Abstract
The gluon distribution is obtained from the Golec-Biernat–W\(\ddot{\textrm{u}}\)sthoff (GBW) and Bartels, Golec-Biernat, and Kowalski (BGK) models at low x. We derive analytical results for the unintegrated color dipole gluon distribution function at small transverse momentum, which provides useful information to constrain the \(k_{t}\)-shape of the unintegrated gluon distribution in comparison with the unintegrated gluon distribution (UGD) models. The longitudinal proton structure function \(F_{L}(x,Q^2)\) from the \(k_{t}\) factorization scheme, using the unintegrated gluon density, is computed. We compare the predictions for the on-shell and twist-2 corrections with the HERA data and the CJ15 parameterization method for \(F_{L}\). We show that this method describes very well the experimental data within the on-shell and twist-2 framework. Effects of parameters on \(F_{L}\), where charm contribution is taken into account, are investigated. These results are in good agreement with the data at fixed W.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability Statement
This manuscript has no associated data or the data will not be deposited. [Authors’ comment: This is a theoretical study and no experimental data.]
Notes
Although both densities are differential in the transverse momentum of the extracted gluon, the proper low-x UGD genuinely comes from the Balitsky–Fadin–Kuraev–Lipatov (BFKL) formalism, and it contains a mixture of unpolarized and linearly polarized gluons, while the proton is unpolarized. Conversely, while gluon TMDs usually refer to densities defined in the standard TMD factorization formalism, they evolve according to the Collins–Soper–Sterman equation and account for different combinations of gluon and proton spin states.
In the twist expansion, the large logarithms \(\ln (1/x)\) at low x are important as
$$\begin{aligned} F_{2}(x,Q^2)=F^{(0)}_{2}(x,\ln {Q^2})+F^{(1)}_{2}(x,\ln {Q^2})\frac{M^2}{Q^2}..., \end{aligned}$$where the \(k_{t}\)-factorization theorem is necessary to allow these large logarithms to be independent from the twist expansion [6,7,8].
Saturation is visible in the fact that the dipole scattering amplitude approaches the unitarity bound for the dipole sizes larger than a characteristic size \(1/Q_{s}(x)\) which decreases when decreasing x [18].
This is the formal photoproduction limit.
The GBW model has features of a solution to the nonlinear evolution of the Balitsky–Kovchegov (BK) type.
The behavior of the dipole cross sections in the GBW and BGK models, at small and large dipoles, is considered in Ref. [49].
Equation (22) is modified with the Sudakov form factor as x increase by the following form:
$$f(x,k_{t}^{2})=\frac{\partial {[xg(x,\mu ^{2})S(r,\mu ^2)]}}{\partial {\ln }\mu ^{2}}\Big \vert _{\mu ^{2}=k^{2}_{t}}.$$The Sudakov form factor in Ref. [49] is defined by \(S(r,\mu ^2)=\frac{\alpha _{s}N_{c}}{4\pi }\ln ^{2}\left( \frac{\mu ^2r^2}{4\text {e}^{-2\gamma _{E}}}\right) \), where \(\gamma _{E}\) is the Euler–Mascheroni constant.
In APIPSW model: \(f(x,k_{t}^{2})|_{k_{t}{\rightarrow }\infty } \simeq \frac{A}{4\pi ^2M^{2}}\)
In IN model: \(f(x,k_{t}^{2})|_{k_{t}{\rightarrow }\infty }\simeq F_\textrm{hard}.\)
The longitudinal structure function in Ref. [61] is defined as a convolution
$$\begin{aligned} F_{L}(x,Q^2)=\int \limits _{x}^{1}\frac{\text {d}z}{z}\int \text {d}\textbf{k}^{2}_{T}\sum {e_{f}^{2}}\widehat{C}^{g}_{L}(x/z,Q^2,m_{f}^{2},\textbf{k}^{2}_{T}) f_{g}(z,\textbf{k}^{2}_{T},\mu ^2), \end{aligned}$$where the initial TMD gluon distribution is defined in Ref. [64] by the following form
$$ f_{g}(x,\textbf{k}^{2}_{T})=c_{g}(1-x)^{b_{g}}\sum _{n=1}^{3}(c_{n}R_{0}(x)|\textbf{k}_{T}|)^{n}e^{-R_{0}(x)|\textbf{k}_{T}|} $$, and the hard coefficient function \(\widehat{C}_{L}^{g}\) corresponds to the quark-box diagram for off-shell (dependent on the incoming gluon virtuality) photon–gluon fusion subprocess in Ref. [65]
The three parameters are \(\sigma _{0}\), \(\lambda \), and \(x_{0}\).
