%================================================================
% LaTeX file with prefered layout for H1 paper drafts
% use: dvips -D600 file-name
%================================================================
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{epsfig}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{hhline}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{times}
\usepackage{cite}
\renewcommand{\topfraction}{1.0}
\renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1.0}
\renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.0}
\newlength{\dinwidth}
\newlength{\dinmargin}
\setlength{\dinwidth}{21.0cm}
\textheight23.5cm \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
%===============================title page=============================
\begin{document}  
% The rest
\newcommand{\pom}{{I\!\!P}}
\newcommand{\reg}{{I\!\!R}}
\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{\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{\PO}{I\!\!P}
\newcommand{\xbj}{x}
\newcommand{\xpom}{x_{\PO}}
\newcommand{\dgr}{^\circ}
\newcommand{\gev}{\,\mbox{GeV}}
\newcommand{\GeV}{\rm GeV}
\newcommand{\GeVS}{\rm GeV^2}
\newcommand{\xp}{x_p}
\newcommand{\xpi}{x_\pi}
\newcommand{\xg}{x_\gamma}
\newcommand{\xgj}{x_\gamma^{jet}}
\newcommand{\xpj}{x_p^{jet}}
\newcommand{\xpij}{x_\pi^{jet}}
\renewcommand{\deg}{^\circ}
\newcommand{\qsq}{\ensuremath{Q^2} }
\newcommand{\gevsq}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{GeV}^2} }
\newcommand{\et}{\ensuremath{E_t^*} }
\newcommand{\rap}{\ensuremath{\eta^*} }
\newcommand{\gp}{\ensuremath{\gamma^*}p }
\newcommand{\dsiget}{\ensuremath{{\rm d}\sigma_{ep}/{\rm d}E_t^*} }
\newcommand{\dsigrap}{\ensuremath{{\rm d}\sigma_{ep}/{\rm d}\eta^*} }
% Journal macro
\def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #4 (#3)}
\def\NCA{\em Nuovo Cimento}
\def\NIM{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods}
\def\NIMA{{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods} {\bf A}}
\def\NPB{{\em Nucl. Phys.}   {\bf B}}
\def\PLB{{\em Phys. Lett.}   {\bf B}}
\def\PRL{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}
\def\PRD{{\em Phys. Rev.}    {\bf D}}
\def\PR{{\em Phys. Rev.}    }
\def\ZPC{{\em Z. Phys.}      {\bf C}}
\def\ZP{{\em Z. Phys.}      }
\def\EJC{{\em Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C}}
\def\EJA{{\em Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf A}}
\def\CPC{\em Comp. Phys. Commun.}
\begin{titlepage}


\noindent
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%% For conference papers  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%% coment the header and fill the right conference
%%%%% {\it {\large version of \today}} \\[.3em]
\begin{center} %%% you may want to use this line for working versions
 \begin{small}
 \begin{tabular}{llrr}
 {\bf H1prelim-08-032} Submitted to & & &
 \epsfig{file=/h1/iww/ipublications/H1PublicationTemplates/H1logo_bw_small.epsi
 ,width=1.5cm} \\[.2em] \hline
 \multicolumn{4}{l}{{\bf
                XVI International Workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scattering, DIS2008},
                 April 7-11,~2008,~London} \\
%                  Abstract:        & {\bf }    & & \\
                  Parallel Session & {\bf Hadronic Final States and QCD}   & & \\ \hline
   \multicolumn{4}{l}{\footnotesize {\it Electronic Access:https://www-h1.desy.de/publications/H1preliminary.short\_list.html
     %www-h1.desy.de/h1/www/publications/conf/conf\_list.html
     }} \\[.2em]
 \end{tabular}
 \end{small}
 \end{center}


%Write-up for H1prelim\_08\_032 \\
%\today
%\rm
\vspace*{2cm}

\begin{center}
\begin{Large}
{\boldmath \bf      
    Measurement of Inclusive Jet Production Deep-Inelastic $ep$ Scattering 
    at  low $Q^2$
}

