\documentclass[12pt]{article} \usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage{epstopdf} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{times} \usepackage{txfonts} \usepackage[mathlines,displaymath]{lineno} \usepackage{pdflscape} \usepackage{afterpage} \usepackage{rotating} \DeclareMathAlphabet{\mathbold}{OML}{txr}{b}{it} %\documentclass[12pt]{article} \usepackage{epstopdf} \usepackage{epsfig} %\usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{hhline} %\usepackage{amssymb} %\usepackage{times} \usepackage{cite} \usepackage{subfig} \usepackage{multirow} %%%%%%%%%%%% Comment the next two lines to remove the line numbering %\usepackage[]{lineno} %\linenumbers %%%%%%%%%%%% \RequirePackage{filecontents} \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1.0} \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1.0} \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.0} \newlength{\dinwidth} \newlength{\dinmargin} \setlength{\dinwidth}{21.0cm} \textheight23.5cm \textwidth16.0cm \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 \newcommand{\pom}{{I\!\!P}} \newcommand{\reg}{{I\!\!R}} \newcommand{\qsq}{\ensuremath{Q^2} } \newcommand{\mxq}{\ensuremath{M_{X}^{2}} } \newcommand{\gevsq}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{GeV}^2} } \newcommand{\xpom}{x_{\pom}} \newcommand{\zpom}{z_{\pom}} \newcommand{\muf}{\ensuremath{\mu_{f}}} \newcommand{\mur}{\ensuremath{\mu_{r}}} \newcommand{\as}{\ensuremath{\alpha_s}} \newcommand{\asmz}{\ensuremath{\alpha_s(M_Z)}} \newcommand{\asmur}{\ensuremath{\alpha_s(\mur)}} \newcommand{\gp}{\gamma\ -\ \rm p} \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2} \begin{document} \begin{titlepage} \noindent \begin{flushleft} {\tt DESY 14-200 \hfill ISSN 0418-9833} \\ {\tt November 2014} \\ \vspace{\baselineskip} %{Date: November 14, 2014} \\ %{Version: 4.3, after final reading} \\ %{Editors: Boris Pokorny, Daniel Britzger} \\ %{Referees: Daniel Britzger, Sergey Levonian} \\ \end{flushleft} \vspace{2cm} \begin{center} \begin{Large} {\bf Measurement of Dijet Production in Diffractive Deep-Inelastic $\mathbold{ep}$ Scattering at HERA} \vspace{2cm} H1 Collaboration \end{Large} \end{center} \vspace{2cm} \begin{abstract} A measurement is presented of single- and double-differential dijet cross sections in diffractive deep-inelastic $ep$ scattering at HERA using data collected by the H1 experiment corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $290\ \rm{pb^{-1}}$. The investigated phase space is spanned by the photon virtuality in the range of $40.8$. Whereas the measured cross sections are compared to the predictions obtained by the slicing method, an alternative method of adapting the NLO calculations for diffractive DIS is used in the $\alpha_s$ extraction. In order to provide theory predictions with different values of $\asmz$, the fastNLO method~\cite{H1fastNLO,fastNLO,fnlo} is used. % Cross section predictions are obtained by folding tabulated matrix elements obtained from NLOJET++~\cite{nlojetprog,nlojet} with the DPDF parametrisation. % The matrix elements are determined as a function of the observable of interest, the factorisation scale $\mu_F$ and the convolution variable $x$. % The relation $x=\xpom\zpom$ is used when folding with the DPDF. % This way predictions can be obtained for different choices of DPDFs, of $\alpha_s$ and of %This method allows thus for a change of the DPDFs, the running coupling, the renormalisation and the factorisation scales without having to calculate the matrix elements all over again. % Settings identical to the slicing method are used for parameters such as renormalisation and factorisation scales or DPDF set and very good numerical agreement with the slicing method is found. % The uncertainty on the prediction due to missing higher orders is estimated by varying the scales by a factor $f$, where $0.5 3.0 \ \mathrm{GeV}$ & $p_{\rm T,1}^{*} > 5.5 \ \mathrm{GeV} $\\ & $p_{\rm T,2}^{*} > 3.0 \ \mathrm{GeV} $ & $p_{\rm T,2}^{*} > 4.0 \ \mathrm{GeV} $ \\ & $-2 < \eta^{\rm lab}_{1,2} < 2$ & $-1 < \eta^{\rm lab}_{1,2} < 2$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{Summary of the extended analysis phase space and the phase space for the dijet cross sections measurements.} \label{tab:ps} \end{table} Events are selected in a phase space which is extended compared to the measurement phase space in order to improve the precision of the measurement by accounting for migrations at the phase space boundaries. Events within the DIS phase space of $y<0.7$ and $3<\qsq<100\ \rm GeV^2$ are selected. The events are required to have at least two jets in the pseudorapidity range $-2<\eta^{\rm lab}_{1,2}<2$ and transverse momenta greater than $3\ \rm GeV$ in the $\gamma^{\ast}$-$p$ centre-of-mass frame. The measurement phase is defined by the DIS requirements of $0.11.6\ \rm GeV$ and $|t|<1\ \rm GeV^2$ and background from non-diffractive DIS. For a background subtracted measurement $y_{j}$, the corresponding number of events in the truth bin $i$, $x_{i}$, is found by solving a minimisation problem %~\cite{unf_1,unf_2} for a $\chi^{2}$ function \begin{equation} \chi^{2}=(y-Ax)^{T}V_{yy}^{-1}(y-Ax)+\tau^{2}x^{2}, \label{eq:unf} \end{equation} where $x$ and $y$ are vectors defined by $y_{j}$ and $x_{i}$, respectively, $V_{yy}$ is the covariance matrix accounting for the statistical uncertainties of $y_{j}$ and $\tau$ is a regularisation parameter introduced in order to damp statistical fluctuations of the solution. The regularisation parameter $\tau$ is determined using the L-Curve scan~\cite{unf_3}. The cross section %is evaluated in each measurement interval $i$ is given by %as: \begin{equation} \sigma_{i}(ep\to ep'X)=\frac{x_{i}}{\cal L}(1+\delta_{i, rad}), \end{equation} where $\cal L$ is the integrated luminosity of the data sample and $(1+\delta_{i, rad})$ is the correction for QED radiation effects in the interval $i$. These corrections are calculated as a ratio of RAPGAP predictions with and without QED radiation simulated. The differential cross section is determined by dividing $\sigma_{i}$ by the area of the corresponding interval. \subsection{Systematic uncertainties} The systematic uncertainties induced by experimental effects and by model adequateness are propagated to each measurement interval in the unfolding procedure (eq.~\ref{eq:unf}). A dedicated detector response matrix is constructed for each variation related to particular sources of uncertainties: \begin{itemize} \item{The energy of the scattered electron is varied by $\pm 1\%$ with a resulting uncertainty on the integrated dijet cross section of $1\%.$} \item{The polar angle of the scattered electron is varied by $\pm 1\ \rm mrad$ with a resulting uncertainty on the integrated dijet cross section of $1\%.$} \item{The energy of each particle contained in HFS is varied by $\pm 1\%$~\cite{kogler} which translates into an uncertainty on the integrated dijet cross section of $4\%$.