References
K. Golec-Biernat and M. W\(\ddot{\rm u}\)sthoff, Phys. Rev. D 59, 014017 (1998)
K. Golec-Biernat, Acta. Phys. Pol. B 33, 2771 (2002)
K. Golec-Biernat, Acta. Phys. Pol. B 35, 3103 (2004)
K. Golec-Biernat, J. Phys. G 28, 1057 (2002)
J.R. Forshaw, G. Shaw, JHEP 12, 052 (2004)
M. Hentschinski, Phys. Rev. D 104, 054014 (2021)
R. Boussarie et al., TMD Handbook, arXiv [hep-ph]: arXiv: 2304.03302
A.V. Lipatov, G.I. Lykasov, M.A. Malyshev, Phys. Lett. B 839, 137780 (2023)
Yu.L. Dokshitzer, Sov. Phys. JETP 46, 641 (1977)
G. Altarelli, G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. B 126, 298 (1977)
V.N. Gribov, L.N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15, 438 (1972)
V.S. Fadin, E.A. Kuraev, L.N. Lipatov, Phys. Lett. B 60, 50 (1975)
L.N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 23, 338 (1976)
I.I. Balitsky, L.N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 28, 822 (1978)
I. Balitsky, Nucl. Phys. B 463, 99 (1996)
Y.V. Kovchegov, Phys. Rev. D 60, 034008 (1999)
J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, A. Leonidov, H. Weigert, Nucl. Phys. B 504, 415 (1997)
E. Iancu, K. Itakura, S. Munier, Phys. Lett. B 590, 199 (2004)
J. Bartels, K. Golec-Biernat, H. Kowalski, Phys. Rev. D 66, 014001 (2002)
B. Sambasivam, T. Toll, T. Ullrich, Phys. Lett. B 803, 135277 (2020)
J.R. Forshaw, G. Shaw, JHEP 12, 052 (2004)
E. Iancu, A. Leonidov, L. McLerran, Nucl. Phys. A 692, 583 (2001)
E. Iancu, A. Leonidov, L. McLerran, Phys. Lett. B 510, 133 (2001)
An Assessment of U.S. Based Electron-Ion Collider Science (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2018)
. R. Abdul Khalek et al., Snowmass 2021 White Paper, arXiv [hep-ph]: arXiv: 2203.13199
V.D. Burkert et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 131, 104032 (2023)
S. Amoroso et al., Snowmass 2021 whitepaper. Acta Phys. Pol. B 53, 12-A1 (2022)
M. Hentschinski et al., White paper on forward physics, BFKL, saturation physics and diffraction. Acta Phys. Pol. B 54, 3-A2 (2023)
R. Abir et al., The case for an EIC theory alliance: theoretical challenges of the EIC, arXiv[hep-ph]: arXiv:2305.14572
P.. Agostini et al., [LHeC Collaboration and FCC-he Study Group ]. J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 48, 110501 (2021)
R.S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D 71, 054024 (2005)
K. Golec-Biernat, S. Sapeta, JHEP 03, 102 (2018)
A. Luszczak, H. Kowalski, Phys. Rev. D 89, 074051 (2014)
A. Luszczak, M. Luszczak, W. Schafer, Phys. Lett. B 835, 137582 (2022)
I.P. Ivanov, N.N. Nikolaev, Phys. Rev. D 65, 054004 (2002)
I.V. Anikin, A. Besse, D.Y. Ivanov, B. Pire, L. Szymanowski, S. Wallon, Phys. Rev. D 84, 054004 (2011)
M. Hentschinski, A. Sabio Vera, C. Salas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 041601 (2013)
G. Watt, A.D. Martin, M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C 31, 73 (2003)
A.D. Bolognino, F.G. Celiberto, D.Y. Ivanov, A. Papa, arXiv [hep-ph]: arXiv: 1808.02958
A.D. Bolognino, F.G. Celiberto, arXiv [hep-ph]: arXiv: 1902.04520