\vspace{2cm}
%Artem Baghdasaryan, Armen Bunyatyan
H1 Collaboration

\end{Large}
\end{center}

\vspace{2cm}

\begin{abstract}
\noindent
Jet production is studied in deep-inelastic positron-proton scattering 
over a range of
four momentum transfer squared $5<Q^2<100~ \rm GeV^2$. The data were taken 
with the H1 detector at HERA in the years 1999-2000 and correspond to 
integrated luminosity of  43.5 $pb^{-1}$. Jets are defined in the Breit 
frame with the 
inclusive $k_T$ algorithm and  have a minimum transverse momentum of 5 GeV.
Inclusive jet cross sections are measured differentially in $Q^2$ and $E_T$
of the jets and
compared to the predictions of perturbative QCD calculations in
next-to-leading order of the strong coupling constant $\alps$. 
The strong coupling $\alps$ is extracted from this measurement.
\end{abstract}

\vspace{1.5cm}

\end{titlepage}


\newpage

\section{Introduction}
This paper presents measurements of inclusive multijet cross-sections
in the Breit frame at low $Q^2$ values ($5<Q^2<100~\GeVS$).
Jets are identified with the inclusive $k_t$ algorithm
in the Breit frame of reference.

The data sample analysed is collected in 1999-2000, and corresponds to
an integrated luminosity of 43.5$pb^{-1}$.
Compared to previous H1 
publications \cite{H1jet1,H1jet2} this corresponds to twice 
the statistics and in addition the systematic errors have been reduced.
The total center of mass energy $\sqrt{s}$ is slighly higher
in the new data (320~GeV compared to 300~GeV)
due to higher proton beam energy (920~GeV compared to 820~GeV).
The results on inclusive jet production are presented in both  single 
differential cross sections as a function of $Q^2$ and $E_T$, respectively, 
and in double differential cross sections in these variables.


\section{Event Kinematics and Reconstruction}
The kinematic range of this analysis is defined by
$5<Q^2<100~\rm GeV^2$ and $0.2<y<0.7$.
The kinematic variables $x$, $Q^2$ and $y$ are determined using 
the information from scattered electron and the hadronic final
states ($e-\Sigma -method$) \cite{esigma}.

%$$
%Q^2=4E_eE'_e cos^2\frac{\theta_e}{2}~~~~~
%y=\frac{2E_e}{ \Sigma+E'_e(1-cos\theta_e)} y_\Sigma~~~~~
%x=\frac{E^{'2}_e sin^2\theta_e}{sy_\Sigma(1-y_\Sigma)}
%$$
%
%\noindent
%$$\rm where~~~ \it \Sigma=\sum_h{E_h-p_{z,h}},~~~~~ 
%y_\Sigma=\frac{\Sigma}{\Sigma+E'_e(1-cos\theta_e)}$$

Jets are defined using the inclusive $k_t$ cluster algorithm in the
Breit frame in which the virtual photon and the parton collide 
head on. In this frame the transverse energies of jets are closely
related to transverse energies of partons emerging the hard
scattering.
Jets are selected by requiring the transverse energy to be 
larger than 5~GeV.
 

%------------------------------------------------------------- 
\section{Event selection }
 The analysis use the data sample collected in positron-proton 
 interactions in  1999-2000. 
 Events were triggered by combinations of SPACAL electron and track 
 triggers.  The  trigger efficiency for jet events is close  to 100\%. 
 The total integrated  luminosity of data sample is 43.5$pb^{-1}$.
  Further cuts are applied to ensure the quality of data and remove
 non-DIS events: the event vertex is required to be 
 within 35~cm from the nominal vertex, energy and angle of scattered 
 electron to be $E_e>7.5~GeV$, $156\deg<\theta_e<175\deg$, respectively.

 Jets are identified with the inclusive $k_t$ algorithm in Breit frame. The 
 minimum $E_T$ is required to be above 5 GeV in that frame. To ensure 
 that jets are fully contained in the calorimeter, the pseudorapidity of 
 jets in the laboratory frame is required to be $-1<\eta^{Lab}<2.5$. 

%For dijet and three-jet 
% cross sections an additional cut on the total invariant mass of the
% jet system, $M_{jj}>25~\GeV$,  is applied.

 The final data sample contains 
 175,000 events with at least one jet satisfying 
 the selection criteria.
% Out of these 53800 events have at least 2 jets,
% 5650 events at least 3 jets and 456 events have 4 or more jets.
%
% (11786 with $M_{jj}>25~\GeV$), 5650 at least 3 jets (4614 
% with $M_{jj}>25~\GeV$), and 456  events have 4 and more jets.
	