} \item{ Uncertainties related to the model dependent corrections of the data are accounted for by varying the shape of the kinematic distributions in $\qsq$, $\xpom$, $\beta$, $p^{\ast}_{\rm T,1}$, $\zpom$, $x_{dijet}$ and $\Delta\eta^{\ast}$ in the MC such that the data are still described within the statistical uncertainties. For this purpose, the multiplicative weights $(\log\qsq)^{\pm 0.2}$, $\xpom^{\pm 0.05}$, $\beta^{\pm 0.01}(1-\beta^{\pm 0.01})$, $p^{\ast \pm 0.04}_{\rm T,1}$, $\zpom^{\pm 0.15}$, $x^{\pm 0.15}_{dijet}$ and $(1.5+\Delta\eta^{\ast})^{\pm 0.5}$ are applied, respectively. The largest resulting uncertainty of $3\%$ arises from the variation of the shape in $p^{\ast}_{\rm T,1}$. The shape of the distribution in $t$ is varied within the experimental uncertainty on the $t$-slope~\cite{tslope} by applying a weight of $e^{\pm t}$ in MC, which translates into an uncertainty on the integrated dijet cross section of $1\,\%$. The integrated cross section uncertainty due to the model dependence of the measurement is of the order of $5\,\%$. } \end{itemize} The following uncertainties on the global normalisation are considered: \begin{itemize} \item{The luminosity of the data is measured with a precision $\pm 2.7\ \%$~\cite{qedclumi}.} \item{The trigger efficiency related to the tracking and SpaCal condition induces an uncertainty of $2\%$ and $1\%$, respectively.} \item{The uncertainty accounting for the LRG selection efficiency is $7\%$~\cite{incldiff_lrg}.} \item The normalisation of the non-diffractive DIS background modelled by RAPGAP is varied by $\pm 50\,\%$ and the normalisation of the diffractive background is varied by $\pm 100\,\%$, yielding a resulting uncertainty on the integrated dijet cross section below $1\%$ in both cases. \end{itemize} The total systematic uncertainty is obtained by adding the individual contributions in quadrature. %The uncertainties originating from the energy and the polar angle of the scattered electron variation are treated as correlated, %whereas the uncertainties originating from the HFS energy variation are treated as $50\%$ correlated and $50\%$ uncorrelated. %The model uncertainties originating from the shape variations are treated as fully correlated. %--------------------- %--------------------- \section{Results} %\subsection{Dijet cross sections} The integrated cross section in the measurement phase space specified in table~\ref{tab:ps} is found to be \begin{equation} \sigma^{dijet}_{meas}(ep\to eXY) = 73\pm{2}\ (\rm stat.)\ \pm{7}\ (\rm syst.)\ \rm pb~. \end{equation} The NLO QCD prediction of the total diffractive dijet cross section is \begin{equation} \sigma^{dijet}_{theo}(ep\to eXY) = 77\ ^{+25}_{-20}\ (\rm scale)\ ^{+4}_{-14}\ (\rm DPDF)\ \pm{3}\ (\rm had)\ \rm pb~, \end{equation} in very good agreement with the measurement. The uncertainty on the NLO prediction is found to be significantly larger than the experimental uncertainty. Single differential cross sections are given in tables~\ref{tab:tab1} and~\ref{tab:tab2} and are shown in figures~\ref{fig:fig1}-\ref{fig:fig4}. The statistical correlations between measurements in different bins are given in tables~\ref{tab:tabrho1} and~\ref{tab:tabrho2}. The differential cross sections as a function of the DIS variables $\qsq$ and $y$ are shown in figure~\ref{fig:fig1}, as a function of the momentum fractions $\xpom$ and $\zpom$ are shown in figure~\ref{fig:fig2} and as a function of the jet variables $p^{\ast}_{T,1}$, $p^{\ast}_{T,2}$, $\langle p^{\ast}_{T}\rangle$ and $\Delta\eta^{\ast}$ are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fig3} and~\ref{fig:fig4}. For the majority of the measurements, the data precision is limited by systematic effects. The statistical correlations are small for the inclusive kinematic variables $\qsq$ and $y$ and moderate ($|\rho|< 0.6$) for the other variables. The figures also include the NLO QCD predictions which describe within their large uncertainties the data well. The dynamics of dijet production is further studied in terms of double differential cross sections in bins of $\zpom$ and of the QCD scale defining observables $\qsq$ and $p^{\ast}_{\rm T,1}$. The double differential cross sections are listed in tables~\ref{tab:tab3}-\ref{tab:tab5} and are shown in figures~\ref{fig:fig5}-\ref{fig:fig10}. The corresponding statistical correlations between measurements in different bins are given in tables~\ref{tab:tabrho3}-\ref{tab:tabrho5}. Figure~\ref{fig:fig5} shows the double differential cross section measured in bins of $\zpom$ and $\qsq$. The ratio of the data to the theory prediction is shown in figure~\ref{fig:fig6}. The data are well described by the NLO prediction in most of the phase space. The double differential cross section measured in bins of $p^{\ast}_{\rm T,1}$ and $\qsq$ is shown in figure~\ref{fig:fig9} and the corresponding ratios of the measurements to the NLO predictions are shown in figure~\ref{fig:fig10}. The present measurement is based on a %$\sim6$ six times increased luminosity as compared to the previous H1 measurement of dijet production with LRG~\cite{jetdiff_3} and is using a more sophisticated data correction method. A direct comparison of the present data to other measurements of dijet production in diffractive DIS is not possible because of different phase space definitions. Measurements based on the direct detection of a forward proton~\cite{jetdiff_2} are limited in statistical precision due to the restricted geometrical acceptance of the proton taggers. The experimental uncertainties on both single- and double-differential cross sections are in general smaller than the theory uncertainties. The data thus have the power to constrain QCD in diffractive DIS. %\subsection{Extraction of the strong coupling constant $\alpha_s(M_Z)$} Here, the double-differential dijet cross sections as a function of $\qsq$ and $p_{\rm T,1}^*$ are used to determine the value of the strong coupling constant $\asmz$ at the scale of the mass of the $Z$-boson, $M_Z$. % in the framework of pQCD. The value of $\asmz$ is determined by an iterative $\chi^2$-minimisation procedure using NLO calculations, corrected for hadronisation effects following the method~\cite{HighQ2Paper}. In the fit, the uncertainties on the HFS energy scale are treated as $50\%$ correlated and $50\%$ uncorrelated. All other experimental uncertainties are treated as correlated. Scale uncertainties, hadronisation uncertainties and DPDF uncertainties of the NLO calculation are propagated to the fit result as described in~\cite{HighQ2Paper}. The fit yields a value of $\chi^2/n_{\rm dof} = 16.7/14$, with $n_{\rm dof}$ being the number of degrees of freedom, thus indicating good agreement of theory to data. The nuisance parameters of the correlated systematic uncertainties are equally distributed around zero with absolute values below one. The value of $\asmz$ determined in the fit to the dijet cross sections is \begin{flalign} \asmz &= 0.119\pm0.004\,({\rm exp})\pm0.002\,({\rm had})\pm0.005\,({\rm DPDF})\pm0.010\,({\mu_r})\pm0.004\,({\mu_f}) \\ & =0.119\pm0.004\,({\rm exp})\pm0.012\,({\rm DPDF,theo}) \nonumber \end{flalign} The largest uncertainties arise from the estimate of the contributions from orders beyond NLO and from the poor knowledge of the DPDF. The largest contribution to the experimental uncertainty of $0.003$ arises from the global normalisation uncertainty. The result for $\asmz$ is consistent within the uncertainties with the world average% value of $\asmz=0.1185\pm0.0006$ ~\cite{Beringer:1900zz,Bethke:2012jm} and with values from other jet data in DIS and photoproduction~\cite{Aaron:10:1,HighQ2Paper,Abramowicz:2012jz} as well as values of $\asmz$ determined from jet data at the Tevatron~\cite{Abazov:2009nc,Abazov:2012lua} and at the LHC~\cite{Chatrchyan:2013txa,alps_cms}. Although the uncertainty of this $\asmz$ extraction is not competitive with measurements in other processes the agreement with the other measurements supports the underlying concept of treating dijet production in diffractive DIS with perturbative QCD calculations. %--------------------- %--------------------- \section{Conclusions} Integrated, single- and double-differential cross sections of diffractive DIS dijet production are measured with the H1 experiment in $ep$ collisions at HERA and compared with NLO QCD predictions.