format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A significant fraction (around $`10\%`$) of deep inelastic scattering (DIS) events observed at HERA at small-$`x`$ are diffractive events . The proton in these events escapes almost unscattered down the beam pipe, losing only a small fraction $`x_{IP}`$ of its initial momentum. The slightly scattered proton is well separated in rapidity from the rest of the scattered system, forming a large rapidity gap, the characteristic feature of diffractive DIS. The ratio of diffractive to all DIS events is to a good approximation constant as a function of Bjorken-$`x`$ and $`Q^2`$. Thus in a first approximation, DIS diffraction is a leading twist effect with logarithmic scaling violation. For recent reviews on diffractive DIS see .

Historically, the first description of diffractive DIS was provided in terms of the Ingelman-Schlein (IS) model . The model is based on Regge theory in which diffractive processes are due to the exchange of a soft pomeron. The novelty of the IS model lies in the assumption that the pomeron has a partonic structure as do real hadrons. The diffractive structure function factorizes into a “pomeron flux” and a pomeron structure function. The latter function is written in terms of the pomeron parton distributions which obey the standard DGLAP evolution equations. The initial conditions for these equations are determined from a fit to the data  or using the phenomenology of soft hadronic reactions . Despite conceptual difficulties (the pomeron is not a particle) this idea turned out to be very fruitful in the description of the data.

The IS model brings the issue of collinear factorization into the leading twist description of DIS diffraction. By this we mean the consistent factorization of the diffractive cross section into a convolution of diffractive parton distributions which satisfy the DGLAP evolution equations and computed in perturbative QCD hard cross sections, in full analogy to inclusive DIS . Collinear factorization has been rigorously proven by Collins for diffractive DIS . Factorization, however, fails for hard processes in diffractive hadron-hadron scattering . The IS model assumes collinear factorization, imposing an additional assumption on the $`x_{IP}`$-dependence of the diffractive parton distributions (called Regge factorization). In the general framework of collinear factorization the diffractive final state is treated fully inclusive, in particular, the mechanism leading to diffraction is not elucidated. The IS model is an attempt to provide such a mechanism.

The detailed description of diffractive processes in DIS, starting from perturbative QCD, is achieved by modelling the diffractive final state as well as the interaction with the proton. Such an analysis goes beyond the leading twist description. In a first approximation, the diffractive system (separated by the rapidity gap from the proton) is formed by a quark-antiquark ($`q\overline{q}`$) pair in the color singlet state . A higher order contribution is represented by the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair with an additional gluon $`g`$ emitted . In the simplest case, the colorless exchange responsible for the rapidity gap is modelled by the exchange of two gluons coupled to the proton with some formfactor  or to a heavy onium which serves as a model of the proton . Higher order corrections are included by the the BFKL summation of gluon ladders  or using the color dipole approach . The diffractive processes in DIS has also been studied within the semiclassical approach in . In particular, the relation between the physical pictures in different frames was elucidated in . Let us add that a simple physical interpretation of diffractive scattering emerges in the proton rest frame, where the formation of the diffractive system is stretched in time. Far upstream the beam pipe the virtual photon decays into a virtual diffractive system which then elastically scatters on the proton (without the color exchange), picking up energy to form a real state.

The immediate problem faced in such a modelling is the strong sensitivity to nonperturbative effects due to the dominance of aligned jet configuration (discussed in Section 3). Thus, we need a description of the interactions in the soft regime. The saturation model , which has already been very successful in describing inclusive and diffractive DIS data , provides such a description (see also  for related analyses). Recent theoretical studies  justify the assumed analytic form of this model.

In this paper we are going to address questions related to collinear factorization in the above approach to DIS diffraction. How to find the diffractive parton distributions? What is their form? Do they support Regge factorization? Is the leading twist contribution sufficient in the description of DIS diffraction? How important are higher twist contributions? Answers to all these questions will be found by modeling the diffractive system with the help of perturbative QCD. The interaction with the proton is described by the saturation model . From this perspective, we critically reexamine the assumptions made in the Ingelman-Schlein model.

Summarizing our results, we find the diffractive quark and gluon distributions which serve as the initial conditions for the DGLAP evolution equations. Due to a specific form of the saturation model, the Regge type factorization in $`x_{IP}`$ is found, although Regge theory has not been applied. Moreover, the correct energy dependence of diffractive DIS measured at HERA is obtained. We also perform the numerical analysis for the comparison with the diffractive data. As expected, see , the twist-4 contribution from the $`q\overline{q}`$-pair produced by longitudinally polarized photons plays a crucial role in the region of small diffractive mass ($`MQ`$). The leading twist description with the DGLAP evolution is insufficient in this regime and the twist-4 component (suppressed by $`1/Q^2`$) accounts for the difference between the leading twist contribution and the data. Thus, there is no need in our analysis for a singular (or strongly concentrated at $`\beta 1`$) gluon distribution as in the pure leading twist description . The universality of the energy dependence, assumed in the IS model, is broken by the twist-4 contribution which has a steeper $`x_{IP}`$-dependence than the leading twist contribution. The first indication of this effect seems to be observed in the data .

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we give a general introduction to diffractive parton distributions. In Section 3 we present the initial distribution which we extracted from the perturbative QCD approach. In Section 4 we make a comment on Regge factorization in the context of the saturation model. Numerical results are presented in Section 5 and we finally conclude with a brief summary in Section 6.

## 2 Diffractive parton distributions

There are two dimensionful variables, the mass of the diffractive system $`M^2`$, and the momentum transfer $`t=(pp^{})^2`$, which characterize diffractive DIS (see Fig. 1). They come in addition to $`Q^2`$ and $`W^2`$ which are well known from inclusive DIS.

The mass and energy related variables, $`M^2`$ and $`W^2`$, are usually rewritten in terms of the following dimensionless variables:

$$x_{IP}=\frac{Q^2+M^2t}{Q^2+W^2},$$
(1)
which describes the fraction of the incident momentum lost by the proton or carried by the pomeron, and

$$\beta =\frac{Q^2}{Q^2+M^2t}$$
(2)
which is the Bjorken variable normalized to the pomeron momentum. The true Bjorken variable $`x`$ connects the two variables

$$x=\frac{Q^2}{Q^2+W^2}=x_{IP}\beta .$$
(3)
In the following we neglect $`t`$ in the definition of $`x_{IP}`$ and $`\beta `$ since usually $`|t|Q^2,M^2`$.

The diffractive structure functions depend on four invariant variables $`(x,Q^2,x_{IP},t)`$, and their definition follows the inclusive counterparts by relating to the diffractive DIS cross section

$$\frac{d^4\sigma ^D}{dxdQ^2dx_{IP}dt}=\frac{2\pi \alpha _{em}^2}{xQ^4}\left\{\left[1+(1y)^2\right]\frac{dF_2^D}{dx_{IP}dt}y^2\frac{dF_L^D}{dx_{IP}dt}\right\}.$$
(4)
For simplicity, we introduce the following notation

$`F_{2,L}^{D(4)}(x,Q^2,x_{IP},t){\displaystyle \frac{dF_{2,L}^D}{dx_{IP}dt}}(x,Q^2,x_{IP},t).`$ (5)
As usual, $`F_2^{D(4)}=F_T^{D(4)}+F_L^{D(4)}`$, where $`T`$ and $`L`$ refer to the polarization of the virtual photon, transverse and longitudinal, respectively. The structure function $`F^{D(4)}`$ has the dimension $`\text{GeV}^2`$ because of the differential $`dt`$ in the cross section (4). The dimensionless structure function $`F^{D(3)}`$ is defined by integrating $`F^{D(4)}`$ over $`t`$,

$$F_{T,L}^{D(3)}(x,Q^2,x_{IP})=𝑑tF_{T,L}^{D(4)}(x,Q^2,x_{IP},t).$$
(6)
$`F^{D(3)}`$ is measured when the final state proton transverse momentum is not detected.

The diffractive parton distributions $`_{a/p}^D`$ are introduced according to the collinear factorization formula ,

$$F_2^{D(4)}(x,Q^2,x_{IP},t)=\underset{a}{}_0^{x_{IP}}𝑑\xi _{a/p}^D(\xi ,\mu ^2,x_{IP},t)𝒞_a(x/\xi ,Q^2/\mu ^2),$$
(7)
with $`a=q,g`$ denoting a quark or gluon distribution in the proton, respectively. In the infinite momentum frame the diffractive parton distributions describe the probability to find a parton with the fraction $`\xi `$ of the proton momentum, provided the proton stays intact and loses only a small fraction $`x_{IP}`$ of its original momentum. $`𝒞_a`$ are the coefficient functions describing hard scattering of the virtual photon on a parton $`a`$. They are identical to the coefficient functions known from inclusive DIS,

$$𝒞_a(x/\xi ,Q^2/\mu ^2)=e_a^2\delta (1x/\xi )+𝒪(\alpha _s).$$
(8)
Formula (7) is the analogue of the inclusive leading twist description for inclusive DIS. The inclusive structure function $`F_2`$ is factorized in a similar way into computed in pQCD coefficient functions and nonperturbative parton distributions. The scale $`\mu ^2`$ is the factorization/renormalization scale. Since the l.h.s of eq. (7) does not depend on this scale, i.e. $`dF_2^{D(4)}/d\mu ^2=0`$, we find the renormalization group equations (evolution equations) for the diffractive parton distribution

$$\mu ^2\frac{d}{d\mu ^2}_{a/p}^D(\xi ,\mu ^2,x_{IP},t)=\underset{b}{}_\xi ^{x_{IP}}\frac{dz}{z}P_{a/b}(\xi /z,\alpha _s(\mu ^2))_{b/p}^D(z,\mu ^2,x_{IP},t),$$
(9)
where $`P_{a/b}`$ are the standard Altarelli-Parisi splitting functions in leading or next-to-leading logarithmic approximation. Since the scale $`\mu `$ is arbitrary, we can choose $`\mu =Q\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. With this scale the evolution equations are usually presented.