%--------------------------------------------------------------------
\section{Monte Carlo Models and Correction procedure}

For the the calculation of correction factors due to detector effects, 
initial state radiation and hadronization
RAPGAP3.1 and DJANGOh1.4 Monte Carlo generators are used.
The CTEQ6D and CTEQ6L parametrizations of the parton 
distribution functions in the proton are used in RAPGAP and DJANGOh, 
respectively.

The data distributions are corrected for effects of limited detector
acceptance and resolution and for  higher order QED effects using
bin-to-bin corrections.
The bin sizes were chosen to ensure the sufficient statistics
and sufficiently high stability and purity in each bin.

The correction factor for each distribution are defined as the ratio
of cross section at hadron level for Monte Carlo sample
which is generated without QED corrections to that at detector level
with QED corrections included.
The correction factor is taken as the average of the values from
DJANGO and RAPGAP, respectively.
The difference between the of corrections from the two Monte Carlo programs 
is on the  average less than 5\% and is included in the systematic erros.

For comparison with NLO calculations the hadronization corrections
are calculated as the ratios of cross sections on the parton level
to that on the hadron level. Again, the average of the corrections 
obtained from the
two Monte Carlo programs is taken as the final correction factor.
The hadronization correction factors agree on the level of 2\% 
between the two Monte Carlo simulations.

%---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\section{Systematic Uncertainties}
The following sources of systematic errors are considered: 
\begin{itemize} 
 \item 
    the 2\% uncertainty on the absolute hadronic energy scale 
    of the LAr calorimeter leads to an uncertainty of about 4--10\% 
     on the jet cross section. This is strongly correlated between data points;
 \item
        the uncertainty of the SPACAL hadronic energy scale of 7\% contributes to
        less than 1\% to the cross section;
 \item
       the uncertainties on the measurements of the positron energy (2\%)
       and angle (1mrad) lead to 1--3\% systematic uncertainties in the  cross sections;
 \item
       the uncertainty of the corrections for detector effects
       and initial state radiation  is 2--15\%,
 \item
        luminosity is measured with the uncertainty of 1.5\%;
 \item 
        finally, 1\%  uncertainty is attributed to the 
        trigger efficiencies as evaluated using independent triggers.
\end{itemize}
% In total, for single inclusive cross sections the total systematic error
% varies from bin to bin between 8 and 19\%, being on the average about 10\%.

%---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\section{Results}

The results shown in figires \ref{final1}-\ref{final5} comprise 
inclusive jet cross sections as function of $Q^2$ and $E_T$, 
as well as the double differential cross sections in $Q^2$ and $E_T$.

The measured cross-sections are compared with NLO QCD calculations. 
The NLO calculations are made using the  NLOJET++ program.
The calculations are performed in the $\overline{\rm MS}$  scheme for five
massive quark flavours, and the parton PDF of the proton taken from the
%CTEQ6.1M set \cite{cteq61m}. 
CTEQ6 set \cite{cteq61m}. 
$Q^2$ is used as factorization scale ($\mu_F$), whereas 
the renormalization scale ($\mu_R$) is chosen to be $\sqrt{(Q^2+E_T^2)/4}$.
The error band on NLO predictions reflect the variation the 
scales $\mu$ by a factor of 2
up and down using the NLOJET++ \cite{nlojet} program.
The NLO QCD calculations corrected for hadronization provide quite 
reasonable description of single inclusive jet cross sections.
The measurements show strong sensitivity to the choice of
the renormalisation scale.
The calculations have been repeated with $\mu_R=E_T$.
This scale provides worse description of the data at lower $Q^2$ and $E_T$,
as shown in the figures \ref{final3} and \ref{final4}.

%The results for comparison with the data are obtained using the values
%provided by $fastNLO$ \cite{fastnlo} package.


The fastNLO program \cite{fastnlo} was used to estimate uncertainty on NLO predictions
arising from variations of factorization and renormalization scales,
from the value of $\alps$ and the  proton PDF. 
The different sources of uncertainties are shown with different
error bands:
 \begin{itemize}
 \item
  uncertainty arising from the renormalisation and factorisation scales 
  ($\mu_R$, $\mu_F$)  are estimated  by varying them  by  factors 2 and 0.5
   separately and added the results of variation in quadrature.
   The contribution to uncertainty is up to 30\%.
 \item 
   variation of $\alps$ between 0.116 and 0.120 gives variation of cross sections 
   up to 5\%
 \item 
   variation of 40 different eigenvectors of CTEQ6 proton PDF parameterisation
   gives up to 6\% incertainty
 \end{itemize}

%The present results for single inclusive jet cross sections
%are compared to the previous results from the paper \cite{H1jet2}.
%% and \cite{H1jet1} respectively. 
%Since this measurement has been made in a
%somewhat different kinematic range, our analysis has been repeated with
%the cuts used in this paper. The residual difference between
%the present and old results can be explained by the difference in
%proton beam energy, as has been checked with NLOJET program.


