% LaTeX file with prefered layout for the H1 publications
%================================================================
% The style is particularly suited for DESY preprints, which are
% printed in two columns (one LaTeX page per column).
%================================================================
\documentclass[12pt
,../epsfig/myfoil2%
,../epsfig/epsfig,../epsfig/shadow
,../epsfig/colour,../epsfig/physics%
,times,rotating%
]{article}
\usepackage{epsfig}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{hhline}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{times}
\usepackage{cite}
\renewcommand{\topfraction}{1.0}
\renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1.0}
\renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.0}
\newlength{\dinwidth}
\newlength{\dinmargin}
\setlength{\dinwidth}{21.0cm} \textheight23.5cm \textwidth16cm
\setlength{\dinmargin}{\dinwidth} \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}
\addtolength{\dinmargin}{-\textwidth}
\setlength{\dinmargin}{0.5\dinmargin} \oddsidemargin -1.0in
\addtolength{\oddsidemargin}{\dinmargin}
\setlength{\evensidemargin}{\oddsidemargin}
\setlength{\marginparwidth}{0.9\dinmargin} \marginparsep 8pt
\marginparpush 5pt \topmargin -42pt \headheight 12pt \headsep 30pt
\footskip 24pt
\parskip 3mm plus 2mm minus 2mm
% A useful Journal macro
\def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}
\def\NCA{\em Nuovo Cimento}
\def\NIM{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods}
\def\NIMA{{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods} A}
\def\NPB{{\em Nucl. Phys.} B}
\def\PLB{{\em Phys. Lett.}  B}
\def\PRL{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}
\def\PRD{{\em Phys. Rev.} D}
\def\ZPC{{\em Z. Phys.} C}
% Some other macros used in the sample text
\def\mco{\multicolumn}
\def\epp{\epsilon^{\prime}}
\def\vep{\varepsilon}
\def\ra{\rightarrow}
\def\ppg{\pi^+\pi^-\gamma}
\def\vp{{\bf p}}
\def\ko{K^0}
\def\kb{\bar{K^0}}
\def\al{\alpha}
\def\ab{\bar{\alpha}}
\def\be{\begin{equation}}
\def\ee{\end{equation}}
\def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
\def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
\def\CPbar{\hbox{{\rm CP}\hskip-1.80em{/}}}%temp replacemt due to no font
\def\etal{{\it et~al.}}
\def\black{\special{ps: 0 0 0 setrgbcolor}}
\def\white{\special{ps: 1 1 1 setrgbcolor}}
%===============================title page=============================
\begin{document}
% The rest
\newcommand{\pom}{{I\!\!P}}
\newcommand{\slowpi}{\pi_{\mathit{slow}}}
%\newcommand{\gevsq}{\mathrm{GeV}^2}
\newcommand{\fiidiii}{F_2^{D(3)}}
\newcommand{\fiidiiiarg}{\fiidiii\,(\beta,\,Q^2,\,x)}
\newcommand{\n}{1.19\pm 0.06 (stat.) \pm0.07 (syst.)}
\newcommand{\nz}{1.30\pm 0.08 (stat.)^{+0.08}_{-0.14} (syst.)}
\newcommand{\fiidiiiful}{F_2^{D(4)}\,(\beta,\,Q^2,\,x,\,t)}
\newcommand{\fiipom}{\tilde F_2^D}
\newcommand{\ALPHA}{1.10\pm0.03 (stat.) \pm0.04 (syst.)}
\newcommand{\ALPHAZ}{1.15\pm0.04 (stat.)^{+0.04}_{-0.07} (syst.)}
\newcommand{\fiipomarg}{\fiipom\,(\beta,\,Q^2)}
\newcommand{\pomflux}{f_{\pom / p}}
\newcommand{\nxpom}{1.19\pm 0.06 (stat.) \pm0.07 (syst.)}
\newcommand {\gapprox}
   {\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\stackrel {\textstyle>}{\sim}$}}
\newcommand {\lapprox}
   {\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\stackrel {\textstyle<}{\sim}$}}
\def\gsim{\,\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\sim$}\kern-1.30ex%
\raise 0.55ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle >$}\,}
\def\lsim{\,\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\sim$}\kern-1.30ex%
\raise 0.55ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle <$}\,}
\newcommand{\pomfluxarg}{f_{\pom / p}\,(x_\pom)}
\newcommand{\dsf}{\mbox{$F_2^{D(3)}$}}
\newcommand{\dsfva}{\mbox{$F_2^{D(3)}(\beta,Q^2,x_{I\!\!P})$}}
\newcommand{\dsfvb}{\mbox{$F_2^{D(3)}(\beta,Q^2,x)$}}
\newcommand{\dsfpom}{$F_2^{I\!\!P}$}
\newcommand{\gap}{\stackrel{>}{\sim}}
\newcommand{\lap}{\stackrel{<}{\sim}}
\newcommand{\fem}{$F_2^{em}$}
\newcommand{\tsnmp}{$\tilde{\sigma}_{NC}(e^{\mp})$}
\newcommand{\tsnm}{$\tilde{\sigma}_{NC}(e^-)$}
\newcommand{\tsnp}{$\tilde{\sigma}_{NC}(e^+)$}
\newcommand{\st}{$\star$}
\newcommand{\sst}{$\star \star$}
\newcommand{\ssst}{$\star \star \star$}
\newcommand{\sssst}{$\star \star \star \star$}

