Processing math: 62%

Importance of heavy quark longitudinal structure function measurements at future circular collider energies

  • In this article, we consider the ratio of structure functions for heavy quark pair production at low values of x. The importance of this ratio for charm and beauty pair production is examined according to the Hadron Electron Ring Accelerator (HERA) data. The behavior of these ratios is considered due to the hard pomeron behavior of the gluon distribution function. The results are in good agreement with the HERA data. Expanding this data to the range of new energies underscores the importance of these measurements for heavy quarks. The ratio of charm and beauty structure functions at the proposed Large Hadron electron Collider (LHeC) is considered as a function of invariant center-of-mass energy. For top pair production this ratio is extracted with known kinematics of the LHeC and Future Circular Collider electron-hadron (FCC-eh) colliders. Comparison of the results obtained for the ratio of top structure functions in LHeC and FCC-eh are proportional to the specified inelasticity y range.
  • The latest data collected at HERA for heavy quarks show that the cross-sections for charm and beauty production can be considered in a wide range of x and Q2 values from the H1 and ZEUS detectors [1-5]. A combination method is used at HERA for the cross-section data with respect to the correlations of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. In neutral current (NC) deep inelastic electron-proton scattering (DIS) at HERA, heavy quark production is the most important test of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). The dominant process in the production of heavy quarks is boson-gluon-fusion (BGF). The production of heavy quarks at HERA depends on the mass of these quarks and thus the calculations of cross-sections depend on a wide range of perturbative scales μ2. The massive fixed-flavour-number scheme (FFNS) [6-17] and the variable-flavour-number scheme (VFNS) [18-21] are different approaches for considering heavy quarks. FFNS can be used on the threshold of μ2m2, and for μ2m2 VFNS is used where the treatment of resummation of collinear logarithms ln(μ2/m2) is achieved. In Refs. [22, 23] a general-mass variable-flavour-number scheme (GM-VFNS) for calculation of the contributions of heavy quarks was introduced.

    In the process γgQ¯Q, where Q is a heavy quark, heavy quark production is sensitive to the gluon distribution and gluon momentum transfer in the proton. In accordance with the heavy quark mass, the gluon momentum is arranged such that xtg>xbg>xcg. The HERA dataset, for production charm and beauty in DIS, covers the kinematic range of photon virtuality 2.5Q22000GeV2 and Bjorken scaling variable 3.105x5.102 [1-5]. The electron-proton center-of-mass energies with data taken with the H1 and ZEUS detectors correspond to s=319GeV [1] and s=318GeV [2] respectively. Future circular electron-proton colliders are an ideal environment to increase center-of-mass energy [24-29]. At the LHeC, the electron-proton center of mass energy is planned to reach s1.3TeV. The x,Q2 values of simulated heavy quark density data used in LHeC studies reach x105 and Q2104GeV2 [27, 28]. The heavy quark densities will also be checked in the proposed FCC-eh programme, in which the center-of-mass energy reaches 3.5TeV [29].

    The heavy quark structure functions obtained in DIS at HERA, from the measurement of the inclusive heavy quark cross-sections, are an important test of QCD. These structure functions are obtained after applying small corrections to the heavy-quark longitudinal structure functions [1-5]. The heavy quark cross-section is defined in terms of the heavy quark structure functions as

    d2σQ¯QdxdQ2=2πα2(Q2)xQ4{[1+(1y)2]FQ¯Q2(x,Q2)y2FQ¯QL(x,Q2)},

    (1)

    where y is the inelasticity. The reduced cross-section is defined as

    σQ¯Qred=d2σQ¯QdxdQ2xQ42πα2(Q2)(1+(1y)2)=FQ¯Q2(x,Q2)f(y)FQ¯QL(x,Q2),

    (2)

    where f(y)=y21+(1y)2. In the HERA kinematic range, the contribution FQ¯QL is small. Therefore, the heavy quark structure function FQ¯Q2 is obtained from the measured heavy quark cross-sections. The measurements of σQ¯Qred, based on data from HERA I and HERA II, are shown as a function of x for fixed values of Q2 in Refs. [1-5]. The measured values of the heavy quark structure functions FQ¯Q2 were obtained using

    FQ¯Q2(x,Q2)=d2σjetQ/dxdQ2d2σhad,NLOQ/dxdQ2FQ¯Q,NLO2(x,Q2).

    (3)

    The differential cross section for the jet production method is defined in the literature, and NLO QCD predictions have also been obtained from the FFNS using the HVQDIS program [30]. This method is also used to obtain the cross-section from the heavy quark longitudinal structure function. Heavy quark cross-sections are determined and extracted in analogy to FQ¯Q2. In this way no assumption on FQ¯QL is required. Indeed,

    σQ¯Qred=FQ¯Q2(x,Q2)[1f(y)FQ¯QL(x,Q2)/FQ¯Q2(x,Q2)].

    (4)

    Future circular colliders will extend the ratio FQ¯QL/FQ¯Q2 into a region of much smaller x and higher Q2. Indeed, the LHeC is the ideal place to resolve this ratio [27, 28]. An overview of the kinematic plane of the LHeC pseudo-data [31, 32] is given in Table 1 for the x,Q2 values of simulated heavy quark density data [27, 28, 33]. These data provide additional constraints on the gluon.

    Table 1

    Table 1.  Kinematic coverage of simulated heavy quark structure functions used in LHeC studies, showing the number of pseudo-data points, Ndat , and the integrated luminosity, Lint[ab1] [27, 28, 33].
    Observable Ee/GeV Ep/TeV Kinematics Ndat Lint/ab1
    Fc,NC2(ep) 60 7 7×106x0.3,4Q22×105GeV2 111 1.0
    Fb,NC2(ep) 60 7 3×105x0.3,32Q22×105GeV2 77 1.0
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    This paper is organized as follows. In Sect. II, we give a summary of the ratio of heavy quark structure functions. Then we introduce a method to calculate the ratio FQ¯QL/FQ¯Q2 , applying the gluon exponent. After reviewing the essential features of the charm and beauty structure functions at HERA in Sect. III, we study the heavy quark structure functions at the LHeC and FCC-eh kinematics. Section IV contain the results and discussion. A summary and conclusions are given in Sect. V.

    The dynamics of flavor-singlet quark and gluon distribution functions, qs and g, are defined by:

    qs(x,nf,μ2)=nfl=1[fl(x,nf,μ2)+¯fl(x,nf,μ2)],g(x,nf,μ2)=fg(x,nf,μ2),

    (5)

    where nf is number of active quark flavors. The heavy quark structure functions derived using the zero-mass VFN scheme (ZMVFN) are

    FZMVFNk,Q=j=0ajs(nf+1)i=q,g,QC(j)k,i(nf+1)fi(nf+1)

    (6)

    where the C,s are the Wilson coefficients at the j-th order and k=2 and L. Here as=αs4π is the QCD running coupling. Equation (6) is valid at asymptotically large momentum transfer Q2m2Q. For Q2m2Q VFNS is valid, which includes a combination of the ZMVFN with FFNS. In this case the heavy quark structure functions are

    FFFNSk,Q=j=0ajs(nf)i=q,gH(j)k,i(nf)fi(nf),

    (7)

    where the H,s are the Wilson coefficients for DIS heavy quark production [34]. In the following, we suppress the dependence on the active flavor nf. In GM-VFNS, one should take quark mass into account, as the rescaling variable χ is defined into the Bjorken variable x by the following form [35]

    χ=x(1+4m2QQ2),

    (8)

    where the rescaling variable, at high Q2 values (m2Q/Q21), reduces to x, χx. Here mQ is the heavy quark mass.

    Within this scheme, heavy quark densities arise via the gQ¯Q evolution. In the small-x range the heavy quark contributions are given by these forms:

    FQ¯Q2(x,Q2)=CQ¯Q2,g(x,ξ)G(x,μ2),FQ¯QL(x,Q2)=CQ¯QL,g(x,ξ)G(x,μ2),

    (9)

    where ξ=m2QQ2. The coefficient functions up to NLO analysis, C2,g and CL,g, were demonstrated in Refs. [6-17, 34, 36-41]. denotes convolution between two functions of x, as [fg](x)=1x(dy/y)f(y)g(x/y)=1x(dz/z)f(x/z)g(z). Here G(x,μ2)(=xg(x,μ2)) is the gluon momentum distribution and the default renormalisation scale μr and factorization scale μf are set to μμr=μf=Q2+4m2Q. Within the pQCD, and up to the NLO corrections, the coefficient functions C2,g and CL,g read

    Ck,g(z,ξ)=C0k,g(z,ξ)+as(μ2)C1k,g(z,ξ).

    (10)

    The behavior of the heavy quark structure function is governed entirely by hard pomeron exchange, in accordance with the Regge theory. The heavy quark cross-section depends strongly on the gluon distribution, which the density of gluons enters at

    xQg=Q2+M2tW2+Q2=xbj(1+M2tQ2),

    (11)

    where Mt is the transverse mass of the produced heavy quark pair Q¯Q [42-45]. The standard parameterization of the gluon distribution function at low x has the following form:

    G(x,Q2)x0=fg(Q2)xλg(Q2).

    (12)

    Over a wide range of Q2, the gluon density behaves as a fixed power of x, as the quantity λg is the hard-pomeron intercept minus one. Equation (12) gives the origin of heavy quarks from gluons in the proton. Indeed, the heavy quark structure functions can be described by a fixed power of x behavior [46-54] as

    Fc(b)2=fQ(Q2)xλeff.

    (13)

    The gluon exponent at low values of x is described by the hard pomeron, as the fixed coupling LLx BFKL solution gives the value λg0.5, although dependence on Q2 is expressed in the effective exponent defined in Refs. [55-58]. In the literature, fits to experimental data suggest that hard pomerons dominate the behavior of the heavy quark structure function. It is suggested that this behavior can be shown in the form of Eq. (13), where we assume that λceffλbeff. The heavy quark behavior at low x is determined by the gluon behavior, so λceffλbeff=λg.

