arxiv: v1 [hep-ex] 6 Jun 2011

Transcription

1 DESY -66 DESY -66 ISSN April arxiv:6.8v [hep-ex] 6 Jun Measurement of Meson Production and Determination of at low É in Deep-Inelastic Scattering at HERA H Collaboration Abstract Inclusive production of mesons in deep-inelastic Ô scattering at HERA is studied in the range É ½¼¼ Î of the photon virtuality and ¼ ¼ Ý ¼ of the inelasticity of the scattering process. he observed phase space for the meson is Ô Ì µ ½ Î and µ ½. he data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of Ô ½ collected with the H detector. Single and double differential cross sections are measured and the charm contribution to the proton structure function is determined. he results are compared to perturbative QCD predictions at next-to-leading order implementing different schemes for the charm mass treatment and with Monte Carlo models based on leading order matrix elements with parton showers. Submitted to Eur. Phys. J. C

2 F.D. Aaron, C. Alexa, V. Andreev, S. Backovic ¼, A. Baghdasaryan, S. Baghdasaryan, E. Barrelet, W. Bartel ½½, K. Begzsuren, A. Belousov, P. Belov ½½, J.C. Bizot, M.-O. Boenig, V. Boudry, I. Bozovic-Jelisavcic, J. Bracinik, G. Brandt ½½, M. Brinkmann ½½, V. Brisson, D. Britzger ½½, D. Bruncko ½, A. Bunyatyan ½, G. Buschhorn Ý, L. Bystritskaya, A.J. Campbell ½½, K.B. Cantun Avila, F. Ceccopieri, K. Cerny, V. Cerny ½, V. Chekelian, J.G. Contreras, J.A. Coughlan, J. Cvach ½, J.B. Dainton ½, K. Daum, B. Delcourt, J. Delvax, E.A. De Wolf, C. Diaconu ½, M. Dobre ½ ¼ ½, V. Dodonov ½, A. Dossanov, A. Dubak ¼, G. Eckerlin ½½, S. Egli, A. Eliseev, E. Elsen ½½, L. Favart, A. Fedotov, R. Felst ½½, J. Feltesse ½¼, J. Ferencei ½, D.-J. Fischer ½½, M. Fleischer ½½, A. Fomenko, E. Gabathuler ½, J. Gayler ½½, S. Ghazaryan ½½, A. Glazov ½½, L. Goerlich, N. Gogitidze, M. Gouzevitch ½½, C. Grab ¼, A. Grebenyuk ½½,. Greenshaw ½, B.R. Grell ½½, G. Grindhammer, S. Habib ½½, D. Haidt ½½, C. Helebrant ½½, R.C.W. Henderson ½, E. Hennekemper ½, H. Henschel, M. Herbst ½, G. Herrera, M. Hildebrandt, K.H. Hiller, D. Hoffmann ½, R. Horisberger,. Hreus, F. Huber ½, M. Jacquet, X. Janssen, L. Jönsson ¼, A.W. Jung ½, H. Jung ½½, M. Kapichine, I.R. Kenyon, C. Kiesling, M. Klein ½, C. Kleinwort ½½,. Kluge ½, R. Kogler ½½, P. Kostka, M. Kraemer ½½, J. Kretzschmar ½, K. Krüger ½, M.P.J. Landon ½, W. Lange, G. Laštovička-Medin ¼, P. Laycock ½, A. Lebedev, V. Lendermann ½, S. Levonian ½½, K. Lipka ½½ ¼, B. List ½, J. List ½½, R. Lopez-Fernandez, V. Lubimov, A. Makankine, E. Malinovski, P. Marage, H.-U. Martyn ½, S.J. Maxfield ½, A. Mehta ½, A.B. Meyer ½½, H. Meyer, J. Meyer ½½, S. Mikocki, I. Milcewicz-Mika, F. Moreau, A. Morozov, J.V. Morris, M. Mudrinic, K. Müller ½, h. Naumann, P.R. Newman, C. Niebuhr ½½, D. Nikitin, G. Nowak, K. Nowak ½½, J.E. Olsson ½½, D. Ozerov, P. Pahl ½½, V. Palichik, I. Panagoulias Ð ½½, M. Pandurovic, h. Papadopoulou Ð ½½, C. Pascaud, G.D. Patel ½, E. Perez ½¼, A. Petrukhin ½½, I. Picuric ¼, S. Piec ½½, H. Pirumov ½, D. Pitzl ½½, R. Plačakytė ½, B. Pokorny, R. Polifka, B. Povh ½, V. Radescu ½, N. Raicevic ¼,. Ravdandorj, P. Reimer ½, E. Rizvi ½, P. Robmann ½, R. Roosen, A. Rostovtsev, M. Rotaru, J.E. Ruiz abasco, S. Rusakov, D. Šálek, D.P.C. Sankey, M. Sauter ½, E. Sauvan ½, S. Schmitt ½½, L. Schoeffel ½¼, A. Schöning ½, H.-C. Schultz-Coulon ½, F. Sefkow ½½, L.N. Shtarkov, S. Shushkevich,. Sloan ½, I. Smiljanic, Y. Soloviev, P. Sopicki, D. South ½½, V. Spaskov, A. Specka, Z. Staykova ½½, M. Steder ½½, B. Stella, G. Stoicea, U. Straumann ½,. Sykora, P.D. hompson,. oll ½½,.H. ran, D. raynor ½, P. ruöl ½, I. sakov, B. seepeldorj, J. urnau, K. Urban ½, A. Valkárová, C. Vallée ½, P. Van Mechelen, Y. Vazdik, D. Wegener, E. Wünsch ½½, J. Žáček, J. Zálešák ½, Z. Zhang, A. Zhokin, H. Zohrabyan, and F. Zomer ½ I. Physikalisches Institut der RWH, Aachen, Germany Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK Inter-University Institute for High Energies ULB-VUB, Brussels and Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium National Institute for Physics and Nuclear Engineering (NIPNE), Bucharest, Romania Ñ Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, UK Institute for Nuclear Physics, Cracow, Poland Institut für Physik, U Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia ½¼ CEA, DSM/Irfu, CE-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France ½½ DESY, Hamburg, Germany