\newcommand{\tw}{\theta_W}
\newcommand{\sw}{\sin{\theta_W}}
\newcommand{\cw}{\cos{\theta_W}}
\newcommand{\sww}{\sin^2{\theta_W}}
\newcommand{\cww}{\cos^2{\theta_W}}
\newcommand{\trm}{m_{\perp}}
\newcommand{\trp}{p_{\perp}}
\newcommand{\trmm}{m_{\perp}^2}
\newcommand{\trpp}{p_{\perp}^2}
\newcommand{\alp}{\alpha_s}

\newcommand{\alps}{\alpha_s}
\newcommand{\sqrts}{$\sqrt{s}$}
\newcommand{\LO}{$O(\alpha_s^0)$}
\newcommand{\Oa}{$O(\alpha_s)$}
\newcommand{\Oaa}{$O(\alpha_s^2)$}
\newcommand{\PT}{p_{\perp}}
\newcommand{\JPSI}{J/\psi}
\newcommand{\sh}{\hat{s}}
%\newcommand{\th}{\hat{t}}
\newcommand{\uh}{\hat{u}}
\newcommand{\MP}{m_{J/\psi}}
%\newcommand{\PO}{\mbox{l}\!\mbox{P}}
\newcommand{\PO}{I\!\!P}
\newcommand{\xbj}{x}
\newcommand{\xpom}{x_{\PO}}
\newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134}
\newcommand{\xpomlo}{3\times10^{-4}}
\newcommand{\xpomup}{0.05}
\newcommand{\dgr}{^\circ}
\newcommand{\pbarnt}{\,\mbox{{\rm pb$^{-1}$}}}
\newcommand{\gev}{\,\mbox{GeV}}
\newcommand{\WBoson}{\mbox{$W$}}
\newcommand{\fbarn}{\,\mbox{{\rm fb}}}
\newcommand{\fbarnt}{\,\mbox{{\rm fb$^{-1}$}}}
%
% Some useful tex commands
%
\newcommand{\qsq}{\ensuremath{Q^2} }
\newcommand{\gevsq}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{GeV}^2} }
\newcommand{\et}{\ensuremath{E_t^*} }
\newcommand{\rap}{\ensuremath{\eta^*} }
\newcommand{\gp}{\ensuremath{\gamma^*}p }
\newcommand{\dsiget}{\ensuremath{{\rm d}\sigma_{ep}/{\rm d}E_t^*} }
\newcommand{\dsigrap}{\ensuremath{{\rm d}\sigma_{ep}/{\rm d}\eta^*} }

\begin{titlepage}


\noindent  Abstract: 074

\vspace*{3cm}

\begin{center}
    \begin{Large}

    {\bf Inclusive $D^\ast$ Meson and Associated Dijet Production in
            Deep-Inelastic Scattering}