\section{Extraction of the strong coupling $\alpha_s$}

The measured double differential inclusive jet 
cross sections (Fig.\ref{final5}) have been used to extract
the strong coupling $\alpha_s$.
The extracted value of $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ averaged over all 
measured data points is 

$$\alpha_s(M_Z) = 0.1186 \pm 0.0014 (exp) ^{+0.0132} _{-0.0101} (theory) \pm 0.0021 (pdf),~~
\chi ^2/ndf = 20.49 / 27$$

The results of the fit are shown in Figs.\ref{final7} and Figs.\ref{final8}.
Fig.\ref{final9} shows the $\alpha_s(\mu=Q)$ from this measurement
together with the values obtained from high $Q^2$ region ($Q^2>150~GeV^2$)
\cite{highQ2}.


\section{Summary}

Inclusive jet cross-sections have been measured for values of $Q^2$
between 5 and 100 $\GeV^2$ and $0.2<y<0.7$ with the H1 detector.
Jets were selected using the inclusive $k_T$ algorithm
in the Breit frame and were required to have a minimum 
transverse energy of $5~\GeV$. QCD calculations up to second
order in the strong coupling constant $\alps$ were compared
with the data.

The statistcal precision in the present measurement is on the level of
0.5-0.7\% for the single differential jet cross sections, and 3-4\% for
the double differential cross sections.

The value of strong coupling $\alpha_s$ is extacted from the measurements.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{thebibliography}{99}

\bibitem{esigma}
U.~Bassler, G.~Bernardi, 
"On the kinematic reconstruction of deep inelastic scattering 
at HERA: The Sigma method",
DESY-94-231, \Journal{\NIMA}{361}{1995}{197}, [hep-ex/9412004].

\bibitem{H1jet1}
C.~Adloff {\it et al.}  [H1 Collaboration],
 "Measurement and QCD Analysis of Jet Cross Sections in 
  Deep-Inelastic Positron-Proton Collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ 
  of 300 GeV",
 \Journal{\EJC}{19}{2001}{289},
   [hep-ex/0010054];

\bibitem{H1jet2}
C.~Adloff {\it et al.}  [H1 Collaboration], 
"Measurement of Inclusive Jet Cross-Sections in Deep-Inelastic 
 ep-Scattering at HERA",
\Journal{\PLB}{542}{2002}{19},
   [hep-ex/0206029];

\bibitem{fastnlo}
T.Kluge, K.Rabbertz and M.Wobish, "fastNLO: Fast pQCD calculations for 
PDF fits." [hep-ph/0609285];\\
T.Kluge, private communication
 
\bibitem{cteq61m}
D.~Stump {\it et al.}, " Inclusive jet production, parton distributions, 
and the search for new physics", \it JHEP 0310:046,2003. \rm

\bibitem{nlojet}
Z.~Nagy, Z.~Trocsanyi, \Journal{\PRL}{87}{2001}{082001}, [hep-ph/0104315]. 

\bibitem{highQ2}
 Inclusive Jet Production at high $Q^2$ and determination of $\alpha_s$,
 H1preliminary-08-031, \\
 (\it https://www-h1.desy.de/h1/www/publications/htmlsplit/H1prelim-08-031.long.html \rm)


