text:
# LU-ITP 2002/015 Edinburgh 2002/06 Applied lattice gauge calculations: diquark content of the nucleonInvited talk given by M. Göckeler at the European Workshop on the QCD Structure of the Nucleon (QCD - N’02), Ferrara, Italy, 3-6 Apr 2002

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Lattice gauge theory offers the possibility to perform non-perturbative computations in a strongly coupled theory without any model assumptions. Lattice QCD, in particular, allows us to investigate low-energy properties of QCD, like, e.g., the hadron mass spectrum, decay constants, form factors, and moments of structure functions. In this article, we shall discuss as an example the computation of four-quark operators in the nucleon recently performed by our group (the QCDSF collaboration). Since four-quark operators are related to higher-twist effects in nucleon structure functions, a subject of considerable theoretical and experimental importance, they are a particularly interesting object for lattice-QCD studies. For more technical details we refer to Ref..

## 2 WHAT CAN WE COMPUTE ON THE LATTICE?

The basic observables in lattice QCD are Euclidean $`n`$-point correlation functions. Since space-time has been discretised (with lattice spacing $`a`$) the path integral has become a high-dimensional ordinary integral over a discrete set of field variables, which can be evaluated by Monte Carlo methods. As the (Grassmann valued) quark fields appear bilinearly in the action, they can be integrated out analytically leaving behind the determinant of the lattice Dirac operator and products of quark propagators. In the quenched approximation, which will be employed throughout the whole paper, this determinant is replaced by 1. The quenched approximation saves a lot of computer time, but it is hardly possible to estimate its accuracy.

Let us briefly sketch the computation of hadronic matrix elements. First, one has to choose suitable interpolating fields for the particle to be studied. For a proton with momentum $`\stackrel{}{P}`$ one may take

$$B_\alpha (t,\stackrel{}{P})=\underset{x;x_4=t}{}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{x}}ϵ_{ijk}u_\alpha ^i(x)u_\beta ^j(x)(C\gamma _5)_{\beta \gamma }d_\gamma ^k(x)$$
(1)
and the corresponding $`\overline{B}`$, where $`i`$, $`j`$, …are colour indices and $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, …are Dirac indices.

As the time extent $`T`$ of our lattice tends to $`\mathrm{}`$, the two-point correlation function becomes the vacuum expectation value of the corresponding Hilbert space operators with the Euclidean evolution operator $`\mathrm{e}^{Ht}`$ in between, i.e. we have, omitting Dirac indices and momenta for simplicity:

$$B(t)\overline{B}(0)\stackrel{T\mathrm{}}{=}0|B\mathrm{e}^{Ht}\overline{B}|0.$$
(2)
If in addition the time $`t`$ gets large, the ground state $`|p`$ of the proton will dominate the sum over intermediate states between $`B`$ and $`\overline{B}`$, and the two-point function will decay exponentially with a decay rate given by the proton energy $`E_p`$:

$$B(t)\overline{B}(0)\stackrel{T\mathrm{}}{=}0|B\mathrm{e}^{Ht}\overline{B}|0\stackrel{t\mathrm{}}{=}0|B|p\mathrm{e}^{E_pt}p|\overline{B}|0+\mathrm{}$$
(3)
Of course, if the momentum vanishes, we have $`E_p=m_p`$, the proton mass.

Similarly we have for a three-point function with the operator $`𝒪`$ whose matrix elements we want to calculate:

$`B(t)𝒪(\tau )\overline{B}(0)`$ $`\stackrel{T\mathrm{}}{=}`$ $`0|B\mathrm{e}^{H(t\tau )}𝒪\mathrm{e}^{H\tau }\overline{B}|0`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`0|B|p\mathrm{e}^{E_p(t\tau )}p|𝒪|p\mathrm{e}^{E_p\tau }p|\overline{B}|0+\mathrm{}`$
$`=`$ $`0|B|p\mathrm{e}^{E_pt}p|\overline{B}|0p|𝒪|p+\mathrm{}`$
if $`t>\tau >0`$. Hence the ratio

$$R\frac{B(t)𝒪(\tau )\overline{B}(0)}{B(t)\overline{B}(0)}=p|𝒪|p+\mathrm{}$$
(5)
should be independent of the times $`\tau `$ and $`t`$, if all time differences are so large that excited states can be neglected.

The proton three-point function for a two-quark operator contains quark-line connected as well as quark-line disconnected pieces. In the quark-line connected contributions the operator is inserted in one of the quark lines of the nucleon propagator, while in the disconnected pieces the operator is attached to an additional closed quark line which communicates with the valence quarks in the proton only via gluon exchange. In the limit of exact isospin invariance as it is considered in this paper, the disconnected contributions cancel in the case of non-singlet two-quark operators. Moreover, one might try to argue that it would be more consistent with the quenched approximation to drop quark-line disconnected contributions generally.

## 3 WHAT DO WE WANT TO COMPUTE ON THE LATTICE?

The operator product expansion (OPE) relates moments of structure functions to nucleon matrix elements of local operators. In the deep-inelastic limit, where the momentum transfer $`Q^2`$ becomes large, one can express Nachtmann moments of, e.g., $`F_2`$ in the following form:

$$_0^1𝑑xx^{n2}F_2(x,Q^2)|_{\mathrm{Nachtmann}}=c_n^{(2)}A_n^{(2)}(\mu )+\frac{c_n^{(4)}}{Q^2}A_n^{(4)}(\mu )+O\left(\frac{1}{Q^4}\right).$$
(6)
Here $`n=2,4,6,\mathrm{}`$, the (reduced) matrix elements $`A_n^{(t)}`$ of twist $`t`$ and spin $`n`$ are renormalised at the scale $`\mu `$, and $`c_n^{(t)}=c_n^{(t)}(Q^2/\mu ^2,g(\mu ))`$ are the Wilson coefficients, calculated in perturbation theory. Note that we go back to Minkowski space in this section.

Besides the leading twist-2 contribution we have included in (6) the twist-4 corrections. These are suppressed by $`1/Q^2`$ and have been the subject of intensive investigations both experimentally and theoretically. In the following we shall describe what lattice computations can tell us about twist-4 effects.

An important class of twist-4 operators consists of four-quark operators. In particular, the twist-4, spin-2 matrix element $`A_2^{(4)}`$ is defined by the following expectation value in a proton state with 4-momentum $`P`$ ($`\{\mathrm{}\}`$ indicates symmetrisation)

$$P|A_{\{\mu \nu \}}^c\text{traces}|P=2A_2^{(4)}(P_\mu P_\nu \text{traces})$$
(7)
with the four-quark operator

$$A_{\mu \nu }^c=\overline{\psi }G\gamma _\mu \gamma _5t^a\psi \overline{\psi }G\gamma _\nu \gamma _5t^a\psi .$$
(8)
Here the quark field $`\psi `$ carries flavour, colour, and Dirac indices, the $`t^a`$ are the usual generators of colour SU(3), and $`G`$ is a matrix in flavour space, the charge matrix

$$G=\text{diag}(e_u,e_d)=\text{diag}(2/3,1/3).$$
(9)
The corresponding leading-twist matrix element $`A_2^{(2)}`$ is defined by

$$P|𝒪_{\{\mu \nu \}}\text{traces}|P=2A_2^{(2)}(P_\mu P_\nu \text{traces})$$
(10)
in terms of the two-quark operator

𝒪μν=i2ψ¯G2γμ

D
νψ.subscript𝒪𝜇𝜈i2¯𝜓superscript𝐺2subscript𝛾𝜇

D
ν𝜓\mathcal{O}_{\mu\nu}=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\bar{\psi}G^{2}\gamma_{\mu}\mbox{
\parbox[b]{0.0pt}{$D$}\raisebox{7.3194pt}{$\leftrightarrow$}${}_{\!\nu}$}\psi\,. (11)
This operator has dimension 4, while the four-quark operator (8) has dimension 6. Hence four-quark operators may mix with operators of lower dimension (two-quark operators). This is a rather general phenomenon for operators of higher twist, because for given spin, higher twist means higher dimension. Unfortunately, the mixing with operators of lower dimension is hard to deal with in perturbation theory. For the time being we do not attempt a non-perturbative calculation of the renormalisation and mixing coefficients. Instead we look for four-quark operators for which mixing with two-quark operators is prohibited by flavour symmetry and apply perturbative (one-loop) renormalisation.

## 4 FOUR-QUARK OPERATORS IN THE PROTON

Assuming SU(2) flavour symmetry (isospin symmetry) we find that two-quark operators can have isospin $`I=0`$ or 1, whereas four-quark operators can have $`I=0`$, 1, or 2. Hence four-quark operators with $`I=2`$ cannot mix with two-quark operators. Unfortunately, the expectation value of any $`I=2`$ operator in the proton vanishes. So we have to enlarge the flavour symmetry from SU(2)F to SU(3)F, i.e. we assume three quarks of the same mass, and the flavour structure of the operator in the OPE is now

$$𝒪=(e_u\overline{u}u+e_d\overline{d}d+e_s\overline{s}s)(e_u\overline{u}u+e_d\overline{d}d+e_s\overline{s}s).$$
(12)
Whereas two-quark operators transform under SU(3)F according to $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathrm{𝟑}=\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟖}`$, we have for four-quark operators: $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathrm{𝟑})(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathrm{𝟑})=2\mathrm{𝟏}4\mathrm{𝟖}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$ . Four-quark operators with $`I=0,1`$, $`I_3=0`$, and hypercharge $`Y=0`$ from the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$ multiplets do not mix with two-quark operators and can be used in a proton expectation value, e.g. the $`I=1`$ operator

$`𝒪_{27}^{I=1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}[(\overline{u}u)(\overline{u}u)(\overline{d}d)(\overline{d}d)(\overline{u}s)(\overline{s}u)(\overline{s}u)(\overline{u}s)+(\overline{d}s)(\overline{s}d)+(\overline{s}d)(\overline{d}s)`$ (13)
$`(\overline{s}s)(\overline{u}u)(\overline{u}u)(\overline{s}s)+(\overline{s}s)(\overline{d}d)+(\overline{d}d)(\overline{s}s)]`$
belongs to the $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$ multiplet. Such a flavour component can be projected out by suitable linear combinations of the matrix elements of the octet baryons $`p`$, $`n`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, e.g.

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^+|𝒪|\mathrm{\Sigma }^+2\mathrm{\Sigma }^0|𝒪|\mathrm{\Sigma }^0+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}|𝒪|\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=p|𝒪_{27}^{I=1}|p.$$
(14)
Note that the flavour combination in four-quark operators which do not mix with two-quark operators (like $`𝒪_{27}^{I=1}`$) is such that all quark-line disconnected contributions cancel. However, mixing with other four-quark operators (with different Dirac or colour structures) remains and is taken into account using perturbatively calculated mixing coefficients.

After a chiral extrapolation (linear in the quark mass) we obtain in our special flavour channel

$$_0^1dxF_2(x,Q^2)|_{\mathrm{Nachtmann}}^{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},I=1}=0.0005(5)\frac{m_p^2\alpha _s(Q^2)}{Q^2}+O(\alpha _s^2).$$
(15)
The $`O(\alpha _s^2)`$ contribution arises from the fact that we know only the tree level Wilson coefficient $`c_2^{(4)}=g^2\left(1+O(g^2)\right)`$ . For reasonable values of $`Q^2`$ the result is rather small using, e.g., $`\alpha _s(Q^2)0.3`$ for $`Q^2=4\text{GeV}^2`$. But it is interesting to note that the bag model estimates the prefactor in (15) to be $`B/m_p^40.0006`$, where $`B(145\text{MeV})^4`$ is the bag constant .