    \vspace*{1cm}
    {\Large H1 Collaboration}

    \end{Large}
\end{center}

\vspace*{3cm}
\def\gev{\rm GeV}
\def\ie{\it i.e.}
\def\etal{\hbox{$\it et~al.$}}
\def\clb#1 {(#1 Coll.),}
%
\hyphenation{do-mi-nant}

\begin{abstract}
\noindent


The inclusive production of $D^{*\pm}$ mesons in deep inelastic
scattering is studied with the H1 detector at HERA using an
integrated luminosity of 47.0$\mbox{pb}^{-1}$. In the kinematic
region $2 \le Q^2 \le 100 \ \mbox{GeV}^2$ and $0.05 \le y
\le 0.7$ an $e^+ p$ cross section for inclusive $D^{*\pm}$ meson
production of $7.72 \pm 0.23\ (\rm{stat.}) \pm 1.09 \, (\rm{syst.})$
is measured in the visible range $1.5
\le p_{t,D^\ast} \le 15\ \mbox{GeV}$ and $|\eta_{D^\ast}| \le 1.5$.
Single and double differential inclusive $D^{*\pm}$ meson cross
sections are compared to perturbative calculations in the 
framework of the DGLAP and CCFM 
evolution schemes. For events containing a $D^{*\pm}$ meson, the
additional requirement of at least two jets with $E_{t,\ \text{jet 1}}
\ge 4\ \mbox{GeV}$, $E_{t,\ \text{jet 2}} \ge 3\ \mbox{GeV}$ and $-1 \le
\eta_{\text{lab,}\ \ \text{jet 1,2}} \le 2.5$ is applied.
In this kinematic range the inclusive cross section for 
dijet production associated with a $D^{*\pm}$ meson is
found to be
$1.63\pm 0.10\ (\rm{stat.}) \pm 0.25\, (\rm{syst.})\ \rm{nb}$.
Differential cross sections for dijet events with $D^{*\pm}$ mesons
 are also presented and compared to QCD model predictions.
\end{abstract}
\vspace*{1.5cm}
\end{titlepage}


\vspace*{-802mm}

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
%\vspace*{-6mm}
{\vspace*{10mm}
\hspace*{47mm}\small (a) \hspace*{63mm} \small (b)}

\vspace*{-12mm}
\mbox{\epsfig{file=H1prelim-03-074.fig1a.eps,width=0.42\linewidth,clip=}}
\mbox{\epsfig{file=H1prelim-03-074.fig1b.eps,width=0.42\linewidth,clip=}}
\vspace*{3mm}

{\vspace*{11mm}
\hspace*{49mm}\small (c) \hspace*{65mm}\small (d)}

\vspace*{-17mm}
\mbox{\epsfig{file=H1prelim-03-074.fig1c.eps,width=0.42\linewidth,clip=}}
\mbox{\epsfig{file=H1prelim-03-074.fig1d.eps,width=0.42\linewidth,clip=}}
\vspace*{3mm}

{\vspace*{2mm}
\hspace*{-19mm}\small (e) \hspace*{63mm}\small (f)}

\vspace*{-10mm}

\mbox{\epsfig{file=H1prelim-03-074.fig1e.eps,width=0.42\linewidth,clip=}}
\mbox{\epsfig{file=H1prelim-03-074.fig1f.eps,width=0.42\linewidth,clip=}}
\end{center}
%%\end{picture}
\vspace*{-8mm}
\caption{\label{fig3}{Single
differential inclusive cross section $\sigma(ep \rightarrow eD^{*\pm} X)$
versus $W$, $x$, $Q^2$ and $p_{t\,D^*}$, $\eta_{D^*}$, $z_{D^*}$.
The inner and outer error bars correspond to the
statistical and the total errors.
The expectation of the NLO DGLAP calculation using HVQDIS with
CTEQ5F3 parton densities is indicated by the
lower shaded band. The upper shaded band is the expectation
of the CCFM calculation based on the
CASCADE program with the initial gluon distribution fitted
to the inclusive $F_2$ data.
The upper and lower bounds of both calculations correspond
to ($m_c=1.3~\gev$, $\epsilon_c=0.035$) and ($m_c=1.5~\gev$,
$\epsilon_c=0.10$), respectively.}}
\end{figure}