    Within the dipole formulation of the γp scattering [59-62], the gluon density is modelled as xg(x,μ2)=34π2αsσ0R20(x), where R0(x) is the saturation scale. This function decreases when x0 as R20(x)=1GeV2(xx0)λg. The parameters of the model (i.e., σ0 and x0) are defined in Refs. [59-62]. In the color dipole model (CDM), the saturation exponent λg is defined from a fit to low-x data as λg0.3. In this analysis, we will try to select the gluon exponent value corresponding to the average of the hard pomeron and color dipole model, where 0.3λg0.5. Here the lower limit corresponds to the saturation exponent and the upper limit corresponds to the hard pomeron exponent.

    In recent years [63-77], various successful phenomenological methods have examined charm and beauty structure functions. This importance, along with the t-quark density, can be explored at future circular collider energies. One of the important top quark production modes is t¯t photoproduction [78-89]. The total cross-section prediction at the LHeC is 0.05 pb [90]. These studies may lead us to new physics in the future.

    Based on the hard pomeron behavior of the distribution functions, the ratio of heavy quark structure functions is formulated based on the coefficient functions and gluon exponent. After integrating over z, the ratio FL/F2 for heavy quarks can be rewritten in a convolution form as the ratio FQ¯QL/FQ¯Q2, defined by

    FQ¯QLFQ¯Q2=CQ¯QL,g(x,ξ)xλgCQ¯Q2,g(x,ξ)xλg,

    (14)

    where [fg](x)=1x(dy/y)f(y)g(y). In analytical form, the power-like behavior of the heavy quark structure functions is generically written as follows:

    ln1xlnFQ¯QL(x,Q2)FQ¯Q2(x,Q2)=λQ¯QLλQ¯Q2=ln1xlnCQ¯QL,g(x,ξ)xλgCQ¯Q2,g(x,ξ)xλg.

    (15)

    The exponents λL and λ2 for heavy quark production are defined by the derivatives of the heavy quark structure functions in the following forms:

    λQ¯QL=lnFQ¯QL(x,Q2)/ln(1/x),λQ¯Q2=lnFQ¯Q2(x,Q2)/ln(1/x).

    (16)

    The importance of the relationship between σQ¯Qred and FQ¯Q2(x,Q2) in Eq. (4) depends on the functions of f(y) and the ratio FQ¯QL/FQ¯Q2. With high inelasticity, where f(y)1, the importance of the longitudinal structure function in the production of heavy quark pairs will be revealed in the LHeC and FCC-eh. In comparisons with the latest data collected in HERA [3], we can see an increase in values of Q2 and a decrease in values of x at new energies.

    HERA data are expressed in terms of two variables, x and Q2. At low x we define a new variable such that Q2/xW2. W2 refers to the photon-proton center-of-mass energy. Indeed, the heavy quark structure functions are given by the single variable W2 as

    FQ¯QL(x,Q2)=FQ¯QL(W2=xQ2,Q2),FQ¯Q2(x,Q2)=FQ¯Q2(W2=xQ2,Q2).

    (17)

    According to power-like behavior, the heavy quark structure functions can be stated as:

    FQ¯QL(W2)(W2)λL,FQ¯Q2(W2)(W2)λ2.

    (18)

    The exponents now are defined by the following forms:

    λQ¯QL=lnFQ¯QL(W2)lnW2,λQ¯Q2=lnFQ¯Q2(W2)lnW2.

    (19)

    ΔλQ¯QL2=λQ¯QLλQ¯Q2=lnW2lnFQ¯QL(W2)FQ¯Q2(W2).

    (20)

    In Refs. [1] and [2], the reduced cross-sections and structure functions of the charm and beauty quarks at center-of-mass energies s=319GeV and s=318GeV can be observed respectively. The masses of the charm and beauty quarks are set to mc=1.5GeV and mb=4.75GeV respectively. The extracted values of Fc¯cLFc¯c2 and Fb¯bLFb¯b2 from the HERA data in Refs. [1] and [2] are given in Figs. 1 and 2 respectively. In these figures the ratio of structure functions for the charm and beauty quarks is plotted over a wide range of the invariant mass W2. Calculations allowed the invariant mass W2 to vary in the interval 5000<W2<60000GeV2 when x and Q2 vary according to the HERA data. We observe that these ratios of structure functions are statistically very scattered. However, according to Eq. (19), the linear fit of these HERA data indicates the difference between intercepts for charm and beauty quark production. The results of this linear fit are given in Table 2. Our belief is that the behavior of λQ¯Q2 corresponds to hard pomeron behavior. Based on this, the λQ¯QL intercept can be determined based on the HERA data. Nevertheless, the data have the striking property that the ratio of structure functions behaves according to the following form:

    Figure 1

    Figure 1.  (color online) Ratio of charm structure functions, with respect to HERA data (H1 2010 [1] and ZEUS 2014 [2]), shown as a function of W2 values.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2.  (color online) Ratio of beauty structure functions, with respect to HERA data (H1 2010 [1] and ZEUS 2014 [2]), shown as a function of W2 values.

    Table 2

    Table 2.  ΔλQ¯QL2=λQ¯QLλQ¯Q2 determined for heavy quark pair production (HQPP) according to HERA data in Refs. [1, 2].
    HQPP ΔλQ¯QL2 Coll. Data
    c¯c 0.68 Ref. [1]
    c¯c 0.77 Ref. [2]
    b¯b 0.24 Ref. [1]
    b¯b 0.41 Ref. [2]
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    FQ¯QL(W2)FQ¯Q2(W2).fQ¯Q2fQ¯QL=(W2)ΔλQ¯QL2,

    (21)

    where FQ¯Q2,L(W2)fQ¯Q2,L.(W2)λ2,L. Figure 3 shows this ratio (i.e., Eq. (21)) according to Table 2, and shows that the importance of measuring the longitudinal structure function for the beauty quark is not less than that of the charm quark. In this figure, Δλ=λLλ2 is obtained from a linear fit to the heavy quark structure functions into the invariant center-of-mass energy. Because the heavy quark longitudinal structure function data scatter is high for H1 and ZEUS (according to Figs. 1 and 2), the linear fit of the data shows a noticeable difference in this figure. However, these fits can give comparable results below. According to Eq. (14), our results for the ratio FQ¯QL/FQ¯Q2 are described in Fig. 4 for charm and beauty quarks over a wide range of invariant mass W2. The masses of the charm and beauty quarks are defined according to Table 3. In this figure, our results at Q2=60 and 80GeV2 are compared with HERA data from Refs. [1, 2]. These results are comparable with HERA data. As we see in this figure (i.e., Fig. 4, the value of this ratio is almost constant over a wide range of invariant mass. This ratio for the charm quark at both Q2 values is almost 0.21 and for the beauty quark it is almost 0.130.15. This conclusion for the charm quark is close to the results given in Refs. [36-41, 63-71, 91-93]. In Fig. 5 we present the ratio FQ¯QL/FQ¯Q2 for charm and beauty quarks as a function of Q2 at W=200GeV. We can see that the obtained results are in agreement with those from experiment. The maximum value for charm and beauty ratios is the same and is equal to 0.21 over a wide range of Q2 values. This maximum value shifts to larger Q2 values for the beauty quark. Indeed, it shifts from Q260GeV2 for charm to Q2800GeV2 for the beauty quark. In these calculations, the errors are due to calculation errors related to the charm and beauty quark masses and the gluon intercept. Indeed, the average of the hard pomeron and color dipole models for the gluon exponent is assumed as λg=0.4±0.1. In this figure we also compare our results for the ratio of structure functions for charm and beauty with HERA data [1, 2]. Although errors related to the experimental data are not available, the comparison of these results with HERA data are very good. It should be noted that the data collected from HERA are related to 175<W<225GeV, and this is the reason for the error between our results (at W=200GeV) and HERA data.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3.  (color online) Behavior of function (W2)Δλ, for (left) charm and (right) beauty, with respect to HERA data (H1 2010 [1] and ZEUS 2014 [2]), shown as a function of W2 values. Δλ=λLλ2 is obtained from a linear fit to the structure functions into the invariant center-of-mass energy.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4.  (color online) Obtained FQ¯QL/FQ¯Q2 for charm and beauty pair production, shown as a function of W2 for Q2=60 and 80GeV2. The error bands show the mass error and the gluon exponent error added in prediction. The combined HERA data [1, 2] are also shown.

    Table 3

    Table 3.  Heavy quark masses, with statistical and systematic uncertainties [3].
    Quark Mass exp/fit Model Parameterization
    c 1.290 GeV +0.0460.041 +0.0620.014 +0.0030.031
    b 4.049 GeV +0.1040.109 +0.0900.032 +0.0010.031
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    Figure 5

    Figure 5.  (color online) The ratio FQ¯QL/FQ¯Q2 for charm and beauty pair production, shown as a function of Q2 for fixed W2. The error bands show the mass error and the gluon exponent error added in prediction. Our results for charm and beauty are shown for W=200GeV and compared with H1 2010 [1] and ZEUS 2014 [2] data in 175<W<225GeV.

    Now we focus attention on the energy shift from HERA to the LHeC. LHeC data will also allow us to increase our knowledge of heavy flavour structure functions [94, 95]. Due to the increase in center-of-mass energy in new colliders, the LHeC will provide data on charm and beauty structure functions extending over nearly 5 and 6 orders of magnitude in x and Q2 respectively [27, 28]. According to the predicted energy range for the LHeC, the center-of-mass energy will be in the range 102W2106GeV2. In Fig. 6, phenomenological predictions of the charm and beauty structure functions are determined at center-of-mass energy s=1.3TeV. We can see that as the energy increases, the maximum values for these ratios are still 0.21. However, the value of Q2 increases slightly, as the maximum ratio value Fc¯cL/Fc¯c2 is of the order O(100GeV2), and the maximum ratio value Fb¯bL/Fb¯b2 is of the order O(1000GeV2). In this figure (i.e., Fig. 6, we show the Q2 dependence of the heavy quark structure functions evaluated at NLO analysis.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6.  (color online) Theoretical predictions for the ratio of (left) charm and (right) beauty structure functions at s=1.3TeV (LHeC center-of-mass energy) shown as a function of W2 for different Q2 values. The predictions for different inelasticity y values are also shown.

