1. H. Lim, J. Schoeffel, M. StrikmanTsukuba Japan, Apr. 23, 2006 1 Heuijin Lim*(ANL), Laurent Schoeffel(Saclay), Mark Strikman(PSU) DIS2006 Diffraction and Vector Mesons WG  Diffraction and factorisationH. Lim  Exclusive final stateL. Schoeffel  SaturationM. Strkman  Diffractive higgs and LHC  Diffraction and factorisationH. Lim  Exclusive final stateL. Schoeffel  SaturationM. Strkman  Diffractive higgs and LHC LRG Y: leading baryon(p’ or n) or proton dissociative system x L =E p’,n /E p IP, IR or 

2. H. Lim, J. Schoeffel, M. StrikmanTsukuba Japan, Apr. 23, 2006 2 Diffraction and factorisation session Leading baryons production ZEUS leading neutron measurement Mara Soares (ep  eXn,  p  Xn,  p  jjXn) Inclusive diffractive measurements (ep  eXp) H1 FPS (99-00) and LRG (97, 99-00) Paul Newman H1 LRG(99-00, 04) and M X method(99-00) Emmanuel Sauvan Hard diffractive measurements H1 diffractive D* and F2(cc) Olaf Behnke diffractive dijet Matthias Mozer ZEUS diffractive D* and dijetAlessio Bonato CDF diffractive measurement Michele Gallinaro Theory of diffractive structure functions Graeme Watt Discussion All

3. H. Lim, J. Schoeffel, M. StrikmanTsukuba Japan, Apr. 23, 2006 3 Leading Neutron Measurement (M. Soares) Fit d  /dp T 2 ~ exp(-b p T 2 ) Any models doesn’t describe the data.  b = b(PHP)/b(DIS)  ep  eXN suppre ssed for PHP b(PHP) b(DIS)

4. H. Lim, J. Schoeffel, M. StrikmanTsukuba Japan, Apr. 23, 2006 4 Data from P T 2 < 0.476x L 2 GeV 2 Curves from P T 2 < 0.43 x L 2 GeV 2 Leading Neutron Measurement (M. Soares) ep  eXn ep  eXp At x L ~0.6-0.8, b (ep  eXp)~b(ep  eXn,  exchange) b(ep  eXn) is dominant for x L > 0.8  Neutron energy spectra in PHP is compa tible with effects of absorption (gap surviva l probability) and migration as predicted by Kaidalov, Khoze, Martin, Ryskin.

5. H. Lim, J. Schoeffel, M. StrikmanTsukuba Japan, Apr. 23, 2006 5 H1 FPS(99-00) and LRG (97, 99-00) (P. Newman) For ep  eXp (p: tagged by FPS) 2.7≤Q 2 ≤24 GeV 2  Fit x IP d 2  /dx IP dt ~ exp(Bt) Fitting B~B IP +2  ’ IP ln(1/x IP )  ’ IP = 0.06 +0.19 -0.06 GeV-2 B IP = 5.5 -2.0 +0.7 GeV-2 IR contribution ↑ For ep  eXY (M Y <1.6 GeV) using LRG 3.5≤ Q 2 ≤1600 GeV 2   (M Y <1.6 GeV)/  (Y=p) = 1.23 ±0.03(stat.)±0.16(syst.)

6. H. Lim, J. Schoeffel, M. StrikmanTsukuba Japan, Apr. 23, 2006 6 H1 LRG (97, 99-00) and DPDF (P. Newman) Fit LRG data with Q 2 ≥8.5 GeV 2, M X <2 GeV,  ≤0.8) Parameterise the parton density   ~ 158/183 d.o.f., Q 0 2 =1.75 GeV 2 Due to lack of sensitivity to high z gluon  Fit B : using zg(z,Q 0 2 )=A g   ~ 164/184 d.o.f., Q 0 2 =2.5 GeV 2  IP (0)=1.118±0.008(exp.) +0.029 -0.010 (theory)

7. H. Lim, J. Schoeffel, M. StrikmanTsukuba Japan, Apr. 23, 2006 7 Diffractive dijet in DIS from H1 (M. Mozer) Fit (F 2 D +dijets) Fit B (F 2 D ) Fit (F 2 D ) If comparing with dijet from CDF, it will be interesting! Extrapolation from HERA CDF data

8. H. Lim, J. Schoeffel, M. StrikmanTsukuba Japan, Apr. 23, 2006 8 Diffractive dijet in DIS from ZEUS (A. Bonato) ZEUS LPS(97) H1 2002 fit LRG ZEUS M X (98-99 ) Reasonable description of data H1 fit2002 and ZEUS-LPS Significant underestimation by GLP fit.  Need to understand the difference from in clusive data sets. (discussion about it later!)

9. H. Lim, J. Schoeffel, M. StrikmanTsukuba Japan, Apr. 23, 2006 9 Diffractive D* from H1 (O. Behnke) and ZEUS (A. Bonato) Diffractive D* in PHP NLO consistent with D* within large error. Diffractive D* in DIS

10. H. Lim, J. Schoeffel, M. StrikmanTsukuba Japan, Apr. 23, 2006 10 CDF diffractive measurement (M. Gallinaro)  Q 2 dependence of pomeron evolves like proton  Slope at t=0 is independent on Q 2.  From Dijet MC(incl)/Data(incl)  From b-tagged jets F bc/incl /(F bc/incl (Rjj<0.4)) Events consistent with exclu sive dijet production

11. H. Lim, J. Schoeffel, M. StrikmanTsukuba Japan, Apr. 23, 2006 11 CDF diffractive measurement (M. Gallinaro) First

12. H. Lim, J. Schoeffel, M. StrikmanTsukuba Japan, Apr. 23, 2006 12 H1 LRG(99-00, 04) and M X (99-00) (E. Sauvan)  LRG(New data) 6 times more statistics H1(M X ) and ZEUS(M X )  No systematic difference! H1 detector: less acceptance in forward region

13. H. Lim, J. Schoeffel, M. StrikmanTsukuba Japan, Apr. 23, 2006 13 Discussion Difference (LRG/M X ) for low  and high Q 2 Saturation model (CGC..) describes the ZEUS M X me asurement, well.  If trying to compare the prediction of CGC with LR G measurement, it maybe gi ves us the answer because C GC only describes the pome ron exchange.  Due to Reggeon contr ibution?

14. H. Lim, J. Schoeffel, M. StrikmanTsukuba Japan, Apr. 23, 2006 14 Comparison with colour dipole model, saturation Comparison with Forshaw and Shaw (FS04) model with/without saturation (hep-ph/0411337) and Colour Glass Condensate (CGC) model from Iancu, Itakura, Munier (hep-ph/0310338). Fit F 2 and then predict x IP F 2 (3) F2F2 F2F2 FS04(nosat) x CGC FS04(sat) b 1-z z MXMX  CGC and FS04(sat) are able simultaneously to describe F 2 and x IP F 2 D (3).