3 ½ Institut für Experimentalphysik, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany ½ Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik, Heidelberg, Germany ½ Physikalisches Institut, Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany ½ Kirchhoff-Institut für Physik, Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany ½ Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice, Slovak Republic ½ Department of Physics, University of Lancaster, Lancaster, UK ½ Department of Physics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK ½ Queen Mary and Westfield College, London, UK ¼ Physics Department, University of Lund, Lund, Sweden ½ CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS/INP3, Marseille, France Departamento de Fisica Aplicada, CINVESAV, Mérida, Yucatán, México Departamento de Fisica, CINVESAV IPN, México City, México Institute for heoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia Max-Planck-Institut für Physik, München, Germany LAL, Université Paris-Sud, CNRS/INP3, Orsay, France LLR, Ecole Polytechnique, CNRS/INP3, Palaiseau, France LPNHE, Université Pierre et Marie Curie Paris 6, Université Denis Diderot Paris 7, CNRS/INP3, Paris, France ¼ Faculty of Science, University of Montenegro, Podgorica, Montenegro Ò ½ Institute of Physics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Praha, Czech Republic Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, Praha, Czech Republic Dipartimento di Fisica Università di Roma re and INFN Roma 3, Roma, Italy Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Sofia, Bulgaria Institute of Physics and echnology of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland Fachbereich C, Universität Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia DESY, Zeuthen, Germany ¼ Institut für eilchenphysik, EH, Zürich, Switzerland ½ Physik-Institut der Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland Also at Physics Department, National echnical University, Zografou Campus, GR-5773 Athens, Greece Also at Rechenzentrum, Universität Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany Also at University of P.J. Šafárik, Košice, Slovak Republic Also at CERN, Geneva, Switzerland Also at Max-Planck-Institut für Physik, München, Germany Also at Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovak Republic Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania Also at Ulaanbaatar University, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia ¼ Supported by the Initiative and Networking Fund of the Helmholtz Association (HGF) under the contract VH-NG-4. ½ Absent on leave from NIPNE-HH, Bucharest, Romania On leave of absence at CERN, Geneva, Switzerland Ý Deceased Supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, FRG, under contract

4 3 numbers 5H9GUF, 5H9VHC, 5H9VHF, 5H6PEA Supported by the UK Science and echnology Facilities Council, and formerly by the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council Supported by FNRS-FWO-Vlaanderen, IISN-IIKW and IW and by Interuniversity Attraction Poles Programme, Belgian Science Policy Partially Supported by Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, grant DPN/N68/DESY/9 Supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Supported by VEGA SR grant no. /76/ 7 Supported by the Swedish Natural Science Research Council Supported by the Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic under the projects LC57, INGO-LA94 and MSM6859 Supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation Supported by CONACY, México, grant F Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR), grant no Ð his project is co-funded by the European Social Fund (75%) and National Resources (5%) - (EPEAEK II) - PYHAGORAS II Ñ Supported by the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research under the contract PN 937 Ò Partially Supported by Ministry of Science of Montenegro, no. 5-/3-335

5 4 Introduction he measurement of the charm production cross section and the derived structure function in deep-inelastic electron -proton scattering (DIS) at HERA allows tests of the theory of the strong interaction, quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Previous measurements [ 7] of charm production in DIS at HERA have demonstrated that charm quarks are predominantly produced by the boson gluon fusion process, which is sensitive to the gluon density in the proton. he production of charm quarks contributes up to ¼± to the inclusive Ô scattering cross section. he correct treatment of effects related to the charm quark contribution in perturbative QCD calculations, in particular the mass effects, is therefore important for the determination of parton distribution functions (PDFs). At HERA several different techniques have been used to determine the charm contribution to the proton structure function. Besides the full reconstruction of a or meson [ 7,,5,6], the lifetime of heavy flavoured hadrons [7 9,,4,7] or the semileptonic decay [3] are exploited. Compared to the other methods, the measurement of mesons provides a charm sample with a large signal-to-background ratio. he results presented here are based on a data sample collected by the H experiment, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of Ô ½. Increased statistics, extended phase space, as well as reduced systematic uncertainties compared to the previous H analysis [] make more detailed tests of pqcd predictions possible. Compared to earlier H analyses the phase space for the meson is extended in transverse momentum from Ô Ì µ ½ Î to Ô Ì µ ½ Î and in pseudo-rapidity from µ ½ to µ ½. his extension reduces the amount of extrapolation needed for the determination of. QCD Models and Monte Carlo Simulation he QCD models employed for data corrections and for comparison with measured cross sections are introduced in the following. Different Monte Carlo (MC) generators based on leading order (LO) QCD calculations complemented with parton showers are used to simulate detector effects in order to determine the acceptance and the efficiency for selecting DIS events with a meson and to estimate the systematic uncertainties associated with the measurements. he generated events are passed through a detailed simulation of the H detector response based on the GEAN program [8] and through the same reconstruction and analysis algorithms as used for the data. he MC program RAPGAP [9] is used for the generation of the direct process of boson gluon fusion to a pair. It uses a LO matrix element with massive charm quarks. Parton showers [] based on the DGLAP evolution equations [] model higher order QCD effects. he hadronisation of partons is performed with PYHIA [] which implements the Lund String Model [3]. For the fragmentation of the charm quark into the meson the Bowler parameterisation [4] is chosen and the longitudinal part of the fragmentation function is reweighted to the Kartvelishvili parameterisation [5]. he parameter «of the Kartvelishvili parameterisation is set to the values measured by H [6] which depend on the centre-of-mass energy squared of the hard subprocess ( ). RAPGAP is interfaced to the HERACLES program [7] in In this paper electron is used to denote both electron and positron.