    Top quark pairs can be produced the LHeC and FCC-eh from γpt¯t reactions. DIS measurements at LHeC and FCC-eh will allow determination of the top distribution function. The production of top quarks in electron-proton collisions at LHeC and FCC-eh can provide a stringent test of new physics at ultra-high energy (UHE), with the proposed center-of-mass energies being 1.3 and 3.5TeV respectively. One of the QCD corrections in top quark production is the QCD coupling αs(μ2) (μ2β2ˆs where β is the Q¯Q relative velocity and ˆs=4m2t) [94, 95]. The running coupling constant at the LHeC is the H1 result at NNLO analysis with 0.2% uncertainty from the LHeC and 0.1% uncertainty when combined with HERA data [24-29, 96]. Here we use the active number of flavors nf=6 in the running of αs [27-29]. Because the top threshold is high enough, the range of inelasticity changes is very important in determining the ratio Ft¯tL/Ft¯t2. For Q2=4000050000GeV2, where Q2>m2t (mt=172±0.5GeV), the area available in the future colliders covers the inelasticity from 0.300<y<0.800 and 0.080<y<0.850 at LHeC and FCC-eh respectively. The Wilson coefficient functions experience a slow rescaling by replacing zχ. This changes the integration range of z in the convolutions to x(1+4m2tQ2)z1 with the Bjorken variable x [34]. In the following we will discuss the ratio Ft¯tL/Ft¯t2 in t¯t production at the LHeC and FCC-eh. In Fig. 7 we present this ratio for Q2=40000 and 50000GeV2 as a function of W2. Because 0<y1, the range of x changes is very limited. Notice that the large inelasticity is only for scattered electron energies much smaller than the electron beam energy (i.e., EeEe and y=1Ee/Ee). In this region where Ee is small, the electromagnetic and hadronic backgrounds are important [27, 28]. The maximum value for the ratio Ft¯tL/Ft¯t2 with respect to the inelasticities (i.e., 0.300<y<0.800 and 0.080<y<0.850 at LHeC and FCC-eh, respectively) is almost 0.1. Of course, this value for the ratio Ft¯tL/Ft¯t2 also increases to 0.21, when both Q2 and x values increase. In this regard, the Q2 value must be of order O(100000GeV2) at LHeC and of order O(1000000GeV2) at FCC-eh, with the x value of order O(0.1). All these predictions can be seen in Fig. 8. In this figure, the ratio of structure functions results for charm, beauty and top pair production are visible for the range of energies available for future accelerators. However, this range of x and Q2 will be seen in future accelerators.

    Figure 7

    Figure 7.  (color online) Theoretical predictions for the ratio of top structure functions at s=1.3TeV (LHeC center-of-mass energy, left) and at s=3.5TeV (FCC-eh center-of-mass energy, right) shown as a function of W2 for Q2=40000 and 50000GeV2. The predictions for different inelasticity y values are also shown.

    Figure 8

    Figure 8.  (color online) Theoretical predictions for the ratio of charm and beauty structure functions at LHeC center-of-mass energy and also the ratio of top structure functions at LHeC and FCC-eh center-of-mass energies shown as a function of Q2 for y=0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8.

    For the calculations presented, we considered the mass error and the gluon exponent error. In all figures, bandwidth errors are included. In Fig. 9, we consider the effect of the renormalization/factorization scale uncertainty in the ratio FL/F2 for charm and beauty due to the LHeC center-of-mass energy. The left and right panels of Fig. 9 show the ratio FL/F2 for charm and beauty as a function of Q2 for x=0.001 respectively. Our NLO results for μc(b)=2mc(b) and μc(b)=4m2c(b)+Q2 are presented in this figure, where they are compared with the quantities represented in Refs. [36-41] (A. Y. Illarionov, B. A. Kniehl and A. V. Kotikov, Phys. Lett. B 663, 66 (2008)) and [63-71] (N. Ya. Ivanov, and B. A. Kniehl, Eur. Phys. J. C 59, 647(2009)). In both references, the ratios are independent of the choice of the gluon distribution. These approaches based on perturbative QCD and kT factorization give similar predictions for the ratio of the heavy quark structure functions. One of these studies (N. Ya. Ivanov, and B. A. Kniehl, Eur. Phys. J. C 59, 647(2009)) provides an analytical result for the ratio of structure functions for arbitrary values of the parameter λg in terms of the Gauss hypergeometric function. They consider compact formulae for the ratio in two particular cases, λg=0 and λg=0.5. The simplest case leads to a non-singular behavior at small x for the structure functions and the other (i.e., λg=0.5) originates from the BFKL resummation of the leading powers of ln(1/x). In the other reference, the authors provide compact formulae for the ratio of structure functions with respect to the Mellin transform. In the following, for low and moderate Q2, one should take quark mass into account. We therefore replace x(1+4m2QQ2)x in the formula for the ratio of heavy quark structure functions. The behavior of the ratios is much less sensitive to the choice of scale μ at low and moderate values of Q2, as seen by comparing the corresponding curves in the two figures. For Q24m2c(b), the NLO predictions exhibit an appreciable scale dependence. One can see that all the considered NLO predictions agree with the results in the literature, with a good accuracy.

    Figure 9

    Figure 9.  (color online) Comparison of FL/F2 calculations for (left) charm and (right) beauty vs.Q2 with two different choices of μ. These results are compared with LO (solid lines) and NLO (dashed lines for μ=4m2+Q2 and dotted lines for μ=2m) quantities from Refs. [36-41] (A. Y. Illarionov, B. A. Kniehl, and A. V. Kotikov, Phys. Lett. B 663,66(2008)) and also with results Refs. [63-71] (N. Ya. Ivanov and B. A. Kniehl, Eur. Phys. J. C 59,647(2009)) (black points) at x = 0.001.

    We have presented the ratio FQ¯QL/FQ¯Q2 for charm and beauty pair production with respect to HERA data. The behavior of these ratios are in good agreement with experimental data over a wide range of W2 values. A power-law behavior for the ratio of structure functions for heavy quark pair production is predicted. Results as a function of Q2 for an invariant constant value are in agreement with those found in the literature in the framework of perturbative QCD. We have also studied the production of heavy quark pairs in future electron-proton colliders (LHeC and FCC-eh). The ratio of charm and beauty structure functions were studied at the center-of-mass energy s=1.3TeV, which is proposed for the LHeC. For top quark pair production, which will be an important production channel at both LHeC and FCC-eh, the ratio of structure functions was determined and compared with respect to the center-of-mass energies in the future colliders. The results of numerical calculations for heavy quarks in the LHeC and FCC-eh are available with respect to the inelasticity, defined in accordance with the center-of-mass energies. These results highlight the importance of measuring the longitudinal structure function in the production of heavy quarks in the future, with respect to the energies available in the new accelerators.

    The author is thankful to Razi University for financial support of this project. The author is also especially grateful to Max Klein for carefully reading the manuscript and for fruitful discussions. Thanks also go to H. Khanpour for interesting and useful discussions.