A.D. Bolognino, F.G. Celiberto, arXiv [hep-ph]: arXiv: 1808.02395
F.G. Celiberto, Nuovo Cim. C 42, 220 (2019)
F.G. Celiberto, D. Gordo Gomez, A. Sabio Vera, Phys. Lett. B 786, 201 (2018)
A.D. Bolognino, A. Szczurek, W. Sch\(\ddot{a}\)fer, Phys. Rev. D 101, 054041 (2020)
A.D. Bolognino, F.G. Celiberto, D.Y. Ivanov, A. Papa, W. Sch\(\ddot{a}\)fer, A. Szczurek, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 846 (2021)
G.R. Boroun, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 42 (2023)
G.R. Boroun, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 740 (2022)
G.R. Boroun, Phys. Rev. D 108, 034025 (2023)
T. Goda, K. Kutak, S. Sapeta, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 957 (2023)
H. Jung, A.V. Kotikov, A.V. Lipatov, N.P. Zotov, Proc. of 15th Int. Workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects, Munich, April 2007. arXiv[hep-ph]: arXiv: 0706.3793v2
K. Golec-Biernat, A.M. Stasto, Phys. Rev. D 80, 014006 (2009)
J. Bartels, K.J. Golec-Biernat, K. Peters, Eur. Phys. J. C 17, 121 (2000)
N.N. Nikolaev, B.G. Zakharov, Phys. Lett. B 327, 149 (1994)
N.N. Nikolaev, B.G. Zakharov, Phys. Lett. B 332, 184 (1994)
V. Andreev, A. Baghdasaryan, S. Baghdasaryan, et al. (H1 Collab.), Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2814 (2014)
F.D. Aaron, C. Alexa, V. Andreev, et al. (H1 Collab.), Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1579 (2011)
A. Accardi, L.T. Brady, W. Melnitchouk, J.F. Owens, N. Sato, Phys. Rev. D 93, 114017 (2016)
L.P. Kaptari, A.V. Kotikov, N.Y. Chernikova, P. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 99, 096019 (2019)
S. Zarrin, S. Dadfar, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 60, 3822 (2021)
G.R. Boroun, Phys. Rev. D 105, 034002 (2022)
A.V. Lipatov, G.I. Lykasov, M.A. Malyshev, Phys. Lett. B 839, 137780 (2023)
R. Saikia, P. Phukan, J.K. Sarma, arXiv:2304.00272v2 [hep-ph]
Z.B. Baghsiyahi, M. Modarres, R.K. Valeshabadi, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 392 (2022)
A.V. Lipatov, G.I. Lykasov, M.A. Malyshev, Phys. Rev. D 107, 014022 (2023)
A.V. Kotikov, A.V. Lipatov, G. Parente, N.P. Zotov, Eur. Phys. J. C 26, 51 (2002)
A. Bacchetta, F.G. Celiberto, M. Radici, P. Taels, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 733 (2020)
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to Razi University for the financial support of this project and thanks A.V. Lipatov for allowing access to data related to the longitudinal structure function with the TMD gluon density.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Rishi Sharma.
Appendix
Appendix
-
\(\mathbf {\textrm{ABIPSW}~ \textrm{model}:}\)
This is a x-independent model of the UGD which has been proposed by the authors in Ref. [36] as
$$\begin{aligned} f(x,k_{t}^{2})=\frac{A}{4\pi ^{2}M^{2}}\Big {[}\frac{k_{t}^{2}}{M^{2}+k_{t}^{2}}\Big {]}, \end{aligned}$$(28)which merely coincides with the proton impact factor. Here, M is a characteristic soft scale, and A is the normalization factor.