The integration in (7) and (9) is only done up to the fraction $`x_{IP}`$ of the proton momentum, since the active parton cannot carry more than this fraction of momentum. The proton remnants carry the remaining fraction $`(1x_{IP})`$. If we refer the longitudinal momenta of the partons to $`x_{IP}p`$ instead of the proton total momentum $`p`$, the structure functions and parton distributions become functions of $`\beta =x/x_{IP}`$ or $`\beta ^{}=\xi /x_{IP}`$. With this notation, we rewrite (7) and (9) in the following form:

$$F_2^{D(4)}(\beta ,Q^2,x_{IP},t)=\underset{a}{}_0^1𝑑\beta ^{}x_{IP}_{a/p}^D(\beta ^{},\mu ^2,x_{IP},t)𝒞_a(\beta /\beta ^{},Q^2/\mu ^2)$$
(10)
and

$$\mu ^2\frac{d}{d\mu ^2}_{a/p}^D(\beta ,\mu ^2,x_{IP},t)=\underset{b}{}_\beta ^1\frac{dz}{z}P_{a/b}(\beta /z,\alpha _s(\mu ^2))_{b/p}^D(z,\mu ^2,x_{IP},t).$$
(11)
Thus, we obtain a description similar to inclusive DIS but modified by the additional variables $`x_{IP}`$ and $`t`$. Moreover, the Bjorken variable $`x`$ is replaced by its diffractive analogue $`\beta `$, eq. (2). Notice that $`x_{IP}`$ and $`t`$ play the role of parameters of the evolution equations and does not affect the evolution. According to the factorization theorem the evolution equations (11) are applicable to all orders in perturbation theory.

In the lowest order approximation for the coefficient functions (8), we find for the diffractive structure function

$$F_2^{D(4)}(\beta ,Q^2,x_{IP},t)=\underset{a=q,\overline{q}}{}e_a^2\beta x_{IP}_{a/p}^D(\beta ,Q^2,x_{IP},t),$$
(12)
where the sum over the quark flavours is performed.

The collinear factorization formula (10) holds to all orders in $`\alpha _s`$ for diffractive DIS . However, this is no longer true in hadron–hadron hard diffractive scattering , where collinear factorization fails due to final state soft interactions. Thus, unlike inclusive scattering, the diffractive parton distributions are no universal quantities. The can safely be used, however, to describe hard diffractive processes involving leptons. A systematic approach to diffractive parton distributions, based on quark and gluon operators, is given in .

Until now, our discussion has been quite general, in particular we have not referred to the pomeron. In the Ingelman-Schlein (IS) model , diffraction is described with the help of the concept of the soft pomeron exchange. In addition, it is assumed that the pomeron has a hard structure. In DIS diffraction, this structure is resolved by the virtual photon, as in the standard DIS processes. Following the results of Regge theory, the IS model is based on the assumption of Regge factorization. In the context of the diffractive parton distributions it means that the following factorization holds

$$x_{IP}_{a/p}^D(\beta ,Q^2,x_{IP},t)=f(x_{IP},t)f_{a/IP}(\beta ,Q^2),$$
(13)
where the “pomeron flux” $`f(x_{IP},t)`$ is given by

$$f(x_{IP},t)=\frac{B^2(t)}{8\pi ^2}x_{IP}^{12\alpha _{IP}(t)}.$$
(14)
Thus, the variables $`(x_{IP},t)`$, related to the loosely scattered proton, are factorized from the variables characterizing the diffractive system $`(\beta ,Q^2)`$. $`B(t)`$ is the Dirac electromagnetic form factor , $`\alpha _{IP}(t)=1.1+0.25\text{GeV}^2t`$ is the soft pomeron trajectory  and the normalization of $`f(x_{IP},t)`$ follows the convention of . The function $`f_{a/IP}(\beta ,Q^2)`$ in eq. (13) describes the hard structure in DIS diffraction, and is interpreted as the pomeron parton distribution. Now, the diffractive structure function (12) becomes

$$F_2^{D(4)}(\beta ,Q^2,x_{IP},t)=f(x_{IP},t)\underset{a=q,\overline{q}}{}e_a^2\beta f_{a/IP}(\beta ,Q^2),$$
(15)
where the summation over quarks and antiquarks is performed. The $`Q^2`$-evolution of $`f_{a/IP}(\beta ,Q^2)`$ is given by the DGLAP equations (11). The $`t`$-dependence in the pomeron parton distributions is neglected.

The pomeron parton distributions are determined as the parton distributions of real hadrons. Some functional form with several parameters is assumed at an initial scale and then the parameters are found from a fit to data  using the DGLAP evolution equations. An alternative approach for the determination of the initial distributions makes use of the phenomenology of soft hadronic reactions .

Ingelman and Schlein have conceived of their approach primarily to describe diffractive hard scattering at hadron colliders. This includes the concept of Regge factorization as well as pomeron parton distributions. Unfortunately, collinear factorization was proven to be wrong in the case of hard diffraction at hadron colliders. Although it holds for diffractive DIS, this does not imply Regge factorization nor the existence of pomeron parton distributions. Our approach discussed below does not make use of either Regge factorization or pomeron parton distributions. It does, however, result in diffractive parton distributions and $`x_{IP}`$-factorization.

## 3 Diffractive parton distributions and the saturation model

In ref.  an analytic form for the dipole cross section $`\widehat{\sigma }(x,r)`$ was suggested, based on the idea of saturation , which allows to describe the proton structure function $`F_2`$ at small $`x`$,

$$F_2(x,Q^2)=\frac{Q^2}{4\pi ^2\alpha _{em}}d^2𝐫𝑑z\left(|\mathrm{\Psi }_T(r,z,Q^2)|^2+|\mathrm{\Psi }_L(r,z,Q^2)|^2\right)\widehat{\sigma }(x,r),$$
(16)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{T,L}`$ is the $`q\overline{q}`$ dipole wave function for transverse $`(T)`$ and longitudinal $`(L)`$ photons. $`r`$ is the dipole transverse size and $`z`$ is a fraction of the virtual photon momentum carried by a quark (antiquark). A distinctive feature of the dipole cross section is its scaling form, i.e.

$$\widehat{\sigma }(x,r)=\sigma _0g(r/R_0(x))=\sigma _0\{1\mathrm{exp}(r^2/R_0^2(x)\},$$
(17)
where the function $`R_0(x)=1/\text{GeV}(x/x_0)^{\lambda /2}`$ monotonically vanishes when $`x0`$, and $`\sigma _0`$ is an overall normalization. The three parameters of $`\sigma _0=23\text{mb}`$, $`x_0=310^4`$ and $`\lambda =0.29`$ were found form a fit to inclusive DIS data at small-$`x`$.

The postulated form allows the transition to saturation where $`\widehat{\sigma }=\sigma _0`$ for large dipole sizes, while for small $`r`$ color transparency is assumed, $`\widehat{\sigma }r^2`$. The fact that the dipole cross section depends on $`r`$ and $`x`$ through the dimensionless ratio $`r/R_0(x)`$ leads to the prediction of a new scaling property for small-$`x`$ data .

The presented model successfully describes $`F_2`$ at small $`x`$, including the region of small $`Q^2`$ values. With regard to diffractive processes in DIS, $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ leads to the same dependence on $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ of diffractive cross section as for inclusive DIS, and gives a good description of the data . Thus, the constant ratio between the diffractive and inclusive cross sections finds a natural explanation in this model.

Following the idea of the analysis , the diffractive structure function $`F_2^{D(3)}`$ is the sum of the three contributions shown in Fig. 2, the $`q\overline{q}`$ production from transverse and longitudinal photons, and the $`q\overline{q}g`$ production,

$$F_2^{D(3)}(\beta ,Q^2,x_{IP})=F_{q\overline{q}}^T+F_{q\overline{q}}^L+F_{q\overline{q}g}^T,$$
(18)
where $`T`$ and $`L`$ refer to the polarization of the virtual photon. For the $`q\overline{q}g`$ contribution only the transverse polarization is considered, since the longitudinal counterpart has no leading logarithm in $`Q^2`$. In this approach, the diffractive $`q\overline{q}`$ and $`q\overline{q}g`$ systems interact with the proton like in the two gluon exchange model. The coupling of the two gluons to the proton is effectively described the dipole cross section, determined from the analysis of inclusive DIS.