## 5 DIQUARKS

The four-quark operators can be rewritten to look like diquark densities. We have computed matrix elements of operators of the following form:

$$\frac{1}{10}(\overline{u}_a\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma _5C\overline{u}_b^\mathrm{T})(u_a^{}^\mathrm{T}C^1\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}u_b^{})(\delta _{ab^{}}\delta _{ba^{}}\delta _{aa^{}}\delta _{bb^{}}),$$
(16)
$$\frac{1}{10}(\overline{u}_a\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma _5C\overline{u}_b^\mathrm{T})(u_a^{}^\mathrm{T}C^1\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}u_b^{})(\delta _{ab^{}}\delta _{ba^{}}+\delta _{aa^{}}\delta _{bb^{}}),$$
(17)
where $`a`$, $`b`$, $`a^{}`$, and $`b^{}`$ are colour indices. The Dirac structure of the operators is represented by the matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. In (16) the diquark is in a $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ of colour and thus anti-symmetric in the colour indices. In (17) it is in a $`\mathrm{𝟔}`$ and symmetric in the colour indices. Strictly speaking, we are again studying operators from the 27 representation of SU(3)F whose $`\overline{u}\overline{u}uu`$ component is as given above. But at least within the quenched approximation the interpretation as valence diquark densities seems reasonable. In order to interpret our results we have combined the operators such that they correspond to diquarks of spin zero and spin one. For an operator $`𝒪_{\mu \nu }`$ with two space-time indices (in Euclidean notation), e.g. for the Dirac structure $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu `$, we take the expectation value of $`𝒪_{44}`$ in a state with vanishing momentum to represent a spin-zero diquark and the expectation value of $`_{i=1}^3𝒪_{ii}`$ to correspond to a spin-one diquark.

In Fig. 1 we show our results for the diquark densities. They are plotted versus $`1/\kappa `$ and linearly extrapolated to the chiral limit at $`1/\kappa _{\mathrm{cr}}`$, where the variable $`1/\kappa `$ determines the bare quark mass $`m_q=(1/\kappa 1/\kappa _{\mathrm{cr}})/(2a)`$. In physical units these bare quark masses are approximately 100, 190, and 250 MeV.

The pattern of the results can tentatively be understood in a non-relativistic quark picture. When the diquark is in the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ of SU(3)c it is anti-symmetric in the colour indices, and therefore the symmetric (in the spin indices) spin-one state is favoured over the anti-symmetric spin-zero state. On the other hand, when the diquark is in the (symmetric) $`\mathrm{𝟔}`$ of colour one might at first sight expect the anti-symmetric spin-zero state to dominate over the symmetric spin-one state. Although the spin-zero contribution is indeed less suppressed than in the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ case it is not really dominating. This is probably related to the fact that a diquark in the $`\mathrm{𝟔}`$ of SU(3)c must be accompanied by (at least) one gluon if it is to form a colour singlet with the remaining quark. The coupling to the gluon, mixing “large” and “small” components of the quark spinors, would invalidate the above arguments which worked reasonably well for diquarks in the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ of colour.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is supported by the DFG (Schwerpunkt “Elektromagnetische Sonden”) and by BMBF. The numerical calculations were performed on the Quadrics computers at DESY Zeuthen. We wish to thank the operating staff for their support.


format: text

text:
# Domination of black hole accretion in brane cosmology

## Abstract

We consider the evolution of primordial black holes formed during the high energy phase of the braneworld scenario. We show that the effect of accretion from the surrounding radiation bath is dominant compared to evaporation for such black holes. This feature lasts till the onset of matter (or black hole) domination of the total energy density which could occur either in the high energy phase or later. We find that the black hole evaporation times could be significantly large even for black holes with small initial mass to survive till several cosmologically interesting eras.

PACS number(s): 98.80.Cq

The braneworld scenario in which our observable universe is a brane embedded in a higher dimensional bulk has gained much popularity in recent times. The motivation for such a consideration originates from solutions of string theory where matter and radiation are confined to the 3-brane, whereas gravity propagates also in the bulk. The significant consequences of this idea on the physics of the early universe is the focus of much current attention. The foremost departure from standard cosmology is that there exists a regime during the early stages when the expansion rate of the universe is proportional to its energy density. The aim is to look for observable implications of this behaviour on cosmology.

Primordial black holes through their evolution and evaporation are potentially interesting candidates towards probing the high energy early stages of brane cosmology. The formation of primordial black holes through various mechanisms has been studied in much detail. More recently, the diverse cosmological ramifications of primordial black holes are being vigorously pursued. Several papers have analysed the implications of a population of primordial black holes in the early universe on density perturbations, baryogenesis, reionization and nucleosynthesis. Other investigations have focussed on methods of constraining the spectra of primordial black holes using observational results on gamma rays, background neutrinos, dark matter and quintessence. Recently, several attempts of describing the formation, evaporation and cosmological consesquences of primordial black holes in the braneworld scenario have also been undertaken.

In the present Letter, we consider the evolution of primordial black holes formed during the high energy brane phase when the expansion rate of the universe is linearly proportional to its energy density. We restrict ourselves to the Randall-Sundrum Type II model. Black holes formed during this regime evaporate at a rate proportional to their effective area times the fourth power of their temperature. Using the induced metric on the brane, and expressions for the black hole radius and temperature in terms of the AdS radius $`l`$, Guedens et al derived an evaporation law which is different from that of usual $`4D`$ black holes. However, for a more complete analysis of the evolution of black holes, one must take into account the effect of accretion from the surrounding radiation bath as well. This point has been emphasized by Zeldovich and Novikov and the ramifications of considering accreting black holes have been found to be significant in the context of standard cosmology. In our analysis, we consider the effect of both accretion and evaporation on primordial black holes formed on the brane.

Let us consider the rate of change of mass $`\dot{M}`$ of a black hole immersed in a radiation bath. The accretion rate is proportional to the surface area of the black hole times the energy density of radiation. The evaporation rate is proportional to the surface area times the fourth power of temperature. Thus, $`\dot{M}`$ is given by

$$\dot{M}=4\pi r_{BH}^2\left(g_{brane}\sigma T_{BH}^4+\rho _R\right)$$
(1)
where $`g_{brane}`$ represents the effective number of degrees of freedom on the brane, $`r_{BH}`$ and $`T_{BH}`$ are the radius and temperature of the black hole, $`\sigma `$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and $`\rho _R`$ is the energy density of radiation given by

$`\rho _R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3M_4^2}{32\pi t_ct}}`$ (2)
$`r_{BH}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{8}{3\pi }}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{l}{l_4}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_4}}\right)^{1/2}l_4`$ (3)
$`T_{BH}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi r_{BH}}}`$ (4)
$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(4)\zeta (4)}{8(\pi )^2}}`$ (5)
where $`M_4`$ and $`l_4`$ are the four dimensional Planck mass and length, respectively, $`(t_cl/2)`$ is the transition time to standard cosmology, and the above relations hold for $`t<<t_c`$. (Note here that we have neglected the contribution of evaporation into the bulk given by a term proportional to $`4\pi r_{BH}^2g_{bulk}T_{BH}^5`$ since it is subdominant even for very small black holes). With the above substitutions the black hole equation can be written as

$$\dot{M}=\frac{AM_4^2}{Mt_c}+\frac{BM}{t}$$
(6)
where $`(A3/(16)^3\pi )`$ and $`(B2/\pi )`$ are dimensionless numbersWe assume that the black holes can emit massless particles only and take $`g_{brane}=7.25`$ as in . It is known that the cross section for particle absorbtion is increased for relativistic particles, and also for relativistic motion of black holes. In the present analysis we neglect these effects which tend to increase the value of $`B`$ by a small amount.. The exact solution for Eq.(6) is

$$M(t)=\left[\left(M_0^2\frac{2AM_4^2}{2B1}\frac{t_0}{t_c}\right)\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{2B}+\frac{2AM_4^2}{2B1}\frac{t}{t_c}\right]^{1/2}$$
(7)
with $`M=M_0`$ at the time of BH formation $`t=t_0`$. It can be seen that an extremum for the function $`M(t)`$ exists only if $`(M_0/M_4)^2<(2A/2B1)(t_0/t_c)`$. The relation between formation time and mass

$$\frac{t_0}{t_4}\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{M_0}{M_4}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{l}{l_4}\right)^{1/2}$$
(8)
shows that such a small initial mass will violate the lower bound on horizon mass $`(M_H/M_4)>2\times 10^6(l_4/l)^{1/3}`$ obtained from the contribution of gravitational waves towards CMBR anisotropy. This result shows that for a radiation dominated high energy phase ($`t<t_c`$), accretion dominates over evaporation for all times and the mass of a primordial black hole continues to grow monotonically with

$$\frac{M(t)}{M_0}\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^B$$
(9)
Let us now consider the scenario in which a certain number density of primordial black holes exchange energy with the surrounding radiation by accretion and evaporation. Black holes are formed with an initial mass spectrum whose range is much debated. In order to keep our analysis uncomplicated, the subsequent calculations are performed by considering an average initial mass $`M_0`$. We assume that at a time $`t_0`$ the fraction of the total energy in black holes is $`\beta `$, and the number density of black holes is $`n_{BH}(t_0)`$. Hence, we have

$`\rho _T(t_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _R(t_0)+\rho _{BH}(t_0)`$ (10)
$`\rho _{BH}(t_0)=\beta \rho _T(t_0)`$ $`=`$ $`M_0n_{BH}(t_0)`$ (11)
$`\rho _R(t_0)`$ $`=`$ $`(1\beta )\rho _T(t_0)`$ (12)
The number density of black holes $`n_{BH}(t)`$ scales as $`a(t)^3`$, and thus for a radiation dominated evolution on the brane, one has $`(n_{BH}(t)/n_{BH}(t_0))=(t_0/t)^{3/4}`$ since $`a(t)t^{1/4}`$. The net energy in black holes grows since accretion dominates over evaporation. The condition for the universe to remain radiation dominated (i.e., $`\rho _{BH}(t)<\rho _R(t)`$) at any instant $`t`$ can be derived from Eqs.(7,10,11,12) to be

$$\beta <\frac{(t_0/t)^{B+1/4}}{1+(t_0/t)^{B+1/4}}$$
(13)
Thus depending on the value of the parameter $`\beta `$ there may or may not be an era of black hole domination in the early brane dominated case. We will analyse these two cases separately.

