- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Dijet correlations at BNL RHIC: Leading-order kt-factorization approach versus next-to-leading order collinear approach

A. Szczurek1,2,*, A. Rybarska1, and G. Ślipek1

  • 1Institute of Nuclear Physics PAN, PL-31-342 Cracow, Poland
  • 2University of Rzeszów, PL-35-959 Rzeszów, Poland

  • *antoni.szczurek@ifj.edu.pl
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 76, 034001 – Published 3 August, 2007

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.034001

Abstract

We compare results of the kt-factorization approach and the next-to-leading-order collinear-factorization approach for dijet correlations in proton-proton collisions at RHIC energies. We discuss correlations in azimuthal angle as well as correlations in two-dimensional space of transverse momenta of two jets. Some kt-factorization subprocesses are included for the first time in the literature. Different unintegrated gluon/parton distributions are used in the kt-factorization approach. The results depend on unintegrated gluon distribution functions (UGDF)/unintegrated parton distribution function (UPDF) used. For the collinear next-to-leading order (NLO) case, the situation depends significantly on whether we consider correlations of any two jets or correlations of leading jets only. In the first case, the 2→2 contributions associated with soft radiations summed up in the kt-factorization approach dominate at ϕ∼π and at equal moduli of jet transverse momenta. The collinear NLO 2→3 contributions dominate over kt-factorization cross section at small relative azimuthal angles as well as for asymmetric transverse-momentum configurations. In the second case, the NLO contributions vanish at small relative azimuthal angles and/or large jet transverse-momentum disbalance due to simple kinematical constraints. There are no such limitations for the kt-factorization approach. All this makes the two approaches rather complementary. The role of several cuts is discussed and quantified.

View figure in article

Article Text

References (33)

  1. S. S. Adler et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 052301 (2006); PHENIX CollaborationPhys. Rev. C 73, 054903 (2006); PHENIX CollaborationPhys. Rev. Lett. 96, 222301 (2006); M. Oldenburg et al. (STAR Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. A774, 507 (2006).
  2. S. S. Adler et al. (PHENIX Collaborations), Phys. Rev. D 74, 072002 (2006).
  3. P. Levai, G. Fai, and G. Papp, Phys. Lett. B 634, 383 (2006).
  4. S. Catani, M. Ciafaloni, and F. Hautmann, Nucl. Phys. B366, 135 (1991); J. C. Collins and R. K. Ellis, B360, 3 (1991).
  5. J. Kwieciński, A. D. Martin, and A. M. Staśto, Phys. Rev. D 56, 3991 (1997); I. P. Ivanov and N. N. Nikolaev, 65, 054004 (2002); H. Jung and G. Salam, Eur. Phys. J. C 19, 351 (2002).
  6. S. P. Baranov and M. Smižanska, Phys. Rev. D 62, 014012 (2000).
  7. A. V. Lipatov, V. A. Saleev, and N. P. Zotov, arXiv:hep-ph/0112114; S. P. Baranov, A. V. Lipatov, and N. P. Zotov, Yad. Fiz. 67, 856 (2004).
  8. M. Łuszczak and A. Szczurek, Phys. Lett. B 594, 291 (2004).
  9. M. Łuszczak and A. Szczurek, Phys. Rev. D 73, 054028 (2006).
  10. A. V. Lipatov and N. P. Zotov, Phys. Rev. D 72, 054002 (2005).
  11. T. Pietrycki and A. Szczurek, Phys. Rev. D 75, 014023 (2007).
  12. A. Szczurek, Acta Phys. Pol. B 34, 3191 (2003).
  13. M. Czech and A. Szczurek, Phys. Rev. C 72, 015202 (2005); J. Phys. G 32, 1253 (2006).
  14. A. V. Lipatov and N. P. Zotov, Eur. Phys. J. C 44, 559 (2005); M. Łuszczak and A. Szczurek, 46, 123 (2006).
  15. J. Kwieciński and A. Szczurek, Nucl. Phys. B680, 164 (2004).
  16. A. Szczurek, N. N. Nikolaev, W. Schäfer, and J. Speth, Phys. Lett. B 500, 254 (2001).
  17. A. Leonidov and D. Ostrovsky, Phys. Rev. D 62, 094009 (2000).
  18. J. F. Owens, Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, 465 (1987); X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 61, 064910 (2000); Y. Zhang, G. Fai, G. Papp, G. G. Barnafoldi, and P. Levai, 65, 034903 (2002).
  19. J. Collins and H. Jung, arXiv:hep-ph/0508280.
  20. G. Watt, A. D. Martin, and M. G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C 31, 73 (2003); Phys. Rev. D 70, 014012 (2004).
  21. D. Ostrovsky, Phys. Rev. D 62, 054028 (2000).
  22. J. C. Collins, Acta Phys. Pol. B 34, 3103 (2003).
  23. M. Glück, E. Reya, and A. Vogt, Eur. Phys. J. C 5, 461 (1998).
  24. J. Kwieciński, Acta Phys. Pol. B 33, 1809 (2002); A. Gawron and J. Kwieciński, 34, 133 (2003); A. Gawron, J. Kwieciński, and W. Broniowski, Phys. Rev. D 68, 054001 (2003).
  25. D. Kharzeev and E. Levin, Phys. Lett. B 523, 79 (2001).
  26. A. J. Askew, J. Kwieciński, A. D. Martin, and P. J. Sutton, Phys. Rev. D 49, 4402 (1994).
  27. K. J. Eskola, A. V. Leonidov, and P. V. Ruuskanen, Nucl. Phys. B481, 704 (1996).
  28. I. P. Ivanov and N. N. Nikolaev, Phys. Rev. D 65, 054004 (2002).
  29. J. Bartels, A. Sabio Vera, and F. Schwennsen, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2006) 051.
  30. V. M. Abazov et al. (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 221801 (2005).
  31. A. Szczurek and A. Budzanowski, Phys. Lett. B 404, 141 (1997).
  32. V. D. Barger and R. J. N. Phillips, Collider Physics (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA, 1987).
  33. F. A. Berends, R. Kleiss, P. De Causmaecker, R. Gastmans, and T. T. Wu, Phys. Lett. 103B, 124 (1981).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 76, 034001– Published 3 August, 2007
  • Received 27 April 2007

© 2007 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation