%================================================================ % LaTeX file with prefered layout for H1 paper drafts % use: dvips -D600 file-name %================================================================ %%%%%%%%%%%%% LATEX HEADER %%%%%%%%%%%%% DO NOT DELET NOT CHANGE ANYTHING IN THE HEADER %%%%%%%%%%%%% UNLESS CLEARLY RECOMMENDED \documentclass[12pt]{article} \usepackage{epsfig} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{hhline} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{times} %\usepackage{cite} %%%%%%%%%%%% Comment the next two lines to remove the line numbering %\usepackage[]{lineno} %\linenumbers %%%%%%%%%%%% \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 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% END OF LATEX HEADER %===============================title page============================= \begin{document} %%%%%%Pre-defined commands, you can use for the most obvious notations \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al.}} \newcommand{\pom}{{I\!\!P}} \newcommand{\reg}{{I\!\!R}} \newcommand{\slowpi}{\pi_{\mathit{slow}}} \newcommand{\gevsq}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{GeV}^2} } \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{\rb}[1]{\raisebox{1.5ex}[-1.5ex]{#1}} \newcommand{\fem}{$F_2^{em}$} \newcommand{\ftc}{$F_2^{c\bar{c}}$} %\newcommand{\ftc}{\ensuremath{F_2^{c\bar{c}}}} \newcommand{\ft}{$F_2$ } \newcommand{\st}{$\star$} \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{\shat}{\ensuremath{\hat{s}}} % % Some useful tex commands % \newcommand{\qsq}{\ensuremath{Q^2}} %%% Dstar stuff \newcommand{\dstar}{\ensuremath{D^*}} \newcommand{\dzero}{\ensuremath{D^0}} \newcommand{\pislow}{\ensuremath{\pi_{slow}}} \newcommand{\goldenchannel}{\ensuremath{D^{*\pm}\to D^0+\pi_{slow}^\pm \to K^{\mp}+\pi^\pm+\pi_{slow}^\pm}} \newcommand{\dstarp}{\ensuremath{D^{*+}}} \newcommand{\dstarm}{\ensuremath{D^{*-}}} \newcommand{\dstarpm}{\ensuremath{D^{*\pm}} } % Journal macro \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2} (#3) #4} \def\NCA{Nuovo Cimento} \def\NIM{Nucl. Instrum. Meth.} \def\NIMA{{Nucl. Instrum. Meth.} {\bf A}} \def\NPB{{Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B}} \def\PLB{{Phys. Lett.} {\bf B}} \def\PRL{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \def\PRD{{Phys. Rev.} {\bf D}} \def\ZPC{{Z. Phys.} {\bf C}} \def\EPJC{{Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C}} \def\CPC {Comp. Phys. Commun. } \begin{titlepage} \noindent \begin{flushleft} {\tt DESY 09-165 \hfill ISSN 0418-9833} \\ {\tt October 2009} \\ \end{flushleft} \noindent %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \vspace{2cm} \begin{center} \begin{Large} \boldmath{ {\bf Measurement of the \dstarpm Meson Production Cross Section and \ftc\, at High \qsq\, in \textit{ep} Scattering at HERA}} \vspace{2cm} H1 Collaboration \end{Large} \end{center} \vspace{2cm} \begin{abstract} The inclusive production of $D^{*\pm}(2010)$ mesons in deep-inelastic $e^{\pm} p$ scattering is measured in the kinematic region of photon virtuality $100 < Q^2 < 1000\,{\rm GeV}^2$ and inelasticity $0.02 < y < 0.7$. Single and double differential cross sections for inclusive \dstar\ meson production are measured in the visible range defined by $|\eta(D^*)| < 1.5$ and $p_{T}(D^*) > 1.5\,{\rm GeV}$. The data were collected by the H1 experiment during the period from 2004 to 2007 and correspond to an integrated luminosity of $351\,\rm pb^{-1}$. The charm contribution, \ftc, to the proton structure function \ft is determined. The measurements are compared with QCD predictions. \end{abstract} \vspace{1.5cm} \begin{center} Submitted to {\it Phys. Lett. {\bf{B}}} \end{center} \vspace{2cm} \centerline{Dedicated to the memory of our dear friend and colleague, Beate Naroska} \end{titlepage} % THE PAPER DRAFTS HAVE NO AUTHORLIST % % FOR PAPER ISSUED FOR THE FINAL READING % COPY THE AUTHOR AND INSTITUTE LISTS % INTO YOUR AREA % % from /h1/iww/ipublications/h1auts.tex % AND UNCOMMENT THE NEXT THREE LINES % \begin{flushleft} %-- H1AUTS Author list by names %-- Status: Tue Oct 20 16:01:36 CEST 2009 Number of authors = 235 F.D.~Aaron$^{5,49}$, %BUCH-PD 11/06 Aaron C.~Alexa$^{5}$, %BUCH-PD 06/06 Alexa K.~Alimujiang$^{11,51}$, %DESY-PD 07/08 Alimujiang V.~Andreev$^{25}$, %LPI -PD 8/88 Andreev B.~Antunovic$^{11}$, %DESY-LEFT 12/08 Antunovic S.~Backovic$^{30}$, %PODG-PD 03/2 Backovic A.~Baghdasaryan$^{38}$, %YERE-PD 09/03 Baghdasaryana E.~Barrelet$^{29}$, %PARI-PD 11/99 Barrelet W.~Bartel$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 8/88 Bartel K.~Begzsuren$^{35}$, %ULBA-PD 04/06 Begzsuren A.~Belousov$^{25}$, %LPI -PD 8/88 Belousov J.C.~Bizot$^{27}$, %ORSA-PD 8/88 Bizot V.~Boudry$^{28}$, %ECPL-PD 1/93 Boudry I.~Bozovic-Jelisavcic$^{2}$, %BEOG-PD 03/06 Bozovicjelisavcic J.~Bracinik$^{3}$, %BIRM-PD 01/2 Bracinik G.~Brandt$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 01/20 Brandt M.~Brinkmann$^{12,51}$, %HAM2-ST 02/09 Brinkmann V.~Brisson$^{27}$, %ORSA-PD 8/88 Brisson D.~Bruncko$^{16}$, %KOSI-PD 8/88 Bruncko A.~Bunyatyan$^{13,38}$, %MPIH-PD 12/95 Bunyatyan G.~Buschhorn$^{26}$, %MPIM-PD 8/88 Buschhorn L.~Bystritskaya$^{24}$, %ITEP-PD 05/99 Bystritskaya A.J.~Campbell$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 8/88 Campbella K.B.~Cantun~Avila$^{22}$, %MEX1-ST 04/06 Cantunavila K.~Cerny$^{32}$, %PRG2-PD 09/08 Cernyk V.~Cerny$^{16,47}$, %KOSI-PD 06/04 Cernyv V.~Chekelian$^{26}$, %MPIM-PD 01/90 Chekelian A.~Cholewa$^{11}$, %DESY-ST 11/05 Cholewa J.G.~Contreras$^{22}$, %MEX1-PD 04/97 Contreras J.A.~Coughlan$^{6}$, %RAL -PD 8/88 Coughlan G.~Cozzika$^{10}$, %SACL-PD 10/07 Cozzika J.~Cvach$^{31}$, %PRAG-PD 8/88 Cvach J.B.~Dainton$^{18}$, %LIVE-PD 8/88 Dainton K.~Daum$^{37,43}$, %WUPP-PD 06/96 Daum M.~De\'{a}k$^{11}$, %DESY-ST 08/06 Deak B.~Delcourt$^{27}$, %ORSA-PD 8/88 Delcourt J.~Delvax$^{4}$, %BRUX-ST 10/06 Delvax E.A.~De~Wolf$^{4}$, %ANTW-PD 3/93 Dewolf C.~Diaconu$^{21}$, %MARS-PD 01/05 Diaconu V.~Dodonov$^{13}$, %MPIH-PD 04/98 Dodonov A.~Dossanov$^{26}$, %MPIM-ST 01/07 Dossanov A.~Dubak$^{30,46}$, %PODG-PD 10/03 Dubak G.~Eckerlin$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 8/88 Eckerlin V.~Efremenko$^{24}$, %ITEP-PD 8/88 Efremenko S.~Egli$^{36}$, %PSI -LEFT 09/09 Egli A.~Eliseev$^{25}$, %LPI -PD 01/06 Eliseev E.~Elsen$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 8/88 Elsen A.~Falkiewicz$^{7}$, %CRAC-LEFT 03/09 Falkiewicz L.