The computation of the diffractive structure functions in this case was presented in . Here we quote only the final results. The transverse $`q\overline{q}`$ part is given by

$`F_{q\overline{q}}^T={\displaystyle \frac{3}{64\pi ^4B_Dx_{IP}}}{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}e_f^2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{(1\beta )^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{Q^2(1\beta )}{4\beta }}}𝑑k^2{\displaystyle \frac{1{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta }{1\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{Q^2}}}{\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4\beta }{1\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{Q^2}}}}}\varphi _1^2(k,\beta ,x_{IP}),`$ (19)
and the longitudinal $`q\overline{q}`$ contribution takes the form

$$F_{q\overline{q}}^L=\frac{3}{16\pi ^4B_Dx_{IP}}\underset{f}{}e_f^2\frac{\beta ^3}{(1\beta )^4}_0^{\frac{Q^2(1\beta )}{4\beta }}𝑑k^2\frac{k^2/Q^2}{\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4\beta }{1\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{Q^2}}}}\varphi _0^2(k,\beta ,x_{IP}),$$
(20)
where the “impact factors” $`\varphi _{i=0,1}`$ read

$$\varphi _i(k,\beta ,x_{IP})=k^2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rrK_i\left(\sqrt{\frac{\beta }{1\beta }}kr\right)J_i(kr)\widehat{\sigma }(x_{IP},r),$$
(21)
and $`K_i`$ and $`J_i`$ are the Bessel functions. The quoted formulae correspond to eqs. (32) and (33) in , respectively, with the angular integration already done, see also the second paper of  for a similar result. $`B_D`$ is the diffractive slope, present due to the integration over $`t`$ of $`F^{D(4)}`$ with the assumed $`t`$-dependence: $`F^{D(4)}=\mathrm{exp}(B_Dt)F^{D(3)}`$. Its value is taken from the HERA experiments. The $`k`$-integration in eqs. (19) and (20) is performed over the transverse momentum of the quarks in the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair, $`k=|𝐤_{}|`$. The final result depends on the squared “impact factors”, and thus on the square of the dipole cross section $`\widehat{\sigma }`$.

One should realize that the longitudinal contribution is suppressed by a power of $`Q^2`$ in comparison to the transverse contribution, i.e. the longitudinal structure function is a higher twist contribution. Although of higher twist nature this contribution has some importance as will be seen later.

The leading twist part of the transverse structure function, which corresponds to the diffractive $`q\overline{q}`$ production, can be extracted from (19) by neglecting the factors with powers of $`k^2/Q^2`$ under the integral and taking the upper limit of the integration to infinity. Strictly speaking, energy conservation is violated in this case, but the corrections are of higher twist nature which in this case will be neglected because of their smallness. With the new limit the integral is still finite, and we can write the leading twist part of (19) as

$$F_{q\overline{q}}^{T(LT)}=\frac{3}{64\pi ^4B_Dx_{IP}}\underset{f}{}e_f^2\frac{\beta ^2}{(1\beta )^3}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k^2\varphi _1^2(k,\beta ,x_{IP}).$$
(22)
A detailed analysis based on the dipole representation of the $`q\overline{q}`$ wave function shows that the approximation leading to eq. (22) corresponds to the aligned jet configuration of the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair in the proton rest frame. The smallness of the factor

$$\frac{\beta }{1\beta }\frac{k^2}{Q^2}=\frac{k^2}{M^2}=z(1z)$$
(23)
which we neglected in eq. (19) ($`M`$ is the diffractive mass and $`z,(1z)`$ are the longitudinal momentum fractions of the final state quarks with respect to the photon momentum) means that one of the quarks takes almost the whole longitudinal photon momentum (e.g. $`z1`$) while the other quark forms the remnant with $`(1z)0`$. Similar conclusions on the leading twist part of diffractive DIS have been drawn in ref. .

Now, we can determine the diffractive quark distributions according to eq. (12) (integrated over $`t`$),

$$F_{q\overline{q}}^{T(LT)}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\underset{f}{}e_f^2\beta q^D(\beta ,Q^2,x_{IP})$$
(24)
Hence the diffractive quark distribution is given by (independent of the quark flavour $`f`$)

$$q^D(\beta ,Q^2,x_{IP})x_{IP}_{q/p}^D(\beta ,Q^2,x_{IP})=\frac{3}{128\pi ^4B_Dx_{IP}}\frac{\beta }{(1\beta )^3}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k^2\varphi _1^2(k,\beta ,x_{IP}),$$
(25)
Notice the lack of the $`Q^2`$-dependence on the r.h.s. of eq. (25). This may be viewed as a consequence of not having included ultraviolet divergent corrections which would require a cutoff. With those corrections the parton distributions become $`\mu ^2`$-dependent, and evolution would relate the distributions at different $`\mu ^2`$ values. Still, we may use the found diffractive quark distributions as the input distributions for the DGLAP evolution equations at some initial scale. Of course, the choice of the initial scale introduces an uncertainty for the prediction.

The detailed discussion of the $`q\overline{q}g`$ contribution can be found in  and  with the details of the calculations in the Appendix. The new contribution was computed assuming strong ordering in transverse momenta of the gluon and the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair, i.e. $`k_gk_qk_{\overline{q}}`$. This assumption allows to treat the $`q\overline{q}g`$ system as a $`g\overline{g}`$ dipole in the transverse configuration space $`𝐫`$, where $`𝐫`$ is the Fourier conjugate variable to the quark transverse momentum $`𝐤_{}`$.

The formula for the $`q\overline{q}g`$ diffractive structure function which we quote below corresponds to eq. (39) in , integrated over the azimuth angle in configuration space <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 A factor 1/2 missing in eq.(39) of ref.  was correctly pointed out in ref. . This does not affect the numerical results in .. Thus we have

$`F_{q\overline{q}g}^T(\beta ,Q^2,x_{IP})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{81\beta }{256\pi ^4B_Dx_{IP}}}{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}e_f^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _\beta ^1}{\displaystyle \frac{d\beta ^{}}{\beta ^{}}}\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\beta ^{}}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\beta ^{}}}\right)^2\right]`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{(1\beta ^{})^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{Q^2(1\beta ^{})}}𝑑k^2\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2(1\beta ^{})}{k^2}}\right)\varphi _2^2(k,\beta ^{},x_{IP}),`$
where the impact factor $`\varphi _2`$ is given by eq. (21) with $`i=2`$. The variable $`\beta ^{}`$ describes the momentum fraction of the $`t`$-channel exchanged gluon with respect to the pomeron momentum $`x_{IP}p`$. The combination $`k^2/(1\beta ^{})`$ which enters the logarithm is its mean virtuality, and $`k=|𝐤_{}|`$ is the transverse momentum of the final state gluon. The term in square brackets under the first integral is the Altarelli-Parisi splitting function for $`gqq`$, which results from the approximation that the transverse momentum of the emitted gluon is smaller than transverse momenta of the quarks.

The diffractive gluon distribution can be found from eq. (3). In the calculation of this contribution strong ordering between the gluon and quark transverse momenta was assumed. In this approximation the integration over the transverse momentum of the quark loop gives a logarithmic contribution which has a natural lower cutoff, the virtuality of the gluon $`k^2/(1\beta ^{})`$. At the same time the virtuality of the gluon should not exceed $`Q^2`$. This is the origin of the logarithmic term in (3). Collinear factorization means that we can pull that logarithm out of the integral over the gluon transverse momenta, and add to it an arbitrary initial scale $`Q_0^2<Q^2`$. Thus we can write

$$F_{q\overline{q}g}^T=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\underset{f}{}e_f^2\beta \left\{\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}\frac{Q^2}{Q_0^2}_\beta ^1\frac{d\beta ^{}}{\beta ^{}}\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(1\frac{\beta }{\beta ^{}}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\beta }{\beta ^{}}\right)^2\right]x_{IP}_{g/p}^D(\beta ^{},x_{IP})\right\},$$
(27)
where the diffractive gluon distribution is given by

$$g^D(\beta ,x_{IP})x_{IP}_{g/p}^D(\beta ,x_{IP})=\frac{81}{256\pi ^4B_Dx_{IP}}\frac{\beta }{(1\beta )^3}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k^2\varphi _2^2(k,\beta ,x_{IP})$$
(28)
and $`\varphi _2`$ is given by eq. (21) with $`i=2`$. As in the case of the quark distribution (25), the found gluon distribution does not depend on $`Q^2`$, and serves as the initial distributions at some fixed scale $`Q_0^2`$.

The motivation for the above identification of the diffractive gluon distributions is the structure in the curly brackets on the r.h.s of eq. (27). It is identical to the structure resulting from the DGLAP evolution with one splitting of the gluon into a $`q\overline{q}`$ pair.