We first consider the situation when the cosmology stays radiation dominated up to the time when brane effects are important, i.e., $`tt_c`$. For this to be the case, the initial fraction $`\beta `$ should be such that

$$\frac{\beta }{1\beta }<\left(\frac{t_0}{t_c}\right)^{B+1/4}$$
(14)
If the universe remains radiation dominated up to time $`t_c`$, then (for $`M_0M_4`$) the mass of a black hole is given by Eq.(9). However, the black hole must remain small enough, i.e., $`(M/M_4)<(3\pi /4)(t/t_4)`$ for it to obey the $`5D`$ evaporation law that we have used. These criteria can be used to put an upper bound on the initial mass:

$$\frac{M_0}{M_4}<\left(\frac{3\pi }{4(2\sqrt{2})^B}\right)^{\frac{2}{2B}}\frac{t_c}{t_4}$$
(15)
In the low energy regime $`\rho _Rt^2`$. The black hole mass will continue to grow due to accretion up to a certain time (say $`t_t`$) after which the radiation density becomes too dilute for accretion to be significant. At this stage the rate of evaporation is also insignificant since the black hole masses have grown by several orders of magnitude from their initial values. So there ensues an era during which the black hole mass stays nearly constant over a period of time until evaporation takes over finally. This feature is well supported by numerical simulations of coupled black hole and Einstein equations for $`4D`$ black holes. For the present case the accretion rate is smaller since the surface area is $`M`$ instead of $`M^2`$ for $`4D`$ black holes. Furthermore, the evaporation rate is ($`M^1`$) instead of $`M^2`$. Hence, a critical mass $`M_{max}`$ is reached before evaporation starts dominating from the transition time $`t_t`$ onwardsThe exact determination of $`t_t`$ requires the numerical integration of the coupled Einstein and black hole equations (see, for example ) and is beyond the scope of the present paper.. Assuming the small mass condition ($`(M/M_4)<(3\pi /4)(t/t_4)`$) to be still valid together with radiation domination at the time $`t_t`$, the lifetime for a typical black hole can be computed from Eq.(6) (using $`M=M_{max}`$ at $`t=t_t`$) and is given by

$$\frac{t_{end}}{t_4}\frac{1}{2A}\left(\frac{M_{max}}{M_4}\right)^2\frac{t_c}{t_4}$$
(16)
Using Eqs.(8) and (9), the lifetime is given by

$$\frac{t_{end}}{t_4}\frac{4}{A}(2\sqrt{2})^B\left(\frac{M_0}{M_4}\right)^{2B}\frac{t_c}{t_4}\left(\frac{t_t^2}{t_ct_4}\right)^B$$
(17)
Guedens et al derived the increase of black hole evaporation time compared to $`4D`$ black holes as $`(l/r_0)^2`$, i.e., $`\{[t_{end}(M_0,5D)]/[t_{end}(M_0,4D)][(t_c/t_4)(M_4/M_0)]\}`$ Our results show that over and above the enhancement of black hole lifetime originating from a modified evaporation law, the black hole lifetime is further increased by a factor $`(M_{max}/M_0)^2`$ purely due to accretion given by

$$\frac{t_{end}(M,5D)}{t_{end}(M_0,5D)}\left(\frac{M_4}{M_0}\right)^B\left(\frac{t_t^2}{t_ct_4}\right)^B$$
(18)
for $`t_ct_tt_{eq}`$. We thus find that the effect of accretion in prolonging the life time of black holes is more pronounced compared to the $`5D`$ evaporation effect for small black holes. From Eq.(17) it can be seen that for $`(l/l_4)10^{20}`$, a small number density of primordial $`5D`$ black holes formed with very low or even subplanckian masees ($`M_0M_4`$) could survive up to the era of nucleosynthesis and beyond if $`t_t10^5t_c`$. This result is likely to have multifarous cosmological consequences which need to be investigated in detail. But for black holes with large initial masses ($`M_0>>M_4`$) which form later, there is a lower net mass gain. Hence, for example, if we take $`t_t10^5t_c`$, and $`(l/l_4)10^{20}`$, black holes formed with $`M_0=10^{15}M_410^{10}\mathrm{g}`$, will have $`M_{max}10^{15}\mathrm{g}`$, and will be evaporating now. However, if the AdS radius is the maximum allowed by the current experimental bounds, i.e., $`(l/l_4)10^{30}`$ black holes with initial masses as low as $`M_0=10^8M_410^3\mathrm{g}`$ survive up to the present era even for $`t_tt_c`$.

We next consider the case when the initial energy fraction $`\beta `$ is such that the the accretion process causes $`\rho _{BH}(t)`$ to exceed $`\rho _R(t)`$ at a time $`t<t_c`$. If $`\beta `$ exceeds the bound (we still assume $`\beta <<O(1)`$) given in Eq.(13), then the cosmology enters a matter (black hole) dominated regime in the high energy phase when $`H^2\rho ^2`$. The onset of such a matter dominated era is labelled by $`t_{heq}`$ which can be written from Eqs.(9-12) as§§§Although the formation time $`t_0`$ of individual black holes is spread out in accordance with the initial mass spectra, we have used $`t_0`$ to signify the mean formation time in the similar sense of using $`M_0`$ as the mean initial mass.

$$\frac{t_{heq}}{t_0}=\left(\frac{1\beta }{\beta }\right)^{\frac{4}{4B+1}}\gamma $$
(19)
The mass of a black hole at $`t_{heq}`$ is given by $`M(t_{heq}/M_0)=\gamma ^B`$.

For $`t>t_{heq}`$ the Hubble expansion is essentially driven by the black holes ($`p=0`$ and $`H\rho _{BH}`$). The number density of black holes scales as matter ($`n_{BH}(t)a^3`$), and thus the scale factor grows as $`at^{1/3}`$. During this era, the radiation density $`\rho _R`$ is governed by the equation

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\rho _R(t)a^4(t)\right)=\dot{M}(t)n_{BH}(t)a(t)$$
(20)
where the r.h.s (contribution from accreting black holes) cannot be neglected in comparison with the redshiting term ($`\rho _Ra^4`$). Taking into account the radiation dominated expansion for $`t<t_{heq}`$, and black hole dominated expansion for $`t>t_{heq}`$, one has

$$\frac{n_{BH}(t)}{n_{BH}(t_0)}=\left(\frac{t_0}{t_{heq}}\right)^{3/4}\frac{t_{heq}}{t}$$
(21)
Using Eqs.(9-12) and (21) in (20) gives

$$\dot{\rho }_R+\frac{4\rho _R}{3t}=\beta B\gamma ^{1/4}\frac{\rho (t_0)}{t_0}\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{B2}$$
(22)
Using the condition of matter-radiation equality at $`t_{heq}`$, i.e., $`[\rho _R(t_{heq})=\rho _{BH}(t_{heq})=M(t_{heq})n_{BH}(t_{heq})]`$, one can solve Eq.(22) to obtain

$$\rho _R(t)\gamma ^1\rho (t_0)\left(\frac{t_{heq}}{t}\right)\frac{\beta B}{B+1/3}\gamma ^{1/4}\rho (t_0)\left(\frac{t_0}{t}\right)^{1B}$$
(23)
where we have neglected a term of higher order in $`t_{heq}/t`$.

The black hole equation for $`t>t_{heq}`$ is given by

$$\dot{M}=B\gamma ^1\frac{M}{t_0}\left(\frac{t_{heq}}{t}\right)C\gamma ^{1/4}\frac{M}{t_0}\left(\frac{t_0}{t}\right)^{1B}$$
(24)
where $`C=\beta B/(B+1/3)`$ Note that we have ignored the evaporation term at this stage since it is even more negligible compared to accretion because of the resultant mass gain up to $`t_{heq}`$. Using $`M(t_{heq}/M_0)=\gamma ^B`$, the solution of Eq.(24) can be obtained. Beyond $`t_{heq}`$ the black holes continue to gain mass until the two terms in Eq.(24) become comparable. At this stage one enters the transition regime ($`t_t`$) after which evaporation takes over. Setting the r.h.s of Eq.(24) to $`0`$ at $`t=t_t`$, one obtains

$$\frac{t_t}{t_{heq}}=\left(\frac{B+1/3}{1\beta }\right)^{\frac{3}{3\beta +1}}\delta $$
(25)
Thus the accretion regime lasts for a brief duration in the matter dominated phase, and the maximum black hole mass $`M(t_t)`$ is given from the solution of Eq.(24) by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{M(t_t)}{M(t_{heq})}}=\mathrm{exp}[3B(1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{B+1/3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{3B+1}})`$ (26)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{B+1/3}}(1\left({\displaystyle \frac{B+1/3}{\beta }}\right)^{\frac{3B}{3B+1}})]`$ (27)
In the evaporating regime ($`t>t_t`$), the rate of change of black hole mass is given by the first term in Eq.(6). This can be integrated to give

$$M(t)=\left[M^2(t_t)\frac{2AM_4^2}{t_c}(tt_t)\right]^{1/2}$$
(28)
The energy density in radiation $`\rho _R(t)`$ whose time evolution is governed by Eq.(20) now has a positive contribution from black hole evaporation. Making the appropriate substitutions, one can again integrate $`\dot{\rho }_R(t)`$ to obtain

$$\rho _R(t)3\beta \rho (t_0)\gamma ^{3/4}\frac{M(t_t)}{M_0}\left[\delta ^1\frac{t_{heq}}{t}\right]$$
(29)
The universe gets reheated as $`\rho _R(t)`$ increases with time. The stage of black hole domination lasts up to a time $`t_r`$ when $`\rho _R(t_r)=n_{BH}(t_r)M(t_r)`$. Subsequently, radiation domination takes over again. From Eqs.(27) and (28),

$$\frac{t_c}{t_r}\frac{3}{2\delta \gamma }+\frac{A}{4\gamma ^{2B}}\left(\frac{M_4}{M_0}\right)^2$$
(30)
The standard low energy cosmology should be radiation dominated with sufficient radiation temperature for nucleosynthesis to occur. Thus the era of black hole domination should be over clearly before nucleosynthesis. Since it is possible for $`t_c/t_4`$ to be as large as $`10^{30}`$, let us simply demand that the onset of radiation domination take place before $`t_c`$. Requiring $`t_r<t_c`$, one gets a lower bound on $`\beta `$ from Eq.(29), i.e.,

$$\beta \left[\frac{4t_0}{3t_c}\left(B+1/3\right)^{\frac{3}{3B+1}}\right]^{B+1/4}$$
(31)
The evaporation time of black holes in this scenario can be calculated from Eq.(27). The mass gain between $`t_{heq}`$ and $`t_t`$ given by Eq.(26) is negligible if Eq.(30) is satisfied and also $`\beta <<O(1)`$. The black hole lifetime is

$$\frac{t_{end}}{t_4}\left(\frac{M_0}{M_4}\right)^2\frac{t_c}{t_4}\gamma ^{2B}$$
(32)
The contribution of accretion in prolonging the lifetime of black holes compared to the modified evaporation effect is given in this scenario by

$$\frac{t_{end}(M,5D)}{t_{end}(M_0,5D)}=\left(\frac{M_{max}}{M_0}\right)^2\gamma ^{2B}$$
(33)
This enhancement is independent of the value of the initial mass. Thus in this case the lifetime of the whole mass spectrum gets prolonged due to accretion by the same scaling factor $`\gamma ^{2B}`$, as distinct from the scenario of radiation domination throughout where the low mass black holes are affected most. Thus, for instance, if $`l/l_410^{20}`$ and $`\beta =10^3`$, black holes with $`M_010^{12}\mathrm{g}`$ evaporate during the present era.

To summarize, we have studied the evolution of primordial black holes formed during the radiation dominated high energy phase on the brane. These black holes obey a modified evaporation law. We have shown that the accretion of surrounding radiation completely dominates evaporation as long as radiation domination persists. This results in the net growth of mass of the black holes. Compared to the case of black holes formed with the same initial mass in standard cosmology, the black holes in the braneworld scenario evaporate much later. We have found that the effect of accretion in enhancement of black hole lifetime could be very significant for even low mass black holes for a wide range of parameters. It needs to be emphasized that the effect of accretion and its consequences of black holes surviving through key epochs in cosmology need to be studied in more details. Such investigations could constrain the initial energy fraction in black holes vis-a-vis the size of the extra dimension.


text:
# The use of the 𝜏 in new particle searches at DELPHI

## 1 Introduction

$`\tau `$ leptons are not only a precision measurement tool, but also a sensitive probe for Physics beyond the Standard Model. In this note we review the importance of their contribution and the results obtained at the DELPHI experiment at LEP. Several extensions to the Standard Model predict the existence of new particles involving $`\tau `$ leptons in the resulting final state.

