Heavy quark structure functions from unifying the color dipole picture and double

asymptotic scaling approaches

G.R.Boroun∗

Department of Physics, Razi University, Kermanshah 67149, Iran

(Dated: February 13, 2024)
We present an analysis of the heavy quark structure functions from the kt factorization scheme,
using unifying the color dipole picture and double asymptotic scaling approaches at small x. The
gluon distribution is obtained from the Golec-Biernat-Wüsthoff (GBW) and Bartels, Golec-Biernat
and Kowalski (BGK )models. The main elements are based on the color dipole picture (CDP)
and the generalized double asymptotic scaling (DAS) approach for usual parton distribution
arXiv:2401.00660v2 [hep-ph] 10 Feb 2024

functions (PDFs). The comparisons with the HERA data are made and predictions for the
proposed LHeC and FCC-he colliders are also provided in a wide range of the transverse separation
r. In particular, the ratio Rh = FLh /F2h , h = c, b, t is well described by the dipole models and
is sensitive to the collider energies from HERA until FCC-he. We derive correlated bounds
on the ratio F2c /F2 and F2b /F2 and compared them with the BGK and IP-sat models. The
uncertainties are due to the renormalization and factorization scales at large and low r values.
The Sudakov form factor into the heavy quark structure functions is incorporated and the results
are considered, which are dependent on the hard scale in a wide range of the transverse separation r.

I. Introduction

The vector-meson-dominance (VMD) model [1,2] is an old idea that the scattering of a highly-energetic photon on
a hadron may essentially be considered as a strong interaction process whenever a photon couples to hadrons it first
converts to the vector mesons with universal coupling constants [3]. The VDM model was applied to deep inelastic
scattering (DIS) on the assumption that the photon fluctuates into a series of vector mesons which subsequently
scatter off the proton [4]. A similar idea, which is motivated to a large extent by perturbative quantum chromo-
dynamics (pQCD), is the color dipole model (CDM) [5], which provides a successful description of deep inelastic
scattering processes in a wide range of the kinematic variables [6]. The QCD color dipole formalism provides an intu-
itive description of inclusive and exclusive processes in electronproton (ep) and lepton-nucleus (lA) scattering at high
energies [7]. Although our knowledge of the proton structure at small-x is very limited, novel opportunities will be
opened at new-generation facilities (Electron-Ion Collider(EIC), High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC),
Forward Physics Facility (FPF)). Combining the information coming from dipole cross sections and pT -unintegrated
densities could play an important role. In particular, polarized amplitudes and cross sections for the exclusive elec-
troproduction of ρ and φ mesons at the Hadron-Electron Ring Accelerator (HERA) and the EIC are very sensitive to
the unintegrated gluon distribution (UGD) model adopted, whereas forward Drell-Yan dilepton distributions at the
Large Hadron Collider beauty (LHCb) are very sensitive to next-to-leading logarithmic corrections.
In the color dipole picture (CDP) the absorption of a virtual photon on the proton γ ∗ + p →X, is motivated by
perturbation theory and describes photon-proton scattering as a two-step process. Firstly, the virtual photon dissoci-
ates into a quark-antiquark pair (a qq dipole) and subsequently the pair interacts with the proton, which is a purely
hadronic reaction [8]. The CDP, at small x, gives a clear interpretation of the high-energy interactions, where is
characterized by high gluon densities because the proton structure is dominated by dense gluon systems and predicts
that the small x gluons in a hadron wavefunction should form a Color Glass Condensate [9,10].
In the high energy, s≫Q2 ≫Λ2QCD , regime these two processes are factorized, and the total cross section can be written
as [5]
Z
γ∗p
σL,T (x, Q2 ) = dzd2 r|ΨL,T (r, z, Q2 )|2 σdip (x, r), (1)

∗ Electronic address: [email protected]

 2

where DIS cross section is factorized into a light-cone wave function and a dipole cross section. Indeed, the scattering
between the virtual photon γ ∗ and the proton is seen as the color dipole where the transverse dipole size r and
the longitudinal momentum fraction z with respect to the photon momentum are defined. The subscripts L and T
referring to the transverse and longitudinal polarization state of the exchanged boson. Here ΨL,T are the appropriate
spin averaged light-cone wave functions of the photon and σdip (x, r) is the dipole cross-section which related to
the imaginary part of the (qq)p forward scattering amplitude. The variable z, with 0 ≤ z ≤ 1, characterizes the
distribution of the momenta between quark and antiquark. The square of the photon wave function describes the
probability for the occurrence of a (qq) fluctuation of transverse size with respect to the photon polarization.
The key feature is the connection of the dipole cross section to the integrated gluon distribution. The parton saturation
models shed light on the behavior of the gluon density at very low x and this knowledge is crucial for instance to
describe the exclusive processes in ep and eA collisions [7]. The dipole cross section is related to the unintegrated
gluon distribution [12]
Z
8π 2 dkt 2
σ(x, r) = 3 [1 − J0 (kt r)]αs f (x, kt ), (2)
Nc kt

where the integrated gluon distribution (xg(x, µ2r )) is defined through the unintegrated gluon distribution (f (x, kt2 ))
by
Z µ2r
dkt2
xg(x, µ2r ) ≡ f (x, kt2 ). (3)
kt2

Indeed, the dipole cross section is directly connected via a Fourier transform to the small-x UGD, whose evolution
in x is regulated by the Balitsky- Fadin-Kuraev-Lipatov (BFKL) equation [13]. Single and double BFKL pomeron
exchanges have been calculated by illustrating a dipole picture of high energy hard scattering in the large Nc limit in
the leading logarithmic approximation in Ref.[14].
The BFKL equation governs the evolution of the UGD, where the kT -factorization is used in the high energy limit
in which the QCD interaction is described in terms of the quantity which depends on the transverse momentum of
the gluon. The gluon density in inclusive and exclusive processes in a wide Q2 region at low x is desirable, in the
dominant double logarithmic (DLA) contribution by the following form [15]
 
16Nc x0 t
xg(x, µ2r )∝ exp ln ln , (4)
β0 x t0

t µ2r Q20 2
where t0 ≡ ln( Λ2QCD )/ ln( Λ2QCD ) and β0 = 11 − 3 nf . Here nf is the number of active flavours. The hard scale µr
isassumed to have the form µ2r = C/r2 + µ20 where the parameters C and µ0 are obtained from the fit to the DIS
data. A matching between the dipole model gluon distribution and the collinear approach, in the improved saturation
model, is obtained [15,16] by using a leading order gluon anomalous dimension γgg as
 r   
2 12 x0 t t
xg(x, µr )∝I0 2 ln ln exp − δ ln , (5)
β0 x t0 t0
2n
where δ = (11 + 27f )/β0 .
A novel formulation of the UGD for DIS in a way that accounts for the leading powers in both the Regge and
Bjorken limits is presented in Ref.[17]. In this way, the UGD is defined by an explicit dependence on the longitudinal
momentum fraction x which entirely spans both the dipole operator and the gluonic Parton Distribution Function.
The object of the BFKL evolution equation at very small x is the differential gluon structure function of proton