The combined initial parton distributions (25) and (28) ( depicted in Fig.3 ) allow a complete description of the leading twist part of diffractive DIS by serving as the initial conditions for the DGLAP evolution equations. DGLAP evolution means that our diffractive system becomes more complicated due to additional parton emissions.

The longitudinal, higher twist contribution requires a separate treatment. It becomes important for large values of $`\beta `$, where the $`q\overline{q}`$ and the $`q\overline{q}g`$ production from transverse photons is negligible . In our present analysis we simply add this contribution to the evolved leading twist part. The complete expression of the structure function reads

$$F_2^{D(3)}=F_2^{D(3)(LT)}+F_{q\overline{q}}^L.$$
(29)
where $`F_2^{D(3)LT}`$ is given by

$$F_2^{D(3)(LT)}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\underset{f}{}e_f^2\beta q^D(\beta ,Q^2,x_{IP}),$$
(30)
with the full DGLAP evolution. $`F_{q\overline{q}}^L`$ is given by eq. (20).

In the following we present a comparison of the description based on eq. (29) with the diffractive data from HERA. Before doing that we briefly discuss $`x_{IP}`$-factorization.

## 4 The issue of Regge factorization

Up to now, we have not made use of the particular form (17) of the dipole cross section $`\widehat{\sigma }`$. We only implicitly assumed that the integrals involving $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ are finite. The scaling property, i.e. that $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ is a function of the dimensionless ratio $`r/R_0(x)`$, has the remarkable consequence that the $`x_{IP}`$-dependent part of the found diffractive parton distributions (DPD) factorizes.

Introducing the dimensionless variables $`\widehat{k}=kR_0(x)`$ and $`\widehat{r}=r/R_0(x)`$ in (25) and (28) and assuming $`Q_0^2`$ to be a fixed scale, we find the following factorized form

$`q^D(\beta ,x_{IP})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_{IP}R_0^2(x_{IP})}}f_{q/IP}(\beta ),`$ (31)
$`g^D(\beta ,x_{IP})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_{IP}R_0^2(x_{IP})}}f_{g/IP}(\beta ).`$ (32)
We have introduced a notation similar to that in (13) for the $`\beta `$-dependent factors. This type of factorization looks like Regge factorization but has nothing to do with Regge theory. It merely results from the scaling properties of the saturating cross section $`\widehat{\sigma }`$. Since the evolution does not affect the $`x_{IP}`$-dependence of the DPD, the factorized form will be valid for any scale $`Q^2`$.

Now, we can rewrite eq. (30) as

$$F_2^{D(3)(LT)}=\frac{1}{x_{IP}R_0^2(x_{IP})}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\underset{f}{}e_f^2\beta f_{q/IP}(\beta ,Q^2)$$
(33)
in which the $`x_{IP}`$-dependence is factored out. In the saturation model ($`R_0(x)x^{\lambda /2}`$) the parameter $`\lambda =0.29`$ was determined from a fit to inclusive DIS data only . The same value holds for diffractive interactions, thus we find a definite prediction for the $`x_{IP}`$-dependence of the leading twist diffractive structure function

$$F_2^{D(3)(LT)}x_{IP}^{1\lambda }.$$
(34)
At present, the bulk of diffractive data in DIS support the factorized form (34). They are usually interpreted  in terms of the $`t`$-averaged pomeron intercept $`\overline{\alpha _{IP}}`$, i.e.

$$F_2^{D(3)}x_{IP}^{12\overline{\alpha _{IP}}}.$$
(35)
Such a dependence has been introduced in the spirit of the Ingelman-Schlein model (15), with the $`t`$-integration performed, $`F_2^{D(3)}𝑑tf(x_{IP},t)x_{IP}^{12\overline{\alpha _{IP}}}`$. Thus, according to (34) and (35) we find

$$\overline{\alpha _{IP}}=\frac{\lambda }{2}+1\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.15},$$
(36)
which is in remarkable agreement with the values found at HERA, $`\overline{\alpha _{IP}}=\alpha _{IP}(0)0.03=1.17`$ by H1  and $`\overline{\alpha _{IP}}=1.13`$ by ZEUS .

Summarizing, the leading twist description extracted from the saturation model of DIS diffraction leads to the factorization of the $`x_{IP}`$-dependent part of the cross section similar to Regge factorization. It correctly predicts the value of the “effective pomeron intercept”. The $`Q^2`$-dependence of the diffractive structure function does not affect the $`x_{IP}`$-factorization. This means that the saturation model for the dipole cross section gives effectively the result which coincides with the Regge approach to DIS diffraction, although the physics behind is completely different. The relative hardness of the intrinsic scale $`1/R_0(x_{IP})1\text{GeV}`$ in the saturation model suggests that DIS diffraction is a semihard process rather than a soft process as Regge theory would require.

In the presented description, the leading twist structure function vanishes when $`\beta 1`$, i.e. for small diffractive mass $`M^2Q^2`$. This is not the case for the higher twist longitudinal contribution $`F_{Lq\overline{q}}^D`$ , eq. (20), which dominates in the region of $`\beta 1`$ . The expected $`x_{IP}`$-dependence for this contribution is given by

$$F_{q\overline{q}}^L\frac{1}{x_{IP}R_0^4(x_{IP})}x_{IP}^{12\lambda },$$
(37)
which clearly violates the universality of the effective pomeron intercept, assumed in the Ingelman-Schlein model. The first indication of this effect is observed at HERA by measuring the effective pomeron intercept in different regions of the diffractive mass as a function of $`Q^2`$ . The intercept seems to be bigger for smaller diffractive masses ($`\beta 1`$), and the description based on perturbative QCD gives a satisfactory explanation .

## 5 Comparison with data

In this section we present a comparison of the leading twist part of diffractive DIS including DGLAP evolution plus the corresponding longitudinal twist-4 component (eq. (29)) with the diffractive data from the HERA experiments.

In Fig. 3 we show the quark and gluon diffractive distributions at some initial scale $`Q_0^2`$. This scale, however, is not determined in this approach. Thus, it can be treated as a phenomenological parameter which may be tuned to obtain the best description of the DIS diffractive data. We tried various options and found that $`Q_0^21.5\text{GeV}^2`$ is the best choice for this purpose<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2This value has been changed in comparison to the journal version because of a numerical error in the analysis there. The results of a comparison with the data are practically the same.. We used the leading logarithmic evolution equations with three massless flavours, and the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}=200\text{MeV}`$ in $`\alpha _s`$.

Fig. 4 shows the results of our studies with data from H1 and Fig. 5 data from ZEUS. The dashed lines represent the total contribution according to eq. (29). The pure leading twist structure function $`F_2^{D(3)LT}`$ with the leading DGLAP evolution is shown by the dotted lines. The difference (if visible) between the dashed and dotted lines is the effect of the longitudinal twist-4 component $`F_{q\overline{q}}^L`$ added into the leading twist result. As expected, the twist-4 component is significant in the large-$`\beta `$ domain, see also  for a detailed discussion. Notice the change of the slope in $`x_{IP}`$ when the twist-4 component is added. The overall agreement between the data and the model (29) is reasonably good, taking into account the fact that the only tuned parameter is the initial scale for the evolution $`Q_0^2`$. The parameters of the evolution equations are standard, and the diffractive slope $`B_D=6\text{GeV}^2`$ which effects the normalization is taken from the measurements as in the analysis . The significance of the twist-4 contribution at large $`\beta `$ is clearly demonstrated.

Looking at Fig. 4 and 5, we realize that at large $`\beta `$ and $`Q^2`$ the agreement between the data and the model with evolution starts to deteriorate. The reason for this is illustrated in Fig. 6 where we show $`F_2^D`$ for fixed value of $`x_{IP}=0.0042`$ as a function of $`\beta `$, for different values of $`Q^2`$. The DGLAP evolution depopulates the region of large $`\beta `$, shifting the parton distributions towards smaller values of $`\beta `$ (compare the dotted lines showing the initial distributions and the dashed lines showing the evolved distributions). The twist-4 component $`F_{q\overline{q}}^L`$ (the difference between the solid and the dashed lines) largely compensates for this effect. Its significance, however, diminishes as $`Q^2`$ rises due to the $`1/Q^2`$ dependence of twist-4.

There are at least two effects which may enhance $`F_{q\overline{q}}^L`$ when $`Q^2`$ rises, thus accounting for the difference between the data and the discussed description. In principle, twist-4 should also have logarithmic evolution, in addition to the $`1/Q^2`$ dependence, which could push $`F_{q\overline{q}}^L`$ into the right direction. Unfortunately, this aspect is beyond the scope of the present paper. Another effect which is important at large $`\beta `$ is skewedness of the diffractive parton distributions, see  for a recent discussion and references therein. This effect is known to enhance $`F_{q\overline{q}}^{T,L}`$ at large $`\beta `$. Since the enhancement rises with $`Q^2`$, the skewedness may account for the discussed difference between the data and their description in the region of large $`\beta `$ and $`Q^2`$.