Data collected at LEP2 at centre-of-mass energies from 130 GeV to 209 GeV were used in the different analyses, with a total integrated luminosity of about 650 pb-1.

## 2 The DELPHI detector

DELPHI was one of the four detectors operating at the LEP collider from 1989 to 2000. It was designed as a general purpose detector for $`e^+e^{}`$ physics with special emphasis on precise tracking and vertex determination and on powerful particle identification. A detailed description of the DELPHI detector can be found in  and the detector and trigger performance in .

Charged particle tracks are reconstructed by a system of tracking chambers inside the 1.2 T solenoidal magnetic field: the Vertex Detector (VD), the Inner Detector (ID), the Time Projection Chamber (TPC) and the Outer Detector (OD) in the barrel region; two sets of planar drift chambers aligned perpendicular to the beam axis (Forward Chambers A and B) measure tracks in the forward and backward directions.

The VD consists of three cylindrical layers of silicon detectors, at radii 6.3 cm, 9.0 cm and 11.0 cm, and polar angle acceptance from 24 to 156. All three layers measure coordinates in the plane transverse to the beam ($`xy`$), and at least two of the layers also measure $`z`$ coordinates along the beam direction. The ID consists of a cylindrical drift chamber with inner radius 12 cm and outer radius 22 cm, surrounded by 5 layers of straw tubes, having a polar acceptance between 15 and 165. The TPC, the principal tracking device of DELPHI, consists of a 2.7 m long cylinder of 30 cm inner radius and 122 cm outer radius. Each end-plate of the TPC is divided into 6 sectors with 192 sense wires and 16 circular pad rows per sector. The wires help in charged particle identification by measuring the specific energy loss (dE/dx) and the pad rows are used for 3 dimensional space-point reconstruction. The OD consists of 5 layers of drift cells at radii between 192 cm and 208 cm, covering polar angles between 43 and 137.

The electromagnetic calorimeters consist of a High Density Projection Chamber (HPC) covering the polar angle region from 40 to 140 and, a Forward ElectroMagnetic Calorimeter (FEMC) covering the polar angle regions from 11 to 36 and from 144 to 169. The Scintillator TIle Calorimeter (STIC) extends the polar angle coverage down to 1.66 from the beam axis in both directions. The Hadron CALorimeter (HCAL) covers 98% of the solid angle. The muons which traverse the HCAL are recorded in a set of Muon Drift Chambers placed in the barrel, forward and backward regions.

The Ring Imaging CHerenkov (RICH) detectors of DELPHI provide charged particle identification in both the barrel (BRICH) and forward (FRICH) regions. In addition, a set of scintillation counters were added to veto photons in blind regions of the electromagnetic calorimeter at polar angles near 40, 90 and 140 degrees.

## 3 Particle identification

An isolated particle was identified as a muon if it gave signal in the muon chambers or left a signal in the calorimeters compatible with a MIP. It was identified as an electron if its energy deposition in the electromagnetic calorimeters was compatible with its measured momentum and the ionisation loss in the TPC was compatible with that expected from an electron of that momentum.

If an electron or muon had low momentum, it was assumed to come from $`\tau `$ decay and was therefore tagged as $`\tau `$. In addition isolated jets with an energy of at least 5 GeV, at least one and at most five charged tracks and no more than ten particles in total were also considered as $`\tau `$ candidates.

The $`\tau `$ decays were classified into the following categories: $`e`$, $`\mu `$, $`\pi `$, $`\pi +n\gamma `$, $`3\pi `$ and others according to the lepton identification, the number of charged tracks of the jet and the number of photons.

## 4 Topics

Several searches with $`\tau `$ leptons in the final state are reviewed. Here, we will explain briefly the $`\tau `$ channels and will present the results with the combination of the rest of the possible decay channels.

### 4.1 SM Higgs and MSSM neutral Higgs bosons

The Standard Model (SM) Higgs search has been one of the most important goals at LEP2. A scalar Higgs could be produced at LEP in the process $`e^+e^{}HZ`$. In the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), the production of the lightest scalar Higgs boson, h, proceeds through the same processes as in the SM. There is also a CP-odd pseudo-scalar, A, which would be produced mostly in the $`e^+e^{}\mathrm{hA}`$ process at LEP2 .

The BR($`H\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$) $``$5%, then the $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}q\overline{q}`$ channels corresponds to $``$9% of the total decays. In the case of the MSSM neutral Higgs bosons the $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}b\overline{b}`$ channels corresponds to $``$ 16%. The same analysis was applied in the four channels with $`\tau `$ leptons .

After a hadronic preselection a search for $`\tau `$ lepton candidates was then performed using a likelihood ratio technique. The likelihood variable was calculated for the preselected particles using distributions of the particle momentum, of its isolation angle and of the probability that it came from the primary vertex. Pairs of $`\tau `$ candidates were then selected requiring opposite charges, an opening angle greater than $`90^{}`$ and a product of the $`\tau `$ likelihood variables above 0.45. If more than one pair was selected, only the pair with the highest product was kept. For the final selection another likelihood variable is built with the following variables: the rescaling factors of the $`\tau `$ jets, the $`\tau `$ momenta and the global $`b`$-tagging variable. Distributions of four analysis variables at different levels of the selection are shown in Fig. 1.

For all searches analyses a likelihood ratio technique  has been used to compute the cross-section and mass limits. No evidence of Higgs boson production was found neither in the SM Higgs search nor the MSSM neutral Higgs search. The distribution of the sum of the reconstructed Higgs boson masses for the tight candidates in each channel from the 2000 data in the SM Higss search is shown in Fig. 2. With combination of all channels the lower limit at 95% CL was set on the mass of the Standard Model Higgs boson at:

$`m_H>114.1`$ GeV/$`c^2`$

The following limits are derived in the framework of the MSSM:

$`m_h>89.1`$ GeV/$`c^2`$ and $`m_A>90.0`$ GeV/$`c^2`$

for all values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ above 0.44 and assuming the mixing in the stop sector.

### 4.2 Charged Higgs bosons 2HDM type II

The existence of a pair of charged Higgs bosons is predicted by several extensions of the Standard Model. Pair-production of charged Higgs bosons occurs mainly via $`s`$-channel exchange of a photon or a Z0 boson. In two Higgs doublet models (2HDM), the couplings are completely specified in terms of the electric charge and the weak mixing angle, $`\theta _W`$, and therefore the production cross-section depends only on the charged Higgs boson mass. Higgs bosons couples to mass and therefore decay preferentially to heavy particles, but the precise branching ratios may vary significantly depending on the model. In 2HDM type II, where the down/up fermions couple to $`H_1`$/$`H_2`$ Higgs fields respectively, the $`\tau \nu _\tau `$ and $`cs`$ decay channels are expected to dominate. There are two channels with $`\tau `$ leptons in the final state: the purely leptonic channel ($`H^+H^{}\tau ^+\nu _\tau \tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau `$) and the semileptonic channels ($`H^+H^{}qq^{}\tau \nu `$.

In both cases the main remaining background coming from $`W`$-pair production. Apart from the reconstructed mass, which is not possible to reconstruct in the leptonic channel, there are two important difference to discriminate both contributions: the $`\tau `$ polarization and the boson production polar angle.

* $`\tau `$ polarization:

assuming that the $`\nu _\tau `$ has a definite helicity, the polarization ($`P_\tau `$) of tau leptons originating from heavy boson decays is determined entirely by the properties of weak interactions and the nature of the parent boson. The helicity configuration for the signal is H$`{}_{}{}^{}\tau _R^{}\overline{\nu }_{\tau }^{}{}_{R}{}^{}`$ (H$`{}_{}{}^{+}\tau _L^+\nu _{\tau }^{}{}_{L}{}^{}`$) and for the W+W- background it is W$`{}_{}{}^{}\tau _L^{}\overline{\nu }_{\tau }^{}{}_{R}{}^{}`$ (W$`{}_{}{}^{+}\tau _R^+\nu _{\tau }^{}{}_{L}{}^{}`$) resulting in $`P_\tau ^\mathrm{H}=+1`$ and $`P_\tau ^\mathrm{W}=1`$. The $`\tau `$ weak decay induces a dependence of the angular and momentum distributions on polarization. Once the $`\tau `$ decay channel is identified, the information on the $`\tau `$ polarization was extracted from the observed kinematic distributions of its decay products, e.g. angles and momenta. These estimators are equivalent to those used at the Z peak for precision measurements . For charged Higgs boson masses close to the threshold, the boost of the bosons is relatively small and the $`\tau `$ energies are similar to the $`\tau `$’s from Z decays at rest (40–50 GeV).
* Boson production polar angle:

$`H`$-pair production ocurrs via s-channel and the differential cross-section follows a behavior proportional to $`1+cos^2\theta `$. But, $`W`$-pair production ocurrs via s-channel and t-channel. Then, the $`W`$ production polar angle distribution goes to $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _W1`$, and the $`W^{}`$ ($`W^+`$) is emitted preferently in the direction of $`e^{}`$ ($`e^+`$).

In the leptonic channel, the selection is performed in similar way to the $`W^+W^{}\tau ^+\nu _\tau \tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ . After that selection, a likelihood to separate the signal from the background was built using six variables: the estimators of the $`\tau `$ polarization, the boson polar angle of both $`\tau `$ leptons, the acoplanarity and the total transverse momentum. These variables are shown in Fig. 3.

In the semileptonic channel two likelihood variables were built to reject the $`QCD`$ background and the $`WW`$ background. In the anti-$`WW`$ likelihood the estimator of the $`\tau `$ polarization and the reconstructed polar angle of the negatively boson are included.

No significant signal-like excess of events compared to the expected backgrounds was observed in any of the three final states investigated. A lower limit for a charged Higgs boson mass was set at 95% confidence level of $`M_{\mathrm{H}^\pm }>`$ 74.3 GeV/$`c^2`$, assuming BR($`H\tau \nu `$) + BR($`Hcs`$) = 1. The observed and expected exclusion regions at 95% confidence level in the plane of BR($`H\tau \nu _\tau `$) vs. $`M_{\mathrm{H}^\pm }`$ are shown in Fig. 4. The noticeable difference between observed and expected limit is dominated by a small “hole” around BR($`H\tau \nu `$)=0.35 which reaches only 92% as confidence level, produced by a small excess of data in that region in the semileptonic channel.

### 4.3 Charged Higgs bosons 2HDM type I

In 2HDM type I models, where all fermions couple to the same Higgs doublet, the $`H^{}W^{}A`$ decay can be dominant, if the neutral pseudoscalar $`A`$ is light and if $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is large enough . To cover this eventuality the final states $`W^{}AW^{}A`$ and $`W^{}A\tau \nu `$ were also looked for .

If at least one of the Higgs bosons decays to a $`W^{}A`$ pair, there are several possible topologies depending on the different boson decays. The W boson can decay leptonically or hadronically, and the number of jets strongly depends on the A mass and on the boson boosts. To treat all these decays in a generic way, the search was restricted to $`A`$ masses above 12 GeV, where it decays predominantly to $`b\overline{b}`$ and an inclusive search is performed. Events with jets with $`b`$ quark content were searched for in two topologies: events with a $`\tau `$, missing energy and at least two hadronic jets; and events with no missing energy and at least four hadronic jets. It was found that the analysis designed by DELPHI for technicolor search was well suited also for these topologies and had a good performance on this search. It was therefore adopted here. In both topologies good agreement between the data and the Standard Model expectation was found.

