text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1  Introduction

In supersymmetric models with spontaneous supersymmetry breaking superpartners of a Goldstone fermion — goldstino, pseudoscalar $`P`$ and scalar $`S`$, should exist. In various versions of gravity mediated and gauge mediated theories one or both of these weakly interacting bosons — sgoldstinos — are light and therefore can be observed in kaon decays. Moreover, if sgoldstino interactions with quarks conserve parity,(as in left-right extensions of MSSM), and P is lighter than S, so that $`m_S>(m_Km_\pi )`$ and $`m_P<(m_K2m_\pi )`$, sgoldstinos show up in the decay $`K\pi \pi P`$, rather than in much better constrained $`K\pi S`$. The phenomenology of light sgoldstinos in this scenario is considered in details in . Under assumption that sgoldstino interactions with quarks and gluons violate quark flavor and conserve parity, low energy interactions of pseudoscalar sgoldstino $`P`$ with quarks are described by the Lagrangian:

$$L=P(h_{ij}^D\overline{d}_ii\gamma ^5d_j+h_{ij}^U\overline{u}_ii\gamma ^5u_j)$$
(1)
with

$$d_i=(d,s,b),u_i=(u,c,t),$$
(2)
with coupling constants $`h_{ij}`$ proportional to the left-right soft terms in the matrix of squared masses of squarks:

$$h_{ij}^D=\frac{\text{}_{D,ij}^{(LR)2}}{\sqrt{2}F},h_{ij}^U=\frac{\text{}_{U,ij}^{(LR)2}}{\sqrt{2}F},$$
(3)
Here the scale of supersymmetry breaking is denoted as $`\sqrt{F}`$. The constraints on the flavor-violating coupling of sgoldstino to quarks is evaluated using the $`K_L^{}K_S^{}`$ mass difference and $`CP`$ violating parameter $`ϵ`$ in the neutral kaon system: $`|h_{12}^D|710^8;|Reh_{12}^DImh_{12}^D|<1.510^{17}`$ . It has been shown in  that, depending on the phase of sgoldstino-quark coupling, these constraints result in the following limits on the branching ratio: $`Br(K^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0P)1.5\times 10^6÷4\times 10^4`$ (see Fig. 1 for the diagram of the $`K^{}`$ decay). A search for P in charged kaon decays is of particular interest for the case $`Reh_{12}^D0`$, when the corresponding branching ratio of $`K_L`$ is small.
Light sgoldstino decays into two photons or into a pair of charged leptons, two photon decay dominating almost everywhere in the parameter space. Depending on the parameter $`g_\gamma =\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}\frac{M_{\gamma \gamma }}{F}`$, where $`M_{\gamma \gamma }`$ is the photino mass, sgoldstino decays either inside or outside the detector. In the present search we assume that sgoldstino decays outside the detector, i.e is invisible. The existing limits on the branching $`Br(K^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0P)`$ are at the level of $`410^5`$ , whereas the limits for the scalar sgoldstino $`S`$ can be estimated from the studies of the $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$ at the level of $`4.710^9`$, see  for recent review.

The aim of our present study is to search for invisible pseudoscalar sgoldstino in the decay of $`K^{}`$. Experimental setup and event selection are described in Section 2, the results of the analysis are presented in Section 3 and the conclusions are given in the last Section.

## 2  Experimental setup and event selection

### 2.1  Experimental setup

The experiment is performed at the IHEP 70 GeV proton synchrotron U-70. The spectrometer ISTRA+ has been described in some details in our recent papers on $`K_{e3}`$ , $`K_{\mu 3}`$  and $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ decays , here we briefly recall characteristics relevant to our analysis. The 40 m spectrometer ISTRA+ is located in the negative unseparated secondary beam line 4A of U-70. The beam momentum is $`25`$ GeV with $`\mathrm{\Delta }p/p2\%`$. The admixture of $`K^{}`$ in the beam is $`3\%`$, the beam intensity is $`310^6`$ per 1.9 sec U-70 spill. A schematic view of the ISTRA+ setup is shown in Fig. 2. The momentum of a beam particle deflected by the magnet M1 is measured by four proportional chambers BPC1—BPC4 with 1 mm wire step, the kaon identification is done by three threshold Cerenkov counters Č1—Č3. The 9 meter long vacuumated decay volume is surrounded by eight lead glass rings used to veto low energy photons. The same role is played by 72-cell lead glass calorimeter SP2. The decay products deflected in the magnet M2 with 1 Tm field integral are measured with 2 mm step proportional chambers PC1—PC3, with 1 cm cell drift chambers DC1—DC3 and finally with 2 cm diameter drift tubes DT1—DT4. A wide aperture threshold Cerenkov counter Č4 is filled with He and used to trigger electrons. SP1 is a 576-cell lead glass calorimeter, followed by HC — a scintillator-iron sampling hadron calorimeter. MH is a 11x11 cell scintillating hodoscope, used to solve ambiguity for multitrack events and improve the time resolution of the tracking system, MuH is a 7x7 cell muon hodoscope.

The trigger is provided by scintillation counters S1$`S_5`$, beam Cerenkov counters and by the analog sum of amplitudes from last dinodes of the SP1 : T=$`S_1S_2S_3\overline{S}_4\text{Č}_1\overline{\text{Č}}_2\overline{\text{Č}}_3\overline{S}_5\mathrm{\Sigma }(SP_1)`$, here S4 is a scintillation counter with a hole to suppress beam halo, S5 is a counter downstream of the setup at the beam focus, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(SP_1)`$ \- a requirement for the analog sum to be larger than a MIP signal. ,

During first run in March-April 2001, 363 million of trigger events were logged on DLT’s. During second physics run in November-December 2001 350 million trigger events were collected with higher beam intensity and somewhat stronger trigger requirements. This information is supported by about 100 million MC events generated using Geant3  for dominant $`K^{}`$ decay modes. Signal efficiency for possible sgoldstino production has been estimated using one million generated events for the first run configuration and 0.5 million events for the second run configuration, for each effective mass $`m_P`$ point in the mass interval from 0 to 200 MeV with a step of 10 MeV. These signal events were weighted using the matrix element given in .

### 2.2 Event selection

Data collected in two runs, Spring 2001, first run, and Winter 2001, second run, are used. Some information on the data processing and reconstruction procedures is given in , here we briefly mention the details, relevant for $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ \+ missing energy event selection.

The muon identification (see ) is based on the information from the SP1 — a 576-cell lead glass calorimeter and the HC — a scintillation-iron sampling calorimeter. The electron identification (see ) is done using $`E/p`$ ratio — of the energy of the shower associated with charged track and charged track momentum.

A set of cuts is designed in order to suppress various backgrounds to possible sgoldstino production:

0) Events with one reconstructed charged track and with two electromagnetic showers in the electromagnetic calorimeter SP1 are selected. We require the effective mass m$`(\gamma \gamma )`$ to be within $`\pm 40`$ MeV from m$`_\pi ^{}`$. The effective two-photon mass distributions

for two runs are shown in Fig. 3. Events with vertex inside interval $`400<z<1650`$ cm are selected.

1) Next cut is a ”soft” charged pion identification, tracks having electron or muon flag ( as described in  ) are rejected.

2) Events with missing energy $`E_{beam}E_\pi ^{}E_\pi ^{}`$ below 3 GeV are rejected. The cut on the missing energy serves to reduce $`K_{\pi 2}`$ contribution. In Fig. 4 missing energy spectra for the second run data, MC background and MC signal with $`m_P`$ of 90 MeV are compared.

3) Events with $`m(\gamma \gamma )`$ within $`\pm 36`$ MeV from m$`_\pi ^{}`$135 MeV a selected (Tough $`\pi ^{}`$ cut).

4) Fourth cut suppresses events with extra photons irradiated by charged particles in a detector material upstream M2-magnet. Such photons have nearly the same $`x`$ coordinate on the SP1 face as the charged track, i.e event is rejected if at least one photon has $`|x_{ch}x_\gamma |<10`$ cm.

5) Fifth cut removes events having good $`K_{e3}`$ 2C-fit.

6) The following cut is a restriction on the charged pion momentum $`p^{}`$ in the kaon rest frame: $`p^{}(\pi ^{})<180`$ MeV. It is designed to suppress the tails of the $`K_{\pi 2}`$ decay.

7) Seventh cut is against remaining muon contamination.It is required that the energy in SP1, associated with charged track, should exceed 0.7 GeV. This cut requires ”early” hadron shower in SP1 and has , unfortunately, low signal efficiency. We plan to get rid of it in our final analysis.

8) The following cut is designed to suppress $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\gamma `$ contribution: only the events with missing momentum crossing SP1 transverse plane within SP1 working aperture are selected.

9) The ”Veto” cut uses information from the Guard System GS and the guard electromagnetic calorimeter SP2: absence of signals above noise threshold is required. The influence of the ”Veto” cut on the two-photon effective mass spectrum is illustrated in Fig. 5. No $`\pi ^{}`$ signal is seen after the ”Veto” cut.

10) As a result of the previous cuts, $`\pi ^{}`$-signal practically disappears from the $`\gamma \gamma `$ mass spectrum. This allows to perform effective linear background subtraction procedure. The interval $`\pm 18`$ MeV around m$`(\pi ^{})`$ mass value is used as the signal region, remaining events are used for the background estimate.

The data reduction information is given in Table 1 for two runs and is compared in Tables 2,3 with MC-background statistics and with MC-signal statistics for the sgoldstino mass of $`m=90`$ MeV.

The influence of the last eight cuts on the missing mass squared spectrum $`(P_KP_\pi ^{}P_\pi ^{})^2`$, which is used as the signal ”estimator” is is shown in Fig. 6 for the second run data. The left wide bump in Fig. 6 is due to $`K_{\mu 3}`$ decays, the shift to negative missing mass squared is caused by the use of the pion mass in its calculations. Second peak is caused by $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}(\pi ^{})`$ decay with gammas from second $`\pi ^{}`$ escaping detection.