∂[xg(x, µ2r )]
f (x, kt2 ) = |µ2r =kt2 (6)
∂lnµ2r

which emerges in the color dipole picture (CDP) of inclusive deep inelastic scattering (DIS) and diffractive DIS into
dijets [18]. Here x and kt2 being the fractional momentum of proton carried by gluon and the transverse momentum
of gluon respectively. Unintegrated distributions are required to describe measurements where transverse momenta
are exposed explicitly. Eq.(6) cannot remain true as x increases or decreases [19], therefore modify Eq.(6), with the
 3

1
Sudakov form factor, to the form [21]
∂[xg(x, µ2r )T (r, µ2r )]
f (x, kt2 ) = |µ2r =kt2 , (7)
∂lnµ2r
with T (r, µ2r ) = exp(−S(r, µ2r ))) where the perturbative Sudakov factor in the leading-order [22], for the case of
µ2
running coupling αs (µ2r ) = 1/(b0 ln Λ2 r ), reads
QCD

 
Q2
  2
  1 + αs (µ2b )b0 ln µ2b
   2 
(1) CA Q Q
Spert (r, Q2 ) = − ln + 2
ln 1 + αs (µb )b0 ln , (8)
2πb0 µ2b αs (µ2b )b0 µ2b
11C −2n
where b0 = A
12
f
and µb = 2e−γE /r where γE ≈0.577 is the Euler-Mascheroni constant.
The proton structure function F2 corresponds to the dipole picture of DIS at small x, by Eq.(1), as
 
Q2 γ∗p γ∗p
F2 = FT + FL = σ + σ . (9)
4π 2 αem T L

Since the photon wave function depends on mass of the quarks in the color dipole model [23], then the light and heavy
structure functions are defined by the following form
l h
FT,L = FT,L + FT,L , (10)
l h
where FT,L is the sum of the contributions from the light quark pairs, while FT,L is the contribution from the heavy
quarks (cc, bb and may be tt 2 ). So the Bjorken variable x can be modified in the gluon distribution and dipole cross
section by the following form
Q2 + 4m2f
x→e
xf = , (11)
Q2 + W 2
where W 2 is an invariant energy squared of the γ ∗ p system and mf is the mass of the quark of flavour f .
Heavy-quarks production, in neutral current (NC) deep inelastic electron-proton scattering (DIS) at HERA, is the
most important quantum chromodynamics (QCD) tests. The production of heavy quarks at HERA depends on the
mass of these quarks and thus the calculations of cross sections depend on a wide range of perturbative scales µ2 . The
massive fixed-flavour-number scheme (FFNS) [25] and the variable-flavour-number scheme (VFNS) [26] are different
approaches for considering heavy quarks. FFNS can be used on the threshold of µ2 ≈m2f and for µ2 ≫m2f VFNS is
used where the treatment of resummation of collinear logarithms ln(µ2 /m2f ) is achieved. A general-mass variable-
flavour-number scheme (GM-VFNS) for calculation of the contributions of heavy quarks introduced in Ref.[27]. For
realistic kinematics it has to be extended to the case of a GM-VFNS which is defined similarly to the zero-mass VFNS
(ZM-VFNS) in the Q2 /m2f →∞ limit [28]. In GM-VFNS the transition, from nf active flavors to nf + 1, is considered
in the construction of the charm-quark parton distribution function. At some rather large scales (i.e., Q2 > m2f ) the
transition to two massive quarks (i.e., nf →nf + 2) has been discussed in Refs.[29,30]. In the GM-VFNS at high Q2 ,
the heavy-flavor structure functions depend on the active flavor number since here nf = 4 for m2c < µ2 < m2b , nf = 5
for m2b < µ2 < m2t and nf = 6 for µ2 ≥m2t is chosen.
The dynamics of flavor-singlet quark and gluon distribution functions, q s and g, are defined by
nf
X
2
s
q (x, nf , µ ) = [fl (x, nf , µ2 ) + f l (x, nf , µ2 )],
l=1
g(x, nf , µ2 ) = fg (x, nf , µ2 ). (12)

1 The Sudakov form factor can be defined into the dipole models with the help of the following formula [20] :
Z r
r ′ 2
σdip (x, r, Q2 ) = dr ′ r ′ log( ′ )e−S(r ,Q ) ∇2r ′ σdip (x, r ′ )
0 r

2 The high ep cms energy at the LHeC will lead to the copious production of single top-quarks, about 2×106 single top and 5×104 tt
events [24].
 4

The heavy-quark structure functions derived using the zero-mass VFN scheme (ZMVFN) by the following form
∞
X X (j)
FkZMV F N = ajs (nf + 1) Ck,i (nf + 1)⊗fi (nf + 1) (13)
j=0 i=q,g,h

where C , s are the Wilson coefficients at the j-th order and k = 2 and L and the ⊗ symbol denotes the convolution
integral which turns into a simple multiplication in Mellin N -space. The notation is defined by a(x) ⊗ b(x) =
R 1 dz
x z
a(z)b( xz ). Here as = α
4π is the QCD running coupling. Eq.(13), at asymptotically large momentum transfer
s

2 2 2 2
Q ≫mf , is valid. For Q ≃mf VFNS is valid which it includes a combination of the ZMVFN with FFNS. In this case
the heavy- quark structure functions are
∞
X X (j)
FkF F N S = ajs (nf ) Hk,i (nf )⊗fi (nf ), (14)
j=0 i=q,g

where H , s are the Wilson coefficients for the DIS heavy-quark production [30].
In this paper we present the heavy quark structure functions due to the dipole models in the collinear approach.
These calculations are based on the generalized double asymptotic scaling (DAS) approach [31-34]. We continue our
investigations and analyze the heavy quark structure functions and those ratios in a wide range of r in section II. In
this section, the heavy quark structure functions can be combined with the Sudakov form factor. Sections III and IV
contains our results and conclusions respectively.

II. Method

• Structure Functions :

The heavy quark structure functions in DIS in ep colliders are obtained from the measurements of the inclusive
heavy quark cross sections, which will be an important test of the QCD in the LHeC and FCC-he colliders [24]. The
reduced cross section of the top quark is defined in terms of the top structure functions by the following form:

xQ4 d2 σ hh
hh
σred (x, Q2 ) = = F2h (x, Q2 ) − f (y)FLh (x, Q2 ), (15)
2πα2EM [(1+ (1 − y) ] dxdQ2
2

2
y hh
where f (y) = 1+(1−y) 2 . In HERA kinematic range the contribution FL is small. Therefore the heavy-quark structure
function F2 is obtained from the measured heavy-quark cross sections. The ratio Rh (x, Q2 ) = FLh (x, Q2 )/F2h (x, Q2 )
h

will extend in future circular colliders (i.e., LHeC and FCC-he). Indeed, these new colliders are the ideal place to
resolve this ratio.
In the small x range, where the gluon contribution is dominant, the heavy quark structure functions in the collinear
generalized DAS approach are given by [34]
X αs (n)
Fkh (x, µ2r )≃ e2h ( )n+1 Bk,g (x, ξr )⊗xg(x, µ2r ), (16)
n=0
4π

where Bk,g are the collinear Wilson coefficient functions in the high energy regime [34] and e2h is the squared charge
m2
of the heavy flavor. Here, n denotes the order in running coupling αs and ξr = µ2f . The explicit expressions for
r
the coefficient functions at the leading order (LO) up to next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) approximations are
relegated in Appendix. The default renormalisation and factorization scales are set to be equal µ2R = µ2r + 4m2f and
µ2F = µ2r .
The integrated and unintegrated gluon distributions from the GBW and BGK models are obtained in Ref.[35], which
were formulated on the position-space version of the kt -factorization formula. The gluon density is parametrized at
the scale µ2r using the running coupling αs by the following form
 
2 σ0 2 x0 λ µ2r
xg(x, µr ) = Q ( ) (11CA − 2nf ) ln . (17)
16π 3 0 x Λ2QCD
 5

TABLE I: The fixed parameters according to Ref.[23] from the fit results to the HERA data using the dipole cross section.
Ref. ml [GeV] mc [GeV] mb [GeV] σ0 [mb] λ x0 /10−4 χ2 /Ndof
[23] 0.14 1.4 - 27.32±0.35 0.248±0.002 0.42±0.04 1.60
[23] 0.14 1.4 4.6 27.43±0.35 0.248±0.002 0.40±0.04 1.61

where CA = Nc = 3 is the Casimir operator in the fundamental and adjoint representation of the SU(Nc ) color group
and the QCD parameter Λ is extracted by αs (MZ2 ) using the c and b-quark threshold3 .
The parameters of the model (i.e.,σ0 , x0 and λ ) depend on the active flavor number are found from a fit to small-x
data in Table I. After exploiting the low x behavior of the gluon density (i.e., Eq.(17)), Eq.(16) can be rewritten as

Fkh (x, µ2r ) ≃ Mk,g

h
(x, µ2r , λ)xg(x, µ2r ) (18)

where
X αs Z x2
(n)
h
Mk,g (x, µ2r , λ) = e2h ( )n+1 Bk,g (y, ξr )y λ−1 dy. (19)
n=0
4π x

Therefore, the explicit form of the heavy structure functions at the LO approximation, in the particular case of
off-shell initial gluons (when k 2 = 0) is
Z   
3σ0 2 x0 λ x2
F2h (x, µ2r ) = e2h Q ( ) − 2yβ 1 − 4y(2 − ξr )(1 − y) − 1 − 2y(1 − 2ξr )
16π 3 0 x x
 
+2y 2 (1 − 6ξr − 4ξr2 ) L(β) y λ−1 dy,
Z  
3σ0 2 x0 λ x2 2
FLh (x, µ2r ) = e2h Q ( ) 8y β (1 − y) − 2yξ r L(β) y λ−1 dy, (20)
16π 3 0 x x
q h
FL (x,µ2r )
where β = 1 − 4xξ 1 1+β h 2
1−x and L(β) = β ln 1−β . The ratio R (x, µr ) = F h (x,µ2 ) can be presented as
r
2 r

ML,g (x, µ2r , λ)

Rh (x, µ2r ) =
M2,g (x, µ2r , λ))
R x2
8y 2 β[(1 − y) − 2yξr L(β)]y λ−1 dy
x
= R x2 (21)
x { − 2yβ[1 − 4y(2 − ξr )(1 − y) − (1 − 2y(1 − 2ξr ) + 2y 2 (1 − 6ξr − 4ξr2 ))L(β)]}y λ−1 dy

where the ratio is independent of the gluon density, the Sudakov form factor and the running coupling at the LO
approximation. The Sudakov form factor can be included by using Eq.(8) and generalizing it to the heavy quark
structure functions (i.e., Eq.(18)) by the following form
2
Fkh (x, µ2r ) = e−S(r,µr ) Mk,g
h
(x, µ2r , λ)xg(x, µ2r ) (22)

The heavy quark structure functions now depend on the non-linear gluon evolution at small x due to the Sudakov
effects, which become relevant for processes with two distinct scales.

• Bounds :

In the following, we discuss further bounds [7, 38-41] for F2c /F2 and F2b /F2 which follow from the standard dipole
picture. Indeed, we give correlated bounds for F2c,b /F2 versus FL /F2 where the higher Fock components of the photon

3 In Refs.[36] and [37], the massive quarks in NLO dipole factorization for DIS are considered. The NLO corrections for the dipole
factorization of DIS structure functions at low x is considered using light front perturbative theory as
∗ ∗ ∗
|γT,L >NLO = |γT,L >qq +|γT,L >qqg .
 6

wave function affect these bounds. In Refs.[38,39], the authors have shown that the upper bound is independent of Q2
(W,Q2 )
and numerically leads to FFL2 (W,Q2 ) ≤gmax = 0.27139 for the case of massless quarks. A stronger bound can obtained

by considering the effect of the charm and bottom quarks on the ratio
FLlight+c+b FL + FLc + FLb FL /F2 + FLc /F2c F2c /F2 + FLb /F2b F2b /F2
= =
F2light+c+b c
F2 + F2 + F2b 1 + F2c /F2 + F2b /F2
c
1 + gmax F2c /F2 + gmax
b
F2b /F2
≤gmax ≤gmax (23)
1 + F2c /F2 + F2b /F2
In this case the bound on the ratio FL /F2 will depend on the values of F2c /F2 and F2b /F2 , where these bounds (i.e.,
F2h /F2 ) can further restrict the kinematical range of applicability of the dipole picture in future colliders [24,42]. In
the CDP, the gluon distribution has been recently determined in Ref.[43] at low x by the following form
9π 1
αs (µ2r )xg(x, µ2r ) = F2 (ηL x, µ2r ), (24)
Re+ e− 2ρ + 1
P
where Re+ e− = Nc e2f and ηL ≃0.40 is the rescaling factor. The ρ parameter describes the ratio of the average
f
→
− →
−
< k 2⊥ >L
transverse momenta ρ = → −2 , which the transverse momentum k 2⊥ is introduced into four momenta of the quark
< k ⊥ >T
and antiquark. The quantity of ρ, for Q2 ≫Λ2sat , was used to be ρ = 4/3 [44]. The ratio of the longitudinal to the
transversal photoabsorption cross sections is given by
∗
σγ p 1
R= L
γ∗p = , (25)
σT 2ρ
where factor 2 originates from the difference in the photon wave functions. In terms of the proton structure functions,
F2 and FL , the ratio becomes4
FL 1
= . (26)
F2 1 + 2ρ
With imposing consistency between the CDP and the pQCD, the gluon distribution function is obtained by expressing
the proton structure function in terms of FL as
3π
αs (µ2r )xg(x, µ2r ) = P 2 FL (ηL x, µ2r ). (27)
f ef

Therefore the ratio F2h /F2 and FLh /FL are defined by
R x2 (0)
F2h 3 e2h x
B2,g (y, ξr )y λ−1 dy
= λ
P 2
(28)
F2 4 ηL f ef 2ρ + 1
and
Z x2
FLh 3 e2h (0)
= λ
P 2
BL,g (y, ξr )y λ−1 dy. (29)
FL 4 ηL f ef x

These ratios are very interesting in the range of available HERA energy and its extension to future energies in LHeC
and FCC-he colliders.

4 The colored sector of the virtual photon wave-functions contains both qq and qqg components at the NLO approximation. Expansion
of the structure functions, F2 and FL , in Fock state in the CDM are given by
qq qqg
F2,L = F2,L + F2,L + ...
FL
where at higher Fock states one can be derived [37] the modified CDM bound for the ratio F2
as
   
FL FL 1 + δǫ
=
F2 NLO F2 LO 1 + ǫ
qqg
F2
where ǫ = qq and 0≤δ≤3.7.
F2
 7

III. Numerical Results

In the present paper we consider the heavy quark structure functions to the deep inelastic proton structure function,
which are directly related with the gluon distribution of the proton in the CDP approach at low x. Everywhere
below, we set the charm and bottom masses to be equal to mc = 1.4 GeV and mb = 4.6 GeV according to Ref.[23].
In accordance with the values recommended by the Higgs Cross Section Working Group [45], the top-quark pole
mass is set as in the NNPDF default analysis to mt = 172.5 GeV [46]. To estimate the scale uncertainties of our
calculations, the standard variations in default renormalization and factorization scales, which were set to be equal
to µ2R = µ2r + 4m2 and µ2F = µ2r , respectively, were introduced. In recent years [47,48], the phenomenological various

TABLE II: The transverse separation range of r in the HERA and future colliders (i.e., LHeC and FCC-he) with the inelasticity
y≤1 for x = 0.0013 and 0.0050.
√
Collider s[GeV] x=0.0013 x=0.0050
FCC-he 3500 r>0.005 r>0.002
LHeC 1300 r>0.01 r>0.006
HERA 320 r>0.05 r>0.02

successful methods have examined charm and bottom structure functions. This importance, along with the t-quark
density [49,50], can be explored at future circular collider energies.
Our numerical results for charm and bottom structure functions, F2c and F2b , are shown in Figs.1 and 2, respectively,

2 2
1.0 = 2 2 2
r Without Sudakov = +4m
r

With Sudakov
0.8
H1 2010

0.6
x=0.0013
x=0.0013

0.4
x=0.0050 x=0.0050

0.2
(x,r)

0.0 a b
c

1.0
2

With Sudakov
F

Without Sudakov
2 2
2 2
=
= r
0.8 r
2 2 2
2 2 2
= +4m
= +4m r
r

0.6
x=0.0013 x=0.0013

0.4
x=0.0050 x=0.0013

0.2

0.0 d
c

-3 -2 -1 0 -3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

-1 -1
r [GeV ] r [GeV ]

FIG. 1: Comparison of the H1 data from [51] for the charm F2c structure function with the results from unifying the color dipole
picture and double asymptotic scaling approaches with the parameters in Table I in a wide range of the transverse separation
r [GeV−1 ]. The uncertainties are due to µ2 = µ2r + 4m2 , µ2 = µ2r and the Sudakov form factor with x = 0.0013 and 0.0050.

in comparison with the H1 data [51]. To estimate the uncertainties of our calculations, the standard variations in
default scales (i.e., renormalization and factorization) and the behavior of the Sudakov form factor are introduced.
We observe that the predictions obtained using unifying the color dipole picture and double asymptotic scaling
approaches in a proton are in perfect agreement with the H1 data in a wide range of r for x = 0.0013 and 0.0050
within the total experimental uncertainties. These results for F2c and F2b , in Figs.1 and 2, increase as r decreases. As
a result, we predict that at very low r, the charm and bottom structure functions will increase at the FCC-he than
the LHeC and HERA at high inelasticity according to Table II. The uncertainties (without and with Sudakov effects)
increase as r increase. In Fig.1-c,d, we observe that the uncertainties for the charm structure functions increase for
r&2×10−1 GeV−1 and for the bottom structure functions increase for r&3×10−2 GeV−1 in Fig.2-c,d. The effect
 8

2 2
0.10 = 2 2 2
r Without Sudakov = +4m
r

With Sudakov
0.08
x=0.0013 H1 2010 x=0.0013

0.06

0.04

0.02
x=0.0050
x=0.0050

(x,r)
0.00 a b

b
0.10

2
With Sudakov

F
Without Sudakov
2 2
2 2
=
= r
0.08 x=0.0013 r

2 2 2 x=0.0013 2 2 2
= +4m
= +4m r
r

0.06

0.04

0.02
x=0.0050 x=0.0050

0.00 c d

-2 -1 0 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10

-1 -1
r [GeV ] r [GeV ]

FIG. 2: The same as Fig.1 for the bottom structure function.

of the Sudakov form factors in the charm and bottom structure functions are shown in Figs.1-a,b and 2-a,b for the
renormalization and factorization scales, respectively. Differences between the results (with and without Sudakov
form factor) for the charm and bottom structure functions are very small and visible at small r. One can see that the
Sudakov factor mostly disappears in the large-r region for µ2 = µ2r and survives for µ2 = µ2r + 4m2 at r > 2 GeV−1 .
The changes are less obvious compared to the charm and bottom structure functions without Sudakov form factor,
which is because the large-r region, where the dipole cross section was affected the most, is largely suppressed by the
photon wave function. In conclusion, the structure functions with Sudakov form factor seem to show slightly more
change in a wide range of r. We can add these results as associated with the LHeC simulated uncertainties [24].
These simulated uncertainties for F2c and F2b measurements were recently published by the LHeC study group and
reported by Ref.[24]5 .
In Figs.3 and 4, the importance of the longitudinal structure function for charm and bottom pair production, FLc and
FLb , are examined according to Table II for colliders (HERA, LHeC and FCC-he) in a wide range of r. The behavior
of these structure functions considers with and without Sudakov form factor in a wide range of r for x = 0.0013 and
0.0050 in Figs.3 and 4. In Fig.3-c,d, we observe that the uncertainties for the FLc increase for r&10−1 GeV−1 and
for the FLb increase for r&5×10−2 GeV−1 in Fig.4-c,d. The effect of the Sudakov form factors in the FLc and FLb are
shown in Figs.13-a,b and 4-a,b for the renormalization and factorization scales, respectively. Differences between
the results (with and without Sudakov form factor) are very small and visible at small r. One can see that the
Sudakov factor mostly disappears in the large-r region for µ2 = µ2r and survives for µ2 = µ2r + 4m2 at r > 2 GeV−1 .
According to Figs.3 and 4, we observe that the longitudinal structure function for charm and bottom increase as r
decreases due to the HERA range of r (see Table II). We observe that the FLc and FLb in the LHeC and FCC-he range
energy makes the transition from the large r to the low r forms. The longitudinal structure functions for charm
(r&3×10−1 GeV−1 ) and bottom (r&10−1 GeV−1 ) are slowly varying and reach to zero for large r. These values
Fc
have a constant rate at lower r. The ratio of the longitudinal structure functions, FLb , is of the O( m mc ) order for
b
L
r < 10−2 GeV−1 . This ratio shows that the importance of measuring the longitudinal structure function for bottom
quark is not less than charm quark in the process analysis of new colliders.
Considering the top structure function in unifying the color dipole picture and double asymptotic scaling approaches
is interesting because the production of top quarks in electron-proton collisions at LHeC and FCC-he can provide a
stringent test of new physics at ultra-high energy (UHE). In Fig.5, the top structure function is predicted in a wide
range of the transverse separation range of r with µ2 = µ2r + 4m2 for x = 0.0013. The Sudakov form factor effect is

5 For further discussion, such predictions can be found in Figs. 3.4, 3.6 and 3.7 of Ref.[24].
 9

0.10
2 2 2 2 2

= = +4m
r r
0.08

x=0.0013 x=0.0013
0.06

0.04 x=0.0050
x=0.0050

0.02

Without Sudakov

(x,r)
0.00 With Sudakov

0.10

L
F
0.08

x=0.0013 x=0.0013
0.06

x=0.0050
0.04 x=0.0050

Without Sudakov With Sudakov

0.02
2 2 2 2

= =
r r

2 2 2 2 2 2
0.00 = +4m = +4m
r r

-3 -2 -1 0 -3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

-1 -1
r [GeV ] r [GeV ]

FIG. 3: The behavior of the charm FLc structure function due to unifying the color dipole picture and double asymptotic scaling
approaches with the parameters in Table I in a wide range of the transverse separation r [GeV−1 ]. The uncertainties are due
to µ2 = µ2r + 4m2 , µ2 = µ2r and the Sudakov form factor with x = 0.0013 and 0.0050.

0.03
2 2 2 2 2
= = +4m
r r
x=0.0013 x=0.0013
Without Sudakov

0.02 With Sudakov

x=0.0050 x=0.0050
0.01

0.00
(x,r)
b

L
F

Without Sudakov With Sudakov

x=0.0013
2 2
x=0.0013 2 2

= =
r
r
0.02 2 2 2
2 2 2
= +4m = +4m
r
r

x=0.0050
x=0.0050

0.00

-3 -2 -1 0 -3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

-1 -1
r [GeV ] r [GeV ]

FIG. 4: The same as Fig.3 for the bottom structure function.

compared with these results in Fig.5. The difference between the results (with and without Sudakov form factor) for
the top structure function is very small and visible at small r. One can see that the Sudakov factor mostly disappears
in the large-r region. It is observed that in the HERA energy range (r&0.05 GeV−1 ), the top structure function is
zero. This probability increases as the energy range increases to future colliders (especially FCC-he). It is clear that
the top structure function will increase at the FCC-he than the LHeC at high inelasticity6 , according to Table II. It

6 Notice that the large inelasticity is only for scattered electron energies much smaller than the electron beam energy (i.e., Ee′ ≪Ee and
y = 1 − Ee′ /Ee ). In this region where Ee′ is small, the electromagnetic and hadronic backgrounds are important [24].
 10

0.06

(x,r)
2 2 2
= +4m
r

2
x=0.0013

F
Without Sudakov
0.04
With Sudakov

0.02

0.00
-2
10 -1
r[GeV ]

FIG. 5: Results of the top F2t structure function with the bottom parameters in Table I in a wide range of the transverse
separation r [GeV −1 ] at µ2 = µ2r + 4m2 with and without Sudakov form factor for x = 0.0013.

reaches F2t ≃ 0.05 at r≃0.005 GeV−1 in the FCC-he energy range and F2t ≃ 0.03 at r≃0.01 GeV−1 in the LHeC
energy range for x = 0.0013 with µ2 = µ2r + 4m2 .
c b
FL FL
Results of our calculations for Rc = F2c and Rb = F2b
are presented in Fig.6 and 7 respectively, where we plot these

0
10

2 2 2
= +4m
r
R (x,r)

Dashed-Dot-Dot x=0.0050

Dashed x=0.0013
c

-1
10

2 2
=
r

Dashed-Dot x=0.0050

Solid x=0.0013

-3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10
-1
r [GeV ]

FIG. 6: Rc evaluated as a function of r with µ2 = µ2r and µ2 = µ2r + 4m2 for x = 0.0013 and 0.0050.

ratios as a function of x in a wide r range with µ2 = µ2r and µ2 = µ2r + 4m2 . We observe from Figs.6 and 7 that
these results for r&10−1 GeV−1 leads to a flat behavior of Rc and Rb with µ2 = µ2r + 4m2 and decrease sharply
with µ2 = µ2r . The results obtained with the renormalization and factorization scales for Rc and Rb are compatible
at r < 10−1 GeV−1 and 3×10−2 GeV−1 respectively and have the largest uncertainties at r > 10−1 GeV−1 and
3×10−2 GeV−1 . Our calculations show an x-independent behavior of Rc and Rb in a wide range of r with the
renormalization and factorization scales. For larger values of r, some dependence on x appears, especially in Rc with
µ2 = µ2r and in Rb with µ2 = µ2r + 4m2 . The maximum value of R(x, r) is equal to ≃ 0.2 for charm and bottom ratios
at r ≃ 10−1 GeV−1 and 3×10−2 GeV−1 respectively. We observe that the maximum value shifts to smaller values of
 11

0
10
2 2 2
= +4m
r

Dashed-Dot-Dot x=0.0050

Dashed x=0.0013

R (x,r)
b
-1
10

2 2
=
r

Dashed-Dot x=0.0050

Solid x=0.0013

-3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10
-1
r [GeV ]

FIG. 7: The same as Fig.5 for the ratio of the bottom structure functions Rb .

r for the bottom quark than the charm. These results are comparable with others in literature [24, 31, 32, 34, 52].
In order to assess the significance of the ratio of structure functions in a wide range of the collider energies (from

0
10
R(x,r)

-1
10
2 2 2
= +4m
r

x=0.0013

Charm

Bottom

Top

-2 -1 0
10 10 10
-1
r[GeV ]

FIG. 8: Rc , Rb and Rt evaluated as a function of r with µ2 = µ2r + 4m2 for x = 0.0013.

HERA until FCC-he), we show in Fig.8 the r dependences of Rc , Rb and Rt evaluated with µ2 = µ2r + 4m2 for
x = 0.0013. We observe from Fig.8 that the charm and bottom predictions have similar behaviors in a wide range
of r and collider energies (according to Table II). The charm and bottom ratios increase until r ≃ 10−1 GeV−1
and 3×10−2 GeV−1 respectively, then decrease and have a flat (r-independent) behavior for large values of r
(r≥0.3 GeV−1 ). In Fig.8, we observe the ratio of the top structure functions according to the FCC-he center-of-mass
energy in the inelasticity range 0 < y < 1 due to the coefficients in Table I. It continues to rise with r, then fall
 12

after reaching a maximum7 . Such results seem to be extremely important for future experiments, in particular, for
experiments at the LHeC and FCC-he.
In Fig.9, we plot ratios F2c /F2 and F2b /F2 as functions of r with the renormalization and factorization scales for

x=0.0013

H1 data
1.0

2
Charm

/F
2 2

h
=

2
r

F 2 2 2
= +4m
0.5 r c

0.0 Bottom
2 2
=
r

2 2 2
= +4m
r b

-3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10
-1
r[GeV ]

FIG. 9: Ratios F2c /F2 and F2b /F2 as functions of r with µ2 = µ2r and µ2 = µ2r + 4m2 for x=0.0013. Experimental data are from
the H1-Collaboration [51,54].

TABLE III: The ratios F2c /F2 and F2b /F2 with the renormalization and factorization scales are compared with the predictions
of Ref.[7] from the BGK and IP-sat models.
F2c F2b F2c F2b
x Q2 [GeV2 ] |
F 2 IP−sat..BGK
|
F 2 IP−sat..BGK
| r ..µ2r +4m2
F 2 µ2
| r ..µ2r +4m2
F 2 µ2
10−2 5 0.096-0.100 0.00042-0.00044 0.072-0.156 <0.014
10 0.144-0.149 0.00165-0.00168 0.133-0.196 0.00008-0.02150
50 0.233-0.234 0.0115-0.0112 0.323-0.342 0.0151-0.0346
10−4 5 0.150-0.154 0.0034-0.0033 0.080-0.165 0.0013-0.0274
10 0.197-0.200 0.0060-0.0057 0.139-0.202 0.0031-0.0286
50 0.280-0.280 0.0195-0.0186 0.328-0.346 0.0168-0.0367
10−6 5 0.184-0.194 0.0057-0.0053 0.080-0.165 0.0014-0.0275
10 0.230-0.238 0.0089-0.0086 0.139-0.202 0.0032-0.0287
50 0.305-0.308 0.0244-0.0235 0.328-0.346 0.0168-0.0367

x=0.0013. In this figure, the ratio of the structure functions are compared with the H1 Collaboration
p data in Refs.[51]
and [54]. The error bars of the ratio F2h /F2 are determined by ∆(F2h /F2 ) = F2h /F2 (∆F2h /F2h )2 + (∆F2 /F2 )2 ,
where ∆F2h and ∆F2 are collected from the H1 experimental data in Refs.[51] and [54] respectively. The results
obtained from the ratios are comparable to the H1 data [51,54]. Realistic values of F2c /F2 can only range from zero
to at most about 0.4 in the HERA energy range [38, 55]8 . The results for the ratios F2c /F2 and F2b /F2 , in Fig.9, are
predicted at low values of r according to the LHeC and FCC-he energy range and will be able to be considered in
these collisions. In particular, the unphysical upper bound [38] F2c /F2 = 1 will be obtained at the low value of r due
to the FCC-he center-of-mass energy.
Recently, the structure functions F2 , FL and heavy quark structure functions, F2c , F2b from the models BGK and

7 For further discussion please see Refs.[34,53]

8 The average value of the ratio F2c /F2 is determined to be < F2c /F2 >= 0.237±0.021+0.043
−0.039 in Ref.[56].
 13

IP-sat are predicted9 in the range (x, Q2 ) : (10−6 − 10−2 , 5.0 − 50 GeV2 ) in Ref.[7]. We compared the ratios
with the results of the BGK and IP-sat models in Table III. One shows in this table that our calculations are
comparable with the predictions from the BGK and IP-sat models. We can see that the predictions from the
BGK and IP-sat models lie between (µ2r .BGK, IP − sat.µ2r + 4m2 ) the bounds as the maximum is of the order
(µ2r )-(µ2r +4m2). The differences between the results are due to the free-fit parameters of the models in Refs.[4] and [23].

IV. Conclusions

h
In this work we have computed the heavy quark structure functions F2,L , h = c, b, t within the kt factorization
framework, using unifying the color dipole picture and double asymptotic scaling approaches for the integrated gluon
density using the GBW and BGK models at small Bjorken x values. We have first considered the structure functions
h
F2,L in a wide range of the transverse separation r from the HERA to FCC-he center-of-mass energy. Then we have
obtained bounds on FLh /F2h as well as a correlated bound on the ratios F2c /F2 and F2b /F2 as they are consistent with
the experimental data from HERA collider at moderate and large r. It will be interesting to compare these bounds
with future results from measurements of these structure functions as r decreases.
We achieved a good agreement between the HERA experimental data for the charm and bottom structure functions
and our theoretical predictions with the renormalization and factorization scales. We demonstrated the importance
of the contributions of FLc and FLb at small r in further colliders. For the top quark pair production, which will
be one kind of important production channel at LHeC and FCC-eh, the ratio of structure functions (i.e., Rt ) is
determined and compared with the charm and bottom ratios (i.e., Rc and Rb ) at small r which are dominated by the
center-of-mass energies in new colliders at the renormalization scale µ2 = µ2r + 4m2 . To estimate the uncertainties
of our calculations, the standard variations in default scales (i.e., renormalization and factorization) are introduced.
The uncertainty range of scales increases as r increases.
Additionally, effects of the Sudakov form factor were investigated for the heavy quark structure functions in a wide
range of r. The Sudakov form factor modifies the heavy quark structure functions in the small region of r owing
to the saturation effect. The effect is visible for a small value of r and disappears when r increases. Moreover, we
compared our predictions of the ratio F2c /F2 and F2b /F2 with the BGK and IP-sat models at low values of x and
found all good agreement with data sets in the intervales of the factorization and renormalization scales. We hope
that this paper at low x and low r will be useful in future phenomenological studies of the heavy quark structure
functions at future colliders such as EIC, LHeC and the FCC-he.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author is grateful to Razi University for the financial support of this project.