## 6 Conclusions

We have reviewed the description of diffractive deep inelastic scattering in the light of the collinear factorization theorem. This theorem applies to the leading twist terms of the cross section and introduces the notion of diffractive parton distributions. We have extracted a precise analytic form for these distributions from the approach in which the diffractive state is formed by the $`q\overline{q}`$ and $`q\overline{q}g`$ systems, computed in pQCD. The convolution with a dipole cross section from the saturation model leads to the $`x_{IP}`$-factorization of the diffractive structure functions, similar to Regge factorization, which correctly describe the energy dependence found at HERA by the H1 and ZEUS collaborations. We further evolved the diffractive parton distributions with the DGLAP evolution equations and pointed out the significance of the twist-4 component at large $`\beta `$ for the agreement with the data. The latter was originally advocated in  and originates from the longitudinal $`q\overline{q}`$ contribution. The twist-4 component breaks the universality of the effective $`x_{IP}`$-dependence, making it stronger at large $`\beta `$. This stays in contrast to the assumed universality in the Ingelman-Schlein model. Finally, we suggest some necessary modifications of the description at large $`\beta `$ and $`Q^2`$ to improve the agreement with the data in this kinematic region.

Acknowledgements

We thank Jochen Bartels and Henri Kowalski for useful discussions and critical reading of the manuscript. K.G.-B. thanks Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for financial support. This research has been supported in part by the EU Fourth Framework Programme “Training and Mobility of Researchers” Network, “Quantum Chromodynamics and the Deep Structure of Elementary Particles”, contract FMRX-CT98-0194 (DG 12-MIHT) and by the Polish KBN grant No. 5 P03B 144 20.


text:
# Equilibrium basal-plane magnetization of superconductive YNi2B2C - the influence of non-local electrodynamics

## I Introduction

Borocarbide superconductors continue to reveal new and interesting features.  This family of compounds, $`\mathrm{𝑅𝑒}`$Ni2B2C, exhibits superconductivity for $`\mathrm{𝑅𝑒}=`$ Lu, Y, Tm, Er, Ho and Dy. The last four of these order antiferromagnetically below the Neel temperature $`T_N`$ that ranges from $`1.5`$ K to $`10`$ K. The relatively high superconducting transition temperature $`T_c`$ and the broad variation of the ratio $`T_N/T_c`$ within the family make these materials particularly appropriate to explore the microscopic coexistence of superconductivity and localized magnetic moments.

A second remarkable feature in these compounds is the formation of superconducting vortex lattices \[FLL\] with symmetries other than the hexagonal one. The presence of these non-hexagonal lattices has been attributed to the effects of nonlocal electrodynamics, which arise when the electronic mean free path $`\mathrm{}`$ is larger than the BCS zero temperature superconducting coherence length $`\xi _0`$. Nonlocal electrodynamics in superconductors had been traditionally associated with very low values of the Ginzburg Landau parameter, $`\kappa 1`$. Borocarbide superconductors have $`\kappa `$ values in the range of 10 to 20. However, the availability of very clean single crystals with large $`\mathrm{}`$ permits the observation of nonlocal effects in these intermediate $`\kappa `$ materials.

Nonlocality influences the equilibrium magnetic response of the vortex lattice in various ways. Song et al. have shown that, when the applied field $`𝐇`$ is parallel to the crystallographic $`c`$-axis of a YNi2B2C crystal, the reversible magnetization in the mixed state deviates from the logarithmic dependence on magnetic field, $`Mln(H_{c2}/H)`$, which is expected from the standard London model. Such deviations could be quantitatively accounted for within the framework of a nonlocal generalization of London theory, as developed by Kogan and Gurevich.

More recently, we have measured $`M`$ of this compound for $`𝐇`$ lying within the basal plane, and we found that it oscillates with angular periodicity $`\pi /2`$, a behavior that is incompatible with the standard London model. Indeed, the familiar superconductive mass anisotropy with components $`m_{ij}`$, which plays a major role in the layered high-$`T_c`$ materials, is a second rank tensor. Thus, in the square ab basal plane of this tetragonal compound one has $`m_{aa}=m_{bb}`$, which immediately implies that the response within the plane should be isotropic. In contrast, Kogan’s nonlocal scenario  contains a fourth rank tensor that breaks the basal plane isotropy and provides for the observed four-fold anisotropy.

In this paper we expand the analysis of the reversible magnetization of the vortex system in YNi2B2C by presenting detailed measurements of $`M(H,T)`$ for $`𝐇`$ in the basal plane of the crystal. Within the framework of the Kogan-Gurevich model, we obtain explicit expressions for the magnetization in the ab-plane by expanding the free energy appropriate for this configuration to first order in the basal-plane anisotropy. This approximation provides an excellent description of the experimental results and, furthermore, the resulting parameters for the superconductor are well behaved and exhibit a remarkable consistency with results from band structure calculations. These aggregate findings give unimpeachable evidence for a profound impact of nonlocal electrodynamics on clean, intermediate $`\kappa `$ borocarbide superconductors.

## II Theoretical background

Standard local London anisotropic theory provides a simple logarithmic field dependence for the equilibrium magnetization. For intermediate fields $`H_{c1}HH_{c2}`$, one has (for $`𝐇`$ parallel to the $`k`$-th principal axis)

$$\frac{M^k}{M_0^k}=ln\left(\frac{\eta H_{c2}^k}{B}\right),M_0^k=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{32\pi ^2\lambda _i\lambda _j}$$
(1)
Here $`\eta `$ is a constant of order unity; $`\lambda _i`$ is the London penetration depth corresponding to screening by currents in the $`𝐣`$-direction, with $`𝐇𝐤`$-axis; $`H_{c2}^k=\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2\pi \xi _i\xi _j`$ is the upper critical field in the $`𝐤`$-direction, with $`\xi `$ being the Ginzburg-Landau coherence length at temperature $`T`$. Experimentally, we will make the usual approximation that the flux density $`B=H+4\pi M`$ can be replaced by the applied field $`H`$, since the magnetization $`MH`$ in all cases treated here.

In the Kogan-Gurevich non-local formulation of London theory there is a third independent length scale, the nonlocality radius $`\rho `$, which depends on $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`T`$ and also reflects the material anisotropy. It has the form $`\rho =\lambda \sqrt{n}`$, where $`\lambda =\left(\lambda _a\lambda _b\lambda _c\right)^{1/3}`$ and $`n`$ is the appropriate component of the forth rank tensor $`\widehat{n}`$, given by

$$\lambda ^2n_{ijlm}\gamma (T,\mathrm{})v_iv_jv_lv_m/v^2^2.$$
(2)
Here $`𝐯`$ is the Fermi velocity and $`\mathrm{}`$ indicates averages over the Fermi surface. The function $`\gamma (T,\mathrm{})`$, that contains all the temperature and mean free path dependencies, has been evalulated by Kogan et al.

When non-locality is important, the scale $`H_{c2}\mathrm{\Phi }_0/\xi ^2`$ for $`M`$ is replaced by another magnetic field scale $`H_0\mathrm{\Phi }_0/\rho ^2`$. As $`\gamma (T,\mathrm{})`$ slowly decreases with increasing $`T`$, so does $`\rho `$, and consequently $`H_0`$ slowly increases with temperature, in contrast to $`H_{c2}`$. One consequence of the theory is that the quantity $`\gamma H_0`$ $``$ $`1/\xi _0^2`$ should be independent of temperature, which is a prediction that we test later.

In a tetragonal material $`\widehat{n}`$ has four independent components, $`n_1=n_{aaaa}`$, $`n_2=n_{aabb}`$, $`n_3=n_{cccc}`$ and $`n_4=n_{aacc}`$. For $`𝐇𝐜`$-axis, the resulting expression for $`M^c(H,T)`$ is

$$\frac{M^c}{M_0^c}=ln\left(\frac{H_0^c}{B}+1\right)\frac{H_0^c}{\left(H_0^c+B\right)}+\zeta ^c$$
(3)
where $`M_0^c=\mathrm{\Phi }_0/32\pi ^2\lambda _{ab}^2`$, $`H_0^c=\mathrm{\Phi }_0/4\pi ^2\lambda ^2n_2`$ (for a square FLL), and $`\zeta ^c(T)=\eta _1ln(H_0^c/\eta _2H_{c2}^c+1)`$, with both $`\eta _1`$ and $`\eta _2`$ constants of order unity.

If $`𝐇`$ lies in the ab-plane the analysis is more complex. In a previous study, we described the basal plane anisotropy in $`M`$ by assuming the validity of an expression analogous to Eq. (3) and proposing a four-fold oscillation in $`H_0`$. The empirical expression so obtained successfully captured the basic features of the in-plane magnetic response, but the link between the amplitude of the oscillations and the more fundamental material parameters was undefined.