Fig. 7 illustrates the background subtraction procedure: in the first(third) figure the missing mass squared spectrum after cut 10 is shown for the first(second) run (solid curve) together with the normalized background(dashed curve) estimated from the $`m(\gamma \gamma )`$ spectrum side bands ( 99–117 MeV and 153–171 MeV). The second(forth) figure show signal-background difference for two runs. No sgoldstino signal is observed, the peak around 0.02 GeV2 is due to remaining $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}(\pi ^{})`$ background.

## 3  Analysis and results

In order to calculate the upper limits we have fitted the residual missing mass distribution by the sum of the background and the signal Gaussian with fixed width of $`\sigma =0.003`$ GeV2, as determined from the signal MC.

The signal MC is also used to determine the efficiency of our cuts. The background has been described by two components: the Gaussian for $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}(\pi ^{})`$ peak and a linear background. For the second run an additional wide Gaussian centered at -0.015 has been used. Fit results are illustrated in Fig. 7 for the first and second run, respectively.

The upper limits at the 90$`\%`$ confidence level are calculated from the value

$$N_{UL}=N_{obs}+1.64\sigma ,$$
(4)
where $`N_{obs}`$ is the number of events in the signal Gaussian. During the fit we impose the constraint that $`N_{obs}`$ is nonnegative. Sigma is a non-Gaussian error in $`N_{obs}`$. The upper limit $`UL`$ is calculated as

$$UL=\frac{N_{UL}0.21160.98798\epsilon (K_{\pi 2})}{N(K_{\pi 2})\epsilon }$$
(5)
with $`0.2116`$ equal to $`Br(K_{\pi 2})`$ ; with 0.98798 equal to $`Br(\pi ^{}\gamma \gamma )`$ and $`N(K_{\pi 2})`$ equal to the number of reconstructed $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ decays found to be 1500000 events for the first run and 4500000 events for the second run.

The values $`\epsilon `$ and $`\epsilon (K_{\pi 2})`$ are respective acceptances for $`K^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^{}P`$ and $`K_{\pi 2}`$ decays. The acceptance $`\epsilon (K_{\pi 2})`$ is equal to $`17.49\%`$ for the first run and $`24.92\%`$ for the second run. This acceptance includes both the reconstruction efficiency and geometrical acceptance. The results of the fits are given in Table 4. As the background conditions for the two runs are different, the first run provides better upper limits for some $`m_P`$ regions regardless of the lower luminosity. The estimated systematic errors for the upper limits are at the level of 20 $`\%`$.

The final result obtained using combined statistics of two runs is given in Table 5. The weighted ratio $`\epsilon (K_{\pi 2})/\epsilon `$ with the weights proportional to the runs statistics has been used for the combined data sample. Fig. 9 shows a comparison of our result with that published by the E787 collaboration .

Special attention should be paid to the region near m$`_\pi ^{}`$ mass. If we assume that the sgoldstino mass is exactly equal to that of $`\pi ^{}`$ and that the remaining $`\pi ^{}`$ peak is due to sgoldstino signal, then the upper limit for this point is $`2.810^4`$.

## 4 Summary and conclusions

A search for a possible pseudoscalar sgoldstino production in the decay $`K^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^{}P`$ has been performed. It was assumed that sgoldstino decays outside the setup, i.e is invisible. No signal is seen in the $`m_P`$ mass interval between 0 and 200 MeV. The 90$`\%`$ confidence upper limits obtained vary between $`2.010^5`$ and $`0.510^5`$ for the sgoldstino mass range of $`0÷190`$ MeV. These results improve the confidence limits published by the E787 Collaboration.

In future, we plan to extend our search for a sgoldstino signal in the scenario when the decay $`P\gamma \gamma `$ happens inside the setup.

The authors would like to thank D.S. Gorbunov, V.A. Matveev, V.A. Rubakov, for numerous discussions.

The INR part of the collaboration is supported by the RFFI fund contract N00-02-16074.


format: text

text:
# A New 5-Flavour LO Analysis and Parametrization of Parton Distributions in the Real Photon

## I Introduction

The photon structure function was recognized as an important quantity already in the early days of the Parton Model zerwas . It has attracted even more attention since the seminal paper by Witten WITTEN , which shows that $`F_2^\gamma `$ can serve as a unique test of QCD. This expectation was based on the fact that the (asymptotic) point-like solution of the $`Q^2`$ evolution equation, summing the leading QCD corrections, can be obtained for $`F_2^\gamma `$ without additional assumptions. Further studies showed the need of the hadronic, VMD-type, contribution to $`F_2^\gamma `$, and consequently the need of an input, as for every other hadronic structure function.

The structure function $`F_2^\gamma `$ is extracted from measurements in deep inelastic scattering on a photon target, which can be performed in $`e^+e^{}`$ experiments. The $`F_2^\gamma `$ data are used to construct parametrizations of the parton distributions in the photon. The need for a resolved photon interaction, i.e. where a photon interacts via its partonic agents, has become apparent in other type of processes involving photons, namely in the production of particles with a large transverse momentum. A recent review of the experimental situation and the existing parametrizations can be found in NISIUS .

Our motivation for a new global analysis of the $`F_2^\gamma `$ data and for constructing a new parton parametrization for a real unpolarized photon is twofold. On the one hand, there is a vast amount of new experimental data on $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ that has not been used yet to produce the parton parametrizations for the photon. Two recent parametrizations, GRV grv92  and GRS grs , used respectively about 70 and 130 experimental points, while at present a total of 208 independent $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ points exist. On the other hand, there are discrepancies between the theoretical calculations and experimental results for some processes initiated by real photons in which heavy quarks are produced111Discrepancies were also observed in $`b`$-quark production at the $`p\overline{p}`$ collider bb .. Let us just mention here the $`D^{}`$\- and $`D_s`$-meson photoproduction dstar , ds  and Frix  or the $`D^{}`$-meson production with associated dijets dstar  at HERA, as examples. The disagreement between the theoretical and experimental results is even more profound for the open beauty-quark production in both HERA bhera  and LEP bqOPAL ; bqL3  measurements.

The idea of the radiatively generated parton distributions has been successfully introduced by the GRV group first to describe the parton distributions in the nucleon grvn  and pion grvp , and later to create the LO and NLO parton parametrization for the real grv92  and virtual grst  photon. Here we follow this approach for a real photon case, limiting ourselves, to the analysis based on the LO QCD. The NLO analysis is under preparation.

As mentioned above there is a problem with the QCD description of heavy-quark production in processes initiated by photons. Therefore, our analysis especially focuses on the heavy-quark contributions to the $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$. We apply a new Variable Flavour-Number Scheme (VFNS) approach, denoted by ACOT($`\chi `$), proposed for heavy-quark production in the $`ep`$ collision (“electroproduction”) in tung . For comparison we perform a standard Fixed Flavour-Number Scheme (FFNS) fit as well. Since these two approaches are based on very distinct schemes, and since they need different evolution programs, we will refer to them as to two models, CJKL (ACOT($`\chi `$) type) and FFNSCJKL models, respectively.

Our paper is divided into six parts. In section 2 we describe various approaches including the ACOT($`\chi `$) scheme tung , applied to the production of heavy quarks in hadronic processes. Section 3 is devoted to the description of the $`F_2^\gamma `$ in LO QCD, paying special attention to an implementation of the ACOT($`\chi `$) scheme in the calculation of the $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$. In section 4 a description of the two global fits performed by us is given. In particular, we present the solutions of the DGLAP evolution in both models. We describe in detail the assumptions for the input parton densities. In the fifth section of the paper, the results of the global fits are discussed and compared with the data for the $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$, and for the $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ averaged over various $`x`$-regions. A comparison with LEP data for $`F_{2,c}^\gamma `$ is presented in section 5 as well. The summary of the paper and an outlook of work in progress can be found in section 6. Finally, in the appendix we give a simple parametrization of the CJKL (LO) parton distributions.

## II Various schemes for a description of heavy-quarks production: the proton-target case

In this section we describe various schemes, which are used in the calculation of the heavy-quark production in hadronic processes. There exist two standard schemes. In the FFNS, the light quarks ($`u,d`$ and $`s`$) and the heavy ones ($`c`$ and $`b`$) are treated on a different footing. The light ones are treated as being massless, and together with the gluons, are the only partons in the proton. The massive charm- and beauty-quarks are produced in the hard subprocesses: they can only appear in the final state of the process. In the second scheme, the Zero-mass Variable Flavour-Number Scheme (ZVFNS), when the characteristic hard scale of the process is larger than some threshold associated with a heavy quark, this quark is also considered as a massless parton in the proton, in addition to the three light quarks. In this way, the number of different types of quarks (flavours) that we treat as partons in the proton increases with the scale of the process.

For the Deep Inelastic Scattering on the proton (DISep), where the structure functions of the proton are measured, the condition for considering a heavy quark to be a parton of the proton is given by a simple (kinematic) threshold condition for the total energy in the $`\gamma ^{}p`$ collision $`W`$, namely $`W>2m_h`$ (from now on we will denote the heavy quarks by $`h`$). It defines the kinematically allowed region for the production of a heavy-quark pair. However, for the structure functions, e.g. $`F_2^p(x,Q^2)`$, and further for the parton densities $`q^p(x,Q^2)`$, not $`W`$ but the virtuality of the probing photon $`Q^2`$ is considered to be a natural scale. In the inclusive production of heavy quarks, their transverse momentum or mass is often taken as a characteristic (hard) scale $`\mu `$, where $`\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, at which parton densities of the initial hadrons are probed. The two, massive and massless, approaches are considered to be reliable in different $`\mu `$ regions. The FFNS loses its descriptive power when $`\mu m_h`$; on the other hand the ZVFNS does not seem appropriate if $`\mu m_h`$. In order to achieve a prescription working in all hard scale regions, various schemes trying to combine the two approaches have been proposed. They have a generic name: Variable Flavour-Number Schemes (VFNSs). The first of such approaches was introduced by the ACOT group in acot . Other groups, such as RT rth , BMSN bmsn  or CSN csnc , created their own versions of the VFNS222Reviews of the VFNS existing in the literature can be found in tung , csnc  and csnb ..