Therefore, with the combination of the five channels, if the $`W^{}A`$ decay is allowed, a lower H± mass limit of $`M_{\mathrm{H}^\pm }>`$ 76.7 GeV/$`c^2`$ can be set at the 95% confidence level, independently of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for $`M_A>12`$. The observed and expected exclusion regions at 95% confidence level in the plane of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ vs. $`M_{\mathrm{H}^\pm }`$, for different $`A`$ masses, are shown in Fig. 5.

### 4.4 Technicolor search

The technicolor model  provides an alternative to the SM mechanism of Electroweak Symmetry breaking. Role of Higgs boson is performed by bound states of new fundamental fermions, Techniquarks, which mix with $`W`$ and $`Z`$, and generate their masses. These bosons are seen as condensates of a new family of quarks (the techniquarks) which obey a QCD-like interaction with an effective scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TC}`$ much larger than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. It also predicts heavy ($`>`$ 1 TeV) vector mesons which cannot be observed at LEP2.

The main $`\rho _T`$ decay modes are $`\rho _T\pi _T\pi _T`$, $`W_L\pi _T`$, $`W_LW_L`$, $`f_i\overline{f_i}`$ and $`\pi _T^0\gamma `$, where $`W_L`$ is the longitudinal component of the $`W`$ boson. For $`M_{\rho _T}>2M_{\pi _T}`$ the decay $`\rho _T\pi _T\pi _T`$ is dominant, while for $`M_{\rho _T}<2M_{\pi _T}`$ the decay rates depend on many model parameters. Technipions can also be produced at LEP through virtual $`\rho _T`$ exchange. Technipions are assumed to decay as $`\pi _T^+c\overline{b}`$, $`c\overline{s}`$ and $`\tau ^+\nu _\tau `$; and $`\pi _T^0b\overline{b}`$, $`c\overline{c}`$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$. The width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi _T\overline{f^{}}f)`$ is proportional to $`(m_f+m_f^{})^2`$, therefore the $`b`$-quark is produced in $`90`$% of $`\pi _T`$ decays. The total $`\pi _T`$ width is less than 1 GeV. The analyses performed by DELPHI use the off-shell processes $`e^+e^{}\rho _T^{}(\pi _T^+\pi _T^{}`$, $`\pi _T^+W_L^{})`$ and $`e^+e^{}(\rho _T^{},\omega _T^{})\pi _T^0\gamma `$.

The search for the technipion  in semileptonic channels containing two quarks, a lepton and a neutrino, corresponds to the decays $`W_L^+\pi _T^{}l^+\nu _lb\overline{c}`$ and $`\pi _T^+\pi _T^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu _\tau }b\overline{c}`$. The first step in the analysis was a $`qq^{}l\nu `$ selection. The second step exploits the specific properties of the signal, such as the presence of b-quarks or the production angle, to distinguish it from the W pairs. This is done building a neural network which uses four input variables: the $`b`$-tagging variables of the two hadronic jets, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _W^{}`$ and $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{miss}|`$.

Good agreement between the data and the SM background was observed in all channels studied in this search. The combined region in the $`(M_{\rho _T},M_{\pi _T})`$ plane excluded by this analysis at a 95% CL is shown for $`N_D=2`$ (maximal $`W_L`$ \- $`\pi _T`$ mixing) in Figure 6.

### 4.5 Invisibly decaying Higgs bosons

Some extensions of the SM exhibit Higgs bosons which can decay into stable neutral weakly interacting particles, therefore giving rise to invisible final states. In supersymmetric models the Higgs bosons can decay with a large branching ratio into lightest neutralinos or gravitinos in some region of the parameter space, leading to an invisible final state if $`R`$ parity 111R-parity is a multiplicative quantum number defined as $`R_P=(1)^{3B+L+2S}`$ where B, L and S are the baryon number, the lepton number and the spin of the particle, respectively. SM particles have $`R=+1`$, while their SUSY particles have $`R=1`$. is conserved .

Searches for $`\mathrm{HZ}`$ production with the Higgs boson decaying into an invisible final state were performed by the DELPHI experiment. Both hadronic and leptonic final states of the Z boson were analyzed. DELPHI has been analyzed the four possible visible final states channels, including the $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ channel.

The selection is explained in detail in , and it was performed in similar way as other searches with two $`\tau `$ leptons plus additionals non-interacting particles. The mass of the invisibly decaying particle was computed from the measured energies assuming momentum and energy conservation. In the case of the $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ channel, the information carried by the decay products does not reproduce correctly the $`\tau `$ energy. Therefore, the mass is calculated under the assumption that both $`\tau `$ leptons had the same energy.

From the comparison with the SM Higgs boson cross-section, and combining the four final states investigated, the observed (expected) mass limits are 112.1 (110.5) GeV/$`c^2`$ for the Higgs boson decaying into invisible particles. The excluded regions in the MSSM from searches for Higgs boson decaying into invisible final states for $`\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{h}`$-max in the stop sector are shown in Fig. 7.

### 4.6 SUSY searches

Supersymmetry (SUSY) is at present one of the most attractive possible extensions of the SM and its signatures could be observed at LEP through a large variety of different channels . Supersymmetry (SUSY) is usually assumed to be broken in a hidden sector of particles and then communicated to the observable sector (where all the particles and their superpartners lie) via gravitational interactions. But there are other possibilities where this mediation is performed by SM gauge interactions, leading to models of gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking.

Many channels and several scenarios have been studied with $`\tau `$ leptons in the final state. DELPHI have performed searches for supersymmetric particles within the framework of the MSSM assuming R-parity conservation  (implying that the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle, LSP, is stable and SUSY particles are pair-produced), with R-parity violation , in Gauge Mediated Supersymmetry Breaking (GMSB) models  and in Anomaly Mediated SUSY Breaking (AMSB) models .

As an example, the different topologies studied in the GMSB framework are summarized in Table 1. The $`\tau `$ leptons appear in several channels: acoplanar leptons (2 leptons $`+`$ missing energy), kinks and large impact parameters (when the sparticle decays inside the detector) and four leptons $`+`$ missing energy (if $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ is the Next Lightest Supersymmetric Particle, then there are 4$`\tau `$ in the final state).

In all cases no evidence for signal production was found. Hence, the DELPHI collaboration set lower limit at 95% C.L. for the sparticles masses. Exclusion regions in the ($`m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}`$,$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}`$) plane at 95% CL combining all analyses in GMSB models are shown in Fig. 8.

### 4.7 Doubly charged Higgs bosons

Doubly charged Higgs bosons ($`H^{\pm \pm }`$) appear in several extensions to the Standard Model , such as left-right symmetric models, and can be relatively light. In Supersymmetric left-right models usually the $`SU(2)_R`$ gauge symmetry is broken by two triplet Higgs fields, so-called left and right handed. Pair-production of doubly charged Higgs bosons is expected to occur mainly via $`s`$-channel exchange of a photon or a Z boson. In left-right symmetric models the cross-section of $`e^+e^{}H_L^{++}H_L^{}`$ is different from that for $`e^+e^{}H_R^{++}H_R^{}`$, where $`H_L^{\pm \pm }`$ and $`H_R^{\pm \pm }`$ are the left-handed and right-handed Higgs bosons.

The dominant decay mode of the doubly charged Higgs boson is expected to be a same sign charged lepton pair, the decay proceeding via a lepton number violating coupling. As discussed in , due to limits that exist for the couplings of $`H^{\pm \pm }e^\pm e^\pm `$ from high energy Bhabha scattering, $`H^{\pm \pm }\mu ^\pm \mu ^\pm `$ from the absence of muonium to anti-muonium transitions and $`H^{\pm \pm }\mu ^\pm e^\pm `$ from limits on the flavour changing decay $`\mu ^\pm e^{}e^\pm e^\pm `$, electron and muon decays are not likely. In addition, most of the models expect that the coupling to $`\tau \tau `$ will be much larger than any of the others. Therefore, only the doubly charged Higgs boson decay $`H^{\pm \pm }\tau ^\pm \tau ^\pm `$ is considered by DELPHI .

Depending on the $`h_{\tau \tau }`$ coupling and the Higgs mass the experimental signature is different. If $`h_{\tau \tau }`$ is sufficiently large, $`h_{\tau \tau }10^7`$, the Higgs decays very close to the interaction point. If $`h_{\tau \tau }`$ is smaller the decay occurs inside the tracking detectors (the analysis used in the search for kinks in GSMB models is adopted here) or even beyond them (search for stable massive particles). In the first case, the resulting final state consists of four narrow and low multiplicity $`\tau `$ jets coming from the interaction point. The analysis was performed in several steps: first a four jet preselection was applied, followed by some cuts to reject the 2-photon and the 4-lepton background. Finally the mass was built requiring energy and momentum conservation. After all requirements were applied only one event was observed in the data, while 0.9 events were expected from background processes.

The three different analyses were applied to cover the whole range of the $`h_{\tau \tau }`$ coupling, and good agreement between the data and the SM background was observed. Fig. 9 shows the 95% confidence level upper limits on the cross-section at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 206.7 GeV for the production of $`H^{++}H^{}\tau ^+\tau ^+\tau ^{}\tau ^{}`$ for different values of $`h_{\tau \tau }`$. The comparison of these limits with the expected cross-section for left-handed $`H_L^{\pm \pm }`$ and right-handed $`H_R^{\pm \pm }`$ pair production yields 95% confidence level lower limits for any value of the $`h_{\tau \tau }`$ coupling on the mass of the $`H_L^{\pm \pm }`$ and $`H_R^{\pm \pm }`$ bosons of 98.1 and 97.3 GeV/$`c^2`$ respectively.

### 4.8 Searches for Neutral Higgs Bosons in Extended Models

The simplest extensions of the Standard Model are the so-called Two-Higgs Doublet Models (2HDM), of which various types exist, depending on the choice of the scalar couplings to fermions . The first type assumes that one doublet only couples to fermions while the other one couples to gauge bosons. The resulting final states display Higgs boson decays into photon pairs. The second and most studied type assumes that one doublet couples to the up-type fermions (neutrinos and the u,c,t quarks) while the other one couples to down-type fermions (charged leptons and the d,s and b quarks). Depending on the mixing of the two doublets, the dominant Higgs boson decays will be either c-quarks and/or gluons, or b-quarks and $`\tau `$-leptons.

Finally a third possible choice of couplings, in which one Higgs doublet couples to leptons only, while the other couples to quarks. In this unexplored case, the dominant Higgs boson decay modes may be leptonic, leading, in the case of Higgs boson pair production, to the striking 4-$`\tau `$ final state. For the first time at LEP2 a search for $`hA\tau ^+\tau ^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ was performed at DELPHI . When the Higgs mass was lower than $``$25 GeV/$`c^2`$ the $`\tau `$ pairs of the Higgs decay were observed as only one jet due to the low angle between both $`\tau `$ leptons. Then, three different analyses were applied to keep the efficiency in a wide range of masses: ’4-jet analysis’, ’3-jet analysis’ and ’2-jet analysis’.

Good agreement between the data and the expected background was observed for the combined sample, and the combination of the three independent analyses. At the final selection level, 13 events were selected in the data and 17.9 events were expected from the Standard Model background. Very strong constrains on the $`\tau `$ coupling have been set with this analysis.

## 5 Conclusions

$`\tau `$ leptons are a sensitive probe for Physics beyond the Standard Model. A lot of new particle searches have been performed in the DELPHI experiment involving $`\tau `$ leptons in the resulting final state. New techniques have been used to discriminate the signal and the background.