According to a subsequent generalization of the formalism, developed for the case of $`𝐇`$ in the ab-plane, the free energy is approximately given by

$$F=M_0^{ab}B_{u_1}^{u_2}\frac{du}{\sqrt{(u+n_4)(u+n_4+d(\phi )/4)}}$$
(4)
Here $`M_0^{ab}=\mathrm{\Phi }_0/32\pi ^2\lambda _{ab}\lambda _c`$, $`u_1=(4\pi ^2\kappa ^2)^1`$ and $`u_2=2\pi u_1\left(H_{c2}/B\right)`$. (Within this approximation, the very small anisotropy in $`H_{c2}`$ can be ignored.) Equation (4) holds whenever $`u1`$, so that terms of order $`u^2`$ can be neglected. For YNi2B2C we have $`\kappa 10`$, thus $`u_12.5\times 10^4`$ and $`u_21.6\times 10^3H_{c2}/B`$. In our analysis of the basal-plane magnetization, $`\left(H_{c2}/B\right)40`$ in all cases (see section IV) thus $`u_20.05`$ and the approximation is valid.

The in-plane anisotropy is accounted for by $`d(\phi )`$,

$$d=n_3\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+\frac{n_1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}6n_4\frac{n_13n_2}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}sin^2(2\phi )$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=m_c/m_a`$ is the usual mass anisotropy between the $`a`$ and $`c`$-axes, and $`\phi `$ is the angle between the vortices and the $`a`$-axis. If $`d=0`$ the in-plane response would be isotropic and integration of Eq. (4) would result in a magnetization $`M=F/B`$ identical to Eq. (3). However, for $`d0`$ the in-plane magnetization cannot in general be reduced to the form (3).

The integrand of (4) can be expanded in powers of the variable $`d(\phi )/4(u+n_4)`$ and integrated term by term. The resulting series can be differentiated with respect to $`B`$ to obtain $`M^{ab}`$. The leading term, $`M_{iso}^{ab}`$, is independent of $`d`$ and represents a large contribution to the magnetization that is isotropic within the plane

$$\frac{M_{iso}^{ab}}{M_0^{ab}}=ln\left(\frac{H_0^{ab}}{B}+1\right)\frac{H_0^{ab}}{\left(H_0^{ab}+B\right)}+\zeta ^{ab}$$
(6)
where $`H_0^{ab}=\mathrm{\Phi }_0/4\pi ^2\lambda ^2n_4`$ (Also in this case, the numerical factors are valid for a square FLL). The term $`\zeta ^{ab}`$ arises from the core contribution to the free energy (not included in Eq. (4)); it is analogous to $`\zeta ^c`$ in both form and origin, as described previously. Eq. (6) has the same functional form as Eq. (3), but the anisotropy between the $`c`$-axis and the plane is reflected in both the prefactor $`M_0`$ and the field scale $`H_0`$.

The second term in the expansion, $`M_1^{ab}`$, is linear in $`d(\phi )`$ and accounts for the in-plane fourfold anisotropy in $`M^{ab}`$ to leading order:

$$\frac{M_1^{ab}}{M_0^{ab}}=\frac{d}{8n_4}\frac{B}{B+H_0^{ab}}\left[\frac{H_0^{ab}}{H_0^{ab}+B}\frac{\frac{H_{c2}}{B}1}{(\frac{H_{c2}}{H_0^{ab}}+1)}\right]$$
(7)
In the above scenario $`H_{c2}`$ tends toward zero as $`TT_c`$, while $`H_0`$ increases with temperature. These differing temperature dependencies mean that for clean materials, the non-local expressions Eqs. 3 and 6 reduce to the local form, Eq. 1, as $`T`$ approaches $`T_c`$, while $`M_1^{ab}`$ from Eq. 7 vanishes. Thus, the non-local theory predicts that the equilibrium magnetization in a clean sample should vary logarithmically with field near $`T_c`$, but deviate progressively from logarithmic behavior at low temperatures. Furthermore, as materials become dirtier so that $`\rho `$ becomes shorter and $`H_0`$ increases, the non-local expressions reduce to the local form at all temperatures.

Our purpose is to analyze the in-plane magnetization using Eqs. 6 and 7. We thus need to estimate the importance of the various terms in the expansion. According to electron band calculations, for YNi2B2C we have

$`v^2`$ $`=`$ $`1.50\times 10^{15}(cm/sec)^2`$ (8)
$`v_a^2`$ $`=`$ $`0.87\times 10^{15}(cm/sec)^2`$ (9)
$`v_c^2`$ $`=`$ $`0.85\times 10^{15}(cm/sec)^2`$ (10)
$`v_a^4`$ $`=`$ $`1.15\times 10^{30}(cm/sec)^4`$ (11)
$`v_a^2v_b^2`$ $`=`$ $`1.75\times 10^{29}(cm/sec)^4`$ (12)
$`v_c^4`$ $`=`$ $`7.71\times 10^{29}(cm/sec)^4`$ (13)
$`v_a^2v_c^2`$ $`=`$ $`2.41\times 10^{29}(cm/sec)^4`$ (14)
Based on those values we can calculate the relations between all the components of $`\widehat{n}`$ using Eq. (2). In section IV we will compare these band calculation estimates with our experimental results. In particular, we are interested in the dimensionless prefactor $`d/8n_4`$ that sets the order of magnitude in Eq. 7. It is also useful to split $`d`$ in two parts, $`d=d_1+d_2\mathrm{sin}^2(2\phi )`$. Using Eq. 5 we obtain

$$\frac{d_1}{8n_4}0.23\frac{d_2}{8n_4}0.13$$
(15)
In section IV we will make use of these estimates to gain an idea of the goodness of our approximations. For comparison, we can calculate the equivalent values for the similar material LuNi2B2C, using the Fermi-surface averages given previously. The results are $`d_1/8n_40.42`$ and $`d_2/8n_40.20`$. The larger values for the Lu-based system mean that the first-order expansion in Eqs. 6-7 is more accurate for the yttrium-based compound, while the amplitude of oscillation in the basal plane magnetization can be larger for LuNi2B2C.

## III Experimental aspects

The YNi2B2C single crystal was grown by a high temperature flux method using Ni2B flux, using isotopic 11B to reduce neutron absorption in complementary scattering studies. The 17 mg crystal is the same as that used in previous investigations by Song et al. and Civale et al.  It is a slab of thickness $`t0.5mm`$ in the $`c`$-axis direction, with a mosaic spread of less than $`0.2^{}`$, as determined by neutron diffraction. In the basal plane the shape is approximately elliptical with principal axes of length $`2.0`$ and $`2.5mm`$, which approximately coincide with the two equivalent $`110`$ axes of the tetragonal structure.

Magnetic studies were conducted in a SQUID-based magnetometer Quantum Design MPMS-7 equipped with a compensated 70 kOe magnet. Normally, scan lengths of $`3cm`$ were used. The crystal was glued onto a thin Si-disk and mounted in a Mylar tube for measurement with the magnetic field $`𝐇`$ applied in the basal plane, along either the $`[100]`$ or the $`[110]`$ axis, with an accuracy better than $`3^{}`$. For both orientations, the magnetization $`𝐌`$ is parallel to $`𝐇`$ by symmetry, thus only the longitudinal component measured by the magnetometer needs to be considered. This is also true with $`𝐇[001]`$, as was the case for the previous data that will be included in our analysis. Then, from now on we will ignore the vector nature of $`𝐌`$ and denote it simply as $`M`$. The diamagnetic moment of the addenda (silicon disk plus glue), which was measured separately, was linear in $`H`$, isotropic, and non-hysteretic. This signal, $`m_{Si}=(5.4\times 10^9emu/Oe)H`$, was always small compared with the moment of the crystal, and was subtracted from all the data prior to any further analysis.

In the mixed state, hysteresis loops $`M(H,T)`$ were measured. The maximum $`H`$ was $`65kOe`$ in all cases. Measurements were also conducted in the normal state at temperatures up to $`300K`$, in order to correct for the normal state background moment. It is worth noting that the magnetization is small, compared to the applied field, in all cases considered here. Thus demagnetizing efects are negligible: for $`𝐇ab`$-plane, we obtain from the Meissner state response that the effective demagnetization factor $`D0.1`$. Then in the mixed state, the effective field $`H_{eff}=H_{applied}4\pi DM`$ differs from the applied field by less than 1 % is the worst case and we need to consider only the magnetizing field ”$`H`$.” Furthermore, for comparison with theoretical expressions, we can approximate the flux density $`B=H+4\pi M`$ by $`H`$ with an accuracy of a few percent and generally better.

The superconductive transition temperature, measured in a small applied field, was $`T_c=14.5K`$. Measurement of the electrical resistivity using a van der Pauw method gave an electrical resistivity of $`4\mu \mathrm{\Omega }cm`$ at $`20K`$ and a residual resistance ratio of 10, yielding an electronic mean free path $`\mathrm{}300\AA `$. Using this and values of $`H_{c2}`$ (for $`H`$ $`c`$-axis), Song et al. deduced the values $`\xi _0=120`$ $`\AA `$ for the BCS coherence length at $`T=0`$ and $`\kappa 10`$. Other superconducting parameters for this compound are collected in Table I.