    [1] F. D. Aaron et al. (H1 Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 65, 89 (2010 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-009-1190-0
    [2] H. Abramowicz et al. (ZEUS Collaboration), JHEP 09, 127 (2014
    [3] H. Abramowicz et al. (H1 and ZEUS Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 473 (2018 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5848-3
    [4] H. Abramowicz et al. (H1 and ZEUS Collaboration), DESY-12-172, arXiv:1211.1182v2[hep-ex](2012)
    [5] H. Abramowicz et al. (ZEUS Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 69, 347 (2010 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1423-2
    [6] E. Laenen et al., Phys. Lett. B 291, 325 (1992 doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(92)91053-C
    [7] E. Laenen et al., Nucl. Phys. B 392, 162 (1993 doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(93)90201-Y
    [8] S. Riemersma, J. Smith, W. L. van Neerven, Phys. Lett. B 347, 143 (1995 doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(95)00036-K
    [9] S. Alekhin et al., Phys. Rev. D 81, 014032 (2010 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.014032
    [10] S. Alekhin, S. Moch. arXiv: 1107.0469 (2001)
    [11] S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, S. Moch, Phys. Rev. D 86, 054009 (2012 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.054009
    [12] S. Alekhin et al., Phys. Rev. D 96, 014011 (2017 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.014011
    [13] S. Alekhin et al., arXiv: 0908.3128[hep-ph](2009)
    [14] M. Glück et al., Phys. Lett. B 664, 133 (2008 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2008.04.063
    [15] H.L. Lai et al., Phys. Rev. D 82, 074024 (2010 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.074024
    [16] A.D. Martin et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 70, 51 (2010 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1462-8
    [17] S. Alekhin and S. Moch, Phys. Lett. B 699, 345 (2011 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2011.04.026
    [18] S. Forte et al., Nucl. Phys. B 834, 116 (2010 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2010.03.014
    [19] R. D. Ball et al. (NNPDF Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. B 849, 296 (2011 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.03.021
    [20] R. D. Ball et al. (NNPDF Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. B 855, 153 (2012 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.09.024
    [21] R. D. Ball et al., arXiv: 1710.05935 (2017)
    [22] R. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D 73, 054019 (2006 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.054019
    [23] R. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D 86, 074017 (2012 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.074017
    [24] M. Klein, arXiv: 1802.04317[hep-ph] (2018)
    [25] M. Klein, Ann. Phys. 528, 138 (2016 doi: 10.1002/andp.201500252
    [26] N. Armesto et al., Phys. Rev. D 100, 074022 (2019 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.074022
    [27] J. Abelleira Fernandez et al. (LHeC Collaboration), J. Phys. G 39, 075001 (2012 doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/39/7/075001
    [28] P. Agostini et al. (LHeC Collaboration and FCC-he Study Group), CERN-ACC-Note -2020-002, arXiv:2007.14491[hep-ex](2020)
    [29] A. Abada et al. (FCC Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 474 (2019 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6904-3
    [30] B. W. Harris and J. Smith, Phys. Rev. D 57, 2806 (1998 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.57.2806
    [31] LHeC data, http://hep.ph.liv.ac.uk/~mklein/lhecdata/
    [32] Heavy Q data, http://hep.ph.liv.ac.uk/~mklein/heavydata/.
    [33] R. Abdul khalek et al., SciPost Phys. 7, 051 (2019 doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhys.7.4.051
    [34] S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, and S. Moch, arXiv:2006.07032[hepph] (2020)
    [35] Wu-Ki Tung, S. Kretzer, and C. Schmidt, J. Phys. G 28, 983 (2002 doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/28/5/321
    [36] U. Baur and J. J. Van Der Bij, Nucl. Phys. B 304, 451 (1988 doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(88)90637-2
    [37] A. Y. Illarionov, B. A. Kniehl, and A. V. Kotikov, Phys. Lett. B 663, 66 (2008 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2008.02.068
    [38] S. Catani and F. Hautmann, Nucl. Phys. B 427, 475 (1994 doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(94)90636-X
    [39] S. Khatibi and H. Khanpour, arXiv: 2011.15060[hep-ph]
    [40] F. P. Wiβbrock, DESY-THESIS-2015-040 (2015)
    [41] B. W. Harris and J. Smith, Nucl. Phys. B 452, 109 (1995 doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(95)00256-R
    [42] I. P. Ivanov and N. N. Nikolaev, arXiv: hep-ph/0004206 (2000)
    [43] J. Lan et al., Phys. Rev. D 102, 014020 (2020 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.014020
    [44] J. Lan et al., Phys. Rev. D 101, 034024 (2020 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.034024
    [45] C. Mondal, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 74 (2016 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3922-2
    [46] A. Donnachie and P. V. Landshoff, Z. Phys. C 61, 139 (1994 doi: 10.1007/BF01641896
    [47] A. Donnachie and P. V. Landshoff, Phys. Lett. B 518, 63 (2001 doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01048-6
    [48] A. Donnachie and P. V. Landshoff, Phys. Lett. B 533, 277 (2002 doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(02)01556-3
    [49] A. Donnachie and P. V. Landshoff, Phys. Lett. B 470, 243 (1999 doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(99)01281-2
    [50] A. Donnachie and P. V. Landshoff, Phys. Lett. B 50, 160 (2002
    [51] R. D. Ball and P. V. landshoff, J. Phys. G 26, 672 (2000 doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/26/5/326
    [52] P. V. landshoff, arXiv: hep-ph/0203084 (2002)
    [53] N. N. Nikolaev and V. R. Zoller, Phys. Lett. B 509, 283 (2001 doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00563-9
    [54] A. V. Kotikov and A. V. Lipatov, G. Parente and N. P. Zotov Eur. Phys. J. C 26, 51 (2002
    [55] C. Adloff et al. (H1 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 520, 183 (2001 doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01074-7
    [56] R. D. Ball et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 383 (2016 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4240-4
    [57] G. R. Boroun, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135, 68 (2020 doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-019-00088-x
    [58] B. Rezaei and G. R. Boroun, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 66 (2019 doi: 10.1140/epja/i2019-12734-2
    [59] J. Bartels et al., Acta. Phys. Polon. B 33, 2853 (2002
    [60] J. Bartels et al., Phys. Rev. D 66, 014001 (2002 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.66.014001
    [61] E. Iancu et al., Phys. Lett. B 590, 199 (2004 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2004.02.040
    [62] A. M. Stasto et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 596 (2001 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.596
    [63] J. Lan et al., arXiv[nucl-th]:1911.11676 (2019)
    [64] N. N. Nikolaev and V. R. Zoller, Phys. Atom. Nucl 73, 672 (2010 doi: 10.1134/S1063778810040137
    [65] N. N. Nikolaev, J. Speth, and V. R. Zoller, Phys. Lett. B 473, 157 (2000 doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(99)01474-4
    [66] R. Fiore, N. N. Nikolaev, and V. R. Zoller, JETP Lett 90, 319 (2009 doi: 10.1134/S0021364009170020
    [67] A. Y. Illarionov and A. V. Kotikov, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 75, 1234 (2012 doi: 10.1134/S1063778812100092
    [68] N. Ya. Ivanov and B. A. Kniehl, Eur. Phys. J. C 59, 647 (2009 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-008-0813-1
    [69] N. Ya. Ivanov, Nucl. Phys. B 814, 142 (2009 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2009.01.013
    [70] J. Blümlein et al., Nucl. Phys. B 755, 272 (2006 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.08.014
    [71] A. Kotikov, arXiv: 1212.3733[hep-ph] (2012)
    [72] G. R. Boroun and B. Rezaei, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24, 1550063 (2015
    [73] G. R. Boroun and B. Rezaei, Nucl. Phys. A 929, 119 (2014 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2014.06.002
    [74] G. R. Boroun, Nucl. Phys. B 884, 684 (2014 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2014.05.010
    [75] G. R. Boroun and B. Rezaei, EPL 100, 41001 (2012 doi: 10.1209/0295-5075/100/41001
    [76] G. R. Boroun and B. Rezaei, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 115, 427 (2012 doi: 10.1134/S1063776112090038
    [77] G. R. Boroun and B. Rezaei, Nucl. Phys. B 857, 143 (2012 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.12.008
    [78] H. Sun, POS(DIS2018)186; H. Sun, arXiv[hep-ph]:1710.06260(2017)
    [79] Z. Zhang, arXiv[hep-ex]: 1511.05399 (2015).
    [80] Ch. Schwanenberger, LHeC worksope, CERN/Chavannes-de-Bogis (2015)
    [81] Ch. Schwanenberger, POS(DIS2017)464
    [82] A. O. Bouzas and F. Larios, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 651, 012004(2015)
    [83] G. R. Boroun, Phys. Lett. B 744, 142 (2015 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.03.051
    [84] G. R. Boroun, Phys. Lett. B 741, 197 (2015 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.12.039
    [85] G. R. Boroun, Chin. Phys. C 414, 013104 (2017
    [86] G. R. Boroun, PEPAN Lett. 15, 387 (2018
    [87] G. R. Boroun, B. Rezaei, and S. Heidari, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 32, 1750197 (2017 doi: 10.1142/S0217751X17501974
    [88] B. Rezaei and G. R. Boroun, EPL 130, 51002 (2020 doi: 10.1209/0295-5075/130/51002
    [89] H. Khanpour, Nucl. Phys. B 958, 115141 (2020 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2020.115141
    [90] A. O. Bouzas and F. Larios, Phys. Rev. D 88, 094007 (2013 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.094007
    [91] V. P. Goncalves and M. V. T. Machado, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 202002 (2003 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.202002
    [92] B. Rezaei and G. R. Boroun, Phys. Rev. C 101, 045202 (2020 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.045202
    [93] G. R. Boroun and B. Rezaei, Nucl. Phys. A 990, 244 (2019 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2019.07.011
    [94] Amanda Cooper-Sarkar, arXiv: 1310.0662[hep-ph](2013)
    [95] Stanley J. Brodsky, arXiv: 1106.5820[hep-ph](2011)
    [96] F. Demartin et al., Phys. Rev. D 82, 014002 (2010 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.014002
  • [1] F. D. Aaron et al. (H1 Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 65, 89 (2010 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-009-1190-0
    [2] H. Abramowicz et al. (ZEUS Collaboration), JHEP 09, 127 (2014
    [3] H. Abramowicz et al. (H1 and ZEUS Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 473 (2018 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5848-3
    [4] H. Abramowicz et al. (H1 and ZEUS Collaboration), DESY-12-172, arXiv:1211.1182v2[hep-ex](2012)
    [5] H. Abramowicz et al. (ZEUS Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 69, 347 (2010 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1423-2
    [6] E. Laenen et al., Phys. Lett. B 291, 325 (1992 doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(92)91053-C
    [7] E. Laenen et al., Nucl. Phys. B 392, 162 (1993 doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(93)90201-Y
    [8] S. Riemersma, J. Smith, W. L. van Neerven, Phys. Lett. B 347, 143 (1995 doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(95)00036-K
    [9] S. Alekhin et al., Phys. Rev. D 81, 014032 (2010 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.014032
    [10] S. Alekhin, S. Moch. arXiv: 1107.0469 (2001)
    [11] S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, S. Moch, Phys. Rev. D 86, 054009 (2012 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.054009
    [12] S. Alekhin et al., Phys. Rev. D 96, 014011 (2017 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.014011
    [13] S. Alekhin et al., arXiv: 0908.3128[hep-ph](2009)
    [14] M. Glück et al., Phys. Lett. B 664, 133 (2008 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2008.04.063
    [15] H.L. Lai et al., Phys. Rev. D 82, 074024 (2010 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.074024
    [16] A.D. Martin et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 70, 51 (2010 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1462-8
    [17] S. Alekhin and S. Moch, Phys. Lett. B 699, 345 (2011 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2011.04.026
    [18] S. Forte et al., Nucl. Phys. B 834, 116 (2010 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2010.03.014
    [19] R. D. Ball et al. (NNPDF Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. B 849, 296 (2011 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.03.021
    [20] R. D. Ball et al. (NNPDF Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. B 855, 153 (2012 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.09.024
    [21] R. D. Ball et al., arXiv: 1710.05935 (2017)
    [22] R. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D 73, 054019 (2006 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.054019
    [23] R. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D 86, 074017 (2012 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.074017
    [24] M. Klein, arXiv: 1802.04317[hep-ph] (2018)
    [25] M. Klein, Ann. Phys. 528, 138 (2016 doi: 10.1002/andp.201500252
    [26] N. Armesto et al., Phys. Rev. D 100, 074022 (2019 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.074022
    [27] J. Abelleira Fernandez et al. (LHeC Collaboration), J. Phys. G 39, 075001 (2012 doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/39/7/075001
    [28] P. Agostini et al. (LHeC Collaboration and FCC-he Study Group), CERN-ACC-Note -2020-002, arXiv:2007.14491[hep-ex](2020)
    [29] A. Abada et al. (FCC Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 474 (2019 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6904-3
    [30] B. W. Harris and J. Smith, Phys. Rev. D 57, 2806 (1998 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.57.2806
    [31] LHeC data, http://hep.ph.liv.ac.uk/~mklein/lhecdata/
    [32] Heavy Q data, http://hep.ph.liv.ac.uk/~mklein/heavydata/.
    [33] R. Abdul khalek et al., SciPost Phys. 7, 051 (2019 doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhys.7.4.051
    [34] S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, and S. Moch, arXiv:2006.07032[hepph] (2020)
    [35] Wu-Ki Tung, S. Kretzer, and C. Schmidt, J. Phys. G 28, 983 (2002 doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/28/5/321
    [36] U. Baur and J. J. Van Der Bij, Nucl. Phys. B 304, 451 (1988 doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(88)90637-2
    [37] A. Y. Illarionov, B. A. Kniehl, and A. V. Kotikov, Phys. Lett. B 663, 66 (2008 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2008.02.068
    [38] S. Catani and F. Hautmann, Nucl. Phys. B 427, 475 (1994 doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(94)90636-X
    [39] S. Khatibi and H. Khanpour, arXiv: 2011.15060[hep-ph]
    [40] F. P. Wiβbrock, DESY-THESIS-2015-040 (2015)
    [41] B. W. Harris and J. Smith, Nucl. Phys. B 452, 109 (1995 doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(95)00256-R
    [42] I. P. Ivanov and N. N. Nikolaev, arXiv: hep-ph/0004206 (2000)
    [43] J. Lan et al., Phys. Rev. D 102, 014020 (2020 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.014020
    [44] J. Lan et al., Phys. Rev. D 101, 034024 (2020 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.034024
    [45] C. Mondal, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 74 (2016 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3922-2
    [46] A. Donnachie and P. V. Landshoff, Z. Phys. C 61, 139 (1994 doi: 10.1007/BF01641896
    [47] A. Donnachie and P. V. Landshoff, Phys. Lett. B 518, 63 (2001 doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01048-6
    [48] A. Donnachie and P. V. Landshoff, Phys. Lett. B 533, 277 (2002 doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(02)01556-3
    [49] A. Donnachie and P. V. Landshoff, Phys. Lett. B 470, 243 (1999 doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(99)01281-2
    [50] A. Donnachie and P. V. Landshoff, Phys. Lett. B 50, 160 (2002
    [51] R. D. Ball and P. V. landshoff, J. Phys. G 26, 672 (2000 doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/26/5/326
    [52] P. V. landshoff, arXiv: hep-ph/0203084 (2002)
    [53] N. N. Nikolaev and V. R. Zoller, Phys. Lett. B 509, 283 (2001 doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00563-9
    [54] A. V. Kotikov and A. V. Lipatov, G. Parente and N. P. Zotov Eur. Phys. J. C 26, 51 (2002
    [55] C. Adloff et al. (H1 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 520, 183 (2001 doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01074-7
    [56] R. D. Ball et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 383 (2016 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4240-4
    [57] G. R. Boroun, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135, 68 (2020 doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-019-00088-x
    [58] B. Rezaei and G. R. Boroun, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 66 (2019 doi: 10.1140/epja/i2019-12734-2
    [59] J. Bartels et al., Acta. Phys. Polon. B 33, 2853 (2002
    [60] J. Bartels et al., Phys. Rev. D 66, 014001 (2002 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.66.014001
    [61] E. Iancu et al., Phys. Lett. B 590, 199 (2004 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2004.02.040
    [62] A. M. Stasto et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 596 (2001 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.596
    [63] J. Lan et al., arXiv[nucl-th]:1911.11676 (2019)
    [64] N. N. Nikolaev and V. R. Zoller, Phys. Atom. Nucl 73, 672 (2010 doi: 10.1134/S1063778810040137
    [65] N. N. Nikolaev, J. Speth, and V. R. Zoller, Phys. Lett. B 473, 157 (2000 doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(99)01474-4
    [66] R. Fiore, N. N. Nikolaev, and V. R. Zoller, JETP Lett 90, 319 (2009 doi: 10.1134/S0021364009170020
    [67] A. Y. Illarionov and A. V. Kotikov, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 75, 1234 (2012 doi: 10.1134/S1063778812100092
    [68] N. Ya. Ivanov and B. A. Kniehl, Eur. Phys. J. C 59, 647 (2009 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-008-0813-1
    [69] N. Ya. Ivanov, Nucl. Phys. B 814, 142 (2009 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2009.01.013
    [70] J. Blümlein et al., Nucl. Phys. B 755, 272 (2006 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.08.014
    [71] A. Kotikov, arXiv: 1212.3733[hep-ph] (2012)
    [72] G. R. Boroun and B. Rezaei, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24, 1550063 (2015
    [73] G. R. Boroun and B. Rezaei, Nucl. Phys. A 929, 119 (2014 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2014.06.002
    [74] G. R. Boroun, Nucl. Phys. B 884, 684 (2014 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2014.05.010
    [75] G. R. Boroun and B. Rezaei, EPL 100, 41001 (2012 doi: 10.1209/0295-5075/100/41001
    [76] G. R. Boroun and B. Rezaei, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 115, 427 (2012 doi: 10.1134/S1063776112090038
    [77] G. R. Boroun and B. Rezaei, Nucl. Phys. B 857, 143 (2012 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.12.008
    [78] H. Sun, POS(DIS2018)186; H. Sun, arXiv[hep-ph]:1710.06260(2017)
    [79] Z. Zhang, arXiv[hep-ex]: 1511.05399 (2015).
    [80] Ch. Schwanenberger, LHeC worksope, CERN/Chavannes-de-Bogis (2015)
    [81] Ch. Schwanenberger, POS(DIS2017)464
    [82] A. O. Bouzas and F. Larios, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 651, 012004(2015)
    [83] G. R. Boroun, Phys. Lett. B 744, 142 (2015 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.03.051
    [84] G. R. Boroun, Phys. Lett. B 741, 197 (2015 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.12.039
    [85] G. R. Boroun, Chin. Phys. C 414, 013104 (2017
    [86] G. R. Boroun, PEPAN Lett. 15, 387 (2018
    [87] G. R. Boroun, B. Rezaei, and S. Heidari, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 32, 1750197 (2017 doi: 10.1142/S0217751X17501974
    [88] B. Rezaei and G. R. Boroun, EPL 130, 51002 (2020 doi: 10.1209/0295-5075/130/51002
    [89] H. Khanpour, Nucl. Phys. B 958, 115141 (2020 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2020.115141
    [90] A. O. Bouzas and F. Larios, Phys. Rev. D 88, 094007 (2013 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.094007
    [91] V. P. Goncalves and M. V. T. Machado, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 202002 (2003 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.202002
    [92] B. Rezaei and G. R. Boroun, Phys. Rev. C 101, 045202 (2020 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.045202
    [93] G. R. Boroun and B. Rezaei, Nucl. Phys. A 990, 244 (2019 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2019.07.011
    [94] Amanda Cooper-Sarkar, arXiv: 1310.0662[hep-ph](2013)
    [95] Stanley J. Brodsky, arXiv: 1106.5820[hep-ph](2011)
    [96] F. Demartin et al., Phys. Rev. D 82, 014002 (2010 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.014002
  • 加载中