Good agreement between the data and the Standard Model prediction has been found in all of cases. Therefore, limits on new particles have been set, playing an important role the channels with $`\tau `$ leptons.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is known that from heavy quark and quarkonium production processes one can obtain unique information on gluon structure function of the proton because of the dominance of the photon-gluon or gluon-gluon fusion subprocess in the framework of QCD \[1–4\]. Studying of gluon distributions at modern collider energy (such as HERA, Tevatron) is important for prediction of heavy quark and quarkonium production cross sections at future colliders (LHC, THERA). At the energies of HERA and LEP/LHC colliders heavy quark and quarkonium production processes are so called semihard processes . In such processes by definition the hard scattering scale $`\mu m_Q`$ is large compare to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ parameter but on the other hand $`\mu `$ is much less than the total center-of-mass energy: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}\mu \sqrt{s}`$. The last condition implies that the processes occur in small $`x`$ region: $`xm_Q/\sqrt{s}1`$, and that the cross sections of heavy quark and quarkonium production processes are determined by the behavior of gluon distributions in the small $`x`$ region.

It is also known that in the small $`x`$ region the standard parton model (SPM) assumptions about factorization of gluon distribution functions and subprocess cross sections are broken because the subprocess cross sections and gluon structure functions depend on a gluon transverse momentum $`k_T`$ \[6–8\]. So calculations of heavy quark production cross sections at HERA, Tevatron, LHC and other collider conditions are necessary to carry out in the so called $`k_T`$-factorization (or semihard) QCD approach, which is more preferable for small  region than SPM.

The $`k_T`$-factorization QCD approach is based on Balitsky, Fadin, Kuraev, Lipatov (BFKL)  evolution equations. The resummation of the terms $`\alpha _S^n\mathrm{ln}^n\left(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2\right)`$, $`\alpha _S^n\mathrm{ln}^n\left(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2\right)\mathrm{ln}^n\left(1/x\right)`$ and $`\alpha _S^n\mathrm{ln}^n\left(1/x\right)`$ in the $`k_T`$-factorization approach leads to the unintegrated (depends from $`𝐪_T`$) gluon distribution $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,𝐪_T^2,\mu ^2)`$ which determine the probability to find a gluon carrying the longitudinal momentum fraction $`x`$ and transverse momentum $`𝐪_T`$ at probing scale $`\mu ^2`$. The unintegrated gluon distribution reduce to the conventional gluon distribution $`xG(x,\mu ^2)`$ once the $`𝐪_T`$ dependence is integrated out:

$$xG(x,\mu ^2)=xG(x,Q_0^2)+\underset{Q_0^2}{\overset{\mu ^2}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }(x,𝐪_T^2,\mu ^2)𝑑𝐪_T^2.$$
(1)
To calculate the cross section of a physical process the unintegrated gluon distributions have to be convoluted with off mass shell matrix elements corresponding to the relevant partonic subprocesses \[6–8\]. In the off mass shell matrix element the virtual gluon polarization tensor is taken in the BFKL form :

$$L^{\mu \nu }\left(q\right)=\frac{q_T^\mu q_T^\nu }{𝐪_T^2}.$$
(2)
Nowadays, the significance of the $`k_T`$-factorization QCD approach becomes more and more commonly recognized . It is already was used for the description of a wide class heavy quark and quarkonium production processes \[6, 11–25\], in particular, for the description heavy quark \[6, 11, 14, 16, 20–23\] and quarkonium  photo and leptoproduction. It is notable that calculations in $`k_T`$-factorization QCD approach results to some effects which are absent in other approaches. It is a more fast growth of total cross sections in comparison with SPM, a broadering of the $`p_T`$ spectra due to extra transverse momentum of the colliding partons and other polarization properties of final particles in comparison with SPM.

We point out that heavy quark and quarkonium cross section calculations within the SPM in the fixed order of pQCD have some problems. For example, the very large discrepancy (by more than an order of magnitude)  between the pQCD predictions for hadroproduction $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ mesons and experimental data at Tevatron was found. This fact has resulted in intensive theoretical investigations of such processes. In particular, it was required to enter additional transition mechanism from $`c\overline{c}`$-pair to the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ mesons, so-called the colour octet (CO) model , where $`c\overline{c}`$-pair is produced in the color octet state and transforms into final colour singlet (CS) state by help soft gluon radiation. The CO model was supposed to be applicable to heavy quarkonium hadro and electroproduction processes. However, the contributions from the CO mechanism to the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ meson photoproduction contradict the experimental data at HERA for $`z`$-distribution \[29–32\].

Another difficulty of the CO model is $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ polarization properties in $`p\overline{p}`$-interactions at Tevatron. In the framework of the CO model $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ mesons should be transverse polarized at the large transverse momenta $`𝐩_T`$. However, this fact contradicts the experimental data too.

The CO model has been applied earlier in analysis of the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ inelastic production experimental data at HERA . However, this results are not agree with each other . It is notable that results obtained within the usual collinear approach and CS model \[35–38\] underestimate experimental data by factor about 2.

Recently the first attempts to investigate a $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ polarization problem in $`p\overline{p}`$-interactions at Tevatron in $`k_T`$-factorization approach were made . Also the theoretical prediction within semihard QCD approach  are stimulated the experimental analysis $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ polarization properties at HERA conditions. However the further theoretical and experimental studies of this problem are necessary.

Based on the above mentioned results we consider here the deep inelastic $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production at HERA in the framework of the CS model and the $`k_T`$-factorization approach with emphasis of a role of a proton gluon distribution function. Using the CS model and formalism of the projection operator , we investigate the $`Q^2`$-, $`𝐩_T^2`$-, $`z`$-, $`y^{}`$\- and $`W`$-dependences of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production on different forms of the unintegrated gluon distribution. Special attention is given to the unintegrated gluon distributions obtained from BFKL evolution equation which has been applied earlier in our previous papers \[15–18\]. For studying $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ meson polarization properties we calculate the $`𝐩_T^2`$\- and $`Q^2`$-dependences of the spin aligment parameter $`\alpha `$.

The outline of this paper is as follows. In Section 2 we give the formulas for the inelastic $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ electroproduction differential cross section in the $`k_T`$-factorization QCD approach. In Section 3 we describe the unintegrated gluon distributions which we use in our calculations. In Section 4 we give the formulas for $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ electroproduction off mass shell matrix elements in the CS model. In Section 5 we present the results of our calculations. Finally, in Section 6, we give some conclusions.

## 2 Deep inelastic $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ electroproduction cross section in the $`k_T`$-factorization QCD approach

In this section we calculate total and differential cross section for inelastic $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ electroproduction via the photon-gluon fusion QCD subprocess (Fig. 1) in the $`k_T`$-factorization QCD approach. Let us define Sudakov variables of the process $`epe^{}J/\mathrm{\Psi }X`$:

$$\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}=\alpha _1p_e+\beta _1p_p+p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }T},p_g=\alpha _2p_e+\beta _2p_p+p_{gT},}{q_1=x_1p_e+q_{1T},q_2=x_2p_p+q_{2T},}$$
(3)
where

$$p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2=m_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2,p_g^2=0,q_1^2=q_{1T}^2=Q^2,q_2^2=q_{2T}^2,$$
(4)
$`p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ and $`p_g`$ are 4-momenta of the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ meson and final real gluon, $`q_1`$ and $`q_2`$ are 4-momenta of the initial virtual photon and gluon, $`p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }T}`$, $`p_{gT}`$, $`q_{1T}`$, $`q_{2T}`$ are transverse 4-momenta of these. In the center-of-mass frame of colliding particles we can write:

$$p_e=(E,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},E),p_p=(E,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},E),$$
(5)
where

$$E=\frac{\sqrt{s}}{2},p_e^2=p_p^2=0,\left(p_ep_p\right)=\frac{s}{2}.$$
(6)
Sudakov variables are expressed as follows:

$$\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha _1={\displaystyle \frac{m_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }T}}{\sqrt{s}}}\mathrm{exp}\left(y_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}\right),\alpha _2={\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_{gT}}{\sqrt{s}}}\mathrm{exp}\left(y_g\right),}{\beta _1={\displaystyle \frac{m_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }T}}{\sqrt{s}}}\mathrm{exp}(y_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}),\beta _2={\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_{gT}}{\sqrt{s}}}\mathrm{exp}(y_g),}$$
(7)
where $`m_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }T}^2=m_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2+𝐩_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }T}^2`$, $`m_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ is $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ meson mass, $`y_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ and $`y_g`$ are c.m. rapidities of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ meson and final gluon respectively. The inelastic $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ electroproduction differential cross section has the following form:

$$d\sigma \left(epe^{}J/\mathrm{\Psi }X\right)=\frac{dx_2}{x_2}\mathrm{\Phi }(x_2,𝐪_{2T}^2,\mu ^2)\frac{d\varphi _2}{2\pi }d𝐪_{2T}^2d\widehat{\sigma }\left(eg^{}e^{}J/\mathrm{\Psi }g^{}\right),$$
(8)
where $`\varphi _2`$ is initial BFKL gluon azimuthal angle, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x_2,𝐪_{2T}^2,\mu ^2)`$ is an unintegrated gluon distribution in the proton, and

$$\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d\widehat{\sigma }(eg^{}e^{}J/\mathrm{\Psi }g^{})={\displaystyle \frac{\left(2\pi \right)^4}{2x_2s}}{\displaystyle }|M|_{\mathrm{SHA}}^2(eg^{}e^{}J/\mathrm{\Psi }g^{})\times }{\times {\displaystyle \frac{d^3p_e^{}}{\left(2\pi \right)^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}p_{}^{}{}_{e}{}^{0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}}{\left(2\pi \right)^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p_g}{\left(2\pi \right)^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}p_g^0}}\delta ^{\left(4\right)}(p_e+q_2p_e^{}p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}p_g),}$$
(9)
where $`\left|M\right|_{\mathrm{SHA}}^2\left(eg^{}e^{}J/\mathrm{\Psi }g^{}\right)`$ is the off mass shell matrix element. In (9) $``$ indicates an averaging over initial particles polarization and a sum over polarization of final ones.

From (8) and (9) we obtain the following formula for the inelastic $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ electroproduction differential cross section in the $`k_T`$-factorization QCD approach:

$$\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d\sigma (epe^{}J/\mathrm{\Psi }X)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{128\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(x_2,𝐪_{2T}^2,\mu ^2)}{\left(x_2s\right)^2\left(1x_1\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{z\left(1z\right)}}dy_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}\times }{\times {\displaystyle }|M|_{\mathrm{SHA}}^2(eg^{}e^{}J/\mathrm{\Psi }g^{})d𝐩_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }T}^2dQ^2d𝐪_{2T}^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _2}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}}{2\pi }},}$$
(10)
where

$$x_1=\alpha _1+\alpha _2,x_2=\beta _1+\beta _2,𝐪_{1T}+𝐪_{2T}=𝐩_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }T}+𝐩_{gT},$$
(11)
$`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ are initial virtual photon and outgoing $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ meson azimuthal angles, $`z=\left(p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}p_p\right)/\left(q_1p_p\right)`$. If we take the limit $`𝐪_{2T}^20`$ and if we average (10) over the transverse directions of the vector $`𝐪_{2T}`$, we obtain the formula for the differential cross section in the SPM:

$$\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d\sigma (epe^{}J/\mathrm{\Psi }X)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{128\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(x_2s\right)^2\left(1x_1\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{z\left(1z\right)}}x_2G(x_2,\mu ^2)\times }{\times {\displaystyle }|M|_{\mathrm{PM}}^2(ege^{}J/\mathrm{\Psi }g^{})dy_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}d𝐩_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }T}^2dQ^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}}{2\pi }},}$$
(12)
where $`\left|M\right|_{\mathrm{PM}}^2\left(ege^{}J/\mathrm{\Psi }g^{}\right)`$ is the matrix element in the SPM. Here $``$ indicates an averaging over initial particles polarization and a sum over polarization of final ones. We average over the transverse directions of the vector $`𝐪_{2T}`$ using the following expression:

$$\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐪_{2T}^2\frac{d\varphi _2}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }(x_2,𝐪_{2T}^2,\mu ^2)\left|M\right|_{\mathrm{SHA}}^2\left(eg^{}e^{}J/\mathrm{\Psi }g^{}\right)}=}{=x_2G(x_2,\mu ^2){\displaystyle }|M|_{\mathrm{PM}}^2(ege^{}J/\mathrm{\Psi }g^{}),}$$
(13)
where

$$\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}\frac{d\varphi _2}{2\pi }\frac{q_{2T}^\mu q_{2T}^\nu }{𝐪_{2T}^2}=\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }.$$
(14)
## 3 Unintegrated gluon distributions

Various parametrizations of the unintegrated gluon distribution used in our calculations are discussed below.