%theory predictions calculated in pQCD up to NLO. The integrated diffractive dijet cross section is found to be well described by the NLO QCD prediction using the H12006 Fit-B DPDF set. Both shapes and normalisation of the single-differential cross sections are reproduced by the theory within the experimental and theory uncertainties, confirming at improved precision the conclusions from previous H1 measurements. %~\cite{jetdiff_1,jetdiff_2}, Good agreement of the theory with the measurement is also found for the shapes and normalisation of the double differential cross sections. The cross section measurements presented here show experimental uncertainties significantly smaller than the uncertainties of the theory predictions. From a fit of the NLO prediction to the double differential cross sections in $\qsq$ and $p^{*}_{T,1}$, the strong coupling constant has been determined to be $\alpha_{s}(M_{Z})=0.119\ (4)_{\rm exp}\ (12)_{\rm theo}$. %Although the precision of $\alpha_s$ is not competitive with measurements from other processes, the agreement with other measurements supports the underlying concept of treating diffractive jet production in QCD. %--------------------- %--------------------- \section*{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 H1 detector, our funding agencies for financial support, the DESY technical staff for continual assistance and the DESY directorate for the hospitality which they extend to the non-DESY members of the collaboration. We would like to give credit to all partners contributing to the EGI computing infrastructure for their support for the H1 Collaboration. \begin{flushleft} %\bibliographystyle{is-unsrt} %The style you want to use for references. %\bibliography{cite} %The files containing all the articles and books %you ever referenced. %you ever referenced. \begin{thebibliography}{10} \ifx \showCODEN \undefined \def \showCODEN #1{CODEN #1} \fi \ifx \showISBN \undefined \def \showISBN #1{ISBN #1} \fi \ifx \showISSN \undefined \def \showISSN #1{ISSN #1} \fi \ifx \showLCCN \undefined \def \showLCCN #1{LCCN #1} \fi \ifx \showPRICE \undefined \def \showPRICE #1{#1} \fi \ifx \showURL \undefined \def \showURL {URL } \fi \ifx \path \undefined \input path.sty \fi \ifx \ifshowURL \undefined \newif \ifshowURL \showURLtrue \fi \bibitem{pomeranchuk} E.~Feinberg and I.~Pomeranchuk, \newblock Suppl. Nuovo Cimento {\bf3 } (1956) 652. \bibitem{goulianos} K.~Goulianos, \newblock Phys. Rep. {\bf 101} (1983) 171. \bibitem{trentadue} L.~Trentadue and G.~Veneziano, \newblock Phys. Lett. B {\bf 323} (1994) 201. \bibitem{fitb} A.~Aktas et~al. [H1~Collaboration], \newblock Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 48} (2006) 715, [hep--ex/0606004]. \bibitem{gribov} V.~N. Gribov and L.~N. Lipatov, \newblock Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 15} (1972) 438. \bibitem{dokschitzer} Y.~L. Dokshitzer, \newblock Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 46} (1977) 641. \bibitem{altarelli} G.~Altarelli and G.~Parisi, \newblock Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 126} (1977) 298. \bibitem{collins} J.~C. Collins, \newblock Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57} (1998) 3051 [Erratum--ibid. D 61 (2000) 019902] [hep--ph/9709499]. \bibitem{rfact_1} G.~Ingelman and P.~Schlein, \newblock Phys. Lett. B {\bf 152} (1985) 256. \bibitem{rfact_2} A.~Donnachie and P.~Landshoff, \newblock Phys. Lett. B {\bf 191} (1987) 309. \bibitem{rfact_3} S.~Chekanov et~al. [ZEUS~Collaboration], \newblock Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 38} (2004) 43, [hep--ex/0408009]. \bibitem{jetdiff_1} C.~Adloff et~al. [H1~Collaboration], \newblock Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 20} (2001) 29, [hep--ex/0012051]. \bibitem{jetdiff_3} A.~Aktas et~al. [H1~Collaboration], \newblock JHEP 0710 (2007) 42, [arxiv:0708.3217]. \bibitem{jetdiff_zeus} S.~Chekanov et~al. [ZEUS~Collaboration], \newblock Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 52} (2007) 813. \bibitem{jetdiff_2} F.~D.~Aaron et~al. [H1~Collaboration], \newblock Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 72} (2011) 1970, [arXiv:1111.0584]. \bibitem{rapgap} H.~Jung, \newblock Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 86} (1995) 147. \bibitem{llog} M.~Bengtsson and T.~Sj\"{o}strand, \newblock Z. Phys. C {\bf 37} (1988) 465. \bibitem{lund} B.~Andersson et~al., \newblock Phys. Rep. {\bf 97} (1983) ~31. \bibitem{pythia} T.~Sj\"{o}strand, \newblock Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 82} (1994) ~72. \bibitem{diffvm} B.~List and A.~Mastroberardino, \newblock In {\em Proceedings of the Monte Carlo Generators for HERA Physics Workshop 1998/99}. Eds. A.T. Doyle, G. Grindhammer, G. Ingelman, H. Jung, Hamburg, Germany (1999) 396, [DESY--PROC--1999--02]. \bibitem{resgamma} C.~Adloff et.~al [H1~Collaboration], \newblock Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 13} (2000) 397, [hep--ex/9812024]. \bibitem{sasg2dfit} G.~A. Schuller and T.~Sj\"{o}strand, \newblock Phys. lett. B {\bf 376} (1996) 193. \bibitem{heracles} A.~Kwiatkowski et~al., \newblock Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 69} (1992) 155. \bibitem{cteq} J.~Pumplin et~al., \newblock JHEP {\bf 207} (2002) 12, [hep--ph/0201195]. \bibitem{geant} R.~Brun et~al., \newblock (1987), [CERN-DD/EE-84-1]. \bibitem{nlojetprog} Z.~Nagy and Z.~Trocsanyi, \newblock Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59} (1999) 014020, [arXiv:hep--ph/9806317], Erratum--ibid. D 62 (2000) 099902. \bibitem{nlojet} Z.~Nagy and Z.~Trocsanyi, \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87} (2001) 082001, [hep--ph/0104315]. \bibitem{dpdferr} W.~Giele et~al., \newblock In {\em Proceedings of the Workshop on Physics at TeV Colliders (2001)}. Les Houches, France (2002) 275, [hep--ph/0204316]. \bibitem{H1fastNLO} C.~Adloff et~al. [H1~Collaboration], \newblock Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 19} (2001) 289, [arXiv:hep--ex/0010054]. \bibitem{fastNLO} T.~Kluge et~al., \newblock In {\em {Proceedings of the 14th International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering (DIS 2006)}}. Eds. M. Kuze, K. Nagano and K. Tokushuku, Tsukuba, Japan (2007) 483, [hep--ph/0609285]. \bibitem{fnlo} D.~Britzger et~al., \newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 20th International Workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects (DIS 2012)}. Ed. I. Brock, Bonn, Germany, (2012) 217, [arXiv:1208.3641]. \bibitem{ariadne} L.~L\"{o}nnblad, \newblock Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 71} (1992) ~15. \bibitem{det_1} I.~Abt et~al. [H1~Collaboration], \newblock Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A {\bf 386} (1997) 310. \bibitem{lar} B.~Andrieu et~al. [H1 Calorimeter~Group], \newblock Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A {\bf 336} (1993) 460. \bibitem{testbeam_1} B.~Andrieu et~al. [H1 Calorimeter~Group], \newblock Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A {\bf 350} (1994) ~57. \bibitem{testbeam_2} B.~Andrieu et~al. [H1 Calorimeter~Group], \newblock Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A {\bf 336} (1993) 499. \bibitem{spac1} R.~Appuhn et~al.[H1 SPACAL~Group], \newblock Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A {\bf 386} (1997) 397. \bibitem{spac2} R.~Appuhn et~al.[H1 SPACAL~Group], \newblock Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A {\bf 382} (1996) 395. \bibitem{qedclumi} F.~D.~Aaron et~al. [H1~Collaboration], \newblock Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 72} (2012) 2163, erratum ibid. C {\bf 74} (2014) 2733, [arXiv:1205.2448]. \bibitem{esigma} C.~Adloff et~al. [H1~Collaboration], \newblock Z. Phys. C {\bf 76} (1997) 613, [hep--ex/9708016]. \bibitem{peez:03} M.~Peez, \newblock {\em {Search for deviations from the standard model in high transverse energy processes at the electron proton collider HERA (in French)}}, \newblock Dissertation, Univ. Claude Bernard, Lyon, DESY-THESIS-2003-023, CPPM-T-2003-04 (2003), Available at {http://www-h1.desy.de/psfiles/theses/h1th-317.pdf}. \bibitem{hellwig:04} S.~Hellwig, \newblock {\em {Investigation of the $D^{*} - \pi_{slow}$ double tagging method for the analysis of charm (in German)}}, \newblock Diploma thesis, Hamburg University (2004), Available at {http://www-h1.desy.de/psfiles/theses/h1th-341.pdf}. \bibitem{kogler} R.~Kogler, \newblock {\em {Measurement of jet production in deep-inelastic ep scattering at HERA}}, \newblock Dissertation, Universit\"at Hamburg, DESY-THESIS-2011-003, MPP-2010-175 (2010), Available at {http://www-h1.desy.de/psfiles/theses/h1th-590.pdf}. \bibitem{kt} Y.~Dokshitzer S.~Catani and B.~Weber, \newblock Phys. Lett. B {\bf 285} (1992) 291. \bibitem{fastjet} M.~Cacciari and G.~P. Salam, \newblock Phys. Lett. B {\bf 641} (2006) 57, [hep--ph/0512210]. \bibitem{mythesis} B.~Pokorny, \newblock {\em {Measurement of Diffractive Dijet Production in Deep Inelastic Scattering at HERA Collider}}, \newblock Dissertation, Charles University in Prague (2014) Available at {http://www-h1.desy.de/psfiles/theses/h1th-850.pdf}. \bibitem{unf_3} S.~Schmitt, \newblock JINST {\bf 7} (2012), [arXiv:1205.6201] T10003. \bibitem{tslope} F.~D.~Aaron et~al. [H1~Collaboration], \newblock Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 71} (2011) 1578, [arXiv:1010.1476]. \bibitem{incldiff_lrg} C.~Adloff et~al. [H1~Collaboration], \newblock Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 72} (2007) 2074, [arXiv:1203.4495]. \bibitem{HighQ2Paper} V.~Andreev et~al. [H1~Collaboration], \newblock Eur. Phys. J. C (2014) [arXiv:1406.4709]. \bibitem{Beringer:1900zz} J.~Beringer et~al., \newblock Phys. Rev. D {\bf 86} (2012) 010001, \newblock and 2013 partial update for the 2014 edition. \bibitem{Bethke:2012jm} S.~Bethke, \newblock Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. {\bf 234} (2013) 229, [arXiv:1210.0325]. \bibitem{Aaron:10:1} F.~D.~Aaron et~al. [H1~Collaboration], \newblock Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf67} (2010) 1, [arXiv:0911.5678]. \bibitem{Abramowicz:2012jz} H.~Abramowicz et~al. [ZEUS~Collaboration], \newblock Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 864} (2012) 1, [arXiv:1205.6153]. \bibitem{Abazov:2009nc} V.~M. Abazov et~al., \newblock Phys. Rev. D {\bf 80} (2009) 111107, [arXiv:0911.2710]. \bibitem{Abazov:2012lua} V.~M. Abazov et~al., \newblock Phys. Lett. B {\bf{718}} (2012) 56, [arXiv:1207.4957]. \bibitem{Chatrchyan:2013txa} S.~Chatrchyan et~al. [CMS~Collaboration], \newblock Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 73} (2013) 2604, [arXiv:1304.7498]. \bibitem{alps_cms} V.~Khachatryan et~al. [CMS~Collaboration], \newblock Eur. Phys. J. C (2014), [arXiv:1410.6765]. \end{thebibliography} \end{flushleft} \newpage \clearpage \begin{landscape} \begin{table} \resizebox{.8\textwidth}{!}{\begin{minipage}{\textwidth} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c||c||c|} \hline $\qsq$ & $d\sigma/d\qsq$ & $\delta_{tot}$ & $\delta_{stat}$ & $\delta_{sys}$ & $\delta_{\theta}$ & $\delta_{E}$ & $\delta_{HFS}$ & $\delta_{\qsq}$ & $\delta_{\xpom}$ & $\delta_{\beta}$ & $\delta_{p*_{T,1}}$ & $\delta_{\zpom}$ & $\delta_{x_{dijet}}$ & $\delta_{\Delta\eta*}$ & $\delta_{t}$ & $\delta_{bgr}$ & $1+\delta_{had}$ & $1+\delta_{rad}$\\ $\rm [GeV^2]$ & $\rm [pb/GeV^2]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & & \\ \hline $4 \div 6$ &$8.20$ &$13.2$ & $5.7$ & $11.9$ &$1.0$ & $4.5$ & $-3.9$ &$2.1$ & $1.1$ &$2.8$ & $-5.0$ &$1.9$ & $0.7$ &$1.2$ & $-0.9$ &$0.1$ &$1.05 \pm 0.05$ &$1.05$ \\ $6 \div 10$ &$4.23$ &$11.8$ & $4.0$ & $11.0$ &$2.6$ & $1.7$ & $-5.0$ &$-0.5$ & $0.5$ &$-0.5$ & $-3.1$ &$-3.2$ & $-1.6$ &$1.6$ & $-1.5$ &$0.3$ &$1.05 \pm 0.04$ &$1.03$ \\ $10 \div 18$ &$1.92$ &$11.4$ & $4.0$ & $10.7$ &$1.0$ & $1.9$ & $-4.6$ &$-0.9$ & $0.6$ &$-0.8$ & $-3.1$ &$-3.1$ & $-1.5$ &$1.7$ & $-0.9$ &$0.4$ &$1.05 \pm 0.04$ &$1.03$ \\ $18 \div 34$ &$0.797$ &$11.6$ & $4.8$ & $10.5$ &$1.1$ & $2.1$ & $-5.1$ &$0.1$ & $0.6$ &$-0.1$ & $-2.9$ &$-2.5$ & $-1.3$ &$1.4$ & $-0.6$ &$0.2$ &$1.06 \pm 0.04$ &$1.03$ \\ $34 \div 100$ &$0.164$ &$12.3$ & $6.2$ & $10.6$ &$0.9$ & $2.3$ & $-5.0$ &$-0.2$ & $0.5$ &$-0.6$ & $-2.7$ &$-2.9$ & $-1.5$ &$1.6$ & $-0.8$ &$0.1$ &$1.06 \pm 0.04$ &$1.03$ \\ \hline $y$ & $d\sigma/dy$ & $\delta_{tot}$ & $\delta_{stat}$ & $\delta_{sys}$ & $\delta_{\theta}$ & $\delta_{E}$ & $\delta_{HFS}$ & $\delta_{\qsq}$ & $\delta_{\xpom}$ & $\delta_{\beta}$ & $\delta_{p*_{T,1}}$ & $\delta_{\zpom}$ & $\delta_{x_{dijet}}$ & $\delta_{\Delta\eta*}$ & $\delta_{t}$ & $\delta_{bgr}$ & $1+\delta_{had}$ & $1+\delta_{rad}$\\ & $\rm [pb]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & & \\ \hline $0.10 \div 0.22$ &$113$ &$18.4$ & $6.5$ & $17.2$ &$2.1$ & $0.2$ & $-8.7$ &$-3.6$ & $-0.2$ &$-4.2$ & $-3.5$ &$-8.9$ & $-3.6$ &$3.9$ & $-1.5$ &$0.6$ &$1.01 \pm 0.06$ &$1.07$ \\ $0.22 \div 0.34$ &$163$ &$12.7$ & $4.5$ & $11.9$ &$2.0$ & $1.1$ & $-5.9$ &$-2.0$ & $0.5$ &$-1.5$ & $-3.2$ &$-4.1$ & $-2.1$ &$1.4$ & $-0.9$ &$0.6$ &$1.02 \pm 0.04$ &$1.05$ \\ $0.34 \div 0.46$ &$144$ &$11.2$ & $4.3$ & $10.4$ &$1.6$ & $2.8$ & $-4.2$ &$-0.4$ & $0.8$ &$-0.1$ & $-3.1$ &$-2.3$ & $-1.3$ &$1.0$ & $-1.1$ &$0.3$ &$1.06 \pm 0.04$ &$1.04$ \\ $0.46 \div 0.58$ &$106$ &$11.2$ & $5.0$ & $10.0$ &$1.2$ & $3.2$ & $-3.2$ &$0.7$ & $0.8$ &$0.9$ & $-3.1$ &$-1.0$ & $-0.6$ &$1.9$ & $-0.3$ &$0.4$ &$1.13 \pm 0.03$ &$1.02$ \\ $0.58 \div 0.70$ &$76.5$ &$12.4$ & $7.0$ & $10.2$ &$0.7$ & $4.3$ & $-2.3$ &$1.0$ & $0.6$ &$1.6$ & $-3.3$ &$0.3$ & $0.4$ &$1.2$ & $-1.5$ &$0.2$ &$1.17 \pm 0.02$ &$0.97$ \\ \hline $\xpom$ & $d\sigma/d\xpom$ & $\delta_{tot}$ & $\delta_{stat}$ & $\delta_{sys}$ & $\delta_{\theta}$ & $\delta_{E}$ & $\delta_{HFS}$ & $\delta_{\qsq}$ & $\delta_{\xpom}$ & $\delta_{\beta}$ & $\delta_{p*_{T,1}}$ & $\delta_{\zpom}$ & $\delta_{x_{dijet}}$ & $\delta_{\Delta\eta*}$ & $\delta_{t}$ & $\delta_{bgr}$ & $1+\delta_{had}$ & $1+\delta_{rad}$\\ & $\rm [pb]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & & \\ \hline $-2.30 \div -2.10$ &$14.2$ &$42.0$ & $36.2$ & $21.1$ &$1.8$ & $3.9$ & $-9.3$ &$-2.7$ & $4.0$ &$-3.7$ & $-5.8$ &$-11.4$ & $-4.7$ &$7.6$ & $-1.2$ &$0.7$ &$1.17 \pm 0.13$ &$1.06$ \\ $-2.10 \div -1.90$ &$53.5$ &$14.7$ & $8.9$ & $11.7$ &$1.6$ & $2.4$ & $-5.6$ &$-0.6$ & $1.2$ &$-0.8$ & $-3.2$ &$-3.7$ & $-1.8$ &$2.3$ & $-1.4$ &$0.0$ &$1.10 \pm 0.08$ &$1.04$ \\ $-1.90 \div -1.70$ &$111$ &$11.6$ & $5.5$ & $10.2$ &$1.5$ & $1.3$ & $-4.5$ &$-1.1$ & $0.1$ &$-0.2$ & $-3.5$ &$-1.5$ & $-1.0$ &$1.4$ & $-1.1$ &$0.0$ &$1.06 \pm 0.04$ &$1.04$ \\ $-1.70 \div -1.52$ &$196$ &$10.9$ & $4.9$ & $9.8$ &$1.3$ & $2.5$ & $-3.6$ &$-1.0$ & $-0.5$ &$0.5$ & $-3.4$ &$-0.0$ & $-0.3$ &$-0.5$ & $-0.5$ &$0.8$ &$1.03 \pm 0.03$ &$1.03$ \\ \hline $\zpom$ & $d\sigma/d\zpom$ & $\delta_{tot}$ & $\delta_{stat}$ & $\delta_{sys}$ & $\delta_{\theta}$ & $\delta_{E}$ & $\delta_{HFS}$ & $\delta_{\qsq}$ & $\delta_{\xpom}$ & $\delta_{\beta}$ & $\delta_{p*_{T,1}}$ & $\delta_{\zpom}$ & $\delta_{x_{dijet}}$ & $\delta_{\Delta\eta*}$ & $\delta_{t}$ & $\delta_{bgr}$ & $1+\delta_{had}$ & $1+\delta_{rad}$\\ & $\rm [pb]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & & \\ \hline $0.00 \div 0.22$ &$70.4$ &$20.3$ & $9.3$ & $18.0$ &$1.4$ & $3.4$ & $-4.0$ &$1.2$ & $-0.5$ &$4.6$ & $-2.4$ &$12.0$ & $4.1$ &$6.5$ & $-0.5$ &$0.8$ &$1.10 \pm 0.03$ &$1.06$ \\ $0.22 \div 0.40$ &$132$ &$11.9$ & $6.3$ & $10.1$ &$1.5$ & $3.0$ & $-1.2$ &$-0.9$ & $0.3$ &$-0.1$ & $-3.9$ &$-2.3$ & $-2.2$ &$1.0$ & $-0.9$ &$0.4$ &$1.07 \pm 0.02$ &$1.04$ \\ $0.40 \div 0.60$ &$89.7$ &$14.9$ & $6.8$ & $13.3$ &$1.2$ & $1.6$ & $-9.1$ &$-1.3$ & $0.8$ &$-1.2$ & $-2.8$ &$-3.9$ & $-1.4$ &$0.5$ & $-0.6$ &$0.3$ &$1.10 \pm 0.03$ &$1.02$ \\ $0.60 \div 0.80$ &$54.8$ &$14.9$ & $7.5$ & $12.9$ &$2.5$ & $1.9$ & $7.6$ &$-1.4$ & $0.9$ &$-1.2$ & $-3.2$ &$-4.2$ & $-1.4$ &$0.2$ & $-2.0$ &$0.1$ &$1.10 \pm 0.10$ &$1.02$ \\ $0.80 \div 1.00$ &$19.9$ &$45.0$ & $11.4$ & $43.5$ &$0.8$ & $0.6$ & $-42.1$ &$-1.9$ & $1.3$ &$-2.4$ & $-2.5$ &$-5.1$ & $-2.0$ &$3.0$ & $-1.5$ &$0.6$ &$0.57 \pm 0.10$ &$1.00$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{minipage}} \caption{Diffractive DIS dijet cross section measured differentially as a function of $\qsq$, $y$, $\log\xpom$ and $\zpom$. The statistical $\delta_{stat}$ and systematic $\delta_{sys}$ uncertainties are given together with the total uncertainty $\delta_{tot}$. The next 12 columns represent $+1\sigma$ shifts for the systematic error contributions from: % Uncertainties corresponding to individual sources are also listed: electron polar angle measurement $\delta_{\theta}$, electron energy scale $\delta_{E}$, HFS energy scale $\delta_{HFS}$, model uncertainties $\delta_{\qsq}$, $\delta_{\xpom}$, $\delta_{\beta}$, $\delta_{p*_{T,1}}$, $\delta_{\zpom}$, $\delta_{x_{dijet}}$, $\delta_{\Delta\eta*}$ and $\delta_{t}$ and the background normalisation uncertainty $\delta_{bgr}$. % A sign of each uncertainty corresponds to the positive variation of the source of the uncertainty. The global normalisation uncertainty of $7.8\%$ is not listed explicitly but is included in the total % The systematic uncertainty $\delta_{sys}$. %includes also the global normalisation uncertainties of $7.8\%$. The %next-to-last and last two column show the correction factors for hadronisation and QED radiation, respectively. } \label{tab:tab1} \end{table} \end{landscape} \newpage \clearpage \begin{landscape} \begin{table} \resizebox{.8\textwidth}{!}{\begin{minipage}{\textwidth} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c||c||c|} \hline $p^{\ast}_{T,1}$ & $d\sigma/dp^{\ast}_{T,1}$ & $\delta_{tot}$ & $\delta_{stat}$ & $\delta_{sys}$ & $\delta_{\theta}$ & $\delta_{E}$ & $\delta_{HFS}$ & $\delta_{\qsq}$ & $\delta_{\xpom}$ & $\delta_{\beta}$ & $\delta_{p*_{T,1}}$ & $\delta_{\zpom}$ & $\delta_{x_{dijet}}$ & $\delta_{\Delta\eta*}$ & $\delta_{t}$ & $\delta_{bgr}$ & $1+\delta_{had}$ & $1+\delta_{rad}$\\ $[GeV]$ & $\rm [pb/GeV]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & & \\ \hline $5.50 \div 7.00$ &$30.8$ &$9.6$ & $3.2$ & $9.0$ &$1.4$ & $1.4$ & $-3.1$ &$-0.9$ & $0.5$ &$-0.6$ & $-1.3$ &$-1.7$ & $-0.9$ &$0.6$ & $-0.8$ &$0.1$ &$1.05 \pm 0.05$ &$1.03$ \\ $7.00 \div 9.00$ &$10.5$ &$11.8$ & $6.1$ & $10.0$ &$1.3$ & $3.0$ & $-4.6$ &$-0.6$ & $0.8$ &$-0.4$ & $-1.4$ &$-1.5$ & $-0.9$ &$1.2$ & $-1.0$ &$0.7$ &$1.06 \pm 0.04$ &$1.04$ \\ $9.00 \div 15.00$ &$1.07$ &$19.6$ & $12.7$ & $14.9$ &$1.3$ & $2.3$ & $-9.8$ &$-0.1$ & $1.0$ &$-0.1$ & $-4.2$ &$-2.7$ & $-1.1$ &$5.3$ & $-1.5$ &$0.7$ &$1.04 \pm 0.03$ &$1.06$ \\ \hline $p^{\ast}_{T,2}$ & $d\sigma/dp^{\ast}_{T,2}$ & $\delta_{tot}$ & $\delta_{stat}$ & $\delta_{sys}$ & $\delta_{\theta}$ & $\delta_{E}$ & $\delta_{HFS}$ & $\delta_{\qsq}$ & $\delta_{\xpom}$ & $\delta_{\beta}$ & $\delta_{p*_{T,1}}$ & $\delta_{\zpom}$ & $\delta_{x_{dijet}}$ & $\delta_{\Delta\eta*}$ & $\delta_{t}$ & $\delta_{bgr}$ & $1+\delta_{had}$ & $1+\delta_{rad}$\\ $[GeV]$ & $\rm [pb/GeV]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & & \\ \hline $4.00 \div 6.50$ &$22.3$ &$10.4$ & $3.7$ & $9.7$ &$1.5$ & $2.3$ & $-3.8$ &$-1.0$ & $0.7$ &$-0.8$ & $-1.2$ &$-2.0$ & $-1.2$ &$1.2$ & $-0.8$ &$0.1$ &$1.10 \pm 0.06$ &$1.03$ \\ $6.50 \div 9.00$ &$5.67$ &$12.2$ & $6.9$ & $10.1$ &$1.2$ & $2.0$ & $-4.9$ &$-0.6$ & $0.6$ &$-0.2$ & $-2.6$ &$-1.3$ & $-0.5$ &$1.2$ & $-1.0$ &$0.6$ &$0.97 \pm 0.02$ &$1.04$ \\ $9.00 \div 15.00$ &$0.539$ &$18.2$ & $12.3$ & $13.4$ &$1.1$ & $1.5$ & $-7.8$ &$0.5$ & $0.6$ &$0.8$ & $-6.2$ &$-2.4$ & $-0.9$ &$2.8$ & $-1.3$ &$0.1$ &$0.97 \pm 0.02$ &$1.06$ \\ \hline $\langle p^{\ast}_{T}\rangle$ & $d\sigma/d\langle p^{\ast}_{T}\rangle$ & $\delta_{tot}$ & $\delta_{stat}$ & $\delta_{sys}$ & $\delta_{\theta}$ & $\delta_{E}$ & $\delta_{HFS}$ & $\delta_{\qsq}$ & $\delta_{\xpom}$ & $\delta_{\beta}$ & $\delta_{p*_{T,1}}$ & $\delta_{\zpom}$ & $\delta_{x_{dijet}}$ & $\delta_{\Delta\eta*}$ & $\delta_{t}$ & $\delta_{bgr}$ & $1+\delta_{had}$ & $1+\delta_{rad}$\\ $[GeV]$ & $\rm [pb/GeV]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & & \\ \hline $4.75 \div 6.50$ &$27.6$ &$9.9$ & $3.5$ & $9.3$ &$1.5$ & $2.0$ & $-3.3$ &$-1.1$ & $0.5$ &$-0.8$ & $-1.0$ &$-1.9$ & $-1.0$ &$0.8$ & $-0.8$ &$0.1$ &$1.09 \pm 0.06$ &$1.03$ \\ $6.50 \div 9.00$ &$8.52$ &$11.3$ & $5.2$ & $10.0$ &$1.4$ & $2.4$ & $-5.0$ &$-0.4$ & $0.8$ &$-0.1$ & $-1.7$ &$-0.8$ & $-0.4$ &$1.5$ & $-1.1$ &$0.5$ &$1.01 \pm 0.03$ &$1.04$ \\ $9.00 \div 15.00$ &$0.701$ &$19.7$ & $13.4$ & $14.4$ &$0.7$ & $1.2$ & $-9.2$ &$-0.3$ & $0.7$ &$-0.2$ & $-5.4$ &$-3.5$ & $-1.3$ &$3.8$ & $-0.9$ &$0.5$ &$1.01 \pm 0.03$ &$1.06$ \\ \hline $\Delta\eta^{\ast}$ & $d\sigma/d\Delta\eta^{\ast}$ & $\delta_{tot}$ & $\delta_{stat}$ & $\delta_{sys}$ & $\delta_{\theta}$ & $\delta_{E}$ & $\delta_{HFS}$ & $\delta_{\qsq}$ & $\delta_{\xpom}$ & $\delta_{\beta}$ & $\delta_{p*_{T,1}}$ & $\delta_{\zpom}$ & $\delta_{x_{dijet}}$ & $\delta_{\Delta\eta*}$ & $\delta_{t}$ & $\delta_{bgr}$ & $1+\delta_{had}$ & $1+\delta_{rad}$\\ & $\rm [pb]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & & \\ \hline $0.00 \div 0.15$ &$51.6$ &$17.9$ & $9.5$ & $15.1$ &$1.6$ & $2.8$ & $-4.4$ &$-1.0$ & $1.0$ &$-0.8$ & $-3.8$ &$-2.3$ & $-1.4$ &$10.6$ & $-1.2$ &$0.1$ &$1.04 \pm 0.03$ &$1.03$ \\ $0.15 \div 0.40$ &$57.8$ &$14.1$ & $7.3$ & $12.1$ &$1.2$ & $1.0$ & $-5.1$ &$-0.9$ & $0.9$ &$-0.7$ & $-3.0$ &$-2.1$ & $-1.5$ &$6.2$ & $-1.1$ &$0.2$ &$1.05 \pm 0.03$ &$1.04$ \\ $0.40 \div 0.80$ &$45.1$ &$12.5$ & $5.7$ & $11.1$ &$1.9$ & $2.5$ & $-4.3$ &$-0.9$ & $0.8$ &$-0.5$ & $-3.8$ &$-2.2$ & $-1.2$ &$3.2$ & $-1.3$ &$0.5$ &$1.06 \pm 0.04$ &$1.04$ \\ $0.80 \div 1.30$ &$33.9$ &$12.3$ & $5.5$ & $10.9$ &$1.7$ & $2.4$ & $-4.7$ &$-1.0$ & $0.5$ &$-0.3$ & $-3.7$ &$-2.4$ & $-1.0$ &$-2.5$ & $-0.6$ &$0.3$ &$1.07 \pm 0.05$ &$1.03$ \\ $1.30 \div 3.00$ &$9.29$ &$15.0$ & $6.7$ & $13.4$ &$1.2$ & $3.4$ & $-5.3$ &$-1.0$ & $0.2$ &$-0.0$ & $-2.8$ &$-3.4$ & $-1.2$ &$-7.4$ & $-1.1$ &$0.3$ &$1.04 \pm 0.06$ &$1.03$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{minipage}} \caption{Diffractive DIS dijet cross section measured differentially as a function of $p^{\ast}_{T,1}$, $p^{\ast}_{T,2}$, $\langle p^{\ast}_{T}\rangle$ and $\Delta\eta^{\ast}$. The statistical $\delta_{stat}$ and systematic $\delta_{sys}$ uncertainties are given together with the total uncertainty $\delta_{tot}$. Further details are given in Table~\ref{tab:tab1}. } \label{tab:tab2} \end{table} \end{landscape} \newpage \clearpage \begin{landscape} \begin{table}[!ht] \resizebox{.8\textwidth}{!