Cited by

1. Boroun, G.R.. Heavy quark structure functions from unifying the color dipole picture and double asymptotic scaling approaches[J]. Physical Review D, 2024, 109(5): 054012. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.054012
2. Boroun, G.R.. Collinear approach for top quark production at ep colliders[J]. European Physical Journal Plus, 2023, 138(3): 252. doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-023-03860-2
3. Boroun, G.R.. Geometrical scaling of heavy-quark contributions in the low x region[J]. European Physical Journal Plus, 2022, 137(11): 1212. doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03416-w
4. Kotikov, A.V., Lipatov, A.V., Zhang, P.M. Transverse momentum dependent parton densities in processes with heavy quark generations[J]. Physical Review D, 2021, 104(5): 054042. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.054042
5. Boroun, G.R.. Effect of the Parameterization of the Distribution Functions on the Longitudinal Structure Function at Small x[J]. JETP Letters, 2021, 114(1) doi: 10.1134/S0021364021130014

Figures(9) / Tables(3)

Get Citation
G.R. Boroun. Importance of the heavy-quarks longitudinal structure function measurements at future circular collider energies[J]. Chinese Physics C. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abf1de
G.R. Boroun. Importance of the heavy-quarks longitudinal structure function measurements at future circular collider energies[J]. Chinese Physics C.  doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abf1de shu
Milestone
Received: 2020-11-25
Article Metric

Article Views(1741)
PDF Downloads(25)
Cited by(5)
Policy on re-use
To reuse of Open Access content published by CPC, for content published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license (“CC CY”), the users don’t need to request permission to copy, distribute and display the final published version of the article and to create derivative works, subject to appropriate attribution.
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Email This Article

Title:
Email:

Importance of heavy quark longitudinal structure function measurements at future circular collider energies

Abstract: In this article, we consider the ratio of structure functions for heavy quark pair production at low values of x. The importance of this ratio for charm and beauty pair production is examined according to the Hadron Electron Ring Accelerator (HERA) data. The behavior of these ratios is considered due to the hard pomeron behavior of the gluon distribution function. The results are in good agreement with the HERA data. Expanding this data to the range of new energies underscores the importance of these measurements for heavy quarks. The ratio of charm and beauty structure functions at the proposed Large Hadron electron Collider (LHeC) is considered as a function of invariant center-of-mass energy. For top pair production this ratio is extracted with known kinematics of the LHeC and Future Circular Collider electron-hadron (FCC-eh) colliders. Comparison of the results obtained for the ratio of top structure functions in LHeC and FCC-eh are proportional to the specified inelasticity y range.