We used the results of a BFKL-like parametrization of unintegrated gluon distribution (so called JB parametrization) according to the prescription given in . The proposed method lies upon a straightforward perturbative solution of the BFKL equation where the collinear gluon density $`xG(x,\mu ^2)`$ from the standard GRV set  is used as the boundary condition in the integral form (1). The unintegrated gluon density is calculated as a convolution of collinear gluon distribution $`xG(x,\mu ^2)`$ with universal weight factors:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x,𝐪_T^2,\mu ^2)=\underset{x}{\overset{1}{}}\phi (\eta ,𝐪_T^2,\mu ^2)\frac{x}{\eta }G(\frac{x}{\eta },\mu ^2)𝑑\eta ,$$
(15)
where

$$\phi (\eta ,𝐪_T^2,\mu ^2)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\overline{\alpha }_S}{\eta 𝐪_T^2}J_0\left(2\sqrt{\overline{\alpha }_S\mathrm{ln}\left(1/\eta \right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\mu ^2/𝐪_T^2\right)}\right),\hfill & \text{if }𝐪_T^2\mu ^2\text{,}\hfill \\ \frac{\overline{\alpha }_S}{\eta 𝐪_T^2}I_0\left(2\sqrt{\overline{\alpha }_S\mathrm{ln}\left(1/\eta \right)\mathrm{ln}\left(𝐪_T^2/\mu ^2\right)}\right),\hfill & \text{if }𝐪_T^2>\mu ^2\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
where $`J_0`$ and $`I_0`$ stand for Bessel function of real and imaginary arguments respectively, and $`\overline{\alpha }_S=3\alpha _S/\pi `$. The parameter $`\overline{\alpha }_S`$ is connected with the Pomeron trajectory intercept: $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4\overline{\alpha }_S\mathrm{ln}2`$ in the LO and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4\overline{\alpha }_S\mathrm{ln}2N\overline{\alpha }_S^2`$ in the NLO approximations, where $`N18`$ . The latter value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ have dramatic consequences for high energy phenomenology, however, some resummation procedures proposed in the last years lead to positive value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }0.20.3`$ . Therefore in our calculations with (17) we used only the solution of LO BFKL equation and considered $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as a free parameter varying it from $`0.166`$ to $`0.53`$. Pomeron intercept parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.35`$ was obtained from the description of $`p_T`$ spectrum of $`D^{}`$ meson electroproduction at HERA . We used this value of the parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in present paper.

Then we use another set (the KMS parametrization)  is obtained from a unified BFKL and DGLAP description of $`F_2`$ data and includes the so called consistency constraint . The consistency constraint introduce a large correction to the LO BFKL equation: about 70 of the full NLO corrections to the BFKL exponent $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are effectively included in this constraint, as is declared in .

Finally, the third unintegrated gluon function used here is one proposed by Golec-Biernat and Wusthoff (GBW) which takes into account gluon saturation effects and has been applied earlier in analysis of the inclusive and diffractive $`ep`$-scattering data . It has the following form:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x,𝐪_T^2,\mu ^2)=\frac{3\sigma _0}{4\pi ^2}\frac{1}{\alpha _S}R_0^2\left(x\right)𝐪_T^2\mathrm{exp}\left(R_0^2\left(x\right)𝐪_T^2\right),$$
(17)
where

$$R_0^2\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{GeV}^2}\left(\frac{x}{x_0}\right)^{\lambda /2}.$$
(18)
and $`\sigma _0=23.03\mathrm{mb}`$, $`\lambda =0.288`$, $`x_0=3.0410^4`$.

In expression (1) the accounting of the contribution of the unintegrated gluon distribution to integral at low $`𝐪_T^2`$ region $`0<𝐪_T^2<Q_0^2`$ was done by the collinear gluon density $`xG(x,Q_0^2)`$, where $`Q_0^2=1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ for all gluon distributions.

## 4 Off mass shell matrix element for $`eg^{}e^{}J/\mathrm{\Psi }g^{}`$ process

In this section we give the formulas for $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ electroproduction off mass shell matrix elements in the CS model. There are six Feynman diagrams (Fig. 2) which describe partonic process $`\gamma g^{}J/\mathrm{\Psi }g^{}`$ at the leading order in $`\alpha _S`$ and $`\alpha `$. In the framework of the CS model and nonrelativistic approximation the production of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ meson is considered as the production of a quark-antiquark system in the colour singlet state with orbital momentum $`L=0`$ and spin momentum $`S=1`$. The binding energy and relative momentum of quarks in the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are neglected. Such a way $`m_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}=2m_c`$, where $`m_c`$ is charm mass. Taking into account the formalism of the projection operator  the amplitude of the process $`\gamma g^{}J/\mathrm{\Psi }g^{}`$ may be obtained from the amplitude of the process $`\gamma g^{}c\overline{c}g^{}`$ after replacement:

$$v\left(p_{\overline{c}}\right)\overline{u}\left(p_c\right)\widehat{J}\left(p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }\left(0\right)}{2\sqrt{m_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}}}\widehat{ϵ}\left(p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)\left(\widehat{p}_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}+m_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}},$$
(19)
where $`\widehat{ϵ}\left(p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)=ϵ_\mu \left(p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)\gamma ^\mu `$, $`ϵ\left(p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)`$ is a 4-vector of the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ polarization, $`1/\sqrt{3}`$ is the color factor, $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(0\right)`$ is the nonrelativistic meson wave function at the origin. In according with the standard Feynman rules for QCD diagrams we have:

$$\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M=e_cg^2ϵ_\mu \left(q_1\right)ϵ_\sigma \left(q_2\right)ϵ_\rho \left(p_g\right)\times }{\times Sp\left[\widehat{J}\left(p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)\gamma ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}_c\widehat{q}_1+m_c}{\left(p_cq_1\right)^2m_c^2}}\gamma ^\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}_c\widehat{p}_g+m_c}{\left(p_cp_g\right)^2m_c^2}}\gamma ^\rho \right]}$$
(20)
\+ 5 permutations of all gauge bosons. Here $`ϵ_\mu \left(q_1\right)`$, $`\epsilon _\mu \left(q_2\right)`$ are polarization vectors of the initial photon and gluon respectively, $`ϵ_\mu \left(p_g\right)`$ is a 4-vector of the final gluon polarization. The summation on the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ meson and final gluon polarizations is carried out by covariant formulas:

$$ϵ^\mu \left(p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)ϵ^\nu \left(p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)=g^{\mu \nu }+\frac{p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mu p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^\nu }{m_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2},$$
(21)
$$ϵ^\mu \left(p_g\right)ϵ^\nu \left(p_g\right)=g^{\mu \nu },$$
(22)
The initial BFKL gluon polarization tensor is taken in form (2). We substitute here the full lepton tensor for the photon polarization tensor (including also the photon propagator factor and photon-lepton coupling):

$$ϵ^\mu \left(q_1\right)ϵ^\nu \left(q_1\right)=2\frac{e^2}{Q^2}\left(g^{\mu \nu }+\frac{4p_e^\mu p_e^\nu }{Q^2}\right).$$
(23)
For studing $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ polarized production we introduce the 4-vector of the longitudinal polarization $`ϵ_L^\mu \left(p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)`$ as follows :

$$ϵ_L^\mu \left(p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)=\frac{\left(p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}p_p\right)}{\sqrt{\left(p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}p_p\right)^2m_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2s}}\left(\frac{p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mu }{m_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}}\frac{m_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}p_p^\nu }{\left(p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}p_p\right)}\right).$$
(24)
In the limit $`sm_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2`$ the polarization 4-vector satisfies usual conditions: $`\left(ϵ_Lϵ_L\right)=1`$ and $`\left(ϵ_Lp_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)=0`$. The calculation of $`\left|M\right|_{\mathrm{SHA}}^2\left(eg^{}e^{}J/\mathrm{\Psi }g^{}\right)`$ and $`\left|M\right|_{\mathrm{PM}}^2\left(ege^{}J/\mathrm{\Psi }g^{}\right)`$ was done analitically by REDUCE system.

## 5 Numerical results and discussion

In this section we present the theoretical results in comparison with available experimental data taken by the H1  and ZEUS  collaborations at HERA. There are three parameters which determine the common normalization factor of the cross section under consideration: $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ meson wave function at the origin $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(0\right)`$, charmed quark mass $`m_c`$ and factorization scale $`\mu `$. The value of the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ meson wave function at the origin may be calculated in a potential model or obtained from the well known experimental decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu ^+\mu ^{}\right)`$. In our calculation we used the following choice $`\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\left(0\right)\right|^2=0.0876\mathrm{GeV}^3`$ as in . Concerning a charmed quark mass, the situation is not clear: on the one hand, in the nonrelativistic approximation one has $`m_c=m_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}/2=1.55\mathrm{GeV}`$, but on the other hand there are many examples when smaller value of a charm mass is used, for example, $`m_c=1.4\mathrm{GeV}`$ . In the present paper we used both of charm mass values. Also the most significant theoretical uncertanties refer to the choice of the factorization scale $`\mu _F`$ and renormalization one $`\mu _R`$. One of them is related to the evolution of the gluon distributions $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,𝐪_T^2,\mu _F^2)`$, the other is responsible for strong coupling constant $`\alpha _S\left(\mu _R^2\right)`$. As is often done in literature for simplicity we set them equal: $`\mu _F=\mu _R=\mu `$. In the present paper we used the following choice $`\mu ^2=𝐪_{2T}^2`$ as in .<sup>3)</sup><sup>3)</sup>3)The our preliminary results at  were obtained with $`\mu ^2=m_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2+𝐩_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }T}^2`$.

The calculations of the inelastic $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production cross section in the $`k_T`$-factorization approach have been made according to (10) and in the SPM — according to (12). The $`𝐩_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }T}^2`$ integration limits are taken as given by inelastic $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ process requirements: $`1\mathrm{GeV}^2𝐩_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }T}^2s/4m_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2`$. According to (1) the $`𝐪_{2T}^2`$ integration region was divided into two parts: $`0<𝐪_{2T}^2Q_0^2`$ and $`𝐪_{2T}^2Q_0^2`$. The calculations are made according to (10) for $`𝐪_{2T}^2Q_0^2`$ and for $`0<𝐪_{2T}^2Q_0^2`$ we use $`\left|M\right|_{\mathrm{PM}}^2\left(ege^{}J/\mathrm{\Psi }g^{}\right)`$ instead of $`\left|M\right|_{\mathrm{SHA}}^2\left(eg^{}e^{}J/\mathrm{\Psi }g^{}\right)`$ (see also (12)). The choice of the critical value of parameter $`Q_0^2=1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ is determined by the requirement that the value of $`\alpha _S\left(𝐪_{2T}^2\right)`$ be small in the region $`𝐪_{2T}^21\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, where in fact $`\alpha _S\left(𝐪_{2T}^2\right)0.26`$.