Let us discuss some aspects of the VFNS in more detail. The VFNS introduce the notion of “active quarks”, for which the condition $`\mu >m_q`$ is fulfilled. Such quarks can be treated as (massless) partons of the initial hadron(s). Light ($`u,d`$ and $`s`$) quarks are always active because for them $`\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}m_q`$. The heavy-quark densities vanish for $`\mu m_h`$, otherwise they differ from zero like in the ZVFNS. For example, for the charm quark we see that at $`\mu =m_c`$ we turn from a Three Flavour-Number Scheme to a Four Flavour-Number one. If $`N_f`$ equals the number of active (massless) quarks, we define the $`N_f`$-FNS as one where the $`N_f`$ first quarks are treated as light and the remaining quarks as heavy.

In calculations based on the VFNS we take into account the sum of all contributions, which would be included separately in the ZVFNS and FFNS. Such procedure requires a proper subtraction of the double-counted contributions. Such contributions have the form of the large logarithms $`\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2`$, and are already resummed in the density $`q_h(x,\mu ^2)`$.

An important aspect of the VFNS is the behaviour of the heavy-quark contributions in the threshold region. Let us discuss as an example the production of heavy quarks in DISep. As was already mentioned, a heavy quark can be considered as a parton of the proton if the centre of mass energy of the hard process is $`W>2m_h`$. However, if we use $`\mu ^2`$ equal to $`Q^2`$, where $`Q^2=W^2\frac{x}{1x}`$, and impose the threshold condition on $`\mu ^2`$, then, for any $`Q^2`$, it may happen (for small enough $`x`$) that $`q_h(x,Q^2)=0`$ in the kinematically allowed region, i.e. for $`W>2m_h`$. On the other hand, non-zero heavy-quark densities may appear in the kinematically forbidden region in the ($`x,Q^2`$) plane. Moreover, such conditions can lead to a very steep or even non-continuous growth of the heavy-quark distributions at the threshold.

In general one should ensure that all the ZVFNSs and relevant subtraction terms smoothly vanish when $`W2m_h`$. Then, the non-zero contributions should give only those terms which arise in the FFNS approach, since this approach should reliably describe the region $`W2m_h`$. Different threshold conditions were used in different analyses; in particular, the ACOT group proposed to use a variable $`\mu ^2`$ given by

$$\mu ^2=\{\begin{array}{cc}m_h^2+cQ^2(1m_h^2/Q^2)^n\hfill & \mathrm{for}Q^2>m_h^2,\hfill \\ m_h^2\hfill & \mathrm{for}Q^2m_h^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
where $`c=0.5`$ and $`n=2`$ in acot . Still, in their approach the heavy-quark densities satisfy the boundary condition at $`Q^2=m_h^2`$

$$q_h(x,\mu ^2)\{\begin{array}{cc}=0\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mu ^2=m_h^2(Q^2m_h^2),\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mu ^2>m_h^2(Q^2>m_h^2).\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
Recently, a purely kinematic solution of the threshold-behaviour problem has been found, on which the so-called ACOT($`\chi `$) scheme tung  is based. A new variable, $`\chi _hx(1+4m_h^2/Q^2)`$, has been introduced to replace the Bjorken $`x`$ as an argument in the heavy-quark $`h`$ density in the ZVFNS contributions. More details can be found in section 3.

Although the above discussion was focused on the proton case, the problems with the proper treatment of the heavy-quark thresholds in the parton distribution are very similar for any target. In this paper we adopt the ACOT($`\chi `$) scheme to the real photon case for the very first time.

## III Description of $`F_2^\gamma `$ in the ACOT($`\chi `$) scheme

In this section we first recall the basic facts related to the structure function $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ for the real photon. Then we introduce the ACOT($`\chi `$) approach for the photonic case.

### III.1 The parton densities in the photon

The Deep Inelastic Scattering on a real photon (DIS) allows us to measure the structure function $`F_2^\gamma `$, and also other structure functions, $`F_1^\gamma `$, $`F_L^\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{}`$, via the process

$$\gamma ^{}\gamma \mathrm{hadrons},$$
(3)
see \[1–3\]. In the Parton Model this is described at lowest order by the Bethe–Heitler (BH) process, $`\gamma ^{}\gamma q\overline{q}`$ (see Fig. 1).

In the leading logarithmic ($`\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$) approximation or, in short, in the leading order of QCD (LO QCD), the photon structure function $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ can be written in terms of quark (antiquark) densities $`q_i^\gamma (\overline{q}_i^\gamma )`$ as follows

$$\frac{1}{x}F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}e_i^2(q_i^\gamma +\overline{q}_i^\gamma )(x,Q^2),$$
(4)
where $`N_f`$ is the number of different quark flavours, that can appear in the photon (“active quarks”). Note that $`q_i^\gamma (x,Q^2)=\overline{q}_i^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$.

The evolution of the parton densities with $`\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$ is governed by the inhomogeneous DGLAP equations. In LO we have for a quark (similarly for an antiquark) and a gluon density

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dq_i^\gamma (x,Q^2)}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}e_i^2k(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left[P_{qq}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{y}}\right)q_i^\gamma (y,Q^2)+P_{qG}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{y}}\right)G^\gamma (y,Q^2)\right],`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dG^\gamma (x,Q^2)}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left[P_{Gq}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{y}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}}(q_i^\gamma +\overline{q}_i^\gamma )(y,Q^2)+P_{GG}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{y}}\right)G^\gamma (y,Q^2)\right].`$ (6)
The $`k(x)`$ term on the right-hand side of Eq. (5) comes from the Bethe–Heitler process of Fig. 1; for 3 colours we have

$$k(x)=3\left[x^2+(1x)^2\right].$$
(7)
The functions $`P_i(x)`$ are the LO splitting functions ap

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P_{qq}(x)& =\frac{4}{3}\left[\frac{1+x^2}{(1x)_+}+\frac{3}{2}\delta (1x)\right],\hfill \\ \hfill P_{qG}(x)& =\frac{1}{2}\left[x^2+(1x)^2\right],\hfill \\ \hfill P_{Gq}(x)& =\frac{4}{3}\frac{1+(1x)^2}{x},\hfill \\ \hfill P_{GG}(x)& =6\left[\frac{x}{(1x)_+}+\frac{1x}{x}+x(1x)\right]+\left[\frac{11}{2}\frac{N_f}{3}\right]\delta (1x).\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
Note that the function $`k(x)`$ describes a photon into quark splitting, so one has $`k(x)P_{q\gamma }(x)`$.

#### III.1.1 Heavy-quark contributions to $`F_2^\gamma `$ in the FFNS

The standard FFNS approach corresponds to a number of “active quarks” ($`N_f`$) =3, so only the light quarks (and their antiquarks) are taken into account in the sum in Eq. (4). The main heavy-quark contributions to $`F_2^\gamma `$ are obtained in this scheme from the corresponding Bethe–Heitler process (Fig. 1 with $`qh`$)

$$\gamma ^{}\gamma h\overline{h},$$
(9)
keeping the heavy-quark masses in the calculation. It reads

$$\frac{1}{x}F_{2,h}^\gamma (x,Q^2)|_{\mathrm{dir}}=3\frac{\alpha }{\pi }e_h^4\omega (x,Q^2),$$
(10)
with

$`\omega (x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta \left[1+8x(1x)x(1x){\displaystyle \frac{4m_h^2}{Q^2}}\right]`$ (11)
$`+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }}\right)\left[x^2+(1x)^2+x(13x){\displaystyle \frac{4m_h^2}{Q^2}}x^2{\displaystyle \frac{8m_h^4}{Q^4}}\right]`$
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_h^2x}{(1x)Q^2}}}=\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_h^2}{W^2}}}.`$ (12)
We call this contribution $`F_{2,h}^\gamma |_{\mathrm{dir}}`$ since here the real photon (i.e. the target photon) interacts directly. However, there exists another heavy-quark contribution, related this time to the process with the resolved initial photon, namely

$$\gamma ^{}G^\gamma h\overline{h},$$
(13)
with a gluonic parton of the photon target (as in Fig. 1 with $`\gamma G^\gamma `$); it gives

$$F_{2,h}^\gamma (x,Q^2)|_{\mathrm{res}}=\frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{2\pi }e_h^2_{\chi _h}^1\frac{x}{z}\omega (\frac{x}{z},Q^2)G^\gamma (z,Q^2)𝑑z,$$
(14)
where

$$\chi _hx\left(1+\frac{4m_h^2}{Q^2}\right).$$
(15)
#### III.1.2 Heavy-quark contributions to $`F_2^\gamma `$ in the ZVFNS

In the ZVFNS, the number of “active quarks” changes with the hard scale, as described in the previous section. For low scales the sum in Eq. (4) extends to $`N_f=3`$ but whenever a heavy quark threshold is surpassed the value of $`N_f`$ is increased by 1. It is worth mentioning that in some parton parametrizations for a real photon the heavy-quark densities do appear; however they are described in the threshold region $`W2m_h`$ only by the above Bethe–Heitler formula (Eqs. (10) and (11)). Moreover, instead of the restriction on $`W`$ one sometimes takes a (reasonable) condition on $`Q^2`$ (see, for instance, the GS parametrization gs ). Of course well above a heavy-quark threshold, such a quark can be included among the active (massless) quarks and then $`N_fN_f+1`$, see e.g. grvp .