    HTML

    I.   INTRODUCTION
    • The latest data collected at HERA for heavy quarks show that the cross-sections for charm and beauty production can be considered in a wide range of x and Q2 values from the H1 and ZEUS detectors [1-5]. A combination method is used at HERA for the cross-section data with respect to the correlations of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. In neutral current (NC) deep inelastic electron-proton scattering (DIS) at HERA, heavy quark production is the most important test of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). The dominant process in the production of heavy quarks is boson-gluon-fusion (BGF). The production of heavy quarks at HERA depends on the mass of these quarks and thus the calculations of cross-sections depend on a wide range of perturbative scales μ2. The massive fixed-flavour-number scheme (FFNS) [6-17] and the variable-flavour-number scheme (VFNS) [18-21] are different approaches for considering heavy quarks. FFNS can be used on the threshold of μ2m2, and for μ2m2 VFNS is used where the treatment of resummation of collinear logarithms ln(μ2/m2) is achieved. In Refs. [22, 23] a general-mass variable-flavour-number scheme (GM-VFNS) for calculation of the contributions of heavy quarks was introduced.

      In the process γgQ¯Q, where Q is a heavy quark, heavy quark production is sensitive to the gluon distribution and gluon momentum transfer in the proton. In accordance with the heavy quark mass, the gluon momentum is arranged such that xtg>xbg>xcg. The HERA dataset, for production charm and beauty in DIS, covers the kinematic range of photon virtuality 2.5Q22000GeV2 and Bjorken scaling variable 3.105x5.102 [1-5]. The electron-proton center-of-mass energies with data taken with the H1 and ZEUS detectors correspond to s=319GeV [1] and s=318GeV [2] respectively. Future circular electron-proton colliders are an ideal environment to increase center-of-mass energy [24-29]. At the LHeC, the electron-proton center of mass energy is planned to reach s1.3TeV. The x,Q2 values of simulated heavy quark density data used in LHeC studies reach x105 and Q2104GeV2 [27, 28]. The heavy quark densities will also be checked in the proposed FCC-eh programme, in which the center-of-mass energy reaches 3.5TeV [29].

      The heavy quark structure functions obtained in DIS at HERA, from the measurement of the inclusive heavy quark cross-sections, are an important test of QCD. These structure functions are obtained after applying small corrections to the heavy-quark longitudinal structure functions [1-5]. The heavy quark cross-section is defined in terms of the heavy quark structure functions as

      d2σQ¯QdxdQ2=2πα2(Q2)xQ4{[1+(1y)2]FQ¯Q2(x,Q2)y2FQ¯QL(x,Q2)},

      (1)

      where y is the inelasticity. The reduced cross-section is defined as

      σQ¯Qred=d2σQ¯QdxdQ2xQ42πα2(Q2)(1+(1y)2)=FQ¯Q2(x,Q2)f(y)FQ¯QL(x,Q2),

      (2)

      where f(y)=y21+(1y)2. In the HERA kinematic range, the contribution FQ¯QL is small. Therefore, the heavy quark structure function FQ¯Q2 is obtained from the measured heavy quark cross-sections. The measurements of σQ¯Qred, based on data from HERA I and HERA II, are shown as a function of x for fixed values of Q2 in Refs. [1-5]. The measured values of the heavy quark structure functions FQ¯Q2 were obtained using

      FQ¯Q2(x,Q2)=d2σjetQ/dxdQ2d2σhad,NLOQ/dxdQ2FQ¯Q,NLO2(x,Q2).

      (3)

      The differential cross section for the jet production method is defined in the literature, and NLO QCD predictions have also been obtained from the FFNS using the HVQDIS program [30]. This method is also used to obtain the cross-section from the heavy quark longitudinal structure function. Heavy quark cross-sections are determined and extracted in analogy to FQ¯Q2. In this way no assumption on FQ¯QL is required. Indeed,

      σQ¯Qred=FQ¯Q2(x,Q2)[1f(y)FQ¯QL(x,Q2)/FQ¯Q2(x,Q2)].

      (4)

      Future circular colliders will extend the ratio FQ¯QL/FQ¯Q2 into a region of much smaller x and higher Q2. Indeed, the LHeC is the ideal place to resolve this ratio [27, 28]. An overview of the kinematic plane of the LHeC pseudo-data [31, 32] is given in Table 1 for the x,Q2 values of simulated heavy quark density data [27, 28, 33]. These data provide additional constraints on the gluon.

      Observable Ee/GeV Ep/TeV Kinematics Ndat Lint/ab1
      Fc,NC2(ep) 60 7 7×106x0.3,4Q22×105GeV2 111 1.0
      Fb,NC2(ep) 60 7 3×105x0.3,32Q22×105GeV2 77 1.0

      Table 1.  Kinematic coverage of simulated heavy quark structure functions used in LHeC studies, showing the number of pseudo-data points, Ndat , and the integrated luminosity, Lint[ab1] [27, 28, 33].

      This paper is organized as follows. In Sect. II, we give a summary of the ratio of heavy quark structure functions. Then we introduce a method to calculate the ratio FQ¯QL/FQ¯Q2 , applying the gluon exponent. After reviewing the essential features of the charm and beauty structure functions at HERA in Sect. III, we study the heavy quark structure functions at the LHeC and FCC-eh kinematics. Section IV contain the results and discussion. A summary and conclusions are given in Sect. V.

    II.   SHORT THEORETICAL INPUT
    • The dynamics of flavor-singlet quark and gluon distribution functions, qs and g, are defined by:

      qs(x,nf,μ2)=nfl=1[fl(x,nf,μ2)+¯fl(x,nf,μ2)],g(x,nf,μ2)=fg(x,nf,μ2),

      (5)

      where nf is number of active quark flavors. The heavy quark structure functions derived using the zero-mass VFN scheme (ZMVFN) are

      FZMVFNk,Q=j=0ajs(nf+1)i=q,g,QC(j)k,i(nf+1)fi(nf+1)

      (6)

      where the C,s are the Wilson coefficients at the j-th order and k=2 and L. Here as=αs4π is the QCD running coupling. Equation (6) is valid at asymptotically large momentum transfer Q2m2Q. For Q2m2Q VFNS is valid, which includes a combination of the ZMVFN with FFNS. In this case the heavy quark structure functions are

      FFFNSk,Q=j=0ajs(nf)i=q,gH(j)k,i(nf)fi(nf),

      (7)

      where the H,s are the Wilson coefficients for DIS heavy quark production [34]. In the following, we suppress the dependence on the active flavor nf. In GM-VFNS, one should take quark mass into account, as the rescaling variable χ is defined into the Bjorken variable x by the following form [35]

      χ=x(1+4m2QQ2),

      (8)

      where the rescaling variable, at high Q2 values (m2Q/Q21), reduces to x, χx. Here mQ is the heavy quark mass.

      Within this scheme, heavy quark densities arise via the gQ¯Q evolution. In the small-x range the heavy quark contributions are given by these forms:

      FQ¯Q2(x,Q2)=CQ¯Q2,g(x,ξ)G(x,μ2),FQ¯QL(x,Q2)=CQ¯QL,g(x,ξ)G(x,μ2),

      (9)

      where ξ=m2QQ2. The coefficient functions up to NLO analysis, C2,g and CL,g, were demonstrated in Refs. [6-17, 34, 36-41]. denotes convolution between two functions of x, as [fg](x)=1x(dy/y)f(y)g(x/y)=1x(dz/z)f(x/z)g(z). Here G(x,μ2)(=xg(x,μ2)) is the gluon momentum distribution and the default renormalisation scale μr and factorization scale μf are set to μμr=μf=Q2+4m2Q. Within the pQCD, and up to the NLO corrections, the coefficient functions C2,g and CL,g read

      Ck,g(z,ξ)=C0k,g(z,ξ)+as(μ2)C1k,g(z,ξ).

      (10)

      The behavior of the heavy quark structure function is governed entirely by hard pomeron exchange, in accordance with the Regge theory. The heavy quark cross-section depends strongly on the gluon distribution, which the density of gluons enters at

      xQg=Q2+M2tW2+Q2=xbj(1+M2tQ2),

      (11)

      where Mt is the transverse mass of the produced heavy quark pair Q¯Q [42-45]. The standard parameterization of the gluon distribution function at low x has the following form:

      G(x,Q2)x0=fg(Q2)xλg(Q2).

      (12)

      Over a wide range of Q2, the gluon density behaves as a fixed power of x, as the quantity λg is the hard-pomeron intercept minus one. Equation (12) gives the origin of heavy quarks from gluons in the proton. Indeed, the heavy quark structure functions can be described by a fixed power of x behavior [46-54] as

      Fc(b)2=fQ(Q2)xλeff.

      (13)

      The gluon exponent at low values of x is described by the hard pomeron, as the fixed coupling LLx BFKL solution gives the value λg0.5, although dependence on Q2 is expressed in the effective exponent defined in Refs. [55-58]. In the literature, fits to experimental data suggest that hard pomerons dominate the behavior of the heavy quark structure function. It is suggested that this behavior can be shown in the form of Eq. (13), where we assume that λceffλbeff. The heavy quark behavior at low x is determined by the gluon behavior, so λceffλbeff=λg.

      Within the dipole formulation of the γp scattering [59-62], the gluon density is modelled as xg(x,μ2)=34π2αsσ0R20(x), where R0(x) is the saturation scale. This function decreases when x0 as R20(x)=1GeV2(xx0)λg. The parameters of the model (i.e., σ0 and x0) are defined in Refs. [59-62]. In the color dipole model (CDM), the saturation exponent λg is defined from a fit to low-x data as λg0.3. In this analysis, we will try to select the gluon exponent value corresponding to the average of the hard pomeron and color dipole model, where 0.3λg0.5. Here the lower limit corresponds to the saturation exponent and the upper limit corresponds to the hard pomeron exponent.

      In recent years [63-77], various successful phenomenological methods have examined charm and beauty structure functions. This importance, along with the t-quark density, can be explored at future circular collider energies. One of the important top quark production modes is t¯t photoproduction [78-89]. The total cross-section prediction at the LHeC is 0.05 pb [90]. These studies may lead us to new physics in the future.

    III.   METHOD
    • Based on the hard pomeron behavior of the distribution functions, the ratio of heavy quark structure functions is formulated based on the coefficient functions and gluon exponent. After integrating over z, the ratio FL/F2 for heavy quarks can be rewritten in a convolution form as the ratio FQ¯QL/FQ¯Q2, defined by

      FQ¯QLFQ¯Q2=CQ¯QL,g(x,ξ)xλgCQ¯Q2,g(x,ξ)xλg,

      (14)

      where [fg](x)=1x(dy/y)f(y)g(y). In analytical form, the power-like behavior of the heavy quark structure functions is generically written as follows:

      ln1xlnFQ¯QL(x,Q2)FQ¯Q2(x,Q2)=λQ¯QLλQ¯Q2=ln1xlnCQ¯QL,g(x,ξ)xλgCQ¯Q2,g(x,ξ)xλg.

      (15)

      The exponents λL and λ2 for heavy quark production are defined by the derivatives of the heavy quark structure functions in the following forms:

      λQ¯QL=lnFQ¯QL(x,Q2)/ln(1/x),λQ¯Q2=lnFQ¯Q2(x,Q2)/ln(1/x).

      (16)

      The importance of the relationship between σQ¯Qred and FQ¯Q2(x,Q2) in Eq. (4) depends on the functions of f(y) and the ratio FQ¯QL/FQ¯Q2. With high inelasticity, where f(y)1, the importance of the longitudinal structure function in the production of heavy quark pairs will be revealed in the LHeC and FCC-eh. In comparisons with the latest data collected in HERA [3], we can see an increase in values of Q^{2} and a decrease in values of x at new energies.

      HERA data are expressed in terms of two variables, x and Q^{2} . At low x we define a new variable such that Q^{2}/x{\simeq}W^{2} . W^{2} refers to the photon-proton center-of-mass energy. Indeed, the heavy quark structure functions are given by the single variable W^{2} as

      \begin{aligned}[b] F_{L}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}}(x,Q^{2}) =& F_{L}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}}\left(W^{2} = \frac{x}{Q^{2}},Q^{2}\right),\\ F_{2}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}}(x,Q^{2}) =& F_{2}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}}\left(W^{2} = \frac{x}{Q^{2}},Q^{2}\right). \end{aligned}

      (17)

      According to power-like behavior, the heavy quark structure functions can be stated as:

      \begin{aligned}[b] F_{L}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}}(W^{2}){ \sim} (W^{2})^{\lambda_{L}},\quad F_{2}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}}(W^{2}){ \sim} (W^{2})^{\lambda_{2}}. \end{aligned}

      (18)

      The exponents now are defined by the following forms:

      \begin{aligned}[b]& \lambda_{L}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}} = \frac{\partial \ln F_{L}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}}(W^{2})}{\partial \ln W^{2}},\\ &\lambda_{2}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}} = \frac{\partial \ln F_{2}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}}(W^{2})}{\partial \ln W^{2}}. \end{aligned}

      (19)

      {\Rightarrow}\; {\Delta}\lambda_{L2}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}} = \lambda_{L}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}}- \lambda_{2}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}} = \frac{\partial }{\partial \ln W^{2}}\ln \frac{F_{L}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}}(W^{2})}{F_{2}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}}(W^{2})}.

      (20)
    IV.   RESULTS

      A.   Charm and beauty

    • In Refs. [1] and [2], the reduced cross-sections and structure functions of the charm and beauty quarks at center-of-mass energies \sqrt{s} = 319\; \mathrm{GeV} and \sqrt{s} = 318\; \mathrm{GeV} can be observed respectively. The masses of the charm and beauty quarks are set to m_{c} = 1.5\; \mathrm{GeV} and m_{b} = 4.75\; \mathrm{GeV} respectively. The extracted values of \dfrac{F_{L}^{c\overline{c}}}{F_{2}^{c\overline{c}}} and \dfrac{F_{L}^{b\overline{b}}}{F_{2}^{b\overline{b}}} from the HERA data in Refs. [1] and [2] are given in Figs. 1 and 2 respectively. In these figures the ratio of structure functions for the charm and beauty quarks is plotted over a wide range of the invariant mass W^{2} . Calculations allowed the invariant mass W^{2} to vary in the interval 5000<W^{2}<60000\; \mathrm{GeV}^{2} when x and Q^{2} vary according to the HERA data. We observe that these ratios of structure functions are statistically very scattered. However, according to Eq. (19), the linear fit of these HERA data indicates the difference between intercepts for charm and beauty quark production. The results of this linear fit are given in Table 2. Our belief is that the behavior of \lambda_{2}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}} corresponds to hard pomeron behavior. Based on this, the \lambda_{L}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}} intercept can be determined based on the HERA data. Nevertheless, the data have the striking property that the ratio of structure functions behaves according to the following form:

      Figure 1.  (color online) Ratio of charm structure functions, with respect to HERA data (H1 2010 [1] and ZEUS 2014 [2]), shown as a function of W^{2} values.

      Figure 2.  (color online) Ratio of beauty structure functions, with respect to HERA data (H1 2010 [1] and ZEUS 2014 [2]), shown as a function of W^{2} values.

      HQPP \Delta{\lambda}_{L2}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}} Coll. Data
      c\overline{c} {\sim} -0.68 Ref. [1]
      c\overline{c} {\sim} -0.77 Ref. [2]
      b\overline{b} {\sim} -0.24 Ref. [1]
      b\overline{b} {\sim} -0.41 Ref. [2]

      Table 2.  \Delta{\lambda}_{L2}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}} = \lambda_{L}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}}- \lambda_{2}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}} determined for heavy quark pair production (HQPP) according to HERA data in Refs. [1, 2].

      \frac{F_{L}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}}(W^{2})}{F_{2}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}}(W^{2})}. \frac{f_{2}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}}}{f_{L}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}}} = (W^{2})^{\Delta{\lambda_{L2}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}}}},

      (21)

      where F_{2,L}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}}(W^{2}){ \simeq}f_{2,L}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}}. (W^{2})^{\lambda_{2,L}} . Figure 3 shows this ratio (i.e., Eq. (21)) according to Table 2, and shows that the importance of measuring the longitudinal structure function for the beauty quark is not less than that of the charm quark. In this figure, \Delta\lambda = \lambda_{L}-\lambda_{2} is obtained from a linear fit to the heavy quark structure functions into the invariant center-of-mass energy. Because the heavy quark longitudinal structure function data scatter is high for H1 and ZEUS (according to Figs. 1 and 2), the linear fit of the data shows a noticeable difference in this figure. However, these fits can give comparable results below. According to Eq. (14), our results for the ratio F_{L}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}}/F_{2}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}} are described in Fig. 4 for charm and beauty quarks over a wide range of invariant mass W^{2} . The masses of the charm and beauty quarks are defined according to Table 3. In this figure, our results at Q^{2} = 60 and 80\; \mathrm{GeV}^{2} are compared with HERA data from Refs. [1, 2]. These results are comparable with HERA data. As we see in this figure (i.e., Fig. 4, the value of this ratio is almost constant over a wide range of invariant mass. This ratio for the charm quark at both Q^{2} values is almost 0.21 and for the beauty quark it is almost 0.13-0.15 . This conclusion for the charm quark is close to the results given in Refs. [36-41, 63-71, 91-93]. In Fig. 5 we present the ratio F_{L}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}}/F_{2}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}} for charm and beauty quarks as a function of Q^{2} at W = 200\; \mathrm{GeV} . We can see that the obtained results are in agreement with those from experiment. The maximum value for charm and beauty ratios is the same and is equal to \simeq 0.21 over a wide range of Q^{2} values. This maximum value shifts to larger Q^{2} values for the beauty quark. Indeed, it shifts from Q^{2}{\simeq}60\; \mathrm{GeV}^{2} for charm to Q^{2}{\simeq}800\; \mathrm{GeV}^{2} for the beauty quark. In these calculations, the errors are due to calculation errors related to the charm and beauty quark masses and the gluon intercept. Indeed, the average of the hard pomeron and color dipole models for the gluon exponent is assumed as \lambda_{g} = 0.4{\pm} 0.1 . In this figure we also compare our results for the ratio of structure functions for charm and beauty with HERA data [1, 2]. Although errors related to the experimental data are not available, the comparison of these results with HERA data are very good. It should be noted that the data collected from HERA are related to 175<W<225\; \mathrm{GeV} , and this is the reason for the error between our results (at W = 200\; \mathrm{GeV} ) and HERA data.

      Figure 3.  (color online) Behavior of function (W^{2})^{\Delta\lambda} , for (left) charm and (right) beauty, with respect to HERA data (H1 2010 [1] and ZEUS 2014 [2]), shown as a function of W^{2} values. \Delta\lambda = \lambda_{L}-\lambda_{2} is obtained from a linear fit to the structure functions into the invariant center-of-mass energy.

      Figure 4.  (color online) Obtained F_{L}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}}/F_{2}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}} for charm and beauty pair production, shown as a function of W^{2} for Q^{2} = 60 and 80\; \mathrm{GeV}^{2} . The error bands show the mass error and the gluon exponent error added in prediction. The combined HERA data [1, 2] are also shown.

      Quark Mass exp/fit Model Parameterization
      c 1.290 GeV ^{{+0.046}}_{{-0.041}} ^{{+0.062}}_{{-0.014}} ^{{+0.003}}_{{-0.031}}
      b 4.049 GeV ^{{+0.104}}_{{-0.109}} ^{{+0.090}}_{{-0.032}} ^{{+0.001}}_{{-0.031}}

      Table 3.  Heavy quark masses, with statistical and systematic uncertainties [3].

      Figure 5.  (color online) The ratio F_{L}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}}/F_{2}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}} for charm and beauty pair production, shown as a function of Q^{2} for fixed W^{2} . The error bands show the mass error and the gluon exponent error added in prediction. Our results for charm and beauty are shown for W = 200\; \mathrm{GeV} and compared with H1 2010 [1] and ZEUS 2014 [2] data in 175<W<225\; \mathrm{GeV} .