6 5 order to simulate the radiation of a real photon from the incoming or outgoing lepton and virtual electro-weak effects. For the determination of the detector acceptance and efficiency, RAPGAP is used with the PDF set CEQ6.6M [8] which is derived at next-to-leading order (NLO), but gives a good description of the data. Alternatively, RAPGAP is used with CEQ6LL [9] derived at LO. he mass of the charm quark is set to Ñ Ô ½ Î. he renormalisation scale Ö and the factorisation scale are set to Ö É Ñ Ô Ì µ, where É denotes the photon virtuality and Ô Ì the transverse momentum of the charm quark in the photon-gluon centre-of-mass frame. he relevant parameter settings and their variations are summarised in table. RAPGAP Parameter name Central value Variation Charm mass Ñ ½ Î Renormalisation scale Ö Ô É Ñ Ô Ì µ Factorisation scale Ô É Ñ Ô Ì µ «½¼ for Ø Ö ÓÐ «½ Fragmentation «for Ø Ö ÓÐ «¼ Ø Ö ÓÐ ¼ Î ¼ Ø Ö ÓÐ ¼ Î PDF CEQ6.6M CEQ6LL CASCADE Parameter name Central value Variation Charm mass Ñ ½ Î Renormalisation scale Ö ¼ Ô É Ñ Ô Ì ½ Ö Ö ¼ Factorisation scale ¼ Ô É Ì ½ ¼ «for Ø Ö ÓÐ «Fragmentation «for Ø Ö ÓÐ «½ Ø Ö ÓÐ ¼ Î ¼ Ø Ö ÓÐ ¼ Î PDF A Ö variation: A-, A+ able : Parameters used in the MC simulations. he central choice of the renormalisation (factorisation) scale is denoted by Ö ¼ ( ¼ ). he invariant mass squared and the transverse momentum squared of the pair are denoted by and É Ì, respectively, Ñ is the charm quark mass and Ô Ì and Ô Ì are the transverse momentum of the charm quark in the photon-gluon centre-of-mass frame and in the electron-proton centre-of-mass frame, respectively. «is the fragmentation parameter in the Kartvelishvili parameterisation. wo values of «in two regions of with the boundary Ø Ö ÓÐ are used [6]. For CASCADE different PDF sets are available which were determined for a variation of the renormalisation scale by a factor of ½ or. hese are used consistently for the Ö variation here. he CASCADE [3] program is based on Ì -factorisation and the CCFM evolution equations [3]. In CASCADE the direct boson gluon fusion process is implemented using off-shell

7 6 matrix elements convolved with a Ì -unintegrated gluon distribution of the proton. he PDF set A [3] is used. ime-like parton showers of the charm quark and anti-quark are implemented, but those from initial state gluons are not. he hadronisation of partons is performed in the same way as for RAPGAP. When CASCADE is used for the extrapolation to, the renormalisation and factorisation scales are varied to estimate the theoretical uncertainty. For the variation of the renormalisation scale, the PDF sets A- and A+ are used, which were extracted with the corresponding scale variation [3]. he parameter variations used in CASCADE are also listed in table. In addition to RAPGAP and CASCADE, the data are also compared to predictions of an NLO calculation [33, 34] based on collinear factorisation and the DGLAP evolution equations. his calculation assumes three active flavours (Ù ) in the proton (fixed-flavour-number scheme: FFNS) and massive charm quarks are produced dynamically via boson gluon fusion. he predictions are calculated using the program HVQDIS [34]. Corresponding fixed-flavour NLO parton density functions of the proton, Cf3 [35] (with the strong coupling set to «Ë Å µ ¼ ½¼ 9 and the NLO variant of MSW8f3 [36], are used. Charm quarks are fragmented in the Ô centre-of-mass frame into mesons using the Kartvelishvili [5] parameterisation for the fragmentation function with the value of the parameter Ô «as measured by H [6]. he renormalisation and factorisation scales are set to Ö É Ñ. he value used for the charm mass is ½ Î. o obtain the theoretical systematic uncertainty for the extrapolation to the parameters are varied according to table. Each of the variations is performed independently. he resulting uncertainties are added in quadrature to obtain a conservative estimate of the total theoretical uncertainty. he results are also compared with a NLO calculation [38] based on the zero-mass variableflavour-number scheme (ZM-VFNS), where the charm quark is considered as a massless constituent of the proton. his calculation is only valid for a sufficiently large transverse momentum of the meson Ô Ì µ in the Ô centre-of-mass frame. For the comparison to this prediction the analysis is therefore restricted to Ô Ì µ Î. he ZM-VFNS uses the fragmentation function determined in [39]. he scales are chosen to be Ö Ô É Ô Ì µ µ. 3 H Detector A detailed description of the H detector can be found elsewhere [4,4]. Only the components essential to the present analysis are described here. he origin of the H coordinate system is the nominal Ô interaction point. he direction of the proton beam defines the positive Þ axis (forward direction). ransverse momenta are measured in the Ü Ý plane. Polar ( ) and azimuthal ( ) angles are measured with respect to this reference system. he pseudo-rapidity is defined as ÐÒ Ø Ò µ. Charged particles are measured within the central tracking detector (CD) in the pseudorapidity range ½ ½. he CD consists of two large cylindrical jet chambers (CJCs), surrounding the silicon vertex detector CS [4]. he CJCs are separated by a drift chamber which improves the Þ coordinate reconstruction. A multiwire proportional chamber [43], which is mainly used in the trigger, is situated inside the inner CJC. hese detectors are arranged concentrically around the interaction region in a magnetic field of ½ ½ Ì. he trajectories of charged particles are measured with a transverse momentum resolution of Ô Ì µ Ô Ì ¼ ± Ô Ì Î ½ ± [44]. he interaction vertex is reconstructed from CD

8 7 HVQDIS Parameter name Central value Variation Charm mass Ñ ½ Î ½ Ñ ½ Î Renormalisation scale Ö ¼ Ô É Ñ ½ Ö Ö ¼ Factorisation scale ¼ Ô É Ñ ½ ¼ «½ for Ø Ö ÓÐ «¼ Fragmentation «for Ø Ö ÓÐ «Ø Ö ÓÐ ¼ Î ¼ Ø Ö ÓÐ ¼ Î PDF Cf3 MSW8f3 Fragmentation fraction µ ¼ ± [37] ZM-VFNS Parameter name Central value Variation Charm mass Ñ ½ Î Renormalisation scale Ö ¼ Ô É Ô Ì µ µ ½ Ö Ö ¼ Factorisation scale ¼ Ô É Ô Ì µ µ ½ ¼ Fragmentation KKKS8 [39] PDF CEQ6.6M able : Parameter variations used for the uncertainty estimation of the NLO calculations. he central choice of the renormalisation (factorisation) scale is denoted by Ö ¼ ( ¼ ). Ñ is the charm quark mass and «is the fragmentation parameter in the Kartvelishvili parameterisation. In the two regions of, separated by the boundary Ø Ö ÓÐ, different values of «are used [6]. tracks. he CD also provides triggering information based on track segments measured in the CJCs [45, 46] and a measurement of the specific ionisation energy loss Ü of charged particles. he forward tracking detector measures tracks of charged particles at smaller polar angle (½ ) than the central tracker. Charged and neutral particles are measured in the liquid argon (LAr) calorimeter, which surrounds the tracking chambers and covers the range ½ with full azimuthal acceptance. Electromagnetic shower energies are measured with a precision of µ ½± Ô Î ½± and hadronic energies with µ ¼± Ô Î ±, as determined in test beam measurements [47]. A lead-scintillating fibre calorimeter (SpaCal) [4] covering the backward region ¼ ½ completes the measurement of charged and neutral particles. In this analysis the SpaCal is used in particular for the identification and reconstruction of the scattered electron. For electrons a relative energy resolution of µ ± Ô Î ½± is achieved, as determined in test beam measurements [48]. he SpaCal provides energy and time-of-flight information used for triggering purposes. A Backward Proportional Chamber (BPC) in front of the SpaCal is used to improve the angular measurement of the scattered electron. he hadronic final state is reconstructed using an energy flow algorithm which combines

9 8 charged particles measured in the CD and the forward tracking detector with information from the SpaCal and LAr calorimeters [49]. he luminosity determination is based on the measurement of the Bethe-Heitler process ( Ô Ô ) where the photon is detected in a calorimeter located at Þ ½¼ Ñ downstream of the interaction region in the electron beam direction. 4 Event Selection and Signal Extraction he data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity Ä Ô ½ and was recorded with the H detector in Ô (½ Ô ½ ) and Ô interactions (½ Ô ½ ) in the years 4 to 7. During this period electrons at an energy of Î were collided with protons at ¼ Î. he events were triggered by a local energy deposit in the SpaCal in coincidence with at least one track in the CD, with an overall trigger efficiency of ±. DIS events are selected by requiring a high energy electromagnetic cluster in the SpaCal which is consistent with resulting from the scattered electron. he event kinematics including the photon virtuality É, the Bjorken scaling variable Ü and the inelasticity variable Ý are reconstructed with the method [5], which uses information from the scattered electron and the hadronic final state and provides good resolution in the covered Ý range. he kinematic region for the photon virtuality is restricted to É ½¼¼ Î corresponding to the geometric acceptance of the SpaCal. In order to ensure a high trigger efficiency, the energy of the electron candidate is required to fulfil ¼ ½¼ Î. he inelasticity is restricted to the range ¼ ¼ Ý ¼. Charm production is identified by the reconstruction of mesons using the decay channel ¼ à which has a branching fraction Ê ¼ ¼ ± [5]. he tracks of the decay particles are reconstructed in the CD. he invariant mass of the à system is required to be consistent with the ¼ mass [5] within ¼ Å Î. A loose particle identification criterion is applied to the kaon candidates using the measurement of the specific energy loss, Ü, in the CD. his improves the signal-to-background ratio, especially at low transverse momenta of the meson. he kinematic range of the measurement is summarised in table 3. Details of the selection are described in [5]. candidates are selected using the mass difference method [53]. he distribution of the mass difference Ñ Ñ Ã µ Ñ Ã µ is shown in figure. A clear signal peak around the nominal mass difference of ½ Å Î [5] is observed. he wrong charge combinations, defined as à with à pairs in the accepted ¼ mass range, are used to constrain the shape of the combinatorial background in the signal region. he number of mesons is determined in each analysis bin by a simultaneous fit to the right and the wrong charge Ñ distribution. As the signal has a tail towards larger Ñ values, the asymmetric Crystal Ball function [54] is used for the signal description. he shape of the background is parameterised with the Granet function [55]. An unbinned extended log likelihood fit [56] is performed using the RooFit framework [57]. he fit to the complete data set yields ¼ mesons. his represents an increase in statistics of an order of magnitude compared to the previous analysis []. For each analysis bin the fit to the Ñ spectrum uses the parameters describing the signal asymmetry obtained from the fit to the complete data set. he width of the peak varies in dependence of the kinematics and is therefore treated as a free parameter of the fit.

10 9 Photon virtuality É É ½¼¼ Î Inelasticity Ý ¼ ¼ Ý ¼ Pseudo-rapidity of ½ µ ½ ransverse momentum of Ô Ì µ ½ Î able 3: Definition of the kinematic range of the present measurement. 5 Cross Section Determination and Systematic Errors he following formula is used to calculate the inclusive meson production cross section at the Born level in the visible kinematic range defined in table 3: Ú Ô µ Æ µ ½ Öµ Ä Ê Ã µ ½ Æ Ö µ () Here Æ µ is the number of mesons obtained using an unfolding procedure defined below, Ö is the contribution from reflections from other decay modes of the ¼ meson, Ä is the integrated luminosity, Ê is the branching ratio and Æ Ö denotes the QED radiative corrections. For the differential measurements the cross section is also divided by the bin width. No bin centre correction is applied. o obtain Æ µ in each measurement bin, the data are corrected for detector effects including the trigger efficiency by means of regularised matrix unfolding [58 6]. he response matrix A which reflects the acceptance and the resolution of the H detector relates the distributions Ý Ö of reconstructed variables to distributions Ü ØÖÙ of variables at the generator level, A Ü ØÖÙ Ý Ö. Each matrix element is the probability for an event originating from bin of Ü ØÖÙ to be measured in bin of Ý Ö. he response matrix is determined from simulation and has twice as many bins at the reconstruction level as at the generator level in order to provide detailed information on the probability distribution and to improve thereby the accuracy of the unfolding procedure. he procedure reduces statistical correlations between neighbouring bins and the influence of model assumptions in the cross section determination. Additional bins outside of the kinematic range of this measurement are used to provide constraints on the migrations into the phase space. he measured cross section includes decays from hadrons to mesons which are expected to contribute to less than ±. For the determination of the beauty contribution as calculated with HVQDIS is subtracted. For the present analysis the systematic error dominates over the statistical uncertainty for almost the whole phase space. he measurement is statistically limited only for large transverse momenta or large photon virtualities. he systematic uncertainties are determined in each bin separately and are summarised in table 4 for the total cross section. hey are divided into uncertainties which are bin-to-bin uncorrelated and uncertainties which are correlated between the bins. he uncertainties in the following are given in percent of the cross section values. he following sources for bin-to-bin uncorrelated systematic errors are considered: Signal Extraction: Using different parameterisations for the signal and background shapes [5] the systematic uncertainty on the signal extraction is estimated to be ±.

11 Radiative Corrections: For the correction of the measured cross section to the Born level, the HERACLES interface to RAPGAP is used. he corrections are of the order of ±. An uncertainty of ± is assigned [7]. rigger efficiency: he efficiency of the trigger conditions requiring an energy deposition in the SpaCal and a central track is at least ±. he combined uncertainty is estimated to be ½±. ¼ mass cut: he invariant mass resolution of the data is not fully reproduced by the MC simulation, leading to different efficiencies of the ¼ mass cut. he difference is evaluated by comparing the width of the ¼ signal in data and MC and extrapolating to the region outside of the mass cut assuming a Gaussian distribution [5]. he dependence on the kinematics is studied, and the maximum difference of ½ ± is assigned as uncertainty. Reflections: he amount of reflections Ö from decay modes of the ¼ meson other than ¼ Ã is determined using a RAPGAP MC sample of inclusive charm events and is found to amount to ±. he dependence of Ö on kinematic quantities is studied in the simulation and found to be constant within ½±, a value which is used as the systematic uncertainty. Photoproduction background: he photoproduction background is estimated using a PYHIA photoproduction MC sample to be less than ¼ ±, which is used as systematic uncertainty. Ü cut: he loss of signal events due to the Ü requirement on the kaon track amounts to ± in data. he Ü cut is not applied in the simulation, but corrected for in the data by a global factor. he dependence of the cut efficiency on kinematic variables is studied and found to be within ±, which is used as systematic uncertainty. Where appropriate, the effect of the bin-to-bin correlated systematic uncertainties is evaluated by changing the response matrix and repeating the unfolding procedure. he following correlated error sources are considered: rack finding efficiency: he systematic error on the track efficiency of ½± per meson is the dominant error of this measurement. It arises from two contributions: (i) he comparison of the track finding efficiency in data and simulation leads to an error of ± for the slow pion track and ½± for the tracks of the ¼ daughter particles and is assumed to be correlated between the decay particles; (ii) the efficiency with which a track can be fitted to the event vertex leads to a systematic error of ½± per meson. he uncertainty on the track finding efficiency is considered to be half correlated between the bins of the measurement. Luminosity: he systematic error on the luminosity measurement is estimated to be ±. Branching ratio: he uncertainty on the branching ratio of the meson is ½ ± [5]. Model: he model uncertainty is on average ±, estimated by taking the difference in cross section obtained using RAPGAP or CASCADE for the data correction. PDF: Using different parton density functions in RAPGAP for the data correction leads to an uncertainty of below ½±.

12 Fragmentation: he parameter of the Kartvelishvili fragmentation function in RAPGAP is varied in the range given in table. he resulting differences in the cross section are between ½± and ±. Electron energy: he systematic uncertainty on the SpaCal energy scale is ¼ ± which results in a systematic error of typically below ½±, but up to ½¼± at large inelasticity Þ. Electron angle: he angular resolution of the SpaCal/BPC of ¼ ÑÖ leads to a systematic uncertainty of typically ±. Hadronic energy: he systematic uncertainty on the energy scale of the hadronic final state is ±. he influence in general is small (below ¼ ±) but leads to larger uncertainties of up to ¼± at large inelasticity Þ µ (see section 6) and small Ý. All sources of the systematic errors are assumed to be uncorrelated between the sources and added in quadrature. his results in an overall systematic uncertainty of ±. Uncorrelated uncertainties Signal extraction ± Radiative correction ± rigger efficiency ½± ¼ meson mass cut ½ ± Reflections ½ ¼± Photoproduction background ¼ ± Ü cut ± Correlated uncertainties rack efficiency ½± Luminosity ± Branching ratio ½ ± Model ½± PDF ½± Fragmentation ± Electron energy scale ½ ± Electron angle ½ ± Hadronic energy scale ¼ ± otal systematic uncertainty ± able 4: Summary of all sources of systematic uncertainties and their effect on the production cross section with the breakdown into bin-to-bin uncorrelated and bin-to-bin correlated sources. 6 Cross Sections he cross section in the visible range defined in table 3 is measured to be: Ú Ô µ ¼ ¼ Ø Ø µ ¼ Ý Ø µ Ò ()

13 he corresponding predictions from RAPGAP (CEQ6LL), RAPGAP (CEQ6.6M), and CAS- CADE (A) amount to ¼ Ò, Ò, and ¼ Ò, respectively. he NLO calculation HVQDIS yields ½ ½¼ ¼ Ò with Cf3 as the proton PDF and ¼ ¼ Ò with MSW8f3. he HVQDIS predictions are slightly below the measurement but agree with the data within errors. In table 5 and figures and 3 the single differential cross sections are presented as a function of variables describing the event kinematics: the photon virtuality É, the inelasticity Ý and Bjorken Ü. he measurements are compared to the predictions of the MC programs RAP- GAP and CASCADE (figure ) and of the next-to-leading order calculation with the HVQDIS program (figure 3). Since the theoretical calculations predict smaller cross sections than the measurement, the normalised ratio Ê ÒÓÖÑ of theory to data is shown in the lower part of the figures, which facilitates the shape comparison between the different theoretical predictions and the data. his ratio is defined as: Ê ÒÓÖÑ ½ Ø Ó Ú ½ Ø Ú Ø Ó Ø (3) where Ø Ó Ú and Ø Ó are the total and differential cross section of the model under consideration and denotes any measured variable. he normalisation uncertainties of the data (luminosity, branching ratio and half of the tracking uncertainty) cancel in this ratio. Similarly, uncertainty sources of the NLO predictions altering the normalisation only do not affect Ê ÒÓÖÑ since for each variation the total and the differential cross section are varied simultanously. In all predictions the decrease with É is slightly less steep than in data. he Ý dependence is reasonably well described by all predictions. he dependence on Ü is slightly less steep in all predictions than in the data, an effect which the is larger for the NLO calculations. In table 6 and figures 4 and 5 the single differential cross sections are presented as a function of the kinematic variables of the meson: the transverse momentum Ô Ì µ and pseudorapidity µ in the laboratory frame, the transverse momentum Ô Ì µ in the Ô centreof-mass frame and the inelasticity Þ µ. he inelasticity Þ µ corresponds to the fraction of the virtual photon momentum carried by the meson and is determined as Þ µ È Ô µ È Õµ Ô Þ µ Ý where is the energy of the incoming electron and È, Õ and Ô denote the four-momenta of the incoming proton, the exchanged photon and the meson, respectively. All predictions are able to describe the shape of the Ô Ì µ distribution of the data reasonably well, although RAPGAP has a tendency to underestimate the data at large Ô Ì µ. he shape of the distribution shows sensitivity to the use of different parton densities in the RAPGAP MC. he prediction based on CEQ6.6M agrees better with the data than the prediction based on CEQ6LL. A very good description of the shape is obtained with the CASCADE MC. he HVQDIS calculations with Cf3 and MSW8f3 both describe the distribution reasonably well, but have a tendency to be too low in the positive (forward) region. For the transverse momentum Ô Ì µ in the Ô centre-of-mass frame, the RAPGAP MC using either PDF is too steep at large Ô Ì µ, while the CASCADE prediction generally has a different shape. he NLO predictions are in good agreement with the data. he Þ µ dependence is not described by any of the calculations, showing a deficit of all predictions at low Þ µ values. In order to investigate the correlation between pseudo-rapidity and transverse momentum, a double differential measurement in Ô Ì µ and µ is performed. In table 7 and figures 6 and 7 the double differential cross section is presented as a function of the pseudo-rapidity µ in