APPENDIX

In the high energy regime, defined by x≪1, the coefficient functions have the compact forms [34]

(0) 2
B2,g (1, ξr ) = [1 + 2(1 − ξr )J(ξr )],
3
(0) 4
BL,g (1, ξr ) = x2 {1 + 6ξr − 4ξr [1 + 3ξr ]J(ξr )},
3
(1) (1) 2 (0)
Bk,g (x, ξr ) = β[Rk,g (1, ξr ) + 4CA Bk,g (1, ξr )Lµ ],
(2) (2) (1) 2 (0)
Bk,g (x, ξr ) = βln(1/x)[Rk,g (1, ξr ) + 4CA Rk,g (1, ξr )Lµ + 8CA Bk,g (1, ξr )L2µ ], (30)

9 Within the color dipole approach, the impact parameter saturation model (IP-SAT) and the BGK model include DGLAP evolution as
the gluon density is parametrized, in both models, at the initial scale Q20 then scales µ2 by using the LO or NLO evolution equations.
 14

with
(2) 32 2
R2,g (1, ξr ) = C [46 + (71 − 92a)J(ξr ) + 3(13 − 10ξr )I(ξr ) − 9(1 − ξr )K(ξr )],
27 A
(2) 64 2
RL,g (1, ξr ) = C x2 {34 + 240ξr − [3 + 136ξr + 480ξr2 ]J(ξr ) + 3[3 + 4ξr (1 − 6ξr )]I(ξr ) + 18ξr (1 + 3ξr )K(ξr )},
27 A
(1) 8
R2,g (1, ξr ) = CA [5 + (13 − 10ξr )J(ξr ) + 6(1 − ξr )I(ξr )],
9
(1) 16
RL,g (1, ξr ) = − CA x2 {1 − 12ξr − [3 + 4ξr (1 − 6ξr )]J(ξr ) + 12ξr [1 + 3ξr ]I(ξr )},
9
(31)

where
√
K(ξr ) = − x2 [4(ζ3 + Li3 (−t) − Li2 (−t)lnt − 2S1,2 (−t)) + 2ln(ξr x2 )(ζ2 + 2Li2 (−t))
1
− ln3 t − ln2 (ξr x2 )lnt + ln(ξr x2 )ln2 t],
3
√ 1
I(ξr ) = − x2 [ζ2 + ln2 t − ln(ξr x2 )lnt + 2Li2 (−t)],
√ 2
J(ξr ) = − x2 lnt,
√
1 − x2
t = √ ,
1 + x2
1
x2 = ,
1 + 4ξr
4m2f
Lµ = ln 2 ,
µr
(32)

where
Z 1
dy
Li2 (x) = − ln(1 − xy),
0 y
Z 1
dy
Li3 (x) = − ln(y)ln(1 − xy),
0 y
Z 1
1 dy 2
S1,2 (x) = ln (1 − xy),
2 0 y
(33)

are the dilogarithmic function Li2 (x), the trilogarithmic function Li3 (x) and Nilsen Polylogarithm S1,2 (x).

REFERENCES

1. V.N.Gribov, B.L.Ioffe, and I.Y.Pomeranchuk, Sov.J.Nucl.Phys. 2, 549 (1966).

2. B.L.Ioffe, Phys.Lett.B 30, 123 (1969).
3. J.J.Sakurai, Currents and Mesons, The University of Chicago Press, 1969.
4. D.Schildknecht, Acta Phys.Polon.B 37, 595 (2006).
5. N.N.Nikolaev and B.G.Zakharov, Z.Phys.C 49, 607 (1991); Z.Phys.C 53, 331 (1992).
6. C.Ewerz, A.von Manteuffel and O.Nachtmann, J.High Energ.Phys. 03, 102 (2010).
7. D.A.Fagundes and M.V.T.Machado, Phys.Rev.D 107, 014004 (2023).
8. V.P.Goncalves and M.V.T.Machado, Phys.Rev.Lett.91, 202002 (2003).
9. E.Iancu, A.Leonidov and L.McLerran, Nucl.Phys.A 692, 583 (2001); Phys.Lett.B 510, 133 (2001).
10. E.Iancu,K.Itakura and S.Munier, Phys.Lett.B 590, 199 (2004).
11. K.Kutak and A.M.Stasto, Eur.Phys.J.C 41, 343 (2005).
 15