      Now we focus attention on the energy shift from HERA to the LHeC. LHeC data will also allow us to increase our knowledge of heavy flavour structure functions [94, 95]. Due to the increase in center-of-mass energy in new colliders, the LHeC will provide data on charm and beauty structure functions extending over nearly 5 and 6 orders of magnitude in x and Q^{2} respectively [27, 28]. According to the predicted energy range for the LHeC, the center-of-mass energy will be in the range 10^{2}{\leqslant}W^{2}{\leqslant} 10^{6}\; \mathrm{GeV}^{2} . In Fig. 6, phenomenological predictions of the charm and beauty structure functions are determined at center-of-mass energy \sqrt{s} = 1.3\; \mathrm{TeV} . We can see that as the energy increases, the maximum values for these ratios are still \simeq 0.21 . However, the value of Q^{2} increases slightly, as the maximum ratio value F_{L}^{c\overline{c}}/F_{2}^{c\overline{c}} is of the order {\cal{O}}(100\; \mathrm{GeV}^{2}) , and the maximum ratio value F_{L}^{b\overline{b}}/F_{2}^{b\overline{b}} is of the order {\cal{O}}(1000\; \mathrm{GeV}^{2}) . In this figure (i.e., Fig. 6, we show the Q^{2} dependence of the heavy quark structure functions evaluated at NLO analysis.

      Figure 6.  (color online) Theoretical predictions for the ratio of (left) charm and (right) beauty structure functions at \sqrt{s}{ = }1.3\; \mathrm{TeV} (LHeC center-of-mass energy) shown as a function of W^{2} for different Q^{2} values. The predictions for different inelasticity y values are also shown.

    • B.   Top

    • Top quark pairs can be produced the LHeC and FCC-eh from \gamma^{*}p{\rightarrow}t\overline{t} reactions. DIS measurements at LHeC and FCC-eh will allow determination of the top distribution function. The production of top quarks in electron-proton collisions at LHeC and FCC-eh can provide a stringent test of new physics at ultra-high energy (UHE), with the proposed center-of-mass energies being 1.3 and 3.5\; \mathrm{TeV} respectively. One of the QCD corrections in top quark production is the QCD coupling \alpha_{s}(\mu^{2}) ( \mu^{2}{\propto}\beta^{2}\widehat{s} where \beta is the {\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}} relative velocity and \widehat{s} = 4m_{t}^{2} ) [94, 95]. The running coupling constant at the LHeC is the H1 result at NNLO analysis with 0.2% uncertainty from the LHeC and 0.1% uncertainty when combined with HERA data [24-29, 96]. Here we use the active number of flavors n_{f} = 6 in the running of \alpha_{s} [27-29]. Because the top threshold is high enough, the range of inelasticity changes is very important in determining the ratio F_{L}^{t\overline{t}}/F_{2}^{t\overline{t}} . For Q^{2} = 40000-50000\; \mathrm{GeV}^{2} , where Q^{2}>m_{t}^{2} ( m_{t} = 172{\pm} 0.5\; \mathrm{GeV} ), the area available in the future colliders covers the inelasticity from 0.300<y<0.800 and 0.080< y<0.850 at LHeC and FCC-eh respectively. The Wilson coefficient functions experience a slow rescaling by replacing z{\rightarrow}\chi . This changes the integration range of z in the convolutions to x\left(1+\dfrac{4m_{t}^{2}}{Q^{2}}\right){\leqslant}z{\leqslant}1 with the Bjorken variable x [34]. In the following we will discuss the ratio F_{L}^{t\overline{t}}/F_{2}^{t\overline{t}} in t\overline{t} production at the LHeC and FCC-eh. In Fig. 7 we present this ratio for Q^{2} = 40000 and 50000\; \mathrm{GeV}^{2} as a function of W^{2} . Because 0<y{\leqslant}1 , the range of x changes is very limited. Notice that the large inelasticity is only for scattered electron energies much smaller than the electron beam energy (i.e., E'_{e}{\ll}E_{e} and y = 1-E'_{e}/E_{e} ). In this region where E'_{e} is small, the electromagnetic and hadronic backgrounds are important [27, 28]. The maximum value for the ratio F_{L}^{t\overline{t}}/F_{2}^{t\overline{t}} with respect to the inelasticities (i.e., 0.300<y<0.800 and 0.080<y<0.850 at LHeC and FCC-eh, respectively) is almost \simeq 0.1 . Of course, this value for the ratio F_{L}^{t\overline{t}}/F_{2}^{t\overline{t}} also increases to \simeq 0.21 , when both Q^{2} and x values increase. In this regard, the Q^{2} value must be of order {\cal{O}}(100000\; \mathrm{GeV}^{2}) at LHeC and of order {\cal{O}}(1000000\; \mathrm{GeV}^{2}) at FCC-eh, with the x value of order {\cal{O}}(0.1) . All these predictions can be seen in Fig. 8. In this figure, the ratio of structure functions results for charm, beauty and top pair production are visible for the range of energies available for future accelerators. However, this range of x and Q^{2} will be seen in future accelerators.

      Figure 7.  (color online) Theoretical predictions for the ratio of top structure functions at \sqrt{s}{ = }1.3\; \mathrm{TeV} (LHeC center-of-mass energy, left) and at \sqrt{s}{ = }3.5\; \mathrm{TeV} (FCC-eh center-of-mass energy, right) shown as a function of W^{2} for Q^{2} = 40000 and 50000\; \mathrm{GeV}^{2} . The predictions for different inelasticity y values are also shown.

      Figure 8.  (color online) Theoretical predictions for the ratio of charm and beauty structure functions at LHeC center-of-mass energy and also the ratio of top structure functions at LHeC and FCC-eh center-of-mass energies shown as a function of Q^{2} for y=0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8.

      For the calculations presented, we considered the mass error and the gluon exponent error. In all figures, bandwidth errors are included. In Fig. 9, we consider the effect of the renormalization/factorization scale uncertainty in the ratio F_{L}/F_{2} for charm and beauty due to the LHeC center-of-mass energy. The left and right panels of Fig. 9 show the ratio F_{L}/F_{2} for charm and beauty as a function of Q^{2} for x = 0.001 respectively. Our NLO results for \mu_{c(b)} = 2m_{c(b)} and \mu_{c(b)} = \sqrt{4m^{2}_{c(b)}+Q^{2}} are presented in this figure, where they are compared with the quantities represented in Refs. [36-41] (A. Y. Illarionov, B. A. Kniehl and A. V. Kotikov, Phys. Lett. B 663, 66 (2008)) and [63-71] (N. Ya. Ivanov, and B. A. Kniehl, Eur. Phys. J. C 59, 647(2009)). In both references, the ratios are independent of the choice of the gluon distribution. These approaches based on perturbative QCD and k_{T} factorization give similar predictions for the ratio of the heavy quark structure functions. One of these studies (N. Ya. Ivanov, and B. A. Kniehl, Eur. Phys. J. C 59, 647(2009)) provides an analytical result for the ratio of structure functions for arbitrary values of the parameter \lambda_{g} in terms of the Gauss hypergeometric function. They consider compact formulae for the ratio in two particular cases, \lambda_{g} = 0 and \lambda_{g} = 0.5 . The simplest case leads to a non-singular behavior at small x for the structure functions and the other (i.e., \lambda_{g} = 0.5 ) originates from the BFKL resummation of the leading powers of \ln(1/x) . In the other reference, the authors provide compact formulae for the ratio of structure functions with respect to the Mellin transform. In the following, for low and moderate Q^{2} , one should take quark mass into account. We therefore replace x{\rightarrow}\left(1+\dfrac{4m^{2}_{{\cal{Q}}}}{Q^{2}}\right)x in the formula for the ratio of heavy quark structure functions. The behavior of the ratios is much less sensitive to the choice of scale \mu at low and moderate values of Q^{2} , as seen by comparing the corresponding curves in the two figures. For Q^{2}{\gg}4m^{2}_{c(b)} , the NLO predictions exhibit an appreciable scale dependence. One can see that all the considered NLO predictions agree with the results in the literature, with a good accuracy.

      Figure 9.  (color online) Comparison of F_{L}/F_{2} calculations for (left) charm and (right) beauty vs. Q^{2} with two different choices of \mu . These results are compared with LO (solid lines) and NLO (dashed lines for \mu = \sqrt{4m^{2}+Q^{2}} and dotted lines for \mu = 2m ) quantities from Refs. [36-41] (A. Y. Illarionov, B. A. Kniehl, and A. V. Kotikov, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 663}, \;66 \;(2008) ) and also with results Refs. [63-71] (N. Ya. Ivanov and B. A. Kniehl, Eur. Phys. J. C {59},\; 647\;(2009) ) (black points) at x = 0.001.

    V.   SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
    • We have presented the ratio F_{L}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}}/F_{2}^{{\cal{Q}}\overline{{\cal{Q}}}} for charm and beauty pair production with respect to HERA data. The behavior of these ratios are in good agreement with experimental data over a wide range of W^{2} values. A power-law behavior for the ratio of structure functions for heavy quark pair production is predicted. Results as a function of Q^{2} for an invariant constant value are in agreement with those found in the literature in the framework of perturbative QCD. We have also studied the production of heavy quark pairs in future electron-proton colliders (LHeC and FCC-eh). The ratio of charm and beauty structure functions were studied at the center-of-mass energy \sqrt{s} = 1.3\; \mathrm{TeV} , which is proposed for the LHeC. For top quark pair production, which will be an important production channel at both LHeC and FCC-eh, the ratio of structure functions was determined and compared with respect to the center-of-mass energies in the future colliders. The results of numerical calculations for heavy quarks in the LHeC and FCC-eh are available with respect to the inelasticity, defined in accordance with the center-of-mass energies. These results highlight the importance of measuring the longitudinal structure function in the production of heavy quarks in the future, with respect to the energies available in the new accelerators.

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • The author is thankful to Razi University for financial support of this project. The author is also especially grateful to Max Klein for carefully reading the manuscript and for fruitful discussions. Thanks also go to H. Khanpour for interesting and useful discussions.

Reference (96)

目录

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return