### III.2 ACOT($`\chi `$) scheme for $`F_2^\gamma `$

The ACOT($`\chi `$) prescription combines the FFNS and ZVFNS, so that we have to add all relevant contributions from both approaches. For the light-quark contributions we take the form given in Eq. (4) with $`N_f=3`$, while for the heavy quarks we include the following terms:

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)|_{c,b}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{h(=c,b)}{\overset{2}{}}}\left[xe_h^2(q_h^\gamma +\overline{q}_h^\gamma )(x,Q^2)+F_{2,h}^\gamma (x,Q^2)|_{\mathrm{dir}}+F_{2,h}^\gamma (x,Q^2)|_{\mathrm{res}}\right],`$ (16)
where $`F_{2,h}^\gamma (x,Q^2)|_{\mathrm{dir}}`$ and $`F_{2,h}^\gamma (x,Q^2)|_{\mathrm{res}}`$ are given in Eqs. (10) and (14), respectively.

In Eq. (16) we double-count some heavy-quark contributions. Indeed, part of the $`F_{2,h}^\gamma |_{\mathrm{dir}}`$ contribution from $`\gamma ^{}\gamma h\overline{h}`$ corresponds to the collinear configuration. Such a configuration leads to a contribution proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$ and is already included in the DGLAP equation for $`q_h^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$, via the $`k(x)`$ term. Therefore we must subtract from (16) the following terms

$$F_{2,h}^\gamma |_{\mathrm{dir},\mathrm{subtr}}=x\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{m_h^2}3e_h^4\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\left(x^2+(1x)^2\right),$$
(17)
coming from an exact solution of a part of the DGLAP equation, namely

$$\frac{dq_h^\gamma (x,Q^2)}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }e_h^2k(x),$$
(18)
integrated over the $`Q^2`$ from $`m_h^2`$ to $`Q^2`$.

Similarly, $`F_{2,h}^\gamma |_{\mathrm{res}}`$ from the $`\gamma ^{}G^\gamma h\overline{h}`$ process, has a $`\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$ part that corresponds to the collinear configuration already included in the DGLAP equation for $`q_h^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$, via the $`P_{qG}\left(\frac{x}{y}\right)G^\gamma (y,Q^2)`$ term. The term to be subtracted reads, in this case:

$$F_{2,h}^\gamma |_{\mathrm{res},\mathrm{subtr}}=x\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{Q^2}{m_h^2}\right)e_h^2\frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{\pi }_x^1\frac{dy}{y}P_{qG}\left(\frac{x}{y}\right)G^\gamma (y,Q^2).$$
(19)
It is based on an approximated solution for the other part of Eq. (5), namely

$$\frac{dq_h^\gamma (x,Q^2)}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=\frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{2\pi }_x^1\frac{dy}{y}\left[P_{qG}\left(\frac{x}{y}\right)G^\gamma (y,Q^2)\right].$$
(20)
The solution (19) is obtained by the integration of Eq. (20) over the same $`Q^2`$ region as above, after neglecting the $`Q^2`$ dependence333 The $`Q^2`$-dependence will appear back in the final solution, in both $`\alpha _s`$ and $`G^\gamma `$, where it is then a correction of higher order in $`\alpha _s`$. of $`\alpha _s`$ and $`G^\gamma `$. The final subtraction term is

$$F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)|_{\mathrm{subtr};c,b}=\underset{h(=c,b)}{\overset{2}{}}\left[F_{2,h}^\gamma |_{\mathrm{dir},\mathrm{subtr}}+F_{2,h}^\gamma |_{\mathrm{res},\mathrm{subtr}}\right].$$
(21)
So, finally we have, for heavy-quarks: $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)|_{c,b}=\stackrel{~}{F}_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)|_{c,b}F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)|_{\mathrm{subtr};c,b}`$. A graphical representation of all terms included in the analysis, Eqs. (16) and (21), is presented in Fig. 2.

Further, we need to ensure that all terms containing the heavy-quark $`h`$ disappear when $`W2m_h`$. The FFNS contributions, $`F_{2,h}^\gamma |_{\mathrm{dir}}`$ (Eqs. (1012)) and $`F_{2,h}^\gamma |_{\mathrm{res}}`$ (Eqs. (14),(15)), behave properly at the thresholds. The problem emerges for the heavy-quark densities $`q_h^\gamma `$ and the subtraction terms (Eqs. (18),(19)). These terms do not naturally disappear for $`W2m_h`$. Fortunately, this problem can be cured; we noticed that the resolved-photon contribution in Eq. (14) vanishes for $`W2m_h`$ because then $`\chi _h1`$ and the corresponding integral disappears. So, we can do the same with the $`q_h^\gamma `$ distribution and the subtraction terms, if instead of $`x`$ we introduce the $`\chi _h`$ variable (Eq. (15)) slightly shifted from $`x`$. This way we force the heavy-quark distribution and the second term of the subtraction contribution (the integral term) to vanish at the corresponding threshold. Unfortunately, unlike for the proton, in the case of the photon we are left with the $`F_{2,h}^\gamma |_{\mathrm{dir},\mathrm{subtr}}`$ contribution, which is now proportional to $`\chi _h^2+(1\chi _h)^2`$ and does not vanish for $`\chi _h1`$. In the large-$`Q^2`$ region, where the ZVFNS is reliable, this change of variables is irrelevant. In the numerical calculations we ensure that the total contributions to $`F_2^\gamma `$ due to heavy quarks are not negative (positivity constraint). This way we effectively introduce small additional terms near the charm- and beauty-quark thresholds. The final formula for the $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ in the ACOT$`(\chi )`$ scheme reads444In our analysis we take the variable $`\chi _h`$ instead of $`x`$ in front of the bracket in the last sum on Eq. (III.2). The fit ($`\chi ^2`$ value) agrees with the fit based on Eq. (III.2) at the per cent level. At the same time the value of $`F_2^\gamma `$ around thresholds is shifted by up to $`10\%`$; also changing the form of the positivity constraint lead to changes of $`F_2^\gamma `$ in this region of similar size. Other subtraction terms and positivity constraints are under study and will be presented in a future publication

$`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}xe_i^2(q_i^\gamma +\overline{q}_i^\gamma )(x,Q^2)+{\displaystyle \underset{h(=c,b)}{\overset{2}{}}}xe_h^2(q_h^\gamma +\overline{q}_h^\gamma )(\chi _h,Q^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{h(=c,b)}{\overset{2}{}}}\left[F_{2,h}^\gamma (x,Q^2)|_{\mathrm{dir}}+F_{2,h}^\gamma (x,Q^2)|_{\mathrm{res}}\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{h(=c,b)}{\overset{2}{}}}x\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m_h^2}}\left[e_h^4{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}k(\chi _h)+e_h^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\chi _h}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}P_{qG}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\chi _h}{y}}\right)G^\gamma (y,Q^2)\right].`$
As can be seen the heavy-quark distributions are included in the second sum as $`q_h^\gamma (\chi _h,Q^2)`$, being $`\chi _h`$ functions of $`x`$ (and $`Q^2`$). We parametrize the final form obtained for these distributions in the Appendix as simple functions of $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$. 555Which means that any further $`x\chi _h`$ substitution is not needed.

The $`\chi _h`$ variables of the ACOT($`\chi `$) scheme recall the so-called “slow rescaling” obtained in early papers on the charm-quark production in the DISep (e.g. slowresc ), where the Bjorken $`x`$ was replaced with $`\zeta `$:

$$x\zeta =x\left(1+\frac{m_c^2}{Q^2}\right).$$
(23)
## IV Global fits - solving the DGLAP evolution

Using all the existing $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ data we perform two global fits, both based on the LO DGLAP evolution equations. One fit uses the ACOT$`(\chi )`$, the other a FFNS model for the heavy-quark contributions.

First we introduce the basic ingredients that are common for the two considered models.

### IV.1 Mellin moments

The LO DGLAP evolution equations are very much simplified if they are transformed into the Mellin-moments space. The $`n`$-th moment for the quark or gluon densities, $`f_i^\gamma `$, is defined by

$$f_i^{\gamma ,n}(Q^2)=_0^1x^{n1}f_i^{\gamma ,n}(x,Q^2)𝑑x.$$
(24)
Analogous definitions can be used for the splitting functions $`P_{ij}^n`$. The evolution equations in the Mellin space have the generic form

$$\frac{df_i^{\gamma ,n}(Q^2)}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }k_i^n(x)+\frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{2\pi }P_{ij}^nf_j^{\gamma ,n}(Q^2).$$
(25)
Obviously, the first term on the right-hand side appears only for the quark densities. For simplicity, in the following we will skip all subscripts and superscripts wherever possible.