## IV Results and discussion

For magnetic field orientations $`𝐇[100]`$ and $`𝐇[110]`$, we measured isothermal magnetization loops $`M(H)`$ at temperatures $`T=3`$ to $`14K`$, in $`1K`$ intervals, and also at $`18K`$, slightly above $`T_c`$. Three of those loops, with $`𝐇[110]`$, are shown in Fig. 1, at temperatures $`T=5K`$, $`12K`$ and $`18K`$, i.e., well below, near, and just above $`T_c`$. The magnetic response of this material in the superconducting mixed phase is slightly irreversible, reflecting weak pinning of flux lines. Now, as the only source of magnetic hysteresis is vortex pinning, $`M(H)`$ becomes reversible for $`H>H_{c2}(T)`$. Based on the Bean’s critical state model, we calculated the equilibrium magnetization as the average $`M_{eq}(H)=\left[M^{}+M^{}\right]/2`$ of the magnetization values measured in the field-increasing and field-decreasing branches of the loop, respectively. The result for $`T=5K`$ is shown as a dashed line in Fig. 1. The identification of $`M_{eq}(H)`$ with the average between the branches of the loop increases in accuracy as the width of the hysteresis loop $`\left[M^{}M^{}\right]`$ decreases. For each temperature, we disregard the low field data where large hysteresis introduces a significant uncertainty in the determination of $`M_{eq}`$. Experimentally, as the field decreases, the width of the $`M(H)`$ loop increases continuously and smoothly. Then at some temperature-dependent low field, $`M`$ changes abruptly as it reaches a minimum and starts to increase. This feature is visible in Fig. 1 for $`T`$ = 5 and 12 K, for example. Below this field, the hysteresis grows suddenly. We compute the average magnetization starting at a field slightly above this minimum.

It is apparent in Fig. 1 that the magnetization $`M_{eq}`$ does not vanish above $`H_{c2}`$ and above $`T_c`$. This indicates the presence of a normal state contribution $`M_{ns}(H,T)`$ to the magnetization (recalling that the signal from the sample holder has been already subtracted). Pure YNi2B2C has no localized moments, thus in the normal state it is expected to exhibit a linear and nominally temperature-independent paramagnetic (Pauli and Van-Vleck) susceptibility $`\chi _0`$. However, close inspection of the data indicates that this intrinsic term cannot account for the entire normal state signal. Indeed, $`M_{ns}(H,T)`$ is not linear in $`H`$ and it grows as $`T`$ decreases, thus pointing to the presence of localized moments. The small magnitude of the signal suggests, on the other hand, that this contribution arises from magnetic impurities. To confirm this, we measured the temperature dependence of $`M_{ns}(H,T)`$ from $`16K`$ to $`300K`$ at several fixed fields. The results for $`H=1`$ and $`5kOe`$ are shown in the inset of Fig. 1. As the localized moments are very dilute, no magnetically ordered phase should appear and one can expect a Curie Law dependence. The solid lines in the inset are fits to $`M_{ns}/H=\left[\chi _0+C/T\right]`$. The Curie term corresponds to a rare earth impurity content of $``$ 0.1 at $`\%`$ relative to yttrium, most likely contaminants in the yttrium starting material.

To isolate the magnetization associated with the vortex state, it is necessary to remove the paramagnetic background. The normal state magnetization $`M_{ns}`$ is well described by the expression

$$M_{ns}=\chi _0H+M_{sat}B_J\left(\frac{g\mu _BJH}{k_BT}\right)$$
(16)
where $`\chi _0`$ is the temperature independent susceptibility obtained as explained above and $`B_J`$ is the Brillouin function for effective angular momentum $`J`$. For small values of the argument $`H/T`$, the Brillouin function leads to the Curie susceptibility, of course.

The magnetic signal arising from the localized moments is clearly observed in Fig. 2, where $`\left[M_{eq}\chi _0H\right]`$ is plotted as a function of $`H/T`$. The figure includes experimental data from temperature sweeps at three values of $`H`$, and from isothermal loops at temperatures down to $`5K`$. At each $`T`$, the onset of the superconducting signal below $`H_{c2}(T)`$ is clearly observed in the nearly vertical trace of data below the envelope curve. It is also apparent that for $`H>H_{c2}(T)`$ all the data at different $`T`$ overlap on a single curve arising from the paramagnetic contribution of the magnetic impurities. The solid line is a nonlinear fit to Eq. 16 that yields parameter values $`J=3/2`$ and $`g=6`$. The saturation magnetization $`M_{sat}=0.92G`$ corresponds to $`7\times 10^4`$ per formula unit content of rare earth impurities, most likely trace contaminants in the yttrium starting material. At this concentration, the magnetic impurity ions are isolated, but strongly influenced by the crystal field of the host, producing an anisotropic magnetic response in the normal state. The susceptibility is smaller for $`Hc`$-axis, as found for $`\mathrm{𝑅𝑒}`$Ni2B2C crystals with $`\mathrm{𝑅𝑒}`$ = Tb, Dy, and Ho, but not Tm. These qualitative similarities show that (a mixture of) any of several rare earth impurities can generate the observed paramagnetic response. The central and important point here, however, is that the empirical fit to Eq. 16 provides a precise description of the normal state signal, so that the superconductive magnetization can be isolated for analysis.

The resulting (background-corrected) superconducting state equilibrium magnetization $`M=M_{eq}M_{ns}`$ is shown in Fig. 3, as a function of magnetic field $`H`$ applied along the $`[110]`$ axis of the crystal. Results are shown for temperatures $`3KT14K`$ in intervals of $`1K`$. Qualitatively, the curves for temperatures near $`T_c`$ are linear, showing the dependence on $`ln(B)`$ as predicted by traditional local London theory. At lower temperatures, however, the increasing curvature visibly signals a progressive departure from local London behavior.

For a quantitative analysis, we fit the low temperature data to the non-local relation, Eq. (6), varying the parameters $`M_0^{ab}`$, $`H_0^{ab}`$, and $`\zeta ^{ab}`$. These fits describe the low temperature experiments very well, as shown by the solid lines in Fig. 3. The resulting values of $`M_0^{ab}`$, $`H_0^{ab}`$, and $`\zeta ^{ab}`$ as a function of $`T`$ (up to $`T=10K`$) are shown in Figs. 4(a), (b) and (c) respectively. At higher temperatures, $`T11K`$, the system closely approximates local London behavior, with $`Mln(B)`$ and we analyze these data using the local expression Eq. (1). Numerically, the data close to $`T_c`$ have a very shallow minimum as a function of $`H_0`$ and it becomes meaningless to fit an (essentially) straight line with three parameters. The fits to the local London relation are shown in Fig. 3 as dashed lines, and the values of $`M_0(T)`$ obtained by this procedure are also included in Fig. 4(a) (open symbols). In the nonlocal analysis, $`H_{c2}`$ was not a fitting parameter. It was determined independently, as explained below.

Before we discuss the results shown in Fig. 4, we must analyze what is the error involved in taking $`M^{ab}M_{iso}^{ab}`$, disregarding terms of higher order. To estimate the contribution $`M_1^{ab}`$ given by Eq. 7, we must rely on the numerical values (15) obtained from band calculations. We see that, if at least the signs in (15) are correct, $`M_1^{ab}`$ minimizes for $`\phi =45^{}`$. For that reason we chose to apply Eq. 6 to the $`[110]`$ data and not to the $`[100]`$ orientation. Numerically, we have $`d(\phi =45^{})/8n_4=\left(d_1+d_2\right)/8n_40.10`$. Thus, Eqs. (6) and (7) indicate that $`M_1^{ab}M_{iso}^{ab}`$ over most of the field range (for instance, at $`T=3K`$ and $`B=2kG`$, $`M_1^{ab}/M_{iso}^{ab}0.02`$, and the same ratio is obtained for 6K and 10kG). We can also compare the logarithmic field derivatives of $`M`$, which give the slopes in Fig. 3. For $`BH_0`$, to leading order we obtain $`M_{iso}^{ab}/\mathrm{ln}BM_0^{ab}`$ and $`M_1^{ab}/\mathrm{ln}B0.10\left(2B/H_0\right)M_0^{ab}`$, thus for $`B=2kG`$ the error in the slope produced by disregarding the second term in the expansion is less than $`0.5\%`$.

The above estimates indicate that by using Eq. (6) to analyze the magnetization in the $`[110]`$ direction we are introducing an error in the determination of $`M_0^{ab}`$ and $`H_0^{ab}`$ of at most a few percent, which is less than the experimental noise observed in Figs. 4(a) and (b). So, it is meaningful to discuss the results shown in Fig. 4. For comparison, the corresponding results for the case with $`𝐇[001]`$ are included, too.

Figure 4(a) shows that $`M_0`$ varies linearly with $`T`$ near $`T_c`$ and extrapolates to zero at $`T_c`$, consistent with Ginzburg-Landau theory. From Eq. (1), the ratio $`M_0^c/M_0^{ab}=\lambda _c/\lambda _{ab}=\sqrt{\left(m_c/m_{ab}\right)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. As expected, we find that this ratio is rather independent of temperature, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.13\pm 0.02`$. This result is very comparable with the experimental value of 1.16 for LuNi2B2C obtained by Metlushko et al. This experimental value can also be compared with the band structure calculation, since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\sqrt{(v_a^2/v_c^2)}`$. The resulting value, 1.01, is much smaller than that deduced experimentally. Returning to the experimentally determined parameters, we can also calculate $`\lambda _c(T)`$, $`\lambda _{ab}(T)`$ and $`\lambda (T)`$. The results at $`T=3K`$ are shown in Table 1.