-
\(\mathbf {\textrm{IN}~ \textrm{model}:}\)
In the large- and small-\(k_{t}\) regions, a UGD soft–hard model (where the soft and the hard components are defined in [35]) has been proposed by the authors in Ref. [35] as
$$\begin{aligned} f(x,k_{t}^{2})= & {} f_{\textrm{soft}}^{(B)}(x,k_{t}^{2})\frac{k_{s}^{2}}{k_{s}^{2}+k_{t}^{2}}\nonumber \\{} & {} +f_{\mathrm {\textrm{hard}}}(x,k_{t}^{2})\frac{k_{t}^{2}}{k_{h}^{2}+k_{t}^{2}}. \end{aligned}$$(29) -
\(\mathbf {\textrm{HSS}~ \textrm{model}:}\)
This model [37] is used in the study of DIS structure functions and takes the form of a convolution between the BFKL gluon Green\(^{,}\)s function and a leading-order (LO) proton impact factor, which has been employed in the description of single-bottom quark production at LHC and to investigate the photoproduction of \(J/\Psi \) and \(\Upsilon \), by the following form:
$$\begin{aligned}{} & {} f(x,k_{t}^{2},M_{{h}})\nonumber \\ {}{} & {} \quad =\int \limits _{-\infty }^{+\infty }\frac{\text {d}\nu }{2\pi ^{2}}\mathcal {C}\frac{\Gamma (\delta -i\nu -\frac{1}{2})}{\Gamma (\delta )}\left( \frac{1}{x}\right) ^{\chi (\frac{1}{2}+i\nu )} \left( \frac{k_{t}^{2}}{Q_{0}^{2}}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}+i\nu }\nonumber \\{} & {} \qquad \left\{ 1+\frac{\overline{\alpha }_{s}^{2}\beta _{0}\chi _{0}\left( \frac{1}{2}+i\nu \right) }{8N_{c}}\log \left( \frac{1}{x}\right) \right. \nonumber \\{} & {} \qquad \left. \times \left[ -\psi (\frac{1}{2}+i\nu )-\log \frac{k_{t}^{2}}{M^{2}_{{h}}}\right\} \right] . \end{aligned}$$(30)In the above equation (i.e., Eq. 30), \(\chi _{0}(\frac{1}{2}+i\nu )\) and \(\chi (\gamma )\) are respectively the LO and the next-to-leading order (NLO) eigenvalues of the BFKL kernel, and \(\beta _{0}=11-\frac{2}{3}n_{f}\) with \(n_{f}\) the number of active quarks. Here, \(\overline{\alpha }_{s}=\frac{3}{\pi }\alpha _{s}(\mu ^{2})\) with \(\mu ^{2}=Q_{0}M_{h}\), where \(M_{h}\) plays the role of the hard scale which can be identified with the photon virtuality, \(\sqrt{Q^{2}}\).
-
\(\mathbf {\textrm{WMR}~ \textrm{model}:}\)
The WMR model [38] depends on an extra-scale \(\mu \), fixed at Q, by the following form:
$$\begin{aligned} f(x,k_{t}^{2},\mu ^{2})= & {} T_{g}(k_{t}^{2},\mu ^{2})\frac{\alpha _{s}(k_{t}^{2})}{2\pi } \int \limits _{x}^{1}\text {d}z\nonumber \\{} & {} \times \left[ \sum _{q}P_{gq}(z)\frac{x}{z}q\left( \frac{x}{z},k_{t}^{2}\right) + P_{gg}(z)\right. \nonumber \\{} & {} \left. \times \frac{x}{z}g \left( \frac{x}{z},k_{t}^{2}\right) \Theta \left( \frac{\mu }{\mu +k_{t}}-z\right) \right] ,\nonumber \\ \end{aligned}$$(31)where \(T_{g}(k_{t}^{2},\mu ^{2})\) gives the probability of evolving from the scale \(k_{t}\) to the scale \(\mu \) without parton emission, and \(P_{ij}^{,}\)s are the splitting functions.
-
\(\mathbf {\textrm{GBW}~ \textrm{model}:}\)
This model [1,2,3,4] derives from the effective dipole cross section \(\sigma (x,\textbf{r})\) for the scattering of a \(q\overline{q}\) pair of a nucleon by the following form:
$$\begin{aligned} f(x,k_{t}^{2})= & {} k_{t}^{4}\sigma _{0}\frac{R_{0}^{2}(x)}{2\pi }e^{-k_{t}^{2}R_{0}^{2}(x)}, \end{aligned}$$(32)with \(R_{0}^{2}(x)=\frac{1}{\textrm{GeV}^{2}}\left( \frac{x}{x_{0}}\right) ^{\lambda }\).
A novel UGD parameterization derived on the basis of a spectator model input, which is widely employed in the context of exploratory studies on gluon TMDs, is summarized in Refs. [45] and [66]. The model is based on the assumption that a nucleon can emit a gluon, and what remains after the emission is treated as a single spectator particle.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Boroun, G.R. The unintegrated gluon distribution from the GBW and BGK models. Eur. Phys. J. A 60, 48 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-024-01255-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-024-01255-0