### IV.2 Non-singlet and singlet parton densities

To solve the DGLAP equations we need to decompose the parton densities into the singlet and non-singlet (in flavour space) combinations. For the non-singlet (ns) case we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f_{\mathrm{ns}_{N_f}}^\gamma (Q^2)=& \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}(e_i^2e^2)\left[q_i^\gamma (Q^2)+\overline{q}_i^\gamma (Q^2)\right],\hfill \\ \hfill k_{\mathrm{ns}_{N_f}}=& 2N_f\left(e^4e^2^2\right)k\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
where

$$e^k=N_f^1\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}e_i^k$$
(27)
and $`e_i`$ stands for the corresponding quark electric charge. Similarly for the singlet (s) densities we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f_\mathrm{s}^\gamma (Q^2)=& \left[\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Sigma }^\gamma (Q^2)\\ G^\gamma (Q^2)\end{array}\right],\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }^\gamma (Q^2)=& \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}[q_i^\gamma (Q^2)+\overline{q}_i^\gamma (Q^2)].\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
In the singlet case the DGLAP equations (25) become a matrix equation with

$$\widehat{P}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}P_{qq}& 2N_fP_{qG}\\ P_{Gq}& P_{GG}\end{array}\right],\widehat{k}=\left[\begin{array}{c}k_\mathrm{s}\\ 0\end{array}\right]$$
(29)
with

$$k_\mathrm{s}=2N_fe^2k.$$
(30)
### IV.3 Point- and hadron-like parts

The solution of the DGLAP equations can be divided into the so-called point-like (pl) part, related to a special solution of the full inhomogeneous equation and hadron-like (had) part, arising as a general solution of the homogeneous equation. Their sum gives the partonic density in the photon, so we have

$$f^\gamma (Q^2)=f_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma (Q^2)+f_{\mathrm{pl}}^\gamma (Q^2)$$
(31)
where

$`f_{\mathrm{pl}}^\gamma (Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{\alpha _s(Q^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12P/\beta _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi \beta _0}}\left[1L^{12P/\beta _0}\right]k,`$
(32)
$`f_{\mathrm{had}}(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`L^{2P/\beta _0}f^\gamma (Q_0^2).`$
Here $`\beta _0=112N_f/3`$, $`P`$ equals $`P_{qq}`$ ($`\widehat{P}`$) for the non-singlet (singlet) parton densities, and $`L=\frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{\alpha _s(Q_0^2)}`$, where the $`Q_0^2`$ is the evolution starting (input) scale. Note that at $`Q^2=Q_0^2`$ the point-like part vanishes.

### IV.4 Input parton densities. VMD

Following grv92 , the input scale has been chosen to be small, $`Q_0^2=0.25`$ GeV2, hence our parton densities are radiatively generated. The point-like contributions are given by Eq. (30), while the hadronic parts need the input distributions. For this purpose we utilize the Vector Meson Dominance (VMD) model VMD , where

$$f_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma (x,Q_0^2)=\underset{V}{}\frac{4\pi \alpha }{\widehat{f}_V^2}f^V(x,Q_0^2),$$
(33)
with the sum running over all light vector mesons (V) into which the photon can fluctuate. The parameters $`\widehat{f}_V^2`$ can be extracted from the experimental data on the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Ve^+e^{})`$ width. In practice one takes into account the $`\rho ^0`$ meson666An attempt to include the $`J/\psi `$ meson in the evolution has been made pjank . and the contributions from other mesons are accounted for via a parameter $`\kappa `$, which is left as a free parameter. We take

$$f_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma (x,Q_0^2)=\kappa \frac{4\pi \alpha }{\widehat{f}_\rho ^2}f^\rho (x,Q_0^2).$$
(34)
In the GRV prescription grv92  the parton densities in the $`\rho ^0`$ meson are approximated by the pionic ones: $`f^\rho (x,Q_0^2)f^\pi (x,Q_0^2)`$. However, this assumption ignores among others the possible effects of the pseudo-Goldstone boson nature of the pion, and we are not using it in our analysis777Some indications that the valence distributions are indeed very different in the $`\pi `$ and $`\rho `$ mesons have been recently given in joffe .. Instead we use the input densities of the $`\rho ^0`$ meson at $`Q_0^2=0.25`$ GeV2 in the form of valence-like distributions both for the (light) quark ($`v^\rho `$) and gluon ($`G^\rho `$) densities. All sea-quark distributions (denoted by $`\zeta ^\rho `$) are neglected at the input scale. At this scale, the densities $`v^\rho ,G^\rho `$ and $`\zeta ^\rho `$ are related, according to Eq. (34) to the corresponding densities for a photon; see below.

The $`v^\rho `$ density is given by

$$v^\rho (x,Q_0^2)=\frac{1}{4}(u^{\rho ^+}+\overline{u}^\rho ^{}+d^\rho ^{}+\overline{d}^{\rho ^+})(x,Q_0^2),$$
(35)
where from the isospin symmetry

$$u^{\rho ^+}(x,Q_0^2)=\overline{u}^\rho ^{}(x,Q_0^2)=d^\rho ^{}(x,Q_0^2)=\overline{d}^{\rho ^+}(x,Q_0^2).$$
(36)
Note that all the densities in Eq. (35) are normalized to 1, i.e. $`_0^1u^{\rho ^+}𝑑x=1`$.

The following constraints should hold for the $`v^\rho (x,Q_0^2)`$ density. The first is related to a number of valence quarks in the $`\rho ^0`$ meson, and we have

$$_0^12v^\rho (x,Q_0^2)𝑑x=2.$$
(37)
The second constraint represents the energy-momentum sum rule

$$_0^1x\left(2v^\rho (x,Q_0^2)+G^\rho (x,Q_0^2)\right)𝑑x=1.$$
(38)
We parametrize the input densities as follows

$`x\zeta ^\rho (x,Q_0^2)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (39)
$`xv^\rho (x,Q_0^2)`$ $`=`$ $`N_vx^\alpha (1x)^\beta ,`$ (40)
$`xG^\rho (x,Q_0^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{N}_gxv^\rho (x,Q_0^2)=N_gx^\alpha (1x)^\beta ,`$ (41)
where $`N_g=\stackrel{~}{N}_gN_v`$, and impose two constraints given by Eqs. (37) and (38) in both models. These constraints allow us to express the normalization factors $`N_v`$ and $`N_g`$ as functions of $`\alpha ,\beta `$ and $`\kappa `$. This leaves these three parameters as the only free parameters to be fixed in the fits to the $`F_2^\gamma `$ experimental data.

### IV.5 FFNSCJKL model

In the FFNSCJKL model the number of “active quarks” ($`N_f`$) equals 3, so $`e^2=2/9`$.

To describe the hadron-like part of the solution of DGLAP equations for the photon, we introduce, apart from the valence-like quark and gluon densities, also the sea distribution $`\zeta _{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$. The up-, down- and strange-quark densities in the photon are then given by the following combinations

$`u_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`d_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[v_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)+2\zeta _{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)\right],`$ (42)
$`s_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\zeta _{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma (x,Q^2).`$ (43)
¿From Eqs. (26) and (28) we get (below we simply use $`f_{\mathrm{ns}}^\gamma `$ instead of $`f_{\mathrm{ns}_3}^\gamma `$):

$`f_{\mathrm{ns},\mathrm{had}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}v_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma (x,Q^2),`$ (44)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`2v_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)+6\zeta _{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma (x,Q^2).`$ (45)
After performing the DGLAP evolution of $`f_{\mathrm{ns},\mathrm{had}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ from $`Q_0^2`$ to higher $`Q^2`$, we calculate $`v_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ and $`\zeta _{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$. Finally, using formulae (42) and (43), we obtain the hadron-like part for the individual quark densities.

As the down- and strange-quarks have equal electric charges, there are only two different point-like distributions: $`u_{\mathrm{pl}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ and $`d_{\mathrm{pl}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)=s_{\mathrm{pl}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$. We calculate them again through the evolution of the singlet and non-singlet combinations of the parton densities. It can be easily checked that distributions read as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill u_{\mathrm{pl}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}6}}[& \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{pl}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)+9f_{\mathrm{ns},\mathrm{pl}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)],\hfill \\ \hfill d_{\mathrm{pl}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)=\frac{1}{12}[2& \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{pl}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)9f_{\mathrm{ns},\mathrm{pl}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)].\hfill \end{array}$$
(46)
Finally, the contribution due to the massive $`c`$\- and $`b`$-quarks are approximated by the Bethe–Heitler formula (10)–(12) for $`Q^2>4m_h^2`$.

### IV.6 CJKL model

In the CJKL model all terms originating from both FFNS and ZVFNS are included. This means that apart from the light-quark distributions we take into consideration $`c^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ and $`b^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$, which emerge in the ZVFNS, so here $`N_f=5`$.

When five “active quarks” are considered instead of three, the DGLAP evolution becomes slightly more complicated and we need more non-singlet parton densities than for the simple FFNS model. Here we need $`f_{\mathrm{ns}_2},f_{\mathrm{ns}_3},f_{\mathrm{ns}_4}`$, and $`f_{\mathrm{ns}_5}`$ (Eq. (26)) for both hadron- and point-like parts; using them and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, calculated for $`N_f=5`$, we can express individual quark densities888We introduce below $`c(x,Q^2)`$ and $`b(x,Q^2)`$ to describe densities of $`c`$\- and $`b`$-quarks, respectively, like in any standard massless scheme with 5 flavours. Note also that formally, at the moment, we have all five densities at each $`(Q^2,x)`$. These “initial” densities for $`c`$\- and $`b`$-quarks are later modified according to the ACOT prescription, leading to the final densities denoted by the same symbols; see main text for a detailed explanation. as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill u^\gamma & =\frac{1}{20}(+45f_{\mathrm{ns}_3}^\gamma 30f_{\mathrm{ns}_4}^\gamma +15f_{\mathrm{ns}_5}^\gamma +2\mathrm{\Sigma }^\gamma ),\hfill \\ \hfill d^\gamma & =\frac{1}{20}(60f_{\mathrm{ns}_2}^\gamma +45f_{\mathrm{ns}_3}^\gamma 30f_{\mathrm{ns}_4}^\gamma +15f_{\mathrm{ns}_5}^\gamma +2\mathrm{\Sigma }^\gamma ),\hfill \\ \hfill s^\gamma & =\frac{1}{20}(+60f_{\mathrm{ns}_2}^\gamma 45f_{\mathrm{ns}_3}^\gamma 30f_{\mathrm{ns}_4}^\gamma +15f_{\mathrm{ns}_5}^\gamma +2\mathrm{\Sigma }^\gamma ),\hfill \\ \hfill c^\gamma & =\frac{1}{20}(45f_{\mathrm{ns}_3}^\gamma +30f_{\mathrm{ns}_4}^\gamma +15f_{\mathrm{ns}_5}^\gamma +2\mathrm{\Sigma }^\gamma ),\hfill \\ \hfill b^\gamma & =\frac{1}{10}(+30f_{\mathrm{ns}_4}^\gamma 30f_{\mathrm{ns}_5}^\gamma +\mathrm{\Sigma }^\gamma ).\hfill \end{array}$$
(47)
For the hadron-like parts we consider, similarly to the FFNS case, the light-quarks densities given by Eq. (42). Among sea quarks we have now all types of quarks, in particular we have:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill s_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)=c_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)=b_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)& =\zeta _{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma (x,Q^2).\hfill \end{array}$$
(48)
This leads to the following relations

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f_{\mathrm{ns}_2,\mathrm{had}}^\gamma =& f_{\mathrm{ns}_4,\mathrm{had}}^\gamma =0\hfill \\ \hfill f_{\mathrm{ns}_3,\mathrm{had}}^\gamma =& \frac{1}{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}9}}v_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma ,\hfill \\ \hfill f_{\mathrm{ns}_5,\mathrm{had}}^\gamma =& \frac{1}{15}v_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma .\hfill \end{array}$$
(49)
valid at every $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$.