14 3 bins of the transverse momentum of the meson Ô Ì µ. In the backward direction almost no mesons with large transverse momentum are produced. At low transverse momenta all predictions are below the data in the very forward direction. At Ô Ì µ Î the CASCADE and HVQDIS predictions give a good description of the data, while RAPGAP is too low. While the transverse momentum of the meson in the laboratory frame is correlated with the photon virtuality É, the transverse momentum in the Ô centre-of-mass frame Ô Ì µ is directly related to the hard subprocess. he double differential cross section as a function of µ and Ô Ì µ are presented in table 7 and figures 8 and 9. he distribution shows similar behaviour to the double differential cross section as a function of µ and the transverse momentum Ô Ì µ in the laboratory frame. hey are in general better described by the predictions of CASCADE and HVQDIS, while RAPGAP underestimates the data for positive µ at large Ô Ì µ. he double differential cross section measurements in Ý and É are presented in table 8 and figures and. All predictions are able to describe the distribution reasonably well, independent of the PDF choice. At low É RAPGAP as well as CASCADE has a tendency to be lower than the data. o allow a comparison to the ZM-VFNS predictions, the cross sections are also measured with an additional cut Ô Ì µ Î. he measurements are shown in tables 5 and 6 and in figures and 3. he ZM-VFNS calculation overshoots the data at low Ý. he Ü dependence is less steep than for the data, and it has a different shape in Ô Ì µ. he dependence of the cross section on the other variables is described reasonably well. In general the ZM-VFNS prediction describes the data worse than the NLO FFNS calculation HVQDIS. Also at higher É ½¼¼ Î the ZM-VFNS prediction fails to describe the production [5]. In order to facilitate the comparison with previous measurements the cross sections are also measured in a reduced phase space of the meson: Ô Ì µ ½ Î and µ ½. hey are listed in tables 9 and. In figure 4 these measurements are shown as a function of É together with the results of the measurement at high É [5]. hese measurements span over almost three orders of magnitude in É. he data are well described by CASCADE and the HVQDIS predictions with both PDF sets in the whole É range, while RAPGAP overshoots the data at high É. 7 Charm Contribution to the Proton Structure Function he charm contribution Ü É µ to the proton structure function Ü É µ is related to the charm cross section in the one photon exchange approximation by: Ü É «Ñ É Ü ½ ½ ݵ Ü É µ Ý Ä Ü É µ (4) Weak interaction effects are neglected and «Ñ denotes the electromagnetic coupling constant. he contribution from the structure function is less than Ä ± in the present Ü É range. Assuming the ratio Ä is predicted correctly within a model, the measured inclusive

15 4 cross sections ÜÔ Ý Ú É µ in bins of Ý and É are converted to a bin centre corrected ÜÔ Ü É µ using the relation É ÜÝ and extrapolating Ú to the full phase space: ÜÔ Ü É µ ÜÔ Ú Ý É µ Ø Ó Ú Ý É µ Ø Ó Ü É µ (5) Here Ø Ó Ú and Ø Ó are the theoretical predictions. he HVQDIS program is used to calculate Ø Ó Ú and Ø Ó in the NLO DGLAP scheme. In the kinematic range of the current analysis the beauty contribution to the cross section is small. It is estimated with HVQDIS and subtracted for the determination of. he measurement covers about ¼± of the total phase space for charm production. he extrapolation factor to the full phase space is model dependent. Since CASCADE also provides a reasonable description of the phase space covered in this analysis, it is used as an alternative model to determine ÜÔ in order to investigate this model dependence. he extrapolation factors in the present analysis, defined as the ratio of the full cross section Ø Ó ÙÐÐ to the cross section Ø Ó Ú in the visible phase space of the meson, determined with HVQDIS and CAS- CADE, are compared in figure 5. hey differ by about ½¼± at medium Ü. In the largest Ü bin the extrapolation factor as well as the difference between the two models increases significantly. In general the extrapolation factor determined with HVQDIS has smaller uncertainties than the one from CASCADE. Due to the larger phase space of the meson in the present analysis compared to previous measurements, where the phase space coverage amounted to about ¼±, the extrapolation factor to the full phase space is considerably smaller, although the model dependence of the extrapolation remains sizable. In table and figure 6 the resulting extracted from the inclusive cross sections with HVQDIS is shown as a function of Ü for different values of É. In addition to the experimental systematic uncertainties described in section 6 the extrapolation (equation 5) leads to an uncertainty. his extrapolation uncertainty is determined by varying the theory parameters listed in table simultaneously in the calculation of Ø Ó Ú and Ø Ó. he resulting uncertainties on are shown separately in figure 6. HVQDIS and CASCADE both give a reasonable description of the measured cross sections and can be used to extract. he differences obtained in ÜÔ for the two models are used to define the model uncertainty on, which is also given in figure 6. he results of a measurement based on lifetime information determined with the H silicon vertex detector CS [4] is compared to the present measurement in figure 6. he two measurements are based on independent methods with similar precision and agree very well. he determined with mesons covers a larger range in Ü due to the larger coverage of the CJCs compared to the CS. It also has smaller uncertainties at low É, where the uncertainty of the lifetime based measurement is dominated by the light quark background. Figure 6 also compares the FFNS NLO calculation of to the measurement using the MSW8f3 and Cf3 proton PDFs. Both calculations give a reasonable description of the data. he measurement is also compared to the prediction for HERAPDF. [6], which has been extracted from the H and ZEUS combined inclusive proton structure function data. A general-mass variable-flavour-number scheme [63] has been used which interpolates between the FFNS and the ZM-VFNS. he uncertainty on for the HERAPDF. prediction is dominated by the variation of the charm mass in the PDF fit, which is included in the model uncertainty of the prediction. In general the prediction agrees with the measurement,