\newpage

\begin{figure}
%%\begin{picture}(15.,19.)
\begin{center}
\mbox{\epsfig{file=H1prelim-03-074.fig2.eps,width=0.75\linewidth,clip=}}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-8mm}
%%\end{picture}
\caption{\label{fig5}{Double differential inclusive cross section
${\rm d}^2\sigma/{\rm d}p_{t\,D^*}{\rm d}Q^2$ in bins of $p_{t\,D^*}$.
The inner and outer error bars correspond to the
statistical and the total errors.
The expectations of the NLO DGLAP calculation using HVQDIS and
of the CCFM calculation based on the
CASCADE program are also indicated
 (see figure \ref{fig3} for details).}}
\end{figure}


\vspace*{1mm}

\begin{figure}
\vspace*{14mm}
%%\begin{picture}(15.,19.)
\begin{center}
\hspace*{-6mm}
\mbox{\epsfig{file=H1prelim-03-074.fig3.eps,width=1.07\linewidth,clip=}}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-8mm}
%%\end{picture}
\caption{\label{fig4}{Double differential inclusive cross section
${\rm d}^2\sigma/{\rm d}\eta_{D^*}{\rm d}Q^2$ in bins of $\eta_{D^*}$.
The inner and outer error bars correspond to the
statistical and the total errors.
The data are compared to the expectations of the NLO DGLAP 
calculation using HVQDIS and of the CCFM calculation 
based on the CASCADE program 
 (see figure \ref{fig3} for details).}}
\end{figure}


\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\hspace*{-6mm}
\mbox{\epsfig{file=H1prelim-03-074.fig4.eps,width=1.07\linewidth,clip=}}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-8mm}
\caption{\label{fig6}{Double differential inclusive cross section
${\rm d}^2\sigma/{\rm d}p_{t\,D^*}{\rm d}z_{D^*}$
 in bins of $p_{t\,D^*}$.
The inner and outer error bars correspond to the
statistical and the total errors.
The data are compared to the expectations of the NLO DGLAP 
calculation using HVQDIS and of the CCFM calculation 
based on the CASCADE program 
(see figure \ref{fig3} for details).}}
\end{figure}

%\vspace*{1mm}

\begin{figure}
\vspace*{16mm}
\begin{center}
\hspace*{-6mm}
\mbox{\epsfig{file=H1prelim-03-074.fig5.eps,width=1.07\linewidth,clip=}}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-9mm}
\caption{\label{fig7}{Double differential inclusive cross section
${\rm d}^2\sigma/{\rm d}p_{t\,D^*}{\rm d}\eta_{D^*}$ in bins of $p_{t\,D^*}$.
The inner and outer error bars correspond to the
statistical and the total errors.
The data are compared to the expectations of the NLO DGLAP 
calculation using HVQDIS and of the CCFM calculation 
based on the CASCADE program 
(see figure \ref{fig3} for details).}}
\end{figure}



\begin{figure}
\vspace*{-2mm}
\begin{center}
{\vspace*{10mm}
\hspace*{49mm}\small (a) \hspace*{65mm} \small (b)}

\vspace*{-12mm}
\mbox{\epsfig{file=H1prelim-03-074.fig6a.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,clip=}}
\mbox{\epsfig{file=H1prelim-03-074.fig6b.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,clip=}}
\vspace*{3mm}

{\vspace*{4mm}
\hspace*{15mm}\small (c) \hspace*{31mm}\small (d)}

\vspace*{-11mm}
\mbox{\epsfig{file=H1prelim-03-074.fig6c.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,clip=}}
\mbox{\epsfig{file=H1prelim-03-074.fig6d.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,clip=}}
\vspace*{3mm}

{\vspace*{3mm}
\hspace*{-21mm}\small (e) \hspace*{70mm}\small (f)}

\vspace*{-11mm}
\mbox{\epsfig{file=H1prelim-03-074.fig6e.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,clip=}}
\mbox{\epsfig{file=H1prelim-03-074.fig6f.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,clip=}}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-8mm}
%%\end{picture}
\caption{\label{mcxsec1}{Single differential inclusive cross
section $\sigma(ep \rightarrow eD^{*\pm} X)$ versus $W$, $x$,
$Q^2$ and $p_{t\,D^*}$, $\eta_{D^*}$, $z_{D^*}$. The inner and
outer error bars correspond to the statistical and the total
errors. The expectation of the RAPGAP Monte Carlo (with
$m_c=1.4~\gev$, $\epsilon_c=0.078$ and using the CTEQ5L parton 
density in the proton) is also shown
when only direct processes are taken into account
and when the resolved contribution is also considered.
The expectation of the CASCADE program (with $m_c=1.4~\gev$,
$\epsilon_c=0.078$ and the initial gluon distribution fitted
to the inclusive $F_2$ data) is also displayed. }}
\end{figure}