~Favart$^{4}$, %BRUX-PD 8/88 Favart A.~Fedotov$^{24}$, %ITEP-PD 8/88 Fedotov R.~Felst$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 11/0 Felst J.~Feltesse$^{10,48}$, %SACL-PD 03/05 Feltesse J.~Ferencei$^{16}$, %KOSI-PD 01/05 Ferencei D.-J.~Fischer$^{11}$, %DESY-ST 03/08 Fischer M.~Fleischer$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 07/0 Fleischer A.~Fomenko$^{25}$, %LPI -PD 8/88 Fomenko E.~Gabathuler$^{18}$, %LIVE-PD 10/89 Gabathulere J.~Gayler$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 8/88 Gayler S.~Ghazaryan$^{11}$, %DFLC-PD 09/09 Ghazaryan A.~Glazov$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 01/04 Glazov I.~Glushkov$^{39}$, %ZEUT-LEFT 11/08 Glushkov L.~Goerlich$^{7}$, %CRAC-PD 8/88 Goerlich N.~Gogitidze$^{25}$, %LPI -PD 8/88 Gogitidze M.~Gouzevitch$^{11}$, %DESY-LEFT 06/09 Gouzevitch C.~Grab$^{40}$, %ZUTH-PD 8/88 Grab T.~Greenshaw$^{18}$, %LIVE-PD 8/88 Greenshaw B.R.~Grell$^{11}$, %DESY-ST 09/04 Grell G.~Grindhammer$^{26}$, %MPIM-PD 8/88 Grindhammer S.~Habib$^{12}$, %HAM2-PD 09/09 Habib D.~Haidt$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 8/88 Haidt C.~Helebrant$^{11}$, %DFLC-ST 03/06 Helebrant R.C.W.~Henderson$^{17}$, %LANC-PD 8/88 Henderson E.~Hennekemper$^{15}$, %HDB2-ST 11/07 Hennekemper H.~Henschel$^{39}$, %ZEUT-PD 06/99 Henschel M.~Herbst$^{15}$, %HDB2-ST 06/08 Herbst G.~Herrera$^{23}$, %MEX2-PD 07/98 Herrera M.~Hildebrandt$^{36}$, %PSI -PD 10/99 Hildebrandtm K.H.~Hiller$^{39}$, %ZEUT-PD 8/88 Hiller D.~Hoffmann$^{21}$, %MARS-PD 10/0 Hoffmann R.~Horisberger$^{36}$, %PSI -LEFT 09/09 Horisberger T.~Hreus$^{4,44}$, %BRUX-PD 10/08 Hreus M.~Jacquet$^{27}$, %ORSA-PD 09/96 Jacquet X.~Janssen$^{4}$, %ANTW-PD 02/03 Janssenx L.~J\"onsson$^{20}$, %LUND-PD 8/88 Joensson A.W.~Jung$^{15}$, %HDB2-PD 06/09 Junga H.~Jung$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 07/00 Jungh M.~Kapichine$^{9}$, %JINR-PD 3/97 Kapichine J.~Katzy$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 09/1 Katzy I.R.~Kenyon$^{3}$, %BIRM-PD 8/88 Kenyon C.~Kiesling$^{26}$, %MPIM-PD 8/88 Kiesling M.~Klein$^{18}$, %LIVE-PD 8/88 Klein C.~Kleinwort$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 8/88 Kleinwort T.~Kluge$^{18}$, %LIVE-PD 05/04 Kluge A.~Knutsson$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 04/07 Knutsson R.~Kogler$^{26}$, %MPIM-ST 01/07 Kogler P.~Kostka$^{39}$, %ZEUT-PD 8/88 Kostka M.~Kraemer$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 10/09 Kraemer K.~Krastev$^{11}$, %DESY-LEFT 12/08 Krastev J.~Kretzschmar$^{18}$, %LIVE-PD 01/08 Kretzschmar A.~Kropivnitskaya$^{24}$, %ITEP-LEFT 08/09 Kropivnitskaya K.~Kr\"uger$^{15}$, %HDB2-PD 01/04 Kruegerk K.~Kutak$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 01/07 Kutak M.P.J.~Landon$^{19}$, %QMWC-PD 8/88 Landon W.~Lange$^{39}$, %ZEUT-PD 8/88 Lange G.~La\v{s}tovi\v{c}ka-Medin$^{30}$, %PODG-PD 06/04 Lastovickamedin P.~Laycock$^{18}$, %LIVE-PD 11/03 Laycock A.~Lebedev$^{25}$, %LPI -PD 8/88 Lebedev V.~Lendermann$^{15}$, %HDB2-PD 01/2 Lendermann S.~Levonian$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 8/88 Levonian G.~Li$^{27}$, %ORSA-LEFT 12/08 Li K.~Lipka$^{11,51}$, %DESY-PD 01/03 Lipka A.~Liptaj$^{26}$, %MPIM-LEFT 01/09 Liptaj B.~List$^{12}$, %HAM2-PD 11/99 Listb J.~List$^{11}$, %DFLC-PD 01/05 Listj N.~Loktionova$^{25}$, %LPI -PD 03/99 Loktionova R.~Lopez-Fernandez$^{23}$, %MEX2-PD 03/2 Lopezfernandez V.~Lubimov$^{24}$, %ITEP-PD 01/95 Lubimov A.~Makankine$^{9}$, %JINR-PD 11/02 Makankine E.~Malinovski$^{25}$, %LPI -PD 01/89 Malinovskie P.~Marage$^{4}$, %BRUX-PD 8/88 Marage Ll.~Marti$^{11}$, %DESY-LEFT 04/09 Marti H.-U.~Martyn$^{1}$, %DESY-PD 8/88 Martyn S.J.~Maxfield$^{18}$, %LIVE-PD 8/88 Maxfield A.~Mehta$^{18}$, %LIVE-PD 8/88 Mehta A.B.~Meyer$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 01/00 Meyeran H.~Meyer$^{11}$, %DFLC-LEFT 11/08 Meyerhe H.~Meyer$^{37}$, %WUPP-PD 8/88 Meyerhi J.~Meyer$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 8/88 Meyerj S.~Mikocki$^{7}$, %CRAC-PD 8/88 Mikocki I.~Milcewicz-Mika$^{7}$, %CRAC-ST 10/02 Milcewicz F.~Moreau$^{28}$, %ECPL-PD 01/90 Moreau A.~Morozov$^{9}$, %JINR-PD 06/99 Morozova J.V.~Morris$^{6}$, %RAL -PD 8/88 Morris M.U.~Mozer$^{4}$, %BRUX-PD 06/07 Mozer M.~Mudrinic$^{2}$, %BEOG-PD 01/07 Mudrinic K.~M\"uller$^{41}$, %ZUER-PD 8/88 Muellerk P.~Mur\'\i n$^{16,44}$, %KOSI-LEFT 02/09 Murin Th.~Naumann$^{39}$, %ZEUT-PD 01/89 Naumannt P.R.~Newman$^{3}$, %BIRM-PD 10/92 Newman C.~Niebuhr$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 3/93 Niebuhr A.~Nikiforov$^{11}$, %DESY-LEFT 08/09 Nikiforov D.~Nikitin$^{9}$, %JINR-PD 06/08 Nikitin G.~Nowak$^{7}$, %CRAC-PD 8/88 Nowakg K.~Nowak$^{41}$, %ZUER-ST 08/05 Nowakk J.E.~Olsson$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 8/88 Olsson S.~Osman$^{20}$, %LUND-PD 06/09 Osman D.~Ozerov$^{24}$, %ITEP-PD 08/08 Ozerov P.~Pahl$^{11}$, %DESY-ST 10/08 Pahl V.~Palichik$^{9}$, %JINR-PD 01/04 Palichik I.~Panagoulias$^{l,}$$^{11,42}$, %DESY-ST 08/04 Panagoulias M.~Pandurovic$^{2}$, %BEOG-ST 03/06 Pandurovic Th.~Papadopoulou$^{l,}$$^{11,42}$, %DESY-PD 06/04 Papadopoulou C.~Pascaud$^{27}$, %ORSA-PD 8/88 Pascaud G.D.~Patel$^{18}$, %LIVE-PD 8/88 Patel O.~Pejchal$^{32}$, %PRG2-LEFT 10/08 Pejchal E.~Perez$^{10,45}$, %SACL-PD 10/07 Perez A.~Petrukhin$^{24}$, %ITEP-ST 01/01 Petrukhin I.~Picuric$^{30}$, %PODG-PD 01/06 Picuric S.~Piec$^{39}$, %ZEUT-ST 01/06 Piec D.~Pitzl$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 8/88 Pitzl R.~Pla\v{c}akyt\.{e}$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 10/06 Placakyte B.~Pokorny$^{32}$, %PRG2-ST 10/09 Pokorny R.~Polifka$^{32}$, %PRG2-ST 10/06 Polifka B.~Povh$^{13}$, %MPIH-PD 8/88 Povh V.~Radescu$^{14}$, %HDB1-PD 10/06 Radescu A.J.~Rahmat$^{18}$, %LIVE-LEFT 10/08 Rahmat N.~Raicevic$^{30}$, %PODG-PD 03/2 Raicevic A.~Raspiareza$^{26}$, %MPIM-LEFT 03/09 Raspiareza T.~Ravdandorj$^{35}$, %ULBA-PD 06/06 Ravdandorj P.~Reimer$^{31}$, %PRAG-PD 8/88 Reimer E.~Rizvi$^{19}$, %QMWC-PD 01/05 Rizvi P.~Robmann$^{41}$, %ZUER-PD 8/88 Robmann B.~Roland$^{4}$, %ANTW-LEFT 11/08 Roland R.~Roosen$^{4}$, %BRUX-PD 8/88 Roosen A.~Rostovtsev$^{24}$, %ITEP-PD 8/88 Rostovtsev M.~Rotaru$^{5}$, %BUCH-ST 02/07 Rotaru J.E.~Ruiz~Tabasco$^{22}$, %MEX1-ST 09/06 Ruiztabascojuliaelis S.~Rusakov$^{25}$, %LPI -PD 8/88 Rusakov D.~\v S\'alek$^{32}$, %PRG2-ST 11/06 Salek D.P.C.~Sankey$^{6}$, %RAL -PD 8/88 Sankey M.~Sauter$^{14}$, %HDB1-PD 10/09 Sauter E.