frac{m_2^2}{m_2^2+Q^2}]\},$$
$`(B2)`$
$$m_1^2=0.54GeV^2,m_2^2=1.8GeV^2,\xi =0.25.$$
$`(B3)`$
In these formulae $`\sigma _{\gamma p}(\nu )`$ is the total photoproduction cross section for a real photon of energy $`\nu `$, which was parametrized by the equation

$$\sigma _{\gamma p}(\nu )=114.3+1.647ln^2(0.0213\nu )\mu b$$
$`(B4)`$
($`\nu `$ is in units of $`GeV`$). The parameterization (B1,B2) works rather well in the small $`Q^2`$region ($`Q^21GeV^2`$) and in the region of not very small $`x_{Bj}`$ ($`10^3<x_{Bj}<10^1`$), and does not contradict with the most recent H1 and ZEUS data.

The generalization of Eqs.(B1,B2) for nuclear targets is the following : one must introduce the common factor $`A`$ and multiply the first term in figure brackets in right-hand-sides in Eqs.(B1,B2) by the shadowing function $`G_{sh}(x)`$ defined by the relation

$$G_{sh}(x)=\frac{3}{x^3}(\frac{x^2}{2}1+e^x(1+x)),$$
$`(B5)`$
$$x0.00282A^{1/3}\sigma _{\gamma p}(\nu ).$$
$`(B5a)`$
As a result, one obtains

$$\sigma _T^A(Q^2,\nu )=A\sigma _{\gamma p}(\nu )\{0.75\frac{m_1^4}{(m_1^2+Q^2)^2}G_{sh}(x)+0.25\frac{m_2^2}{m_2^2+Q^2}\},$$
$`(B6)`$
$$\sigma _L^A(Q^2,\nu )=A\sigma _{\gamma p}(\nu )\xi \{0.75\frac{m_1^2Q^2}{(m_1^2+Q^2)^2}G_{sh}(x)+$$

$$+0.25[\frac{m_2^2}{Q^2}ln(1+\frac{Q^2}{m_2^2})\frac{m_2^2}{m_2^2+Q^2}]\}.$$
$`(B7)`$