}{\begin{minipage}{\textwidth} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c||c||c|} \hline $\zpom$ & $\qsq$ & $\frac{d^{2}\sigma}{d\zpom d\qsq}$ & $\delta_{tot}$ & $\delta_{stat}$ & $\delta_{sys}$ & $\delta_{\theta}$ & $\delta_{E}$ & $\delta_{HFS}$ & $\delta_{\qsq}$ & $\delta_{\xpom}$ & $\delta_{\beta}$ & $\delta_{p*_{T,1}}$ & $\delta_{\zpom}$ & $\delta_{x_{dijet}}$ & $\delta_{\Delta\eta*}$ & $\delta_{t}$ & $\delta_{bgr}$ & $1+\delta_{had}$ & $1+\delta_{rad}$\\ & $\rm [GeV^{2}]$ & $\rm [pb/GeV^{2}]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & & \\ \hline $0.0 \div 0.3$ &$4 \div 10$ &$7.67$ &$14.8$ & $7.7$ & $12.7$ &$2.0$ & $3.5$ & $-1.0$ &$1.6$ & $-0.3$ &$3.4$ & $-3.3$ &$6.5$ & $2.2$ &$3.1$ & $-1.3$ &$0.5$ &$1.08 \pm 0.03$ &$1.05$ \\ & $10 \div 20$ &$2.40$ &$15.6$ & $10.0$ & $12.1$ &$0.7$ & $2.9$ & $-2.1$ &$-2.0$ & $-0.2$ &$1.1$ & $-3.2$ &$5.7$ & $1.5$ &$4.6$ & $-0.4$ &$0.7$ &$1.08 \pm 0.02$ &$1.05$ \\ & $20 \div 40$ &$0.544$ &$27.6$ & $20.8$ & $18.2$ &$2.2$ & $4.7$ & $-3.3$ &$0.9$ & $-0.2$ &$4.7$ & $-3.5$ &$11.6$ & $2.8$ &$7.3$ & $-0.4$ &$0.2$ &$1.09 \pm 0.02$ &$1.05$ \\ & $40 \div 100$ &$0.0994$ &$41.6$ & $35.7$ & $21.3$ &$1.2$ & $7.3$ & $-3.3$ &$-0.4$ & $-0.1$ &$4.1$ & $-4.1$ &$12.9$ & $3.1$ &$10.0$ & $-3.7$ &$2.0$ &$1.09 \pm 0.02$ &$1.06$ \\ $0.3 \div 0.5$ &$4 \div 10$ &$8.80$ &$18.4$ & $9.3$ & $15.9$ &$2.0$ & $3.1$ & $-8.6$ &$-0.7$ & $1.2$ &$-1.0$ & $-5.3$ &$-7.4$ & $-3.9$ &$-0.6$ & $-1.5$ &$0.1$ &$1.08 \pm 0.02$ &$1.03$ \\ & $10 \div 20$ &$2.31$ &$19.9$ & $13.6$ & $14.5$ &$2.0$ & $2.4$ & $-6.9$ &$-0.4$ & $0.7$ &$-1.5$ & $-3.3$ &$-7.7$ & $-4.1$ &$-0.0$ & $-0.4$ &$1.0$ &$1.08 \pm 0.02$ &$1.03$ \\ & $20 \div 40$ &$1.12$ &$17.0$ & $12.6$ & $11.4$ &$-0.4$ & $3.2$ & $-3.7$ &$0.2$ & $0.5$ &$-0.7$ & $-3.0$ &$-5.3$ & $-2.8$ &$-0.3$ & $-0.0$ &$0.2$ &$1.08 \pm 0.03$ &$1.02$ \\ & $40 \div 100$ &$0.264$ &$20.1$ & $17.1$ & $10.6$ &$0.7$ & $2.6$ & $-4.4$ &$-0.2$ & $0.4$ &$-0.9$ & $-2.1$ &$-3.4$ & $-2.1$ &$1.4$ & $1.3$ &$0.2$ &$1.07 \pm 0.03$ &$1.03$ \\ $0.5 \div 0.7$ &$4 \div 10$ &$4.50$ &$17.8$ & $13.3$ & $11.8$ &$3.3$ & $1.9$ & $6.5$ &$-1.4$ & $1.1$ &$-0.7$ & $-3.1$ &$-2.8$ & $-0.4$ &$0.9$ & $-0.7$ &$0.2$ &$1.14 \pm 0.06$ &$1.03$ \\ & $10 \div 20$ &$1.86$ &$15.2$ & $11.8$ & $9.6$ &$0.8$ & $1.0$ & $3.1$ &$-0.5$ & $0.5$ &$-0.4$ & $-3.1$ &$-2.6$ & $-0.6$ &$0.2$ & $-1.8$ &$0.1$ &$1.12 \pm 0.06$ &$1.02$ \\ & $20 \div 40$ &$0.703$ &$16.2$ & $13.5$ & $8.9$ &$2.0$ & $0.8$ & $-0.2$ &$-0.7$ & $0.5$ &$-0.6$ & $-2.2$ &$-2.3$ & $-0.7$ &$0.2$ & $-1.6$ &$0.2$ &$1.12 \pm 0.06$ &$1.02$ \\ & $40 \div 100$ &$0.109$ &$31.9$ & $29.7$ & $11.4$ &$2.2$ & $-0.8$ & $3.2$ &$-0.8$ & $0.1$ &$-1.3$ & $-1.4$ &$-4.0$ & $-1.0$ &$-1.6$ & $-5.6$ &$0.1$ &$1.12 \pm 0.06$ &$1.01$ \\ $0.7 \div 1.0$ &$4 \div 10$ &$1.99$ &$27.8$ & $11.7$ & $25.2$ &$2.2$ & $2.9$ & $-21.9$ &$-1.6$ & $1.8$ &$-1.9$ & $-3.8$ &$-6.5$ & $-2.6$ &$1.7$ & $-2.9$ &$0.3$ &$0.79 \pm 0.11$ &$1.02$ \\ & $10 \div 20$ &$0.639$ &$26.9$ & $11.2$ & $24.5$ &$1.4$ & $0.4$ & $-22.1$ &$-0.4$ & $1.1$ &$-1.6$ & $-1.7$ &$-5.2$ & $-2.0$ &$2.4$ & $-1.8$ &$0.3$ &$0.81 \pm 0.11$ &$1.01$ \\ & $20 \div 40$ &$0.248$ &$22.4$ & $13.0$ & $18.2$ &$0.9$ & $1.6$ & $-15.3$ &$-0.3$ & $0.9$ &$-1.1$ & $-2.6$ &$-4.3$ & $-1.6$ &$1.1$ & $-0.3$ &$0.0$ &$0.85 \pm 0.11$ &$1.00$ \\ & $40 \div 100$ &$0.0968$ &$18.5$ & $13.3$ & $13.0$ &$0.3$ & $2.1$ & $-9.0$ &$-0.5$ & $0.4$ &$-1.1$ & $-2.2$ &$-3.4$ & $-1.5$ &$1.3$ & $0.4$ &$0.5$ &$0.89 \pm 0.10$ &$1.01$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{minipage}} \caption{Diffractive DIS dijet cross section measured differentially as a function of $\zpom$ and $\qsq$. The statistical $\delta_{stat}$ and systematic $\delta_{sys}$ uncertainties are given together with the total uncertainty $\delta_{tot}$. Further details are given in Table~\ref{tab:tab1}. } \label{tab:tab3} \end{table} \end{landscape} \newpage \clearpage \begin{landscape} \begin{table}[!ht] \resizebox{.8\textwidth}{!}{\begin{minipage}{\textwidth} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c||c||c|} \hline $p^{\ast}_{\rm T,1}$ & $\qsq$ & $\frac{d^{2}\sigma}{dp^{\ast}_{\rm T,1}d\qsq}$ & $\delta_{tot}$ & $\delta_{stat}$ & $\delta_{sys}$ & $\delta_{\theta}$ & $\delta_{E}$ & $\delta_{HFS}$ & $\delta_{\qsq}$ & $\delta_{\xpom}$ & $\delta_{\beta}$ & $\delta_{p*_{T,1}}$ & $\delta_{\zpom}$ & $\delta_{x_{dijet}}$ & $\delta_{\Delta\eta*}$ & $\delta_{t}$ & $\delta_{bgr}$ & $1+\delta_{had}$ & $1+\delta_{rad}$\\ $\rm [GeV^{2}]$ & $\rm [GeV]$ & $\rm [pb/GeV^{3}]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & $[\%]$ & & \\ \hline $5.5 \div 7.0$ &$4 \div 6$ &$3.35$ &$15.6$ & $9.1$ & $12.7$ &$0.4$ & $5.9$ & $-1.2$ &$2.7$ & $1.1$ &$3.4$ & $-1.3$ &$5.8$ & $2.9$ &$0.6$ & $-1.0$ &$0.1$ &$1.05 \pm 0.05$ &$1.04$ \\ & $6 \div 10$ &$1.84$ &$12.7$ & $7.1$ & $10.5$ &$3.0$ & $0.8$ & $-4.7$ &$-1.5$ & $0.3$ &$-1.0$ & $-1.8$ &$-2.9$ & $-1.3$ &$0.7$ & $-1.6$ &$0.1$ &$1.05 \pm 0.05$ &$1.02$ \\ & $10 \div 18$ &$0.834$ &$12.3$ & $7.2$ & $9.9$ &$1.2$ & $0.9$ & $-3.2$ &$-1.1$ & $0.5$ &$-1.4$ & $-1.6$ &$-3.9$ & $-1.7$ &$0.6$ & $-1.1$ &$0.2$ &$1.05 \pm 0.05$ &$1.02$ \\ & $18 \div 34$ &$0.344$ &$13.3$ & $8.6$ & $10.1$ &$1.5$ & $0.4$ & $-5.1$ &$0.3$ & $0.5$ &$-0.4$ & $-1.4$ &$-2.6$ & $-1.7$ &$1.1$ & $-0.0$ &$0.0$ &$1.06 \pm 0.05$ &$1.03$ \\ & $34 \div 100$ &$0.0613$ &$15.8$ & $11.7$ & $10.6$ &$1.5$ & $0.7$ & $-5.0$ &$-0.4$ & $0.5$ &$-1.1$ & $-1.7$ &$-3.4$ & $-2.0$ &$0.9$ & $-1.6$ &$0.1$ &$1.07 \pm 0.04$ &$1.02$ \\ $7.0 \div 9.0$ &$4 \div 6$ &$1.23$ &$18.6$ & $15.1$ & $10.9$ &$-0.1$ & $3.0$ & $-6.1$ &$1.3$ & $1.2$ &$1.5$ & $-2.5$ &$0.1$ & $-0.7$ &$0.0$ & $-0.3$ &$0.5$ &$1.06 \pm 0.04$ &$1.05$ \\ & $6 \div 10$ &$0.578$ &$16.4$ & $12.9$ & $10.1$ &$1.9$ & $3.3$ & $-3.9$ &$1.1$ & $0.8$ &$0.0$ & $-0.6$ &$-2.1$ & $-1.3$ &$1.5$ & $-0.8$ &$0.4$ &$1.06 \pm 0.04$ &$1.05$ \\ & $10 \div 18$ &$0.287$ &$16.6$ & $12.6$ & $10.7$ &$0.4$ & $3.1$ & $-6.0$ &$-0.3$ & $0.7$ &$-0.1$ & $-1.3$ &$-0.3$ & $-0.4$ &$2.3$ & $0.7$ &$0.6$ &$1.06 \pm 0.05$ &$1.04$ \\ & $18 \div 34$ &$0.100$ &$20.4$ & $17.6$ & $10.3$ &$0.3$ & $5.2$ & $-3.5$ &$-0.2$ & $0.8$ &$-0.2$ & $-0.5$ &$-1.0$ & $-0.4$ &$0.0$ & $-1.5$ &$0.7$ &$1.07 \pm 0.04$ &$1.04$ \\ & $34 \div 100$ &$0.0276$ &$19.9$ & $17.4$ & $9.6$ &$-0.6$ & $3.7$ & $-3.1$ &$-0.6$ & $0.5$ &$-1.0$ & $-0.6$ &$-1.6$ & $-0.4$ &$1.0$ & $1.5$ &$0.6$ &$1.06 \pm 0.06$ &$1.04$ \\ $9.0 \div 15.0$ &$4 \div 6$ &$0.122$ &$30.1$ & $26.6$ & $14.2$ &$7.8$ & $0.5$ & $-5.5$ &$-0.1$ & $0.7$ &$0.3$ & $-5.5$ &$-1.2$ & $-0.5$ &$3.3$ & $-2.2$ &$0.8$ &$1.04 \pm 0.03$ &$1.06$ \\ & $6 \div 10$ &$0.0511$ &$30.4$ & $24.7$ & $17.8$ &$1.9$ & $1.1$ & $-12.4$ &$-0.6$ & $1.3$ &$-0.0$ & $-6.3$ &$-2.8$ & $-0.9$ &$6.1$ & $-3.0$ &$0.4$ &$1.03 \pm 0.03$ &$1.05$ \\ & $10 \div 18$ &$0.0207$ &$35.5$ & $30.0$ & $19.0$ &$1.4$ & $1.7$ & $-11.6$ &$-1.1$ & $1.0$ &$-1.4$ & $-6.5$ &$-6.4$ & $-2.9$ &$5.6$ & $-6.0$ &$0.5$ &$1.03 \pm 0.02$ &$1.05$ \\ & $18 \div 34$ &$0.0160$ &$24.5$ & $20.1$ & $14.0$ &$1.6$ & $1.8$ & $-8.2$ &$0.0$ & $0.6$ &$-0.1$ & $-4.6$ &$-2.6$ & $-0.6$ &$5.2$ & $-2.5$ &$0.4$ &$1.04 \pm 0.04$ &$1.06$ \\ & $34 \div 100$ &$0.0034$ &$31.9$ & $27.8$ & $15.7$ &$3.6$ & $0.3$ & $-9.0$ &$1.8$ & $0.7$ &$1.0$ & $-3.5$ &$-3.1$ & $-1.5$ &$6.0$ & $-4.9$ &$1.0$ &$1.05 \pm 0.03$ &$1.07$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{minipage}} \caption{Diffractive DIS dijet cross section measured differentially as a function of $p^{\ast}_{\rm T,1}$ and $\qsq$. The statistical $\delta_{stat}$ and systematic $\delta_{sys}$ uncertainties are given together with the total uncertainty $\delta_{tot.}$. Further details are given in Table~\ref{tab:tab1}. } \label{tab:tab5} \end{table} \end{landscape} \clearpage \begin{table}[!ht] \resizebox{.8\textwidth}{!}{\begin{minipage}{\textwidth} \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|ccccc|} \hline $\qsq\ \rm [GeV]$ & $\#Bin$ & $1$ & $2$ & $3$ & $4$ & $5$\\ \hline $4 \div 6$ & $1$ &$100$ & $-5$ & $5$ & & \\ $6 \div 10$ & $2$ & & $100$ & $1$ & $1$ & \\ $10 \div 18$ & $3$ & & & $100$ & $-2$ & $1$\\ $18 \div 34$ & $4$ & & & & $100$ & $8$\\ $34 \div 100$ & $5$ & & & & & $100$\\ \hline $y$ & $\#Bin$ & $1$ & $2$ & $3$ & $4$ & $5$\\ \hline $0.1 \div 0.2$ & $1$ &$100$ & $-7$ & $8$ & $5$ & $4$\\ $0.2 \div 0.3$ & $2$ & & $100$ & $-6$ & $8$ & $4$\\ $0.3 \div 0.5$ & $3$ & & & $100$ & $-4$ & $7$\\ $0.5 \div 0.6$ & $4$ & & & & $100$ & $-10$\\ $0.6 \div 0.7$ & $5$ & & & & & $100$\\ \hline $\xpom$ & $\#Bin$ & $1$ & $2$ & $3$ & $4$ &\\ \hline $-2.30 \div -2.10$ & $1$ &$100$ & $-55$ & $17$ & $-2$ &\\ $-2.10 \div -1.90$ & $2$ & & $100$ & $-41$ & $11$ &\\ $-1.90 \div -1.70$ & $3$ & & & $100$ & $-31$ &\\ $-1.70 \div -1.52$ & $4$ & & & & $100$ &\\ \hline $\zpom$ & $\#Bin$ & $1$ & $2$ & $3$ & $4$ & $5$\\ \hline $0.0 \div 0.2$ & $1$ &$100$ & $-24$ & $8$ & $1$ & \\ $0.2 \div 0.4$ & $2$ & & $100$ & $-31$ & $10$ & $-2$\\ $0.4 \div 0.6$ & $3$ & & & $100$ & $-45$ & $17$\\ $0.6 \div 0.8$ & $4$ & & & & $100$ & $-52$\\ $0.8 \div 1.0$ & $5$ & & & & & $100$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{minipage}} \caption{Correlation coefficients between data points for the single-differential measurements in $\qsq$, $y$, $\xpom$ and $\zpom$. The values are given in per cent.} \label{tab:tabrho1} \end{table} \clearpage \begin{table}[!ht] \resizebox{.8\textwidth}{!}{\begin{minipage}{\textwidth} \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|ccccc|} \hline $p^{\ast}_{\rm T,1}\ \rm [GeV]$ & $\#Bin$ & $1$ & $2$ & $3$ & &\\ \hline $5.5 \div 7.0$ & $1$ &$100$ & $-26$ & $1$ &&\\ $7.0 \div 9.0$ & $2$ & & $100$ & $-54$ &&\\ $9.0 \div 15.0$ & $3$ & & & $100$ &&\\ \hline $p^{\ast}_{\rm T,2}\ \rm [GeV]$ & $\#Bin$ & $1$ & $2$ & $3$ & & \\ \hline $4.0 \div 6.5$ & $1$ &$100$ & $-36$ & $13$ &&\\ $6.5 \div 9.0$ & $2$ & & $100$ & $-46$ &&\\ $9.0 \div 15.0$ & $3$ & & & $100$ &&\\ \hline $\langle p^{\ast}_{\rm T}\rangle\ \rm [GeV]$ & $\#Bin$ & $1$ & $2$ & $3$ & &\\ \hline $4.75 \div 6.50$ & $1$ &$100$ & $-33$ & $12$ &&\\ $6.50 \div 9.00$ & $2$ & & $100$ & $-49$ &&\\ $9.00 \div 15.00$ & $3$ & & & $100$ &&\\ \hline $\Delta\eta^{\ast}$ & $\#Bin$ & $1$ & $2$ & $3$ & $4$ & $5$ \\ \hline $0.00 \div 0.15$ & $1$ &$100$ & $-49$ & $13$ & $1$ & $2$\\ $0.15 \div 0.40$ & $2$ & & $100$ & $-29$ & $9$ & $1$\\ $0.40 \div 0.80$ & $3$ & & & $100$ & $-19$ & $7$\\ $0.80 \div 1.30$ & $4$ & & & & $100$ & $-20$\\ $1.30 \div 3.00$ & $5$ & & & & & $100$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{minipage}} \caption{Correlation coefficients between data points for the single-differential measurements in $p^{\ast}_{\rm T,1}$, $p^{\ast}_{\rm T,2}$, $\langle p^{\ast}_{\rm T}\rangle$ and $\Delta\eta^{\ast}$. The values are given in per cent.} \label{tab:tabrho2} \end{table} \clearpage \begin{table}[!ht] %\resizebox{.75\textwidth}{!}{\begin{minipage}{\textwidth} \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{ \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|cccccccccccccccc|} \hline $\zpom$ & $\qsq\ \rm [GeV^{2}]$ & $\#Bin$ & $1$ & $2$ & $3$ & $4$ & $5$ & $6$ & $7$ & $8$ & $9$ & $10$ & $11$ & $12$ & $13$ & $14$ & $15$ & $16$\\ \hline $0.0 \div 0.3$ & $4 \div 10$ & $1$ &$100$ & $1$ & & & $-32$ & $3$ & & & $11$ & & & & $-3$ & & & \\ & $10 \div 20$ & $2$ & & $100$ & $-2$ & $1$ & $3$ & $-41$ & $2$ & & & $19$ & & & & $-5$ & & \\ & $20 \div 40$ & $3$ & & & $100$ & $4$ & & $2$ & $-37$ & $4$ & & & $20$ & $1$ & & & $-4$ & $1$\\ & $40 \div 100$ & $4$ & & & & $100$ & & & $3$ & $-37$ & & & $1$ & $22$ & & & $1$ & $-5$\\ $0.3 \div 0.5$ & $4 \div 10$ & $5$ & & & & & $100$ & $-3$ & & & $-46$ & $2$ & & & $15$ & & & \\ & $10 \div 20$ & $6$ & & & & & & $100$ & $-3$ & & $3$ & $-53$ & $2$ & & & $19$ & & \\ & $20 \div 40$ & $7$ & & & & & & & $100$ & $-3$ & & $2$ & $-51$ & $2$ & & $-1$ & $17$ & \\ & $40 \div 100$ & $8$ & & & & & & & & $100$ & & & $2$ & $-51$ & & & & $21$\\ $0.5 \div 0.7$ & $4 \div 10$ & $9$ & & & & & & & & & $100$ & $-5$ & & & $-47$ & $2$ & & \\ & $10 \div 20$ & $10$ & & & & & & & & & & $100$ & $-3$ & & $1$ & $-46$ & $1$ & \\ & $20 \div 40$ & $11$ & & & & & & & & & & & $100$ & $-2$ & & $2$ & $-44$ & $1$\\ & $40 \div 100$ & $12$ & & & & & & & & & & & & $100$ & & & $1$ & $-51$\\ $0.7 \div 1.0$ & $4 \div 10$ & $13$ & & & & & & & & & & & & & $100$ & $-4$ & & \\ & $10 \div 20$ & $14$ & & & & & & & & & & & & & & $100$ & $-5$ & \\ & $20 \div 40$ & $15$ & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & $100$ & $-2$\\ & $40 \div 100$ & $16$ & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & $100$\\ \hline \end{tabular} %\end{minipage} } \caption{Correlation coefficients between data points for the double-differential measurement in $\zpom$ and $\qsq$. The values are given in per cent.} \label{tab:tabrho3} \end{table} %\clearpage \begin{table}[!ht] %\resizebox{.75\textwidth}{!