16 5 showing that the gluon density determined from the scaling violations of the inclusive DIS cross section is consistent with that observed in charm production. At large Ü the central value of the HERAPDF. prediction has a tendency to lie above the data, which may indicate a preference for a larger charm mass than the central value used for HERAPDF., Ñ ½ Î. he measurement is compared to predictions from global PDF fits in figure 7: C [35], MSW8 NNLO [64] and NNPDF. [65] have been derived in general-mass variableflavour-number schemes, while for the ABKM NLO and NNLO [66] fits the FFNS has been used. All predictions give a reasonable description of the measurement. At low É all predictions except ABKM NNLO have a tendency to decrease less steeply with Ü than the data. he measured as a function of É for different values of Ü is shown in figure 8. Scaling violations are observed. he É dependence of the data is well reproduced by the FFNS NLO calculation, but at low Ü the predictions are below the data, an effect which is larger if the MSW8f3 set is used as proton PDF. he HERAPDF. prediction is in agreement with the data. 8 Conclusion A measurement of meson production in deep-inelastic scattering is performed with a tenfold increase in statistics and a significantly enlarged phase space compared to the previous H measurement. Single and double differential cross sections are determined as a function of variables describing the kinematics of the event as well as of the meson. he measurements are found to be reasonably well described by predictions based on the fixed-flavour-number scheme, namely the leading order Monte Carlo simulations RAPGAP and CASCADE as well as the next-to-leading order calculation HVQDIS. he data are also compared to a next-toleading order calculation in the zero-mass variable-flavour-number scheme, which in general describes the data less well and is particularly high at low Ý. he double differential cross section as a function of É and Ý is used to determine the charm contribution to the proton structure function. he extrapolation to the full phase space is done within two different models, using the next-to-leading order calculation HVQDIS and the Monte Carlo program CASCADE based on leading order matrix elements and parton showers. he results for in these two models are very similar except for the highest Ü values. he results agree well with a measurement based on lifetime information determined with the H vertex detector. he data are well described by next-to-leading order calculations using different PDFs, showing that the gluon density determined from the scaling violations of the inclusive DIS cross sections is consistent with the one observed in charm production. Acknowledgements We are grateful to the HERA machine group whose outstanding efforts have made this experiment possible. We thank the engineers and technicians for their work in constructing and maintaining the H detector, our funding agencies for financial support, the DESY technical staff for continual assistance and the DESY directorate for support and for the hospitality which they extend to the non-desy members of the collaboration.

17 6 References [] C. Adloff et al. [H Collaboration], Z. Phys. C7 (996) 593 [hep-ex/967]. [] J. Breitweg et al. [ZEUS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B47 (997) 4 [hep-ex/9769]. [3] C. Adloff et al. [H Collaboration], Nucl. Phys. B545 (999) [hep-ex/983]. [4] J. Breitweg et al. [ZEUS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C () 35 [hep-ex/998]. [5] C. Adloff et al. [H Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B58 () 99 [hep-ex/839]. [6] S. Chekanov et al. [ZEUS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D69 (4) 4 [hep-ex/3868]. [7] A. Aktas et al. [H Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C38 (5) 447 [hep-ex/4849]. [8] A. Aktas et al. [H Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C4 (5) 349 [hep-ex/446]. [9] A. Aktas et al. [H Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C45 (6) 3 [hep-ex/578]. [] A. Aktas et al. [H Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C5 (7) 7 [hep-ex/73]. [] S. Chekanov et al. [ZEUS Collaboration], JHEP 77 (7) 74 [arxiv:74.356]. [] S. Chekanov et al. [ZEUS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C63 (9) 7 [arxiv:8.3775]. [3] S. Chekanov et al. [ZEUS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C65 () 65 [arxiv: ]. [4] F.D. Aaron et al. [H Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C65 () 89 [arxiv:97.643]. [5] F.D. Aaron et al. [H Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B686 () 9 [arxiv:9.3989]. [6] H. Abramowicz et al. [ZEUS Collaboration], JHEP () 9 [arxiv:7.945]. [7] F.D. Aaron et al. [H Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C7 () 59 [arxiv:8.73]. [8] R. Brun et al., GEAN3, echnical Report CERN-DD/EE-8- (987). [9] H. Jung, RAPGAP V3., Comp. Phys. Commun. 86 (995) 47. [] M. Bengtsson and. Sjostrand, Z. Phys. C37 (988) 465. [] V.N. Gribov and L.N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 5 (97) 675 [Yad. Fiz. 5 (97) 8]; V.N. Gribov and L.N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 5 (97) 438 [Yad. Fiz. 5 (97) 78]; L.N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. (975) 94 [Yad. Fiz. (974) 8]; Y.L. Dokshitzer, Sov. Phys. JEP 46 (977) 64 [Zh. Eksp. eor. Fiz. 73 (977) 6]; G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. B6 (977) 98. []. Sjöstrand et al., PYHIA V6., Comp. Phys. Commun. 35 () 38.