In the point-like case equality of the electric charges for the up-type and down-type quarks leads to the following relations: $`u_{\mathrm{pl}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)=c_{\mathrm{pl}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ and $`d_{\mathrm{pl}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)=s_{\mathrm{pl}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)=b_{\mathrm{pl}}^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$.

In our analysis, performed within the ACOT$`(\chi )`$ scheme, we evolve first the singlet and non-singlet distributions and we obtain in this way the gluon $`g(x,Q^2)`$ and light-quarks $`u,d,s(x,Q^2)`$ densities. In each heavy-quark density, i.e. for $`c`$ and $`b`$ quarks, we replace $`x`$ variable by the corresponding $`\chi _h`$ variable; let us recall that $`\chi _h=x\left(1+\frac{4m_h^2}{Q^2}\right)`$, with $`m_h`$ equal to $`m_c`$ and $`m_b`$, respectively. For such densities we perform DGLAP evolutions and obtain the resulting $`c(\chi _h,Q^2)`$ and $`b(\chi _h,Q^2)`$ distributions. We then compute the $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ using Eq. (III.2) and fit the parameters of the model to the experimental data, which is described in more detail in the next section.

Finally, we parametrize all our resulting parton distributions analytically with the possibly simple functions of $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$. This parametrization is given in the Appendix.

## V Global fits and results

We have performed two fits to all the available $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ data CELLO HQ2 . All together, 208 data points were used, including the recent high-$`Q^2`$ measurement of the OPAL collaboration HQ2 . Some of the data points are not in agreement with others. We will discuss in detail their influence on the fit in the next section. The fits based on the least-squares principle (minimum of $`\chi ^2`$) were done using Minuit minuit . Systematic and statistical errors on data points were added in quadrature.

The $`\alpha _s`$ value used in the fits was calculated from the LO formula, which depends on $`N_f`$

$$\alpha _s(Q^2)^{(N_f)}=\frac{4\pi }{\beta _0\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(N_f)})}\mathrm{with}\beta _0=11\frac{2}{3}N_f.$$
(50)
For $`N_f=4`$ we took the QCD scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(4)}`$ equal to 280 MeV RPP  with the assumption that the LO and NLO $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ values for four active flavours are equal, which is consistent with the GRV group approach grv92 . Values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for other $`N_f`$ can be calculated if one assumes a continuity of $`\alpha _s`$ at the heavy-quark thresholds $`Q^2=m_h^2`$. Assuming then that $`\alpha _s(m_h^2)^{(N_f)}=\alpha _s(m_h^2)^{(N_f+1)}`$ one obtains the relation

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(N_f+1)}=m_h(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(N_f)}/m_h)^{(332N_f)/(312N_f)},$$
(51)
which gives $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3)}=314`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(5)}=221`$ MeV. Finally, the masses of the heavy quarks are taken to be RPP : $`m_c=1.3`$ GeV and $`m_b=4.3`$ GeV.

The results of both fits are presented in Table 1. The second and third columns show the quality of the fits, i.e. the total $`\chi ^2`$ for 208 points and the $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom. The fitted values for parameters $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\kappa `$ are presented in the middle of the table. In addition, the values for $`N_v`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{N}_g`$ obtained from these parameters using the constraints (37) and (38) are given in the last two columns.

We see that the obtained $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom is better in the CJKL model than in the standard-type FFNS approach; however, it is not particularly good, owing the poor quality of some data used in the analyses. This fact has been already discussed in many papers, e.g. klasen , see also discussion in section 5.1.

The two fits to the same collection of data, although not very different as far as $`\chi ^2`$ is concerned, are obtained with very different sets of parameters. Note that $`\kappa `$ is close to 1 in the CJKL case, while for the other fit it is closer to 2. If this parameter is close to 1, we have in practice only the $`\rho `$ contribution at the input scale. However this is not the whole story since the $`\kappa N_v`$ and $`\kappa N_g`$ give full normalizations of the valence-like quark and gluon densities in the $`\gamma `$. Now, the $`N_v`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{N}_g`$ are much smaller in the standard approach than in the CJKL model. Finally, let us notice the large difference in both models, small and large $`x`$, of the fitted input densities, which correspond to very different $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ parameters, respectively. The FFNSCJKL model has $`\alpha `$ close to the standard (Regge) one for a valence-quark density ($`\alpha 10.5`$); however its $`\beta `$, which governs the large-$`x`$ behaviour, is very small, being far from 2, a standard prediction from the quark-counting rule joffe . On the other hand, the CJKL model gives $`\beta `$ closer to 2, while its $`\alpha 1`$ is close to zero.

### V.1 Comparison of the CJKL and FFNSCJKL fits with $`F_2^\gamma `$ data and other LO parametrizations

The $`\chi ^2`$ values, representing the quality of our LO fits, are compared in Table 2 with the corresponding $`\chi ^2`$ obtained by us using the GRS LO grs  and SaS1D sas  parametrizations to describe the present $`F_2^\gamma `$ data. The comparison is performed for a set of 205 data points, i.e. excluding the points with $`Q^2<0.26`$ GeV2 since they were not used in performing the GRS parametrization. The second column gives the number of independent parameters in each model. The overall $`\chi ^2`$ and $`\chi ^2/`$DOF values are given in the middle of the table for 205 data points. It is clear that both our fits give a better description of the experimental data than the previous parametrizations. This could be expected since we are including more data in our fits. The CJKL model gives the lowest value of $`\chi ^2/`$DOF, but it is still rather high. This may arise from the fact that we use all available data and, as it was stated (e.g. klasen ), the data published by the TPC/$`2\gamma `$ Collaboration TPC  are inconsistent with other measurements. We studied this point and in the last two columns of the table we present the $`\chi ^2`$ values calculated without the TPC/$`2\gamma `$ points. Indeed the $`\chi ^2/`$DOF then computed is visibly improved999Note that those data have been used in the fits.. A special CJKL fit performed without TPC/$`2\gamma `$ data gives $`\chi ^2`$/DOF equal to 1.78. The very recent NLO analysis performed in klasen  for 134 experimental points and with five independent parameters gives $`\chi ^2/\mathrm{DOF}=0.93`$.

Figures 36 show a comparison of the CJKL and FFNSCJKL fits to $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ with the experimental data as a function of $`x`$, for different values of $`Q^2`$. Also a comparison with the GRS LO and SaS1D parametrizations is shown. (If a few values of $`Q^2`$ are displayed in a panel, the average of the smallest and biggest one was taken in the computation.) As can be seen in Figs. 3 and 4, both CJKL and FFNSCJKL models predict a much steeper behaviour of the $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ at small $`x`$ with respect to other parametrizations. In the region of $`x0.1`$, the behaviour of the $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ obtained from the FFNSCJKL fit is similar to the ones predicted by the GRS LO and SaS1D parametrizations. The CJKL model gives lower prediction whenever the charm-quark threshold is surpassed, and slightly below this region, as is shown in Figs. 5 and 6.

Apart from this direct comparison with the photon structure-function data, we perform another comparison, this time with LEP data that were not used directly in our analysis. Figures 7 and 8 present the predictions for $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$, averaged over various $`x`$ regions, compared with the recent OPAL data HQ2 . For comparison, the results from the GRS LO and SaS1D parametrizations are shown as well. We observe that all models give very similar predictions, which are in fairly good agreement with the experimental data. Only the CJKL model slightly differs from the other models considered: it gives better agreement with the data. The difference between the predictions of the CJKL model and the other models is most striking in the case of the medium-$`x`$ range, $`0.1<x<0.6`$ shown in Fig. 7. The CJKL curve clearly shows a departure from the simple $`\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$ dependence. This is caused by the additional $`Q^2`$ dependence due to the $`\chi `$ variable. The highest $`x`$ range, $`0.85<x<0.98`$ (see Fig. 8) is the second region of a significant difference between the predictions of the CJKL and other models. The predictions split at high-$`Q^2`$ values, as the CJKL predicts a much softer $`Q^2`$ dependence.