}{\begin{minipage}{\textwidth} \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{ \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|ccccccccccccccc|} \hline $p^{\ast}_{\rm T,1}\ \rm [GeV]$ & $\qsq\ \rm [GeV^{2}]$ & $\#Bin$ & $1$ & $2$ & $3$ & $4$ & $5$ & $6$ & $7$ & $8$ & $9$ & $10$ & $11$ & $12$ & $13$ & $14$ & $15$\\ \hline $5.5 \div 7.0$ & $4 \div 6$ & $1$ &$100$ & $-7$ & $1$ & & & $-44$ & $2$ & & & & $13$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & \\ & $6 \div 10$ & $2$ & & $100$ & $-3$ & & & $3$ & $-57$ & $3$ & $-1$ & & & $17$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$\\ & $10 \div 18$ & $3$ & & & $100$ & $-2$ & $1$ & $1$ & $3$ & $-59$ & $1$ & $-1$ & $2$ & $1$ & $22$ & $1$ & $1$\\ & $18 \div 34$ & $4$ & & & & $100$ & $3$ & $-1$ & & & $-58$ & $1$ & $2$ & $1$ & $2$ & $25$ & $2$\\ & $34 \div 100$ & $5$ & & & & & $100$ & & & & $1$ & $-56$ & & & $1$ & $2$ & $27$\\ $7.0 \div 9.0$ & $4 \div 6$ & $6$ & & & & & & $100$ & $-7$ & $3$ & $3$ & $1$ & $-60$ & $2$ & $-5$ & $-6$ & $-3$\\ & $6 \div 10$ & $7$ & & & & & & & $100$ & $-4$ & $2$ & $1$ & $3$ & $-57$ & & $-3$ & $-2$\\ & $10 \div 18$ & $8$ & & & & & & & & $100$ & & $2$ & $-6$ & & $-60$ & $-4$ & $-4$\\ & $18 \div 34$ & $9$ & & & & & & & & & $100$ & $1$ & $-7$ & $-3$ & $-6$ & $-62$ & $-3$\\ & $34 \div 100$ & $10$ & & & & & & & & & & $100$ & $-4$ & $-2$ & $-5$ & $-5$ & $-64$\\ $9.0 \div 15.0$ & $4 \div 6$ & $11$ & & & & & & & & & & & $100$ & $-5$ & $13$ & $14$ & $7$\\ & $6 \div 10$ & $12$ & & & & & & & & & & & & $100$ & & $6$ & $3$\\ & $10 \div 18$ & $13$ & & & & & & & & & & & & & $100$ & $10$ & $9$\\ & $18 \div 34$ & $14$ & & & & & & & & & & & & & & $100$ & $8$\\ & $34 \div 100$ & $15$ & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & $100$\\ \hline \end{tabular} %\end{minipage} } \caption{Correlation coefficients between data points for the double-differential measurement in $p^{\ast}_{\rm T,1}$ and $\qsq$. The values are given in per cent.} \label{tab:tabrho5} %\vspace{20cm} \end{table} \newpage \begin{figure}[ht] \centering \subfloat{ \includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{d14-200f2a.eps} }\hfill \subfloat{ \includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{d14-200f2b.eps} }\hfill \subfloat{ \includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{d14-200f2c.eps} }\hfill \subfloat{ \includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{d14-200f2d.eps} }\hfill \caption{Distributions of the kinematic quantities $\qsq$, $p^{\ast}_{\rm T,1}$, $\xpom$ and $\zpom$. The data are shown as black points compared to the sum of MC simulation estimates. The filled area shows the contribution of non-diffractive DIS, the dotted line shows the diffractive contribution with the elastically scattered proton added to the non-diffractive DIS and the dashed line displays the proton dissociation contribution added to the diffractive contribution with the elastically scattered proton and the non-diffractive DIS contribution. The sum of all contributions including the resolved photon processes is given by the full line. The MC is reweighted to the data. The ratio of data to the MC prediction is shown in the lower part of %each plot. of the individual figures. } \label{fig:figctr} \end{figure} \newpage \begin{figure}[b] \subfloat{ \includegraphics[bb=80bp 100bp 380bp 400bp, width=.4\textwidth]{d14-200f3a.eps} }\hfill \subfloat{ \includegraphics[bb=30bp 100bp 330bp 400bp, width=.4\textwidth]{d14-200f3b.eps} }\hfill \vspace{2cm} \caption{Diffractive dijet differential cross section as a function of $\qsq$ and $y$. The inner error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainties, while the outer error bars include the systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The NLO QCD prediction based on the H12006 Fit-B DPDF set is displayed as a white line. The light shaded band indicates the uncertainty arising from hadronisation and the DPDF fit added in quadrature. The outer dark band shows the full theory uncertainty including the QCD scale uncertainty added in quadrature. The ratio of the single-differential cross section to the NLO prediction is shown in the lower part of %the plot. the individual figures. } \label{fig:fig1} \end{figure} \newpage \begin{figure}[b] \subfloat{ \includegraphics[bb=80bp 100bp 380bp 400bp, width=.4\textwidth]{d14-200f4a.eps} }\hfill \subfloat{ \includegraphics[bb=30bp 100bp 330bp 400bp, width=.4\textwidth]{d14-200f4b.eps} }\hfill \vspace{2cm} \caption{Diffractive dijet differential cross section as a function of $\log\xpom$ and $\zpom$. The inner error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainties, while the outer error bars include the systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Further details are given in figure~\ref{fig:fig1}.} \label{fig:fig2} \end{figure} \newpage \clearpage \begin{figure}[b] \subfloat{ \includegraphics[bb=80bp 100bp 380bp 400bp, width=.4\textwidth]{d14-200f5a.eps} }\hfill \subfloat{ \includegraphics[bb=30bp 100bp 330bp 400bp, width=.4\textwidth]{d14-200f5b.eps} }\hfill \vspace{2cm} \caption{Diffractive dijet differential cross section as a function of $p^{\ast}_{\rm T,1}$ and $p^{\ast}_{\rm T,2}$. The inner error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainties, while the outer error bars include the systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Further details are given in figure~\ref{fig:fig1}.} \label{fig:fig3} \end{figure} \newpage \clearpage \begin{figure}[b] \subfloat{ \includegraphics[bb=80bp 100bp 380bp 400bp, width=.4\textwidth]{d14-200f6a.eps} }\hfill \subfloat{ \includegraphics[bb=30bp 100bp 330bp 400bp, width=.4\textwidth]{d14-200f6b.eps} }\hfill \vspace{2cm} \caption{Diffractive dijet differential cross section as a function of $\langle p^{\ast}_{\rm T}\rangle$ and $\Delta\eta^{\ast}$. The inner error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainties, while the outer error bars include the systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Further details are given in figure~\ref{fig:fig1}.} \label{fig:fig4} \end{figure} \newpage \clearpage \begin{figure}[b!] \includegraphics[bb=100bp 140bp 440bp 440bp, width=.64\textwidth]{d14-200f7.eps} \vspace{4cm} \caption{Double-differential cross section as a function of $\zpom$ and $\qsq$. The inner error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainties, while the outer error bars include the systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Further details are given in figure~\ref{fig:fig1}.} \label{fig:fig5} \end{figure} \newpage \begin{figure}[!b] \includegraphics[bb=100bp 140bp 440bp 440bp, width=.64\textwidth]{d14-200f8.eps} \vspace{4cm} \caption{Ratio of the double-differential cross section to the NLO prediction as a function of $\zpom$ and $\qsq$. % The ratio of the double-differential cross section to the NLO prediction is displayed. The inner error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainties, while the outer error bars include the systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Further details are given in figure~\ref{fig:fig1}.} \label{fig:fig6} \end{figure} \newpage \clearpage \begin{figure}[!b] \includegraphics[bb=40bp 180bp 380bp 480bp, width=.64\textwidth]{d14-200f9.eps} \vspace{6cm} \caption{Double-differential cross section as a function of $p^{\ast}_{\rm T,1}$ and $\qsq$. The inner error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainties, while the outer error bars include the systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Further details are given in figure~\ref{fig:fig1}.} \label{fig:fig9} \end{figure} \newpage \clearpage \begin{figure}[!b] \includegraphics[bb=40bp 180bp 380bp 480bp, width=.64\textwidth]{d14-200f10.eps} \vspace{6cm} \caption{Ratio of the double-differential cross section to the NLO prediction as a function of $p^{\ast}_{\rm T,1}$ and $\qsq$. % The ratio of the double-differential cross section to the NLO prediction is displayed. The inner error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainties, while the outer error bars include the systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Further details are given in figure~\ref{fig:fig1}.} \label{fig:fig10} \end{figure} %\subfloat{ %\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig1a.eps} %}\hfill \end{document}