~Sauvan$^{21}$, %MARS-PD 11/1 Sauvan S.~Schmitt$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 09/07 Schmittst L.~Schoeffel$^{10}$, %SACL-PD 12/98 Schoeffel A.~Sch\"oning$^{14}$, %HDB1-PD 04/09 Schoening H.-C.~Schultz-Coulon$^{15}$, %HDB2-PD 01/04 Schultzcoulon F.~Sefkow$^{11}$, %DFLC-PD 09/99 Sefkow R.N.~Shaw-West$^{3}$, %BIRM-ST 10/04 Shawwest L.N.~Shtarkov$^{25}$, %LPI -PD 8/88 Shtarkov S.~Shushkevich$^{26}$, %MPIM-ST 08/07 Shushkevich T.~Sloan$^{17}$, %LANC-PD 1/96 Sloan I.~Smiljanic$^{2}$, %BEOG-PD 03/06 Smiljanic Y.~Soloviev$^{25}$, %LPI -PD 8/88 Soloviev P.~Sopicki$^{7}$, %CRAC-ST 09/07 Sopicki D.~South$^{8}$, %DORT-PD 06/03 South V.~Spaskov$^{9}$, %JINR-PD 12/97 Spaskov A.~Specka$^{28}$, %ECPL-PD 3/95 Specka Z.~Staykova$^{11}$, %DESY-ST 08/06 Staykova M.~Steder$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 09/08 Steder B.~Stella$^{33}$, %ROME-PD 8/88 Stella G.~Stoicea$^{5}$, %BUCH-PD 02/08 Stoicea U.~Straumann$^{41}$, %ZUER-PD 8/88 Straumann D.~Sunar$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 10/09 Sunar T.~Sykora$^{4}$, %ANTW-PD 01/06 Sykora V.~Tchoulakov$^{9}$, %JINR-LEFT 05/08 Tchoulakov G.~Thompson$^{19}$, %QMWC-PD 8/88 Thompsong P.D.~Thompson$^{3}$, %BIRM-PD 08/99 Thompsonp T.~Toll$^{12}$, %HAM2-ST 11/08 Toll F.~Tomasz$^{16}$, %KOSI-LEFT 12/08 Tomasz T.H.~Tran$^{27}$, %ORSA-ST 10/06 Tran D.~Traynor$^{19}$, %QMWC-PD 12/01 Traynor T.N.~Trinh$^{21}$, %MARS-LEFT 10/08 Trinh P.~Tru\"ol$^{41}$, %ZUER-PD 8/88 Truoel I.~Tsakov$^{34}$, %SOFI-PD 04/03 Tsakov B.~Tseepeldorj$^{35,50}$, %ULBA-PD 06/06 Tseepeldorj J.~Turnau$^{7}$, %CRAC-PD 8/88 Turnau K.~Urban$^{15}$, %HDB2-PD 06/09 Urbank A.~Valk\'arov\'a$^{32}$, %PRG2-PD 8/88 Valkarova C.~Vall\'ee$^{21}$, %MARS-PD 8/88 Vallee P.~Van~Mechelen$^{4}$, %ANTW-PD 12/98 Vanmechelen A.~Vargas Trevino$^{11}$, %DFLC-PD 02/07 Vargastrevino Y.~Vazdik$^{25}$, %LPI -PD 8/88 Vazdik S.~Vinokurova$^{11}$, %DESY-LEFT 10/08 Vinokurova V.~Volchinski$^{38}$, %YERE-PD 12/01 Volchinski M.~von~den~Driesch$^{11}$, %DESY-ST 06/08 Vondendriesch D.~Wegener$^{8}$, %DORT-PD 8/88 Wegener Ch.~Wissing$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 07/06 Wissing E.~W\"unsch$^{11}$, %DESY-PD 8/88 Wuensch J.~\v{Z}\'a\v{c}ek$^{32}$, %PRG2-PD 8/88 Zacek J.~Z\'ale\v{s}\'ak$^{31}$, %PRAG-PD 01/05 Zalesak Z.~Zhang$^{27}$, %ORSA-PD 10/92 Zhang A.~Zhokin$^{24}$, %ITEP-PD 04/99 Zhokine T.~Zimmermann$^{40}$, %ZUTH-LEFT 01/09 Zimmermannt H.~Zohrabyan$^{38}$, %YERE-PD 11/02 Zohrabyan and F.~Zomer$^{27}$ %ORSA-PD 8/88 Zomer %-- H1 Institutes \bigskip{\it $ ^{1}$ I. Physikalisches Institut der RWTH, Aachen, Germany \\ $ ^{2}$ Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia \\ $ ^{3}$ School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK$^{ b}$ \\ $ ^{4}$ Inter-University Institute for High Energies ULB-VUB, Brussels and Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium$^{ c}$ \\ $ ^{5}$ National Institute for Physics and Nuclear Engineering (NIPNE) , Bucharest, Romania \\ $ ^{6}$ Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, UK$^{ b}$ \\ $ ^{7}$ Institute for Nuclear Physics, Cracow, Poland$^{ d}$ \\ $ ^{8}$ Institut f\"ur Physik, TU Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany$^{ a}$ \\ $ ^{9}$ Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia \\ $ ^{10}$ CEA, DSM/Irfu, CE-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France \\ $ ^{11}$ DESY, Hamburg, Germany \\ $ ^{12}$ Institut f\"ur Experimentalphysik, Universit\"at Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany$^{ a}$ \\ $ ^{13}$ Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Kernphysik, Heidelberg, Germany \\ $ ^{14}$ Physikalisches Institut, Universit\"at Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany$^{ a}$ \\ $ ^{15}$ Kirchhoff-Institut f\"ur Physik, Universit\"at Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany$^{ a}$ \\ $ ^{16}$ Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Ko\v{s}ice, Slovak Republic$^{ f}$ \\ $ ^{17}$ Department of Physics, University of Lancaster, Lancaster, UK$^{ b}$ \\ $ ^{18}$ Department of Physics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK$^{ b}$ \\ $ ^{19}$ Queen Mary and Westfield College, London, UK$^{ b}$ \\ $ ^{20}$ Physics Department, University of Lund, Lund, Sweden$^{ g}$ \\ $ ^{21}$ CPPM, CNRS/IN2P3 - Univ. Mediterranee, Marseille, France \\ $ ^{22}$ Departamento de Fisica Aplicada, CINVESTAV, M\'erida, Yucat\'an, Mexico$^{ j}$ \\ $ ^{23}$ Departamento de Fisica, CINVESTAV IPN, M\'exico City, Mexico$^{ j}$ \\ $ ^{24}$ Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia$^{ k}$ \\ $ ^{25}$ Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia$^{ e}$ \\ $ ^{26}$ Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Physik, M\"unchen, Germany \\ $ ^{27}$ LAL, University Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Orsay, France \\ $ ^{28}$ LLR, Ecole Polytechnique, CNRS/IN2P3, Palaiseau, France \\ $ ^{29}$ LPNHE, Universit\'{e}s Paris VI and VII, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France \\ $ ^{30}$ Faculty of Science, University of Montenegro, Podgorica, Montenegro$^{ e}$ \\ $ ^{31}$ Institute of Physics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Praha, Czech Republic$^{ h}$ \\ $ ^{32}$ Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, Praha, Czech Republic$^{ h}$ \\ $ ^{33}$ Dipartimento di Fisica Universit\`a di Roma Tre and INFN Roma~3, Roma, Italy \\ $ ^{34}$ Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Sofia, Bulgaria$^{ e}$ \\ $ ^{35}$ Institute of Physics and Technology of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences , Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia \\ $ ^{36}$ Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland \\ $ ^{37}$ Fachbereich C, Universit\"at Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany \\ $ ^{38}$ Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia \\ $ ^{39}$ DESY, Zeuthen, Germany \\ $ ^{40}$ Institut f\"ur Teilchenphysik, ETH, Z\"urich, Switzerland$^{ i}$ \\ $ ^{41}$ Physik-Institut der Universit\"at Z\"urich, Z\"urich, Switzerland$^{ i}$ \\ \bigskip $ ^{42}$ Also at Physics Department, National Technical University, Zografou Campus, GR-15773 Athens, Greece \\ $ ^{43}$ Also at Rechenzentrum, Universit\"at Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany \\ $ ^{44}$ Also at University of P.J. \v{S}af\'{a}rik, Ko\v{s}ice, Slovak Republic \\ $ ^{45}$ Also