The $`Q^2`$, $`y_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ and $`z`$ integration limits are taken as given by kinematical conditions of H1 experimental data . The first kinematical region is $`2\mathrm{GeV}^2Q^280\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`40\mathrm{GeV}W180\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`z>0.2`$, $`M_X10\mathrm{GeV}`$ and the second one is $`𝐩_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }T}^24\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`4\mathrm{GeV}^2Q^280\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`40\mathrm{GeV}W180\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`z>0.2`$, $`M_X10\mathrm{GeV}`$.

The results of our calculations are shown in Fig. 3—8. Fig. 3 show the $`Q^2`$-, $`𝐩_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }T}^2`$-, $`z`$-, $`y_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}`$\- and $`W`$-distributions of the inelastic $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ meson production obtained in the first kinematical region at $`\sqrt{s}=314\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_c=1.55\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}=250\mathrm{MeV}`$. Curve 1 corresponds to the SPM calculations at the leading order approximation with GRV gluon density, curves 2, 3 and 4 correspond to the $`k_T`$-factorization results with JB, KMS and GBW unintegrated gluon distributions at $`Q_0^2=1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. One can see that results obtained in the CS model with $`k_T`$-factorization (curves 2 — 4) agree in shape but underestimate the H1 experimental data. The SPM calculation (curve 1) are lower the data by a factor 2.

Fig. 4 show the $`z`$-, $`y_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}`$\- and $`W`$-distributions of the inelastic $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ meson production obtained in the second kinematical region at $`\sqrt{s}=314\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_c=1.55\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}=250\mathrm{MeV}`$. Curves 1 — 4 are the same as in Fig. 3. One can see that in this kinematical region the $`k_T`$-factorization approach (curves 2 — 4) describe the data better than in the first one (without cut $`𝐩_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }T}^24\mathrm{GeV}^2`$).

Fig. 5, 6 shows the $`Q^2`$-, $`𝐩_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }T}^2`$-, $`z`$-, $`y_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}`$\- and $`W`$-distributions of the inelastic $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ meson production at $`\sqrt{s}=314\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_c=1.4\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}=250\mathrm{MeV}`$ obtained in the first kinematical region (Fig. 5) and in the second one (Fig. 6). Curves 1 — 4 are the same as in Fig. 3. One can see that a shift the charm quark mass down to $`m_c=1.4\mathrm{GeV}`$ increases the cross section by a factor 1.5, and results obtained in the CS model with $`k_T`$-factorization (curves 2 — 4) agree with H1 experimental data.

The $`z`$-distributions are described at $`z>0.4`$ only. It is because other $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production mechanisms (such as resolved photon and/or colour octet contributions) may be impotant at $`z<0.4`$ .

It is notable that the saturation unintegrated gluon distribution (GBW parametrization) does not contradict the HERA experimental data.

Fig. 3 — 6 show that $`k_T`$-factorization results with $`m_c=1.4\mathrm{GeV}`$ (in contrast with SPM ones) for inelastic $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ electroproduction at HERA reasonably agree with H1 experimental data. Hovewer, at $`m_c=1.55\mathrm{GeV}`$ some additional transition mechanism from $`c\overline{c}`$-pair to the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ mesons (such as CO model) need for full description of these data.

We analyzed specially the influence of charm quark mass, $`m_c`$, on the our theoretical results. We found that the main effect of change of the charm quark mass connects with final phase space of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ meson. In the subprocess matrix elements this effect is neglectable. However the value of $`m_c=1.4\mathrm{GeV}`$ corresponds to the unphysical phase space of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ state.<sup>4)</sup><sup>4)</sup>4)We thank S. Baranov for the suggestion to study this problem.

For studying $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ meson polarization properties we calculate the $`𝐩_T^2`$\- and $`Q^2`$-dependences of the spin aligment parameter $`\alpha `$  in the $`k_T`$-factorization approach and SPM:

$$\alpha \left(\omega \right)=\frac{d\sigma /d\omega 3d\sigma _L/d\omega }{d\sigma /d\omega +d\sigma _L/d\omega },$$
(25)
where $`\sigma _L`$ is the production cross section for the longitudinally polarized $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ mesons, $`\omega =𝐩_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }T}^2,Q^2`$. The parameter $`\alpha `$ controls the angular distribution for leptons in the decay $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ (in the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ meson rest frame):

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu ^+\mu ^{}\right)}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }1+\alpha \mathrm{cos}^2\theta .$$
(26)
Fig. 7 shows the parameter $`\alpha \left(𝐩_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }T}\right)`$, which is calculated in the region $`0.4<z<0.9`$ (a) and in the region $`0.4<z<1`$ (b) at $`\sqrt{s}=314\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_c=1.4\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}=250\mathrm{MeV}`$ in comparison with preliminary experimental data taken by the ZEUS  collaboration at HERA. Curve 1 corresponds to the SPM calculations at the leading order approximation with GRV gluon density, curve 3 corresponds to the $`k_T`$-factorization QCD calculations with KMS unintegrated gluon distribution at $`Q_0^2=1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$.

We note that it is impossible to make of exact conclusions about a BFKL gluon contribution to the polarized $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production cross section because of large incertainties in the experimental data and large additional contribution from initial longitudinal polarization of virtual photons. However at low $`Q^2<1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ such contributions are neglected. This fact should result in observable spin effects of final $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ mesons. As example, we have performed calculations for the spin parameter $`\alpha `$ as a function $`𝐩_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }T}^2`$ at fixed values of $`Q^2`$ for $`40\mathrm{GeV}W180\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`z>0.2`$, $`M_X10\mathrm{GeV}`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=314\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_c=1.4\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}=250\mathrm{MeV}`$.

The results of our calculations at fixed values of $`Q^2=0.1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`Q^2=1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`Q^2=5\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ and $`Q^2=10\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ are shown in Fig. 8. Curves 1 and 3 are the same as in Fig. 7. We have large difference between predictions of the leading order of SPM and the $`k_T`$-factorization approach at low $`Q^2<1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, as it is seen in Fig. 8. Therefore if account of the NLO corrections (which is still unknown) will not change predictions of the LO SPM for $`\alpha \left(𝐩_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }T}^2\right)`$ at low $`Q^2<1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, experimental measurement of polarization properties of the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ mesons will be an additional test of BFKL gluon dynamics.

## 6 Conclusions

In this paper we considered $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ meson production in $`ep`$ deep inelastic scattering in the colour singlet model using the standart parton model at the leading order in $`\alpha _S`$ and the $`k_T`$-factorization QCD approach. We investigated the $`z`$-, $`Q^2`$-, $`𝐩_T^2`$-, $`y^{}`$-, $`W`$-dependences of inelastic $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production on different forms of the unintegrated gluon distribution. The $`𝐩_T^2`$\- and $`Q^2`$-dependences of the spin aligment parameter $`\alpha `$ presented also. We compared the theoretical results with available experimental data taken by the H1 and ZEUS collaborations at HERA. We have found that the $`k_T`$-factorization results with JB, KMS and GBW unintegrated gluon distributions reasonably agree with H1 experimental data only at $`m_c=1.4\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\left(0\right)\right|^2=0.0876\mathrm{GeV}^3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}=250\mathrm{MeV}`$. At $`m_c=1.55\mathrm{GeV}`$ some additional transition mechanism from $`c\overline{c}`$-pair to the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ mesons (such as CO model) need for full description of these data. The saturation unintegrated gluon distribution (GBW parametrization) does not contradict the existing experimental data. The experimental study of a polarization of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ meson at low $`Q^2<1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ should be additianal test of BFKL gluon dynamics.

The authors would like to thank S. Baranov for encouraging interest and useful discussions. A.L. thanks also V. Saleev for the help on the initial stage of work. The study was supported in part by RFBR grant 02–02–17513.

Fig. 1. Diagram for $`epe^{}J/\mathrm{\Psi }X`$ process.

Fig. 2. Feynmans diagram used for description partonic process $`\gamma gJ/\mathrm{\Psi }g^{}`$ process.

Fig. 3. The $`Q^2`$-, $`𝐩_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }T}^2`$-, $`z`$-, $`y_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}`$\- and $`W`$-distributions of the inelastic $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production obtained in the kinematical region $`2\mathrm{GeV}^2Q^280\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`40\mathrm{GeV}W180\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`z>0.2`$, $`M_X10\mathrm{GeV}`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=314\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_c=1.55\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}=250\mathrm{MeV}`$. Curve 1 corresponds to the SPM calculations at the leading order approximation with GRV gluon density, curves 2, 3 and 4 correspond to the $`k_T`$-factorization QCD calculations with JB, KMS and GBW unintegrated gluon distribution at $`Q_0^2=1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$.

Fig. 4. The $`z`$-, $`y_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}`$\- and $`W`$-distributions of the inelastic $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production obtained in the kinematical region $`𝐩_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }T}^24\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`4\mathrm{GeV}^2Q^280\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`40\mathrm{GeV}W180\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`z>0.2`$, $`M_X10\mathrm{GeV}`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=314\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_c=1.55\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}=250\mathrm{MeV}`$. Curves 1 — 4 are the same as in Fig. 3.

Fig. 5. The $`Q^2`$-, $`𝐩_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }T}^2`$-, $`z`$-, $`y_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}`$\- and $`W`$-distributions of the inelastic $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production obtained in the kinematical region $`2\mathrm{GeV}^2Q^280\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`40\mathrm{GeV}W180\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`z>0.2`$, $`M_X10\mathrm{GeV}`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=314\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_c=1.4\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}=250\mathrm{MeV}`$. Curves 1 — 4 are the same as in Fig. 3.

Fig. 6. The $`z`$-, $`y_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}`$\- and $`W`$-distributions of the inelastic $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production obtained in the kinematical region $`𝐩_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }T}^24\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`4\mathrm{GeV}^2Q^280\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`40\mathrm{GeV}W180\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`z>0.2`$, $`M_X10\mathrm{GeV}`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=314\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_c=1.4\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}=250\mathrm{MeV}`$. Curves 1 — 4 are the same as in Fig. 3.

Fig. 7. The parameter $`\alpha \left(𝐩_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }T}\right)`$, which is calculated in the region $`0.4<z<0.9`$ (a) and in the region $`0.4<z<1`$ (b) at $`\sqrt{s}=314\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_c=1.4\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}=250\mathrm{MeV}`$. Curve 1 corresponds to the SPM calculations at the leading order approximation with GRV gluon density, curve 3 corresponds to the $`k_T`$-factorization QCD calculations with KMS unintegrated gluon distribution at $`Q_0^2=1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$.

Fig. 8. The spin aligment parameter $`\alpha \left(𝐩_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }T}^2\right)`$ at fixed values of $`Q^2`$ for $`40\mathrm{GeV}W180\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`z>0.2`$, $`M_X10\mathrm{GeV}`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=314\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_c=1.4\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}=250\mathrm{MeV}`$. Curves 1 and 3 are the same as in Fig. 7.