\end{thebibliography}

%*****************************************************************8
\begin{table}[h]
 \label{table1}
  \begin{tabular}{| l | l | l | l | l | l | l |}
     \hline 
%
     Measurement & $\alpha_S(M_Z)$ & exp.error &
     \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{scale error} &
     PDF error & $\chi ^2$/ndf \\
 \hline 
     $\sigma _{Incl.JET}=f(Q^2,E_T)$    &
     0.1186 & 0.0014 & +0.0132 & -0.0101 & 0.0021 & 20.5/27 \\
     (low $Q^2$) & & & & & & \\ \hline
%
%       
     $\sigma_{Incl.JET}/\sigma_{DIS},\sigma_{2JET}/\sigma_{DIS}$, &
     0.1182 & 0.0008 & +0.0041 & -0.0031 & 0.0018 & 54.8/53 \\
     $\sigma_{3JET}/\sigma_{DIS}$ & & & & & & \\ 
     (high $Q^2$) & & & & & & \\ \hline
%%       
%     $\sigma_{Incl.JET}/\sigma_{DIS}=f(Q^2,E_T)$ &
%     0.1196 & 0.0010 & +0.0049 & -0.0036 & 0.0019 & 26.8/23 \\
%     (high $Q^2$) & & & & & & \\ \hline
%%       
%     $\sigma_{2JET}/\sigma_{DIS}=f(Q^2,<E_T>)$ &
%     0.1171 & 0.0010 & +0.0048 & -0.0036 & 0.0018 & 28.1/23 \\
%     (high $Q^2$) & & & & & & \\ \hline
%%       
%     $\sigma_{3JET}/\sigma_{DIS}=f(Q^2)$ &
%     0.1179 & 0.0014 & +0.0056 & -0.0034 & 0.0009 & 4.53/5 \\
%     (high $Q^2$) & & & & & & \\ \hline
%%       
  \end{tabular}
 \caption{Values of $\alpha_S(M_Z)$ obtained from 
         a fit of 28 measurements of double differential
         inclusive jet cross sections $d^2\sigma/dQ^2dE_T$ 
         (this measurement, upper row) 
         and from the fits to the inclusive jet, dijet and
         treejet normalised cross sections at high $Q^2$ ($Q^2>150~GeV^2$)
         \cite{highQ2}}
\end{table}
%*****************************************************************8
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[h]
\epsfig{file= H1prelim-08-032.fig1.eps,
width=70mm,angle=270,bbllx=63pt,bblly=63pt,bburx=390pt,bbury=790pt,clip= }
\caption{Inclusive jet cross sections $d\sigma/dQ^2$ and $d\sigma/dE_T$, 
 compared with NLO predictions corrected for hadronisation. 
 The NLO calculation use the factorization scale $\mu_F^2=Q^2$ and
   the renormalization scale $\mu_R^2=(Q^2+E_T^2)/4$.
 The error bands reflect the uncertainties on NLO predictions
 arising from either hadronisaton corrections and the 
 variation of renormalisation anf factorisation scales
 by factors 2 and 0.5.}
\label{final1}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[h]
\epsfig{file= H1prelim-08-032.fig2.eps,
width=150mm,angle=270,bbllx=57pt,bblly=180pt,bburx=570pt,bbury=690pt,clip= }
\caption{Inclusive jet cross sections $d\sigma/dQ^2$ and $d\sigma/dE_T$, 
 compared with NLO predictions corrected for hadronisation. 
 The NLO calculation use the factorization scale $\mu_F^2=Q^2$ and
   the renormalization scale $\mu_R^2=(Q^2+E_T^2)/4$.
 The error bands reflect the uncertainties on NLO predictions
 arising from either hadronisaton corrections and the 
 variation of renormalisation anf factorisation scales
 by factors 2 and 0.5, or variation of $\alps$ from 0.116 to 0.120, or PDF
 uncertainties calculated from variation of 40 eigenfunctions of CTEQ6.1
 proton PDF.}
\label{final2}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[h]
\hspace*{-20mm}
\epsfig{file= H1prelim-08-032.fig3.eps,
width=80mm,angle=270,bbllx=64pt,bblly=64pt,bburx=390pt,bbury=790pt,clip= }
\caption{Inclusive jet cross sections $d\sigma/dQ^2$, compared with NLO
 predictions corrected for hadronisation using two different
 choices of renormalisation scale $\mu_R^2=(Q^2+E_T^2)/4$ or $E_T^2$.}
\label{final3}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[h]
\hspace*{-20mm}
\epsfig{file= H1prelim-08-032.fig4.eps,
width=80mm,angle=270,bbllx=64pt,bblly=64pt,bburx=390pt,bbury=790pt,clip= }
\caption{Inclusive jet cross sections $d\sigma/dE_T$, compared with NLO
 predictions corrected for hadronisation using two different
 choices of renormalisation scale $\mu_R^2=(Q^2+E_T^2)/4$ or $E_T^2$.}
\label{final4}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\begin{figure}[h]
\hspace*{-20mm}
\epsfig{file=H1prelim-08-032.fig5.eps,
width=140mm,angle=270,bbllx=60pt,bblly=50pt,bburx=570pt,bbury=750pt,clip= }
\caption{Inclusive double differential jet cross sections, compared with NLO
 predictions corrected for hadronisation.