at CERN, Geneva, Switzerland \\ $ ^{46}$ Also at Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Physik, M\"unchen, Germany \\ $ ^{47}$ Also at Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovak Republic \\ $ ^{48}$ Also at DESY and University Hamburg, Helmholtz Humboldt Research Award \\ $ ^{49}$ Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania \\ $ ^{50}$ Also at Ulaanbaatar University, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia \\ $ ^{51}$ Supported by the Initiative and Networking Fund of the Helmholtz Association (HGF) under the contract VH-NG-401. \\ \bigskip $ ^a$ Supported by the Bundesministerium f\"ur Bildung und Forschung, FRG, under contract numbers 05H09GUF, 05H09VHC, 05H09VHF, 05H16PEA \\ $ ^b$ Supported by the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council, and formerly by the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council \\ $ ^c$ Supported by FNRS-FWO-Vlaanderen, IISN-IIKW and IWT and by Interuniversity Attraction Poles Programme, Belgian Science Policy \\ $ ^d$ Partially Supported by Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, grant PBS/DESY/70/2006 \\ $ ^e$ Supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft \\ $ ^f$ Supported by VEGA SR grant no. 2/7062/ 27 \\ $ ^g$ Supported by the Swedish Natural Science Research Council \\ $ ^h$ Supported by the Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic under the projects LC527, INGO-1P05LA259 and MSM0021620859 \\ $ ^i$ Supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation \\ $ ^j$ Supported by CONACYT, M\'exico, grant 48778-F \\ $ ^k$ Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR), grant no 1329.2008.2 \\ $ ^l$ This project is co-funded by the European Social Fund (75\%) and National Resources (25\%) - (EPEAEK II) - PYTHAGORAS II \\ } \end{flushleft} % % Please note that the author list may need re-formatting. \newpage %\tableofcontents \section{Introduction} The measurement of the charm quark production cross section in deep inelastic scattering (DIS) at HERA is a powerful means of testing perturbative quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Within this framework, a significant contribution to charm production arises from the boson-gluon fusion process which is sensitive to the gluon density in the proton. With increasing photon virtuality, $Q^2$, the charm contribution to the inclusive $ep$ scattering cross section rises from a few to up to $20\%$. Therefore, the treatment of the effects related to the charm quark contribution, in particular the mass effects, in perturbative QCD calculations is an important issue in the determination of parton distribution functions (PDFs). Different schemes to incorporate these effects are available. Previous measurements were performed by identifying charm quarks via $D$ mesons~\cite{D_H1,D_ZEUS} or using variables which are sensitive to the lifetime of heavy flavour hadrons~\cite{VTX_H1,VTX_ZEUS}. This paper presents a measurement of the \dstarpm meson production cross section in the range of large photon virtualities $100 70\,{\rm GeV}^2$ \\ \hline HVQDIS & $\alpha=\phantom{1} 6.0^{+1.1}_{-1.3}$ & $\alpha=3.3^{+0.4}_{-0.4}$ \\ RAPGAP & $\alpha=10.3^{+1.9}_{-1.6}$ & $\alpha=4.4^{+0.6}_{-0.5}$ \\ CASCADE & $\alpha=\phantom{1} 8.4^{+1.4}_{-1.1}$ & $\alpha=4.5^{+0.6}_{-0.6}$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Parameter $\alpha$ of the Kartvelishvili fragmentation function as used in the analysis.} \label{tab:fragmentation} \end{center} \end{table} \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0} The contribution of beauty production is estimated using the HVQDIS calculation, with hadronisation corrections determined using RAPGAP. The PDF set MRST2004FF3 is used with $m_b=4.3\,{\rm GeV}$ and $\mu_r=\mu_f=\mu_0\equiv \sqrt{Q^2+4m_b^2}$. The fraction of beauty quarks producing \dstarpm mesons is taken as $f(b\to D^*)= 17.3\pm 2.0\%$~\cite{beautyfraction}. \section{Event Selection and Signal Extraction} \label{event_selection} DIS events are selected by requiring a compact electromagnetic cluster in either the LAr or SpaCal calorimeters, which is taken to be the energy deposit of the scattered electron. The cluster has to be associated to a track reconstructed in the CTD. The events are triggered by either a coincidence of a SpaCal cluster and a signal from the CJC, or by the presence of a LAr cluster and a signal from the proportional chambers. The hadronic final state (HFS) particles are reconstructed using a combination of tracks and calorimeter deposits in an energy flow algorithm~\cite{hadroo2} which avoids double-counting. The event kinematics including the photon virtuality \qsq, the Bjorken scaling variable $x$ and the inelasticity variable $y$ are reconstructed with the $e\Sigma$ method~\cite{sigmamethod}, which uses the scattered electron and the HFS. The measurement is performed in the kinematic region $100-0.7$, in order to reduce the background, which strongly increases towards $\cos (\theta^*)=-1$ as opposed to the $D^0$, which decays isotropically. To further reduce the combinatorial background, a $Q^2$-dependent cut on the \dstarpm transverse momentum, $p_T(D^*)/ \rm GeV>(3\cdot[\log(Q^2/ \rm GeV^2)-2]+2)$, is applied. This criterion accounts for the increasing transverse momentum of the hadronic final state with rising \qsq. The \dstarpm candidates in the pseudorapidity range $|\eta(D^*)|<1.5$ are selected using the mass difference method~\cite{deltam}. In Fig.~\ref{fig:signal}(a) the distribution of the mass difference $\Delta m=m(K\pi\pi)-m(K\pi)$ is shown for the selected data sample. A clear peak is observed around the nominal mass difference of $145.4 \, \rm MeV$. Wrong charge $K^{\pm}\pi^\pm \pi^{\mp}$ combinations with $K^\pm \pi^\pm$ pairs in the accepted $D^0$ mass range are used to describe the combinatorial background. The number of \dstarpm mesons is determined in each analysis bin from a simultaneous fit to the signal and the background distributions. The Crystal Ball function~\cite{CB} is used for the signal description and the Granet parametrisation~\cite{granet} for the background. Several fit parameters in the single and double-differential distributions are fixed using the full data sample and the Monte Carlo predictions~\cite{brinkmann}. The cross section presented in this paper corresponds to the kinematic range summarised in Table~\ref{tab:range}. The $p_T(D^*)$ and $\eta(D^*)$ range is chosen to be the same as in previous H1 analyses~\cite{D_H1} at lower \qsq. The Monte Carlo simulation is used for the extrapolation down to $p_T(D^*)=1.5 \, \rm GeV$. This extrapolation typically leads to a $15\%$ increase in the cross section. With all the selection cuts, the average acceptance amounts to around $30\%$. \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2} \begin{table}[htb] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}[t]{|ll|} \hline Photon virtuality $Q^2$ & $1001.5\,{\rm GeV}$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Definition of the kinematic range of the present analysis.