\vspace*{-5mm}
\begin{figure}
{\vspace*{10mm}
\hspace*{65mm}\small (a) \hspace*{81mm} \small (b)}

\vspace*{-12mm}
\hspace*{-6mm}
\mbox{\epsfig{file=H1prelim-03-074.fig7a.eps,width=0.53\linewidth,clip=}}
\mbox{\epsfig{file=H1prelim-03-074.fig7b.eps,width=0.53\linewidth,clip=}}

\vspace*{15mm}

{\vspace*{28mm}
\hspace*{68mm}\small (c) \hspace*{80mm}\small (d)}

\vspace*{-33mm}
\hspace*{-6mm}
\mbox{\epsfig{file=H1prelim-03-074.fig7c.eps,width=0.53\linewidth,clip=}}
\mbox{\epsfig{file=H1prelim-03-074.fig7d.eps,width=0.53\linewidth,clip=}}
\caption{\label{jetxsec}{Dijet cross sections as a function
of $Q^2$, $x$, $E_t^{\text{max}}$ and $\Delta\eta$ 
for events with $D^{*\pm}$ mesons. The inner and
outer error bars correspond to the statistical and the total
errors. The expectation of the RAPGAP Monte Carlo (with
$m_c=1.4~\gev$, $\epsilon_c=0.078$ and using the CTEQ5L parton 
density in the proton) is also shown
when only direct processes are taken into account
and when the resolved contribution is also considered.
The data are also compared with the expectation of the
CASCADE Monte Carlo with $m_c=1.4~\gev$, $\epsilon_c=0.078$ and
the initial gluon distribution fitted to the inclusive $F_2$ data.}}
\end{figure}

\newpage



\begin{figure}
\vspace*{-8mm}
\begin{center}
\mbox{\epsfig{file=H1prelim-03-074.fig8.eps,width=0.75\linewidth,clip=}}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-8mm}
\caption{\label{ratio}{The cross section for associated dijet
production in events with a $D^{*\pm}$ meson versus the $D^{*\pm}$
meson production cross section is shown. The expectation of the 
RAPGAP Monte Carlo with $\epsilon_c=0.078$ is also shown
when only direct processes are taken into account
and when the resolved contribution is also considered.
The predictions of the AROMA Monte Carlo with $\epsilon_c=0.078$
and of the HERWIG Monte Carlo which uses cluster fragmentation 
are also displayed. For the predictions of RAPGAP, AROMA and HERWIG 
the charm mass $m_c=1.4~\gev$ and the CTEQ5L parton density in the proton have 
been used.
The data are also compared with the expectation of the
CASCADE Monte Carlo  with
the initial gluon distribution fitted to the inclusive $F_2$ data, for
 $m_c=1.4~\gev$, $\epsilon_c=0.078$ for $m_c=1.3~\gev$,
 $\epsilon_c=0.035$ and for $m_c=1.5~\gev$, $\epsilon_c=0.10$.}}
\end{figure}

%\newpage

%\begin{figure}
%\vspace*{-8mm}
%\begin{center}
%\mbox{\epsfig{file=tratiog.eps,width=0.75\linewidth,clip=}}
%\end{center}
%\vspace*{-8mm}
%\caption{\label{ratiog}{The ratio of the cross section for associated
%    dijet
%production in events with a $D^{*\pm}$ meson to the $D^{*\pm}$
%meson production cross section is shown and compared to the
%prediction of the RAPGAP and the CASCADE Monte Carlo
%(see fig. \ref{jetxsec} for details). The ratio is found to be
%$0.211 \pm 0.014(\rm{stat.})^{+0.014}_{-0.013}\, (\rm{syst.})$
%where the systematic error does not include the fragmentation
%uncertainty.}}
%\end{figure}

\newpage


\end{document}