### V.2 Parton densities

In this section we present the parton densities obtained from the CJKL and FFNSCJKL fits and compare them with the corresponding distributions of the GRV LO grv92 , GRS LO and SaS1D parametrizations. First, we present all parton densities at $`Q^2=10`$ GeV2 (Fig. 9). The biggest difference between our CJKL model and others is observed, as expected, for the heavy-quark distributions. Unlike for the GRV LO and SaS1D parametrizations, the densities $`c^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ and $`b^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ vanish not at $`x=1`$ but, as it should be, at the kinematical threshold. Also the up-quark density differs among models. In the CJKL model it is lower than in other parametrizations for $`x>0.1`$. The same can be seen in Fig. 10, where for various $`Q^2`$ values the up-quark distributions are presented. The up-quark density in the CJKL, FFNSCJKL and GRV LO models have similar behaviour at very small $`x`$. The hardest up-quark distribution is obtained in the FFNSCJKL approach, while both the GRS LO and SaS1D predictions are much softer. The same holds in the case of the gluon distribution, shown in Fig. 11. Finally, the charm-quark densities of the CJKL model and of the GRV LO and GRS LO parametrizations are presented in Fig. 12. Here we see that, in addition to the already mentioned vanishing at the threshold, the charm-quark distribution in the CJKL model is larger than the ones in the other parametrizations. This is particularly true for larger values of $`Q^2`$, where the threshold is very close to $`x=1`$.

Finally, in Fig. 13 we present our predictions for the $`F_{2,c}^\gamma `$. For $`Q^2=5,20,100`$ and 1000 GeV2 we compare the individual contributions included in the CJKL model. As was explained in detail in section 3.2, they all, apart from the $`F_{2,c}|_{\mathrm{subtr},\mathrm{dir}}`$ term, vanish in the $`W2m_c`$ threshold. This term dominates near the highest kinematically allowed $`x`$. The direct BH term is important in the medium-$`x`$ range. Its shape resembles the valence-type distribution. The charm-quark density contribution, i.e. the term $`2xe_c^2c^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$, is important in the whole kinematically available $`x`$ range; it dominates the $`F_{2,c}^\gamma `$ for small $`x`$. In this region also the resolved-photon contributions increase, but they cancel each other.

### V.3 Comparison with $`F_{2,c}^\gamma `$

A good test of the charm-quark contributions is provided by the OPAL measurement of the $`F_{2,c}^\gamma `$, obtained from the inclusive production of $`D^\pm `$ mesons in photon–photon collisions F2c . The averaged $`F_{2,c}^\gamma `$ has been determined in the two $`x`$ bins. These data points are compared to the predictions of the CJKL and FFNSCJKL models as well as with the SaS1D and GRS LO parametrizations in Fig. 14. The prediction of the FFNSCJKL model, which as the only one among those compared does not contain the resolved-photon contribution, is based on the point-like (Bethe–Heitler) contribution for heavy quarks only. As seen in the figure it decreases too quickly with the decreasing $`x`$, much faster than the predictions from other parametrizations. The CJKL model seems to give the best description of the data for the low-$`x`$ bin, but overshoots the experimental point at high $`x`$.

## VI Summary and outlook

A new analysis of the radiatively generated parton distributions in the real photon based on the LO DGLAP equations is presented. All available experimental data have been used to perform two global, 3-parameter fits. Our main model (CJKL) is based on a new variable flavour-number scheme (ACOT($`\chi `$)), applied to the photon case for the very first time. It has a proper threshold behaviour of the heavy-quark contributions. The CJKL-model results are compared with an updated Fixed Flavour-Number Scheme (FFNSCJKL) fit and to predictions of the GRS LO and SaS1D parametrizations. Our model gives the best $`\chi ^2`$ of those compared. It describes very well the $`Q^2`$ evolution of the $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ , averaged over various $`x`$-regions. We have checked that the CJKL fit agrees also reasonably well with the prediction of a sum rule for the photon, described in sumrule .

We have also checked that the gluon densities of both CJKL and FFNSCJKL models agree with the H1 measurement of the gluon density ($`G^\gamma `$) performed at $`Q^2=74`$ GeV2 h1glu . In both models gluon densities are very similar to the gluon density provided by the GRV LO parametrization, which gave so far the best agreement with the H1 data. Further comparison of our gluon densities to the H1 data cannot be performed in a fully consistent way101010A plot illustrating the comparison can be found in pjank1 . , since GRV LO proton and photon parametrization were used in the experiment in order to extract such gluon density.

One of the motivations for this work was given by the disagreement between the theoretical and experimental results for the open beauty-quark production in two-photon processes in the LEP bqOPAL ; bqL3  measurements. We did calculate the LO cross-section for charm- and beauty-quark production in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions in the ACOT($`\chi `$) and FFNS schemes, using the CJKL and FFNSCJKL distributions of partons, respectively. The cross-section for the $`c`$-quark production computed in both models agrees with the experimental data. The ACOT($`\chi `$) model gives a slightly better shape of the $`c`$-quark distribution. There is a small difference between the results of the two models for $`b`$-quark production. We observe an increase of the cross-section for the beauty-quark in the ACOT($`\chi `$) approach, as compared to the FFNS result, based on GRS LO parametrization, but it is too small to fit the experimental data. More work on this subject is required. Also, before reaching a definitive conclusion the NLO corrections should be considered and the NLO parton densities for the photon applied. The NLO parametrization in the CJKL model, together with the effects of different subtraction terms and positivity constraints, will be presented in a future publication.

A simple analytic parametrization of the results of our CJKL model for the individual parton densities is given, and a fortran program calculating parton densities as well as the structure function $`F_2^\gamma `$ (Eq. (III.2)) can be obtained from the web sites given in webprog .

###### Acknowledgements.

MK thanks Wu-ki Tung for fruitful discussions, which led to this analysis, and R. Roberts for a discussion on the parton densities in the $`\rho `$-meson. PJ would like to thank R.Taylor, M.Wing and all members of the Warsaw TESLA group for discussions. We are grateful to Rohini Godbole for useful suggestions on the parton-parametrization program and Mariusz Przybycień for discussions. This work was partly supported by the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00149 Physics at Collider and HPRN-CT-2002-00311 EURIDICE. FC also acknowledges partial financial support by MCYT under contract FPA2000-1558 and Junta de Andalucía group FQM 101. MK is grateful for partial support by Polish Committee for Research 2P03B05119 and 5P03B12120.

*

## Appendix A Parton parametrization for the CJKL model

We give here an analytic form for the parametrization of the CJKL results for the individual parton densities. Following the GRV group we parametrize them in terms of

$$s\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{ln}[Q^2/(0.221\mathrm{GeV})^2]}{\mathrm{ln}[Q_0^2/(0.221\mathrm{GeV})^2]}$$
(52)
with $`Q_0^2=0.25`$ GeV2. The parametrization has been performed in the $`10^5<x<1`$ and $`1<Q^2<2\times 10^5`$ GeV2 ranges. We made a separate parametrization of the point- and hadron-like densities. The parametrized distributions of the light ($`u,d,s`$) quarks are in agreement with the ones obtained in the fit up to few percent accuracy. The same is true for the gluon density, apart from the high-$`x`$ region (where $`G_\gamma `$ values fall down), where 10% accuracy is assured. We checked that the heavy-quark densities, for $`c`$\- and $`b`$-quarks, are represented by our parametrization at 10% accuracy for $`Q^22`$ GeV2 and $`10`$ GeV2 respectively. For both quarks those $`Q^2`$ values are below their masses squared $`m_h^2=1.3^2\mathrm{and}4.3^2`$ GeV2, which are often considered as the energy scale of the processes involving heavy quarks. The $`\chi ^2`$ obtained for 205 data points for $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ is equal 406, for both fitted and parametrized distributions.

The final parton densities in the real photon are (we skip the superscript $`\gamma `$ in this part):

$`G(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`G_{\mathrm{pl}}(x,Q^2)+G_{\mathrm{had}}(x,Q^2)`$
$`d(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`d_{\mathrm{pl}}(x,Q^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v(x,Q^2)+\zeta (x,Q^2)`$
$`u(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`u_{\mathrm{pl}}(x,Q^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v(x,Q^2)+\zeta (x,Q^2)`$
$`s(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`s_{\mathrm{pl}}(x,Q^2)+\zeta (x,Q^2)`$ (53)
$`c(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`c_{\mathrm{pl}}(x,Q^2)+c_{\mathrm{had}}(x,Q^2)`$
$`b(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`b_{\mathrm{pl}}(x,Q^2)+b_{\mathrm{had}}(x,Q^2)`$
Note that all our densities describe the massless partons, although the kinematical constraints for $`c`$\- and $`b`$-quarks were taken into account. The formulae given in the Appendix parametrizing densities of both heavy quarks, represent the densities as included in the second sum in the Eq. (III.2), that means that, for instance, the final density $`b(x,Q^2)`$ should be understood as being equivalent to $`b(\chi _h(x,Q^2),Q^2)`$.

A fortran code of the parametrization can be obtained from the web pages webprog . The program includes also an option for the $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ calculation according to the Eq. (III.2).