} \label{tab:range} \end{center} \end{table} \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0} The inclusive \dstarpm production cross section is studied differentially in the kinematic variables \qsq, $x$, $p_T(D^*)$, $\eta(D^*)$ and the \dstarpm inelasticity $z(D^*)$, which corresponds to the fraction of the virtual photon momentum carried by the \dstarpm meson. The \dstarpm inelasticity is determined as $z(D^*)=P\cdot p_{D^*}/P\cdot q =(E-p_z)_{D^*}/2yE_e$, where $E_e$ is the energy of the incoming electron and $P$, $q$ and $p_{D^*}$ denote the four-momenta of the incoming proton, the exchanged photon and the \dstarpm meson, respectively. The cross section for \dstarpm meson production is calculated from the observed number of \dstarpm candidates $N_{D^{*\pm}}$, according to: \begin{equation} \sigma_{\rm{vis}}(e^+p \rightarrow e^+D^{*\pm} X)= \frac{N_{D^{*\pm}}~\cdot (1-r)} { {\cal L}_{int} \cdot B \cdot\epsilon\cdot(1+\delta_{rad})} \ \ , \label{sigman} \end{equation} where $\epsilon$ is the reconstruction efficiency, $r$ the contribution from reflections, ${\cal L}_{int}$ the integrated luminosity, $B$ the branching ratio and $\delta_{rad}$ denotes the radiative corrections. The reconstruction efficiency accounts for the trigger efficiency and the detector acceptance and is determined using the Monte Carlo simulation. For this purpose charm DIS events are generated using both the RAPGAP and CASCADE programs and the average efficiency is used. For the efficiency determination, RAPGAP is reweighted in $Q^2$ and CASCADE is reweighted in $p_T(D^*)$ in order to optimise the data description. The kinematic distributions of the \dstarpm candidates compared with the reweighted Monte Carlo predictions are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:signal}(b)-(d). The contribution $r$ of reflections in the $D^0$ mass window from $D^0$ decay channels other than that considered in this analysis is estimated using the Monte Carlo simulation. This contribution amounts to $r=(4.4\pm 0.5)\%$ independently of the \dstarpm transverse momentum. The radiative corrections $\delta_{rad}$ are determined using RAPGAP interfaced to HERACLES~4.1~\cite{heracles} and amount to $3\%$ on average. The photoproduction background estimated using data~\cite{brinkmann} is not subtracted, but does not exceed $2.7\%$. The fraction of \dstarpm mesons originating from $b\bar{b} $ events is estimated as described in section~\ref{simulations}. It amounts to $4\%$ on average and is included by definition in the inclusive \dstarpm cross section. However, for the extraction of \ftc, the predicted contribution from $b\bar{b}$ production is subtracted from the data. \section{Systematic Uncertainties} \label{uncertainties} The systematic uncertainties are estimated by varying the input parameters to the Monte Carlo simulations within the experimental precision at the reconstructed level or the range allowed by the theoretical models at the generator level. The following correlated uncertainties are taken into account: \begin{itemize} \item The uncertainty on the hadronic energy scale is propagated to the measurement by changing the hadronic energy by $\pm2\%$ ($\pm3\%$) for events where the scattered electron is detected in the LAr (SpaCal) calorimeter. The uncertainty due to the scattered electron measurement is estimated by varying the electron energy by $\pm1\%$ and the polar angle by $\pm3\,{\rm mrad}$, respectively. \item The trigger efficiency, luminosity and $D^*\rightarrow K\pi\pi$ branching ratio are known with uncertainties of $1\%$, $3.2\%$ and $1.5\%$, respectively. An uncertainty of $1.2\%$ on the cross-section measurement arises due to the uncertainty on the photoproduction background. \item The uncertainty on the reconstruction efficiency is taken as half of the difference between the two simulations, RAPGAP and CASCADE. This also covers the uncertainty on the extrapolation to $p_T(D^*)=1.5 \, \rm GeV$. The uncertainty in the efficiency determination due to the charm fragmentation model is estimated by varying the Kartvelishvili parameter $\alpha$ within its error as described in section~\ref{simulations}. The uncertainty due to the choice of PDFs is estimated by using the CTEQ6L(LO)~\cite{cteq6l} parton densities in RAPGAP and the A2 set~\cite{a2} in CASCADE as alternatives. \end{itemize} \noindent The following uncorrelated systematic uncertainties are accounted for: \begin{itemize} \item The signal shape and the invariant mass resolutions of the data are not fully reproduced by the Monte Carlo simulation. The errors on the \dstarpm signal extraction are determined by varying the fit parameters within their uncertainties. The fraction of events outside the \dzero\ mass window is determined using the Monte Carlo simulation. Half of this fraction is taken as a systematic error to account for the uncertainty on the \dzero\ mass resolution. \item An uncertainty of $0.5\%$ is assigned to the contribution from reflections to account for a possible $ p_T $ dependence. The uncertainty of the QED radiative corrections is $1.5\%$. \end{itemize} \noindent The following uncertainties are treated as partly correlated: The charged particle reconstruction uncertainty of $2.17\%$, which translates to $6.5\%$ per $D^{*\pm}$ and the uncertainty on the electron track-cluster matching of $2\%$. The above uncertainties are added in quadrature to derive the experimental systematic error. The theoretical uncertainties on the HVQDIS prediction are estimated by varying the input parameters as follows. The charm mass is varied from $1.3$ to $1.6 \, \rm GeV$. The factorisation and renormalisation scales $\mu_f=\mu_r$ are varied simultaneously from $0.5\mu_0$ to $2\mu_0$. The fragmentation parameter is varied within its error as described in section~\ref{simulations}. The parton density set CTEQ5F3~\cite{cteq5f3} is used as an alternative to MRST2004FF3. The resulting uncertainties, together with the error on $f(c \to D^*)$, are added in quadrature and are correlated between the bins. The uncertainties on the ZMFVNS prediction~\cite{zmvfns} are estimated by variation of the renormalisation and factorisation scales simultaneously from $0.5\mu_0$ to $2\mu_0$. \section{\boldmath{\dstarpm} Production Cross Section} The total inclusive cross section for \dstarpm production in the phase space covered in this analysis (Table~\ref{tab:range}) is measured to be: $$\sigma_{vis}(e^+p \rightarrow e^+D^{*\pm} X)=225\pm 14({\rm stat.