18 7 [3] B. Andersson, G. Gustafson and B. Soderberg, Z. Phys. C (983) 37; B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman and. Sjostrand, Phys. Rept. 97 (983) 3. [4] M. G. Bowler, Z. Phys. C (98) 69. [5] V. Kartvelishvili, A. Likhoded, and V. Petrov, Phys. Lett. B78 (978) 65. [6] F.D. Aaron et al. [H Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C59 (9) 589 [arxiv:88.3]. [7] A. Kwiatkowski, H. Spiesberger, and H.J. Mohring, HERACLES V4.6, Comp. Phys. Commun. 69 (99) 55. [8] P.M. Nadolsky et al., Phys. Rev. D78 (8) 34 [arxiv:8.7]. [9] J. Pumplin et al., JHEP 7 () [hep-ph/95]. [3] H. Jung, CASCADE V., Comp. Phys. Commun. 43 (). [3] M. Ciafaloni, Nucl. Phys. B96 (988) 49; S. Catani, F. Fiorani and G. Marchesini, Phys. Lett. B34 (99) 339; S. Catani, F. Fiorani and G. Marchesini, Nucl. Phys. B336 (99) 8; G. Marchesini, Nucl. Phys. B445 (995) 49 [hep-ph/9437]. [3] H. Jung, hep-ph/487. [33] E. Laenen, S. Riemersma, J. Smith and W.L. van Neerven, Phys. Lett. B9 (99) 35, E. Laenen, S. Riemersma, J. Smith and W.L. van Neerven, Nucl. Phys. B39 (993) 6; E. Laenen, S. Riemersma, J. Smith and W.L. van Neerven, Nucl. Phys. B39 (993) 9; S. Riemersma, J. Smith and W.L. van Neerven, Phys. Lett. B347 (995) 43 [hep-ph/9443]. [34] B.W. Harris and J. Smith, Nucl. Phys. B45 (995) 9 [hep-ph/953484]; B.W. Harris and J. Smith, Phys. Rev. D57 (998) 86 [hep-ph/976334]. [35] H.L. Lai et al. [CEQ Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D8 () 744 [arxiv:7.4]. [36] A.D. Martin, W.J. Stirling, R.S. horne and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C7 () 5 [arxiv:7.64]. [37] L. Gladilin, hep-ex/9964. [38] G. Heinrich, B. A. Kniehl, Phys. Rev. D7 (4) 9435 [hep-ph/4933]; C. Sandoval, Proc. of XVII International Workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scattering (DIS 9), Madrid, 9, arxiv:98.84; C. Sandoval, Inclusive Production of Hadrons in Neutral and Charged Current Deep Inelastic Scattering, Ph.D. hesis, Univ. Hamburg (9), DESY-HESIS [39]. Kneesch, B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer and I. Schienbein, Nucl. Phys. B799 (8) 34 [arxiv:7.48].

19 8 [4] I. Abt et al. [H Collaboration], Nucl. Instrum. Methods A386 (997) 3; I. Abt et al. [H Collaboration], Nucl. Instrum. Methods A386 (997) 348. [4] R.-D. Appuhn et al. [H SpaCal Group], Nucl. Instrum. Methods A386 (997) 397. [4] D. Pitzl et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods A454 () 334 [hep-ex/44]; B. List, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A5 () 49. [43] J. Becker et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods A586 (8) 9 [physics/7]. [44] C. Kleinwort, H Alignment Experience, in Proceedings of the First LHC Detector Alignment Workshop, eds. S. Blusk et al., CERN-7-4, p. 4. [45] h. Wolff et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods A33 (99) 537. [46] A. Baird et al., IEEE rans. Nucl. Sci. 48 () 76 [hep-ex/4]; D. Meer et al., IEEE rans. Nucl. Sci. 49 () 357 [hep-ex/7]. [47] B. Andrieu et al. [H Calorimeter Group], Nucl. Instrum. Methods A344 (994) 49; B. Andrieu et al. [H Calorimeter Group], Nucl. Instrum. Methods A35 (994) 57. [48]. Nicholls et al. [H SpaCal Group], Nucl. Instrum. Methods A374 (996) 49. [49] M. Peez, Search for deviations from the Standard Model in high transverse energy processes at the electron-proton collider HERA, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Lyon (3), DESY-HESIS-3-3 (available at list.html); S. Hellwig, Untersuchung der ÐÓÛ Double agging Methode in Charmanalysen, Dipl. thesis, Univ. Hamburg (4) (available at list.html). [5] U. Bassler and G. Bernardi, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A36, 97 (995) [hep-ex/944]. [5] K. Nakamura et al. [Particle Data Group], J. Phys. G 37 () 75. [5] A.W. Jung, Measurement of the Meson Cross Section and Extraction of the Charm Contribution, Ü É µ, to the Proton Structure in Deep Inelastic Ô Scattering with the H Detector at HERA, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Heidelberg (9), HD-KIP-9-, DESY-HESIS-9- (available at list.html). [53] G.J. Feldman et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (977) 33. [54] J.E. Gaiser, Charmonium Spectroscopy from Radiative Decays of the  and ¼, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University (98). [55] P. Granet et al. [French-Soviet Collaboration], Nucl. Phys. B4 (978) 389. [56] R. J. Barlow, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A97 (99) 496. [57] W. Verkerke and D. Kirkby, he RooFit oolkit for Data Modeling, User Manual, 6, available at

20 9 [58] D.L. Phillips, J. Assoc. Comp. Mach. 9 (96) 84. [59] A.N. ikhonov, Soviet Math. Dokl. 4 (963) 35 [Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR 5 (963) 5]. [6] V. Blobel, Proc. Advanced Statistical echniques in Particle Physics, Durham (). [6] R. Brun and F. Rademakers, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A389 (997) 8, ROO version 5.8 with Unfold version 4, the latter available at sschmitt/tunfold.html. [6] F.D. Aaron et al. [H and ZEUS Collaboration], JHEP () 9 [arxiv:9.884]. [63] R.S. horne and R.G. Roberts, Phys. Rev. D57 (998) 687 [hep-ph/97944]; R.S. horne, Phys. Rev. D73 (6) 549 [hep-ph/645]. [64] A.D. Martin, W.J. Stirling, R.S. horne and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C63 (9) 89 [arxiv:9.]. [65] R.D. Ball et al., Nucl. Phys. B849 () 96 [arxiv:.3]. [66] S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, S. Klein and S. Moch, Phys. Rev. D8 () 43 [arxiv:98.766].