### A.1 Point-like part

We use the following form for the parametrization of the point-like distribution for light quarks and gluons (denoted by $`f_{\mathrm{pl}}(x,Q^2)`$)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}xf_{\mathrm{pl}}(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{(0.221\mathrm{GeV})^2}}\times `$
$`\left[s^\alpha x^a(A+B\sqrt{x}+Cx^b)+s^\alpha ^{}\mathrm{exp}\left(E+\sqrt{E^{}s^\beta \mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}}\right)\right](1x)^D.`$
For the gluon density $`G_{\mathrm{pl}}`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}\alpha \hfill & =\hfill & 0.43865\hfill & ,\hfill & \alpha ^{}\hfill & =\hfill & 2.7174\hfill & ,\hfill & \beta \hfill & =\hfill & 0.36752,\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \begin{array}{c}A=0.0868930.34992s,\hfill \\ B=0.010556+0.049525s,\hfill \\ C=0.099005+0.34830s,D=1.0648+0.143421s,\hfill \\ E=3.6717+2.5071s,E^{}=2.1944+1.9358s,\hfill \\ a=0.236790.11849s,b=0.19994+0.028124s.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(55)
For the up-quark density $`u_{\mathrm{pl}}`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}\alpha \hfill & =\hfill & 1.0711\hfill & ,\hfill & \alpha ^{}\hfill & =\hfill & 3.1320\hfill & ,\hfill & \beta \hfill & =\hfill & 0.69243,\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \begin{array}{c}A=0.058266+0.20506s,\hfill \\ B=0.00973770.10617s,\hfill \\ C=0.0068345+0.15211s,\hfill \\ D=0.22297+0.013567s,\hfill \\ E=6.4289+2.2802s,E^{}=1.7302+0.76997s,\hfill \\ a=0.879400.110241s,b=2.68780.040252s.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(56)
For the down- and strange-quark densities, $`d_{\mathrm{pl}}=s_{\mathrm{pl}}`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}\alpha \hfill & =\hfill & 1.1357\hfill & ,\hfill & \alpha ^{}\hfill & =\hfill & 3.1187\hfill & ,\hfill & \beta \hfill & =\hfill & 0.66290,\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \begin{array}{c}A=0.0988140.067300s,\hfill \\ B=0.092892+0.049949s,\hfill \\ C=0.0066140+0.020427s,\hfill \\ D=0.313850.0037558s,\hfill \\ E=6.4671+2.2834s,E^{}=1.6996+0.84262s,\hfill \\ a=11.777+0.034760s,b=11.1240.20135s.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(57)
In the case of heavy quarks a slightly modified function $`h_{\mathrm{pl}}`$ was applied:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}xh_{\mathrm{pl}}(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{(0.221\mathrm{GeV})^2}}\times `$
$`\left[s^\alpha y^a(A+B\sqrt{y}+Cy^b)+s^\alpha ^{}\mathrm{exp}\left(E+\sqrt{E^{}s^\beta \mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}}\right)\right](1y)^D,`$
with $`y=x+1\frac{Q^2}{Q^2+6.76\mathrm{GeV}^2}`$ for the charm-quark and $`y=x+1\frac{Q^2}{Q^2+73.96\mathrm{GeV}^2}`$ for the beauty-quark densities.

For the charm-quark density $`c_{\mathrm{pl}}`$, for $`Q^210`$ GeV2:

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}\alpha \hfill & =\hfill & 2.9808\hfill & ,\hfill & \alpha ^{}\hfill & =\hfill & 28.682\hfill & ,\hfill & \beta \hfill & =\hfill & 2.4863,\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \begin{array}{c}A=0.18826+0.13565s,B=0.185080.11764s,\hfill \\ C=0.00141530.011510s,\hfill \\ D=0.48961+0.18810s,\hfill \\ E=0.209112.8544s+14.256s^2,\hfill \\ E^{}=2.7644+0.93717s,a=7.6307+5.6807s,\hfill \\ b=394.58541.82s+200.82s^2.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(59)
For the charm-quark density $`c_{\mathrm{pl}}`$, for $`Q^2>10`$ GeV2:

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}\alpha \hfill & =\hfill & 1.8095\hfill & ,\hfill & \alpha ^{}\hfill & =\hfill & 7.9399\hfill & ,\hfill & \beta \hfill & =\hfill & 0.041563,\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \begin{array}{c}A=0.54831+0.33412s,B=0.19484+0.041562s,\hfill \\ C=0.39046+0.37194s,D=0.12717+0.059280s,\hfill \\ E=8.7191+3.0194s,E^{}=4.2616+0.73993s,\hfill \\ a=0.30307+0.29430s,b=7.23831.5995s.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(60)
For the beauty-quark density $`b_{\mathrm{pl}}`$, for $`Q^2100`$ GeV2:

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}\alpha \hfill & =\hfill & 2.2849\hfill & ,\hfill & \alpha ^{}\hfill & =\hfill & 6.0408\hfill & ,\hfill & \beta \hfill & =\hfill & 0.11577,\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \begin{array}{c}A=0.26971+0.17942s,\hfill \\ B=0.270330.18358s+0.0061059s^2,\hfill \\ C=0.00228620.0016837s,\hfill \\ D=0.308070.10490s,E=14.8121.2977s,\hfill \\ E^{}=1.7148+2.3532s+0.053734\sqrt{s},\hfill \\ a=3.81401.0514s,b=2.2292+20.194s\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(61)
For the beauty-quark density $`b_{\mathrm{pl}}`$, for $`Q^2>100`$ GeV2:

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}\alpha \hfill & =\hfill & 5.0607\hfill & ,\hfill & \alpha ^{}\hfill & =\hfill & 16.590\hfill & ,\hfill & \beta \hfill & =\hfill & 0.87190,\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \begin{array}{c}A=0.72790+0.36549s,B=0.62903+0.56817s,\hfill \\ C=2.4467+1.6783s,D=0.565750.19120s,\hfill \\ E=1.4687+9.6071s,E^{}=1.1706+0.99674s,\hfill \\ a=0.0846510.083206s,b=9.60363.4864s.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(62)
### A.2 Hadron-like part

We use a simple formula for the valence-quark density:

$$\frac{1}{\alpha }xv(x,Q^2)=Ax^a(1+B\sqrt{x}+Cx)(1x)^D,$$
(63)
with the following parameters:

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{c}A=1.0898+0.38087s,B=0.426541.2128s,\hfill \\ C=1.6576+1.7075s,D=0.96155+1.8441s,\hfill \\ a=0.783910.068720s.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(64)
For the gluon distribution, we apply

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}xG_{\mathrm{had}}(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`[x^a(A+B\sqrt{x}+Cx)`$
$`+`$ $`s^\alpha \mathrm{exp}(E+\sqrt{E^{}s^\beta \mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}})](1x)^D,`$
with

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccccccc}\alpha \hfill & =\hfill & 0.59945\hfill & ,\hfill & \beta \hfill & =\hfill & 1.1285,\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \begin{array}{c}A=0.19898+0.57414s,B=1.99421.8306s,\hfill \\ C=1.9848+1.4136s,D=0.21294+2.7450s,\hfill \\ E=1.2287+2.4447s,E^{}=4.9230+0.18526s,\hfill \\ a=0.34948+0.47058s,b=1.0012+0.99767s.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(66)
In the case of the sea-quark density, we use:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}x\zeta (x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s^\alpha }{\mathrm{ln}^a\frac{1}{x}}}(1+A\sqrt{x}+Bx)\times `$
$`\mathrm{exp}\left(E+\sqrt{E^{}s^\beta \mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}}\right)(1x)^D,`$
with

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccccccc}\alpha \hfill & =\hfill & 0.71660\hfill & ,\hfill & \beta \hfill & =\hfill & 1.0497,\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \begin{array}{c}A=0.60478+0.036160s,B=4.21060.85835s,\hfill \\ D=4.1494+0.34866s,E=4.5179+1.9219s,\hfill \\ E^{}=5.28120.15200s,a=0.722890.21562s.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(68)
Finally, for the heavy-quark densities:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}xh_{\mathrm{had}}(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s^\alpha }{\mathrm{ln}^a\frac{1}{x}}}(1+A\sqrt{y}+By)\times `$
$`\mathrm{exp}\left(E+\sqrt{E^{}s^\beta \mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}}\right)(1y)^D,`$
with $`y=x+1\frac{Q^2}{Q^2+6.76\mathrm{GeV}^2}`$ for charm- and $`y=x+1\frac{Q^2}{Q^2+73.96\mathrm{GeV}^2}`$ for beauty-quark.

For the charm-quark density $`c_{\mathrm{had}}`$, for $`Q^210`$ GeV2:

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccccccc}\alpha \hfill & =\hfill & 5.6729\hfill & ,\hfill & \beta \hfill & =\hfill & 1.4575,\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \begin{array}{c}A=2586.4+1910.1s,B=2695.01688.2s,\hfill \\ D=1.5146+3.1028s,E=3.9185+11.738s,\hfill \\ E^{}=3.61261.0291s,a=1.62480.70433s.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(70)
For the charm-quark density $`c_{\mathrm{had}}`$, for $`Q^2>10`$ GeV2:

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccccccc}\alpha \hfill & =\hfill & 1.6470\hfill & ,\hfill & \beta \hfill & =\hfill & 0.72738,\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \begin{array}{c}A=2.0561+0.75576s,B=2.1266+0.66383s,\hfill \\ D=3.03011.7499s+1.6466s^2\hfill \\ E=4.1282+1.6929s0.26292s^2,\hfill \\ E^{}=0.89599+1.2761s0.15061s^2,\hfill \\ a=0.78809+0.90278s.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(71)
For the beauty-quark density $`b_{\mathrm{had}}`$, for $`Q^2100`$ GeV2:

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccccccc}\alpha \hfill & =\hfill & 10.210\hfill & ,\hfill & \beta \hfill & =\hfill & 2.2296,\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \begin{array}{c}A=99.613+171.25s,B=492.61420.45s,\hfill \\ D=3.3917+0.084256s,E=5.68290.23571s,\hfill \\ E^{}=2.0137+4.6955s,a=0.82278+0.081818s.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(72)
For the beauty-quark density $`b_{\mathrm{had}}`$, for $`Q^2>100`$ GeV2:

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccccccc}\alpha \hfill & =\hfill & 2.4198\hfill & ,\hfill & \beta \hfill & =\hfill & 0.40703,\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \begin{array}{c}A=2.1109+1.2711s,B=9.01963.6082s,\hfill \\ D=3.64554.1353s+2.3615s^2,\hfill \\ E=4.6196+2.4212s,E^{}=0.66454+1.1109s,\hfill \\ a=0.98933+0.42366s+0.15817s^2.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(73)