})\pm 27({\rm syst.})~\rm{pb}\ \ .$$ The corresponding predictions from RAPGAP, CASCADE and HVQDIS amount to $322\,{\rm pb}$, $279\,{\rm pb}$, and $241^{+14}_{-15}\,{\rm pb}$, respectively, including the $b\bar{b}$ contribution. In Fig.~\ref{fig:dsigma_xq} and Table~\ref{Tab:dsigma} differential cross sections are presented as a function of the DIS kinematic variables $x$ and $Q^2$ and as a function of the $D^*$ variables $p_T(D^*)$, $\eta(D^*)$ and $z(D^*)$ . The data are compared to the expectations from the HVQDIS calculation and from the RAPGAP and CASCADE Monte Carlo simulations. Neither Monte Carlo simulation describes the shape and normalisation of the \dstarpm kinematic distributions well, in contrast to the measurement~\cite{D_H1} at lower \qsq. The HVQDIS calculation agrees with the data within the theoretical uncertainties. In Fig.~\ref{fig:d2sigma_dydq2} and Table~\ref{Tab:d2sigma} the double differential cross sections are shown as a function of $y$ for different bins in $Q^2$. The data are compared to the expectations of the HVQDIS calculation as well as to the RAPGAP and CASCADE simulations. HVQDIS describes the data well. Except for the first $(Q^2,y)$ bin, the same holds for CASCADE. RAPGAP significantly overestimates the visible cross section. The data are also compared to the ZMVFNS prediction~\cite{zmvfns}. This calculation has an intrinsic limitation on the transverse \dstarpm momentum in the photon-proton center of mass frame, namely $p^*_T(D^*)>2\,{\rm GeV}$. Therefore the same additional cut is applied to the data and the cross section is determined for the corresponding phase space. In Fig.~\ref{fig:dsigma_nlomodels} the \dstarpm cross sections are shown as a function of $p^*_T(D^*)$, $p_T(D^*)$, $\eta(D^*)$ and \qsq, together with the ZMVFNS and HVQDIS calculations. The ZMVFNS prediction fails to describe the data, while HVQDIS agrees well with the data. \section{Extraction of \boldmath{\ftc}} \label{ftwocharm} The charm contribution \ftc$(x,Q^2)$ to the inclusive proton structure function \ft is defined by the expression for the single photon exchange cross section for charm production: \begin{equation} \displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma^{c\bar{c}}}{dxdQ^2}=\frac{2\pi\alpha_{em}^2}{Q^4x} \left( [1+\left(1-y\right)^2]\;F^{c\bar{c}}_2(x,Q^2)-y^2 F^{c\bar{c}}_L(x,Q^2)\right) \ \ , \end{equation} where $\alpha_{em}$ is the electromagnetic coupling constant. Weak interaction effects are neglected. The contribution from the structure function $F_L^{c\bar{c}}$ amounts to at most $3\%$~\cite{riemersma} in the present phase space and is neglected. The visible inclusive $D^{*\pm}$ cross sections $\sigma_{\rm{vis}}^{\rm{exp}}(y,Q^2)$ in bins of $y$ and $Q^2$ are converted to a bin centre corrected $F_2^{c\bar{c}}(\langle x\rangle,\langle Q^2\rangle)$ in the framework of a particular model using the relation: %%PT here \begin{equation} F_2^{c\bar{c}}(\langle x\rangle,\langle Q^2\rangle)= \frac{\displaystyle \sigma_{\rm{vis}}^{\rm{exp}}(y,Q^2)} {\displaystyle \sigma_{\rm{vis}}^{\rm{theo}}(y,Q^2)}\cdot F_2^{c\bar{c}~\rm{theo}}(\langle x\rangle,\langle Q^2\rangle) \ \ , \label{f2cexp} \end{equation} where $\sigma_{\rm{vis}}^{\rm{theo}}$ and $F_2^{c\bar{c}~\rm{theo}}$ are the theoretical predictions from the model under consideration. As in previous publications \cite{D_H1,D_ZEUS} the HVQDIS program and another program~\cite{riemersma} are used to calculate these quantities at NLO. CASCADE is not used for an \ftc\, extraction since it does not agree with the data (Fig.~\ref{fig:dsigma_xq}). The model uncertainties on the measurement of \ftc\, are estimated by varying the HVQDIS parameters as described in section~\ref{uncertainties}. The variations are made simultaneously in the calculation of the visible \dstarpm cross sections and in the prediction for \ftc. The total model uncertainties amount to $1-7\%$ and are dominated by the variation of the renormalisation and factorisation scales. The central values of \ftc\, with experimental and model uncertainties are summarised in Table~\ref{Tab:f2charm}. The fraction of the total \dstarpm cross section in the visible phase space, as predicted by HVQDIS and given by $\frac{\sigma(y,Q^2)^{theo}_{vis}}{\sigma(y,Q^2)^{theo}_{tot}}$, is also quoted and varies between $0.4$ and $0.7$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:f2charm} \ftc\, is shown as a function of $x$ for different values of $Q^2$. The \ftc\, values are consistent with those obtained in an inclusive track measurement using the H1 vertex detector information~\cite{VTX_H1}. The expectation from the recent PDF fit to inclusive DIS data, H1 PDF2009~\cite{h1f2bulk}, tends to overestimate the data. In Fig.~\ref{fig:f2charm}(b) the measurements are compared to the massive FFNS calculation at NLO~\cite{riemersma} and NNLO~\cite{abkm} and to the GMVFNS predictions at NLO and NNLO~\cite{mstw,abkm}. The FFNS predictions agree well with the data over the full kinematic region investigated. The expectations for \ftc\, from a global fit in the GMVFNS at NLO tend to overestimate the data. At NNLO the GMVFNS prediction agrees better with the data. \section{Conclusions} The cross section for \dstarpm meson production is measured in the phase space $100 D*+ X), f(b --> D*+ X) and Gamma(c %anti-c)/Gamma(had) using D*+- mesons,'' \EPJC {\bf 1} (1998) 439 [hep-ex/9708021]. %%CITATION = EPHJA,C1,439;%% \bibitem{hadroo2} 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 (2003), DESY-THESIS-2003-023 (available at http://www-h1.desy.de/publications/theses\_list.html); S.