The next frame, Fig. 4(b), shows $`H_0(T)`$. Qualitatively, $`H_0`$ for both orientations is constant at low temperature, then increases as $`T`$ increases, consistent with the theoretically predicted behavior. In section II above, we noted that the non-local theory predicts that the quantity $`H_0\gamma `$ should be independent of temperature. Previously we found that $`\xi _0=12`$ nm; this value agrees within experimental error with that calculated from the BCS expression $`\xi _0=\mathrm{}v_F/(\pi ^2e^\gamma k_BT_c)`$ = 11.6 nm, using $`v_F`$ = $`3.87\times 10^7`$ cm/sec from band structure, with $`e^\gamma 1.78`$. Also, from the electrical resistivity, we have that $`\mathrm{}30`$ nm for this crystal and therefore evaluate the impurity parameter $`\gamma (T)`$ with $`\xi _0/\mathrm{}=0.3`$. The results for $`H_0\gamma `$ are shown as open symbols in Fig. 4b, for the two orientations of magnetic field. The constancy of the product provides further solid evidence that non-local electrodynamics strongly modify the superconductive properties of clean borocarbides. From the $`H_0`$ data we can extract the nonlocality radius in both orientations, $`\rho _{ab}(T)=\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_0/4\pi ^2H_0^c\right)^{1/2}`$ (see Song et al.), and analogous expression for $`\rho _c(T)`$. We can also calculate two of the four independent components of the tensor $`\widehat{n}`$, namely $`n_2=\left(\rho _{ab}/\lambda \right)^2`$ and $`n_4=\left(\rho _c/\lambda \right)^2`$. All the numerical values for $`T=3K`$ are listed in Table 1.

Figure 4(c) shows the temperature dependence of the fitting parameter $`\zeta `$. Qualitatively, the data reflects the fact that $`\zeta \mathrm{ln}\left(H_0/H_{c2}\right)`$. As $`T`$ increases, $`H_0/H_{c2}`$ varies little at low temperatures, but then becomes larger, due to the differing dependencies of $`H_0(T)`$ and $`H_{c2}(T)`$, thus $`\zeta (T)`$ decreases.

The last frame, Fig. 4d, shows $`H_{c2}(T)`$ in both orientations, obtained (a) by extrapolating the isothermal magnetization in the superconductive state to $`M=0`$ and (b) by locating the field at which the magnetic hysteresis disappears. These results were introduced as fixed parameters in Eq. (6), as already mentioned. It is evident that $`H_{c2}(T)`$ curves upward near $`T_c`$. This differs from simple Ginzburg-Landau behavior, but is consistent with other observations on this material. Also, little anisotropy is evident between the c-axis and the basal plane values. The mass anisotropy obtained from the $`M_0`$ data (Fig. 4(a)) would imply an experimentally resolvable difference in $`H_{c2}`$. Previously, Johnson-Halperin et al.  also found a nearly isotropic response in single crystal YNi2B2C. The reason for the discrepancy between the anisotropy derived from $`M_0`$ and $`H_{c2}`$ remains unclear. Interestingly, LuNi2B2C, an isostructural, nonmagnetic borocarbide superconductor with similar $`T_c`$, exhibits greater anisotropy in $`H_{c2}`$, both from the c-axis and within the basal plane.

Next we consider the anisotropy of the magnetization within the basal plane. We have previously shown that this quantity exhibits a four-fold periodicity, which cannot be accounted for within the local London theory. In Fig. 5 we show the amplitude of the oscillation in basal plane magnetization, $`\delta M=M[110]M[100]`$, as a function of field $`H`$. The experimental data for $`T=7K`$ are reproduced from Civale et al., where details of the experimental procedure and data analysis are provided. Here we analyze these data using Eq. (7), where only the second term, proportional to $`d_2`$, contributes to the oscillatory behavior. In this expression, we have already values for $`H_{c2}`$ and $`H_0^{ab}`$, so there is a single unknown, $`d_2/8n_4`$, available for fitting the data. The result is shown as a solid line in Fig. 5. The value of the sole fitting parameter is $`d_2/8n_4=0.136`$, which we discuss below.

Let us now summarize the experimentally determined parameters related to the material anisotropy. Theoretically, five independent parameters ($`n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) are necessary to describe fully the angularly dependencies. Experimentally we have obtained three of these quantities, $`n_2`$, $`n_4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, plus the combination $`d_2/8n_4`$ that allows us to obtain the value for $`n_1`$ using Eq. 5. Thus, we have obtained four out of the five independent parameters, as shown in Table I. For comparison with band structure calculations and to eliminate poorly known prefactors, it is convenient to consider ratios relative to $`n_4`$, as shown in Table II. The experimental and calculated ratios agree within $``$ 15 $`\%`$, which is quite reasonable given the approximations. Lastly we consider the sole fitting parameter $`d_2/8n_40.14`$ that determines the amplitude of the oscillations of $`M`$ in the basal plane. This quantity has the correct sign and it lies in remarkable numerical agreement with the band structure value, -0.13. The excellent description of the data, using parameter values measured independently here ($`M_0`$, $`H_{c2}`$, and $`H_0`$) and with $`d_2/8n_4`$ almost coinciding with the calculated value, gives considerable confidence in the fundamental correctness of the non-local description.

## V conclusions

We have measured the equilibrium magnetization in the basal plane of clean, superconducting YNi2B2C, taking careful account of background effects. Influences of non-local electrodynamics are very evident well below $`T_c`$, with the effects becoming washed out at higher temperatures as expected. The magnetic-field-dependence of the magnetization and its oscillation amplitude are well described by a generalization of London theory to include non-local influences. The results of this analysis have been compared with a corresponding study of the c-axis magnetization, thereby providing the value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ = 1.13 for the mass anisotropy of this material. Furthermore, the experimental values for the material parameters agree overall very well with those deduced from the band structure. In summary, these clean, non-magnetic borocarbide superconductors display a rich variety of physical phenomena, requiring both 2-nd and especially 4-th rank tensors to describe their macroscopic vortex state properties.

## VI acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge useful discussions with V.G. Kogan, M. Yethiraj and D. K. Christen and to thank W.E. Pickett for his unpublished band structure results. A portion of the work of JRT was supported by the Science Alliance at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Research at ORNL was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed by UT-Battelle, LLC. Research at CAB-IB was partially supported by ANPCyT, Argentina, PICT 97 No. 01120, and by CONICET, Argentina, PIP No. 4207. A.V.S. would like to thank the CONICET for financial support.

## VII References

Figure captions

Fig. 1. The magnetization of single crystal YNi2B2C at three temperatures, with magnetic field in the basal plane, $`𝐇`$  axis. The figure illustrates the limited irreversibility in the superconductive state below $`T_c=14.5K`$, and a paramagnetic background in the normal state. Inset: Curie analysis of the normal state susceptibility in the temperature range $`T=18300K`$.

Fig. 2. Total equilibrium magnetization $`M_{eq}`$ minus $`\chi _0H`$ (see text) versus $`H/T`$ obtained from isothermal field sweeps at several $`T`$ and from temperature sweeps at three values of $`H`$, as indicated in the figure. The solid line is a Brillouin function (Eq. 16) fitted to the paramagnetic impurity-background data. The nearly vertical traces of data show the entry into the superconductive state.

Fig. 3. The equilibrium magnetization $`M_{eq}`$ in the superconductive state with $`H`$  axis, plotted versus $`H`$ (logarithmic axis). Discrete symbols are data measured at temperatures of 14, 13, 12, …, 3 K; straight (dashed) lines show conventional, local London behavior near $`T_c`$. A nonlocal generalization of London theory (Eq. 6, solid lines) accounts well for the pronounced deviations from local behavior at lower temperatures.

Fig. 4. Superconductive parameters of YNi2B2C with magnetic field $`H`$ $`[001]`$ or $`H`$ $`[110]`$. (a) The magnitude of the equilibrium magnetization $`M_0`$, where solid symbols denote results from the non-local analysis and open symbols come from a conventional London analysis. (b) The field scale $`H_0`$ and the (theoretically constant) quantity $`H_0\gamma `$ (where $`\gamma `$ = impurity parameter; see text). (c) The fitting parameter $`\zeta `$. (d) Estimates of the upper critical field $`H_{c2}`$.

Fig. 5. Amplitude of the oscillation in basal plane magnetization, $`\delta M=M[110]M[100]`$, plotted versus $`H`$ on a logarithmic axis. Solid line shows a fit to the oscillatory term in Eq. 7 , with $`H_0^{ab}`$ = 48 kOe and $`H_{c2}^{ab}`$ = 33 kOe; see text.