 The error bands reflect the uncertainties on NLO predictions
 arising from hadronisation corrections and the
  variation of renormalisation and factorisation scales
   by factors 2 and 0.5  and the hadronisation.
   The NLO calculation use the factorization scale $\mu_F^2=Q^2$ and
   the renormalization scale $\mu_R^2=(Q^2+E_T^2)/4$}
\label{final5}
\end{figure}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[h]
\hspace*{-20mm}
\epsfig{file=H1prelim-08-032.fig6.eps,
width=140mm,angle=270,bbllx=60pt,bblly=50pt,bburx=570pt,bbury=750pt,clip= }
\caption{Inclusive double differential jet cross sections, compared with NLO
 predictions corrected for hadronisation.
 The error bands reflect the uncertainties on NLO predictions
 arising from hadronisation corrections and the
  variation of renormalisation and factorisation scales
   by factors 2 and 0.5  and the hadronisation.
  The NLO calculation use the factorization scale $\mu_F^2=Q^2$ and
   the renormalization scale $\mu_R^2=E_T^2$}
\label{final6}
\end{figure}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[h]
\hspace*{-20mm}
\epsfig{file=H1prelim-08-032.fig7.eps,
width=120mm,angle=270,bbllx=80pt,bblly=20pt,bburx=570pt,bbury=770pt,clip= }
\caption{Results of the fitted values of $\alpha_s(E_T)$ using the
inclusive jet cross sections for seven regions of $Q^2$.
The error bar denotes the total experimental uncertainty of each 
data point. 
The solid line shows the two loop solution
of the renormalisation group equation evolving the $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ 
% from Guenter
obtained from a fit of 28 measurements of double differential 
inclusive jet cross sections $d^2\sigma/dQ^2dE_T$ (Fig.5), with the inner  
% averaged from all individual fits, with the
blue band denoting the correlated experimental uncertainties and the
grey band denoting 
the theoretical uncertainties associated with the renormalisation
and factorisation scales, PDF uncertainty and the hadronisation 
corrections.}
\label{final7}
\end{figure}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[h]
%\hspace*{-20mm}
\centering
\epsfig{file=H1prelim-08-032.fig8.eps,
width=75mm,angle=270,bbllx=1pt,bblly=20pt,bburx=570pt,bbury=670pt,clip= }
\caption{Results of the fitted values of $\alpha_s(\mu=Q)$ averaged
over all $E_T$ regions. The error bar denotes the total experimental
uncertainty of each data point. 
The solid line shows the two loop solution
of the renormalisation group equation evolving the $\alpha_s(M_Z)$
% from Guenter
obtained from a fit of 28 measurements of double differential
inclusive jet cross sections $d^2\sigma/dQ^2dE_T$ (Fig.5), with the inner     
% averaged from all individual fits, with the     
blue band denoting the correlated experimental uncertainties and the
grey band denoting
the theoretical uncertainties associated with the renormalisation
and factorisation scales, PDF uncertainty and the hadronisation  
corrections.}
\label{final8}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[h]
%\hspace*{-20mm}
\centering
\epsfig{file=H1prelim-08-032.fig9.eps,
width=75mm,angle=270,bbllx=1pt,bblly=20pt,bburx=570pt,bbury=670pt,clip= }
\caption{Results of the fitted values of $\alpha_s(\mu=Q)$
from the low $Q^2$ measurements (red points, same as poins on Fig.8) and the
high $Q^2$ measurements (black points, H1prelim-08-031).
The error bar denotes the total experimental
uncertainty of each data point.
The solid curve shows the result of evolving $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ 
obtained from a fit to
% averaged from 
the inclusive, dijet and
threejet normalised cross sections at high $Q^2$ ($Q^2>150~GeV^2$),
with the inner blue band denoting  the correlated experimental uncertainties 
and the grey band denoting
the theoretical uncertainties associated with the renormalisation
and factorisation scales, PDF uncertainty and the hadronisation corrections.}
\label{final9}
\end{figure}

\end{document}


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[h]
\hspace*{-20mm}
\epsfig{file=H1prelim-08-032.fig7_testcolor.eps,
width=120mm,angle=270,bbllx=80pt,bblly=20pt,bburx=570pt,bbury=770pt,clip= }
\caption{test color}
\label{final10}
\end{figure}


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[h]
%\hspace*{-20mm}