~Hellwig, ``Untersuchung der $D^*-{\pi_{slow}}$ Double Tagging Methode in Charmanalysen'', Dipl. thesis, Univ. Hamburg (2004) (available at http://www-h1.desy.de/publications/theses\_list.html). \bibitem{sigmamethod} U.~Bassler, G.~Bernardi, \NIMA {\bf 361} (1995) 197 [hep-ex/9412004]; U.~Bassler, G.~Bernardi. \NIMA {\bf 426} (1999) 583 [hep-ex/9801017]. \bibitem{PDG08} C.~Amsler \etal ~[Particle Data Group], \PLB {\bf 667} (2008) 1. \bibitem{deltam} G.~J.~Feldman \etal, \PRL ~{\bf 38} (1977) 1313. \bibitem{CB} J.~E.~Gaiser, Ph. D. Thesis, Stanford University (1982). \bibitem{granet} P.~Granet \etal~ [French-Soviet-Collaboration], \NPB {\bf 140} (1978) 389. \bibitem{brinkmann} M.~Brinkmann, Ph. D. Thesis in preparation, Univ. Hamburg (2009) (to be available at http://www-h1.desy.de/publications/theses\_list.html). %\bibitem{geant} GEANT 3, R.~Brun \etal, CERN-DD/EE/84-1. \bibitem{heracles} A.~Kwiatkowski, H.~Spiesberger, and H.J. M\"ohring, Proc. of the Workshop on Physics at HERA (1991), DESY, Hamburg, Vol. {\bf 3} (1992) 1294; A.~Kwiatkowski, H.~Spiesberger, and H.J. M\"ohring, Z. Phys. {\bf C50} (1991) 165. \bibitem{cteq6l} J.~Pumplin \etal, JHEP0207 (2002) 012 [hep-ph/0201195]. \bibitem{a2} M.~Hansson and H.~Jung, Proc. of the XII International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering (DIS 2003), St. Petersburg, Russia, April 23-27 (2003) hep-ph/0309009. \bibitem{cteq5f3} H.~L.~Lai \etal, \EPJC {\bf 12} (2000) 375 [hep-ph/9903282]. \bibitem{cteq6.5m} W.~K.~Tung \etal, JHEP0702 (2007) 053 [hep-ph/0611254] \bibitem{h1f2bulk} %A Precision Measurement of the Inclusive ep Scattering Cross Section at HERA. F.~D.~Aaron \etal~ [H1 Collaboration], accepted for publication by \EPJC, DESY-09-005, arXiv:0904.3513. \bibitem{mstw} R.~S.~Thorne, \PRD {\bf 73} (2006) 054019 [hep-ph/0601245]; A.~D.~Martin, W.~J.~Stirling, R.~S.~Thorne, G.~Watt, arXiv:0901.0002. %R.~S.~Thorne and R.~G.~Roberts, \PRD {\bf 57} (1998) 6871. \bibitem{abkm} S.~Alekhin, J.~Bl\"umlein, S.~Klein, S.~Moch, arXiv:0908.3128; S.~Alekhin, J.~Bl\"umlein, S.~Klein, S.~Moch, arXiv:0811.1412. %20 %\bibitem{sacot} M.A.G. Aivazis \etal~, \PRD {\bf 50} (1994) 3102. %21 %\bibitem{roberts-thorne} A.D. Martin, W.J. Stirling, R.S. Thorne, G. Watt, [arXiv:hep-ph/0901.0002]. %32 %\bibitem{jetset} T. Sj\"ostrand, \CPC 82 (1994) 74. \end{thebibliography} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \newpage \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2} \begin{table} \centering \begin{tabular}[t]{|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline & & & & \\[-0.3cm] \rb{$p_T(D^*) \rm [GeV]$} & \rb{$\frac{d\sigma}{dp_T} [\frac{\rm pb }{\rm GeV}]$} & \rb{$\delta_{stat}[\%]$} & \rb{$\delta_{unc}[\%]$} & \rb{$\delta_{cor}[\%]$}\\[-0.2cm] \hline $1.5 \div 6.0$ & $27.8$ & $11.1$ & $ 7.4$ & $^{+9.2}_{-8.9}$\\ %\hline $6.0 \div 9.5$ & $17.8$ & $9.1 $& $8.3$ & $^{+8.3}_{-8.4}$\\ %\hline $9.5 \div 20$ & $3.31$ & $11.4 $& $11.6$ & $^{+8.1}_{-8.1}$\\ \hline \hline & & & & \\[-0.3cm] \rb{$\eta(D^*)$} & \rb{$\frac{d\sigma}{d\eta} [\rm pb]$} & \rb{$\delta_{stat}[\%]$} & \rb{$\delta_{unc}[\%]$} & \rb{$\delta_{cor}[\%]$}\\[-0.2cm] \hline $-1.5 \div -0.6$ & $51.5$ & $12.0$ & $7.5$ & $^{+7.4}_{-7.4}$\\ %\hline $-0.6 \div \phantom{-} 0.7$& $94.9$ & $ 8.4$ & $8.5$ & $^{+9.7}_{-9.6}$\\ %\hline $\phantom{-} 0.7 \div \phantom{-} 1.5$& $68.1$ & $16.4$ & $8.8$ & $^{+8.0}_{-8.2}$\\ \hline \hline & & & & \\[-0.3cm] \rb{$z(D^*)$} & \rb{$\frac{d\sigma}{dz} [\rm pb] $} & \rb{$\delta_{stat}[\%]$} & \rb{$\delta_{unc}[\%]$} & \rb{$\delta_{cor}[\%]$}\\[-0.2cm] \hline $0.0 \div 0.3$& $234$ & $17.3$ & $ 7.8$ & $^{+8.9}_{-8.7}$\\ %\hline $0.3 \div 0.6$& $328$ & $ 8.4$ & $ 8.3$ & $^{+8.6}_{-8.7}$\\ %\hline $0.6 \div 1.0$& $135$ & $ 8.8$ & $ 9.0$ & $^{+14.5}_{-13.8}$\\ \hline \hline & & & & \\[-0.3cm] \rb{$\log(\frac{Q^2}{\rm GeV^2})$} & \rb{$\frac{d\sigma}{d \rm Q^2} [\frac{\rm pb}{\rm GeV^2}]$} & \rb{$\delta_{stat}[\%]$} & \rb{$\delta_{unc}[\%]$} & \rb{$\delta_{cor}[\%]$}\\[-0.2cm] \hline $2.0 \div 2.2$& $1.88$ & $10.1$ & $7.6$ & $^{+8.6}_{-8.7}$\\ %\hline $2.2 \div 2.4$& $0.767$ & $ 10.0$ & $ 8.2$ & $^{+7.7}_{-7.6}$\\ %\hline $2.4 \div 3.0$& $0.0572$ & $15.7$ & $ 9.6$ & $^{+9.7}_{-9.7}$\\ \hline \hline & & & & \\[-0.3cm] \rb{$\log(x)$} & \rb{$\frac{d\sigma}{dx} [\rm pb]$} & \rb{$\delta_{stat}[\%]$} & \rb{$\delta_{unc}[\%]$} & \rb{$\delta_{cor}[\%]$}\\[-0.2cm] \hline $-2.8 \div -2.4$& $24.8 \times 10^3$ & $13.2$ & $ 7.6$ & $^{+6.9}_{-7.2}$\\ %\hline $-2.4 \div -2.0$& $16.0 \times 10^3$ & $ 9.5$ & $ 8.0$ & $^{+9.5}_{-9.1}$\\ %\hline $-2.0 \div -1.2$& $1.29 \times 10^3$ & $12.3$ & $ 9.2$ & $^{+10.2}_{-10.2}$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Single differential cross sections for \dstarpm production in bins of $Q^2$, $x$ and the meson kinematics, $p_T(D^*)$, $\eta(D^*)$ and $z(D^*)$, as measured in the visible range defined in Table~\ref{tab:range}. The central values of the cross section are listed together with relative statistical ($\delta_{stat}$), uncorrelated ($\delta_{uncor}$) and correlated ($\delta_{cor}$) systematic uncertainties.} \label{Tab:dsigma} \end{table} \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2} \begin{table} \small \centering \begin{tabular}[b]{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline & & & & & \\[-0.2cm] \rb{$\log(\frac{Q^2}{\rm GeV^2})$} & \rb{$y$} & \rb{$\frac{d^2\sigma}{dQ^2 dy} [\frac{\rm pb}{\rm GeV^2}]$} & \rb{$\delta_{stat}[\%]$} & \rb{$\delta_{uncorr}[\%]$} & \rb{$\delta_{corr}[\%]$} \\[-0.1cm] \hline $2.0 \div 2.2$ &$ 0.020 \div 0.350$ &$ 3.39$ & $13.7$ &$ 7.6$ & $^{+11.6}_{-10.8}$\\ \hline $2.0 \div 2.2$ &$ 0.350 \div 0.700$ &$ 2.11$ & $14.8$ &$ 7.6$ & $^{+6.4}_{-6.7}$\\ \hline $2.2 \div 2.4$ &$ 0.020 \div 0.300$ &$ 1.61$ & $13.3$ &$ 8.2$ & $^{+8.0}_{-7.9}$\\ \hline $2.2 \div 2.4$ &$ 0.300 \div 0.700$ &$ 0.810$ & $15.0$ &$ 8.2$ & $^{+7.6}_{-7.4}$\\ \hline $2.4 \div 3.0$ &$ 0.020 \div 0.275$ &$ 0.0921$ & $24.8$ &$ 9.6$ & $^{+10.5}_{-10.4}$\\ \hline $2.4 \div 3.0$ &$ 0.275 \div 0.700$ &$ 0.0803 $& $20.2$ &$ 9.6$ & $^{+9.7}_{-9.7}$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Double differential cross sections for \dstarpm production in bins of $Q^2$ and $y$ as measured in the visible range defined in Table~\ref{tab:range}. The central values of the cross section are listed together with relative statistical ($\delta_{stat}$), uncorrelated ($\delta_{unc}$) and correlated ($\delta_{cor}$) systematic uncertainties.