12. N.N.Nikolaev and B.G.Zakharov, Phys.Lett.B 332, 184 (1994); N. N. Nikolaev and W. Schäfer, Phys. Rev. D
74, 014023 (2006).
13. V.S.Fadin, E.A.Kuraev and L.N.Lipatov, Phys.Lett.B 60, 50(1975); L.N.Lipatov, Sov.J.Nucl.Phys. 23,
338(1976); I.I.Balitsky and L.N.Lipatov, Sov.J.Nucl.Phys. 28, 822(1978).
14. A.H.Mueller and B.Patel, Nucl.Phys.B 425, 471 (1994).
15. R.S.Thorne, Phys.Rev.D 71, 054024 (2005); M.A.Betemps and M.V.T.Machado, Eur.Phys.J.C 65, 427 (2010).
16. R. D. Ball and S. Forte, Phys. Lett. B 335, 77 (1994).
17. A.D.Bolognino, A.Szczurek and W. Schäfer, Phys.Rev.D 101, 054041 (2020); A.D.Bolognino, F.G.Celiberto,
D.Y.Ivanov, A. Papa, W. Schäfer and A. Szczurek, Eur. Phys.J.C 81, 846 (2021); A.D.Bolognino, F.G.Celiberto,
D.Y.Ivanov and A. Papa, Eur. Phys.J.C 78, 1023 (2018); A.D.Bolognino, F.G.Celiberto, M.Fucilla, Dmitry Yu.
Ivanov, A.Papa, W.Schafer and A.Szczurek, International Conference on Hadron Spectroscopy and Structure in
memoriam Simon Eidelman (HADRON2021), (2021).
18. I.P.Ivanov and N.N.Nikolaev, Phys.Rev.D 65, 054004 (2002).
19. M.A.Kimber, J.Kwiecinski, A.D.Martin and A.M.Stasto, Phys.Rev.D 62, 094006 (2000).
20. T.Goda, K.Kutak and S.Sapeta, Nucl.Phys.B 990, 116155 (2023).
21. M.A.Kimber, A.D.Martin and M.G.Ryskin, Eur.Phys.J.C 12, 655 (2000).
22. B.W.Xiao, F.Yuan and J.Zhou, Nucl.Phys.B 921, 104 (2017).
23. K. Golec-Biernat and S.Sapeta, J.High Energ. Phys. 03, 102 (2018).
24. LHeC Collaboration and FCC-he Study Group, P. Agostini et al., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 48,
110501(2021).
25. E. Laenen et al., Phys. Lett. B291, 325 (1992); E. Laenen et al., Nucl. Phys. B392, 162 (1993); S. Riemersma,
J. Smith,W.L. van Neerven, Phys. Lett. B347, 143 (1995); S. Alekhin et al., Phys. Rev.D81, 014032 (2010); S.
Alekhin and S. Moch, Proc. of DIS2011, (2011); S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, S. Moch, Phys. Rev. D86, 054009 (2012);
S. Alekhin et al., Phys. Rev. D96, 014011 (2017); S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, S. Klein and S. Moch, Proc. of DIS2009,
(2009); M. Glück et al., Phys. Lett. B664, 133 (2008); H.L. Lai et al., Phys. Rev. D82, 074024 (2010); A.D. Martin
et al., Eur. Phys. J. C70, 51 (2010); S. Alekhin and S. Moch, Phys. Lett. B699, 345 (2011).
26. S. Forte et al., Nucl. Phys. B834, 116 (2010); R.D. Ball et al. [NNPDF Collaboration], Nucl. Phys. B849, 296
(2011); R.D. Ball et al. [NNPDF Collaboration], Nucl. Phys. B855, 153 (2012); R.D. Ball et al. Eur.Phys.J.C 78,
321 (2018).
27. R.Thorne, Phys.Rev.D73, 054019 (2006); R.Thorne, Phys.Rev.D86, 074017 (2012).
28. R.S.Thorne, DIS1998, (1998); A.D.Martin W.J.Stirling and R.S.Thorne, Phys.Lett.B 636, 259(2006).
29. J.Blümlein, A.De Freitas, C.Schneider and K.Schönwald, Phys. Lett.B 782, 362(2018).
30. S.Alekhin, J. Blümlein and S. Moch, Phys. Rev. D 102, 054014 (2020).
31. A.V.Kotikov and G.Parente, Nucl.Phys.B 549, 242 (1999).
32. A.Yu.Illarionov, A.V.Kotikov and G.Parente, Phys.Part.Nucl. 39, 307 (2008).
33. L.Mankiewicz, A.Saalfeld and T.Weigl, Phys.Lett.B 393, 175 (1997).
34. A.V.Kotikov, A.V.Lipatov and P.Zhang, Phys.Rev.D 104, 054042 (2021).
35. G.R.Boroun and B.Rezaei, arXiv[hep-ph]:2309.04832 (will be appear in EPJA).
36. G.Beuf, T.Lappi and R.Paatelainen, Phys.Rev.D 104, 056032 (2021).
37. G.Beuf, Phys.Rev.D 85, 034039 (2012).
38. C.Ewerz, A.von Manteuffel and O.Nachtmann, Phys.Rev.D 77, 074022 (2008); M.Niedziela and M.Praszalowicz,
Acta Physica Polonica B46, 2018 (2015).
39. C.Ewerz, A.von Manteuffel, O.Nachtmann and A.Schoning, Phys. Lett.B 720, 181 (2013); C.Ewerz and
O.Nachtmann, Phys.Lett.B 648, 279 (2007).
40. B.Rezaei and G.R.Boroun, Phys.Rev.C 101, 045202 (2020); G.R.Boroun and B.Rezaei, Phys.Rev.C 103, 065202
(2021); Phys.Letts.B 816, 136274 (2021).
41. G.R.Boroun, Eur.Phys.J.A 57, 219 (2021).
42. M.Klein, arXiv:1802.04317; M.Klein, Ann.Phys.528, 138(2016).
43. G.R.Boroun, M.Kuroda and D.Schildknecht, arXiv: 2206.05672.
44. M.Kuroda and D.Schildknecht, Phys.Rev. D 96, 094013 (2017); Phys.Rev. D 85, 094001 (2012); Int. J. Mod.
Phys. A 31, 1650157 (2016).
45. LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group collaboration, CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs Volume 2/2017
(CERN–2017–002-M).
46. NNPDF Collaboration (Ball R. D. et al.), Eur.Phys.J.C 77, 663 (2017).
47. S.Zarrin and S.Dadfar, Phys.Rev.D 106, 094007 (2022).
48. J. Lan et al., Phys. Rev. D 102, 014020 (2020).
 16

49. H. Khanpour, Nucl.Phys.B 958, 115141 (2020).

50. G.R.Boroun, Chinese Physics C 45, 063105 (2021); Eur.Phys.J.Plus 138, 252 (2023); Phys.Letts.B 838, 137712
(2023).
51. F.D.Aaron et al. (H1 Collaboration), Eur.Phys.J.C 65, 89 (2010).
52. N.N.Nikolaev and V.R.Zoller, Phys.Atom.Nucl 73, 672 (2010); N.N.Nikolaev, J.Speth and V.R.Zoller,
Phys.Lett.B 473, 157 (2000); R.Fiore, N.N.Nikolaev and V.R.Zoller, JETP Lett 90, 319 (2009); A.Y.Illarionov
and A.V.Kotikov, Phys.Atom.Nucl. 75, 1234 (2012) ; N.Ya.Ivanov and B.A.Kniehl, Eur.Phys.J.C 59, 647 (2009);
N.Ya.Ivanov, Nucl.Phys.B 814, 142(2009); J.Blumlein et al., Nucl.Phys.B 755, 272 (2006); A.V.Kotikov, arXiv[hep-
ph]: 1212.3733; G.R.Boroun and B.Rezaei, Int.J.Mod.Phys.E 24, 1550063 (2015); G.R.Boroun and B.Rezaei,
Nucl.Phys.A 929, 119 (2014); G.R.Boroun, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 1212 (2022).
53. N.A.Abdulov, A.V.Kotikov and A.V.Lipatov, JETP Lett. 117, 401 (2023).
54. C.Adloff et al. (H1 Collaboration), Eur.Phys.J.C 21, 33 (2001).
55. G.R.Boroun and B.Rezaei, EPL 133, 61002 (2021).
56. C. Adloff et al. (H1 Collaboration), Z.Phys.C 72, 593 (1996).