} \label{Tab:d2sigma} \end{table} \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2} \begin{table} \small \centering \begin{tabular}[t]{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline & & & & & & & \\[-0.2cm] \rb{$\langle Q^2\rangle [\rm GeV^2]$} & \rb{$\langle x \rangle$} & \rb{\ftc} & \rb{$\delta_{stat}[\%]$} & \rb{$\delta_{unc}[\%]$} & \rb{$\delta_{cor}[\%]$} & \rb{$\delta_{model}[\%]$} & \rb{$\frac{\sigma(y,Q^2)^{theo}_{vis}}{\sigma(y,Q^2)^{theo}_{tot}}$} \\[-0.1cm] \hline $120$ & $0.00924$ &$0.122$ &$ 13.7$ & $7.6$ & $^{+11.6}_{-10.8}$ &$^{+3.2}_{-3.8}$ & $0.53$\\ \hline $120$ & $0.00241$ &$0.322$ &$ 14.8$ & $7.6$ & $^{+6.4}_{-6.7}$ &$^{+3.4}_{-4.8}$ & $0.63$\\ \hline $200$ & $0.01240$ &$0.168$ &$ 13.3$ & $8.2$ & $^{+8.0}_{-7.9}$ &$^{+3.8}_{-4.6}$ & $0.48$\\ \hline $200$ & $0.00432$ &$0.251$ &$ 15.0$ & $8.2$ & $^{+7.6}_{-7.4}$ &$^{+3.3}_{-3.5}$ & $0.67$\\ \hline $400$ & $0.02480$ &$0.072$ &$ 24.8$ & $9.6$ & $^{+10.5}_{-10.4}$ &$^{+6.5}_{-5.9}$ & $0.43$\\ \hline $400$ & $0.01030$ &$0.136$ &$ 20.2$ & $9.6$ & $^{+9.7}_{-9.7}$ &$^{+3.7}_{-3.8}$ & $0.71$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{The measured values and relative errors for the charm contribution to the proton structure function \ftc. Relative statistical, correlated and uncorrelated experimental systematic as well as model uncertainties are listed. The fractions of the total \dstarpm cross section in the visible phase space as predicted by HVQDIS are also given.} \label{Tab:f2charm} \end{table} \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \newpage \clearpage \begin{figure}[htb] \centering \includegraphics*[width=6.5cm]{d09-165f1a.eps} \includegraphics*[width=6.5cm]{d09-165f1b.eps} \includegraphics*[width=6.5cm]{d09-165f1c.eps} \includegraphics*[width=6.5cm]{d09-165f1d.eps} \caption{a) Distribution of $\Delta m=m(K\pi\pi)-m(K\pi)$ for \dstarpm candidates ($K^\mp \pi^\pm \pi_s^\pm$) and for wrong charge combinations ($K^\pm \pi^\pm \pi_s^\mp$) in the accepted $D^0$ mass window. The fit function is also shown. Comparisons at the detector level between the \dstarpm data sample and the reweighted Monte Carlo models are presented. Background-subtracted distributions are shown as a function of $Q^2$ (b), $p_T(D^*)$ (c) and $\eta(D^*)$ (d).} \label{fig:signal} \end{figure} \newpage \begin{figure}[htb] \begin{center} \includegraphics*[width=6.5cm,height=6.cm]{d09-165f2a.eps} \includegraphics*[width=6.5cm,height=6.cm]{d09-165f2b.eps} \includegraphics*[width=6.5cm,height=6.cm]{d09-165f2c.eps} \includegraphics*[width=6.5cm,height=6.cm]{d09-165f2d.eps} \includegraphics*[width=6.5cm,height=6.cm]{d09-165f2e.eps} \includegraphics*[width=6.5cm,height=6.cm]{d09-165f2f.eps} \end{center} \caption{Differential cross sections for inclusive \dstarpm meson production as a function of $p_T(D^*)$, $\eta (D^*)$, $z(D^*)$, $Q^2$ and $x$. The inner error bars indicate the statistical uncertainties, the outer error bars show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The expectations of CASCADE (dashed line) and RAPGAP (solid line) are obtained using the parameters as described in section~\ref{simulations}. The band of the HVQDIS prediction (shaded) is obtained using the parameter variation described in section~\ref{uncertainties}. The ratio $R=\sigma_{theory}/\sigma_{data}$ is also shown. In the case of HVQDIS the theoretical uncertainties are taken into account. The inner error bars on the data points at $R=1$ display the relative statistical errors, and the outer error bars show the relative statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.} \label{fig:dsigma_xq} \end{figure} \newpage \begin{figure}[htb] \begin{center} \includegraphics*[width=12.5cm]{d09-165f3.eps} \end{center} \caption{Double-differential cross sections for \dstarpm production as a function of $y$ in different $Q^2$ bins. For the purpose of presentation the cross sections are multiplied by $Q^4$. The data (closed symbols) are shown with the statistical (inner error bars) and total (full error bars) uncertainties. Predictions from the RAPGAP (solid line) and CASCADE (dashed line) Monte Carlo simulations and the HVQDIS NLO calculation (shaded area) are also shown.} \label{fig:d2sigma_dydq2} \end{figure} \newpage \begin{figure}[htb] \begin{center} \includegraphics*[width=6.5cm,height=6.4cm]{d09-165f4a.eps} \includegraphics*[width=6.5cm,height=6.4cm]{d09-165f4b.eps} \includegraphics*[width=6.5cm,height=6.4cm]{d09-165f4c.eps} \includegraphics*[width=6.5cm,height=6.4cm]{d09-165f4d.eps} \includegraphics*[width=6.5cm,height=6.4cm]{d09-165f4e.eps} \includegraphics*[width=6.5cm,height=6.4cm]{d09-165f4f.eps} \end{center} \caption{Differential cross sections for inclusive \dstarpm meson production as a function of $p_T(D^*)$, $\eta (D^*)$, $p^*_T(D^*)$, $Q^2$ and $x$ as measured for $p^*_T(D^*)>2 \, \rm GeV$. The inner error bars indicate the statistical uncertainties, the outer error bars show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The expectation of HVQDIS (shaded band) is obtained using the parameter variation described in section~\ref{uncertainties}. The prediction in ZMVFNS is represented by the hatched band where the uncertainty originates from the scale variation.} \label{fig:dsigma_nlomodels} \end{figure} \newpage \begin{figure}[htb] \includegraphics*[width=16.5cm]{d09-165f5a.eps} \includegraphics*[width=16.5cm]{d09-165f5b.eps} \caption{The charm contribution \ftc\, to the proton structure function. The data (closed symbols) are shown with statistical (inner error bars) and total (full error bars) uncertainties. In a) the data are compared to the H1 measurement of \ftc\, using secondary vertex information (open symbols)~\cite{VTX_H1}, where measurements at \qsq$=300 \, \rm GeV^2$ are shifted to \qsq$=400 \, \rm GeV^2$ using the NLO calculation~\cite{riemersma}. The result of the PDF fit H1PDF2009 (shaded band) is also shown. The uncertainty band accounts for experimental, model and parametrisation uncertainties~\cite{h1f2bulk}. In b) the data are compared to the QCD predictions from the NLO calculation~\cite{riemersma} in FFNS (light thick solid line). The predictions from the global PDF fits MSTW08 at NLO (dashed) and NNLO (dark solid) as well as the results of the ABKM fit~\cite{abkm} at NNLO in FFNS (dotted) and GMVFNS (dashed-dotted) are also shown.} \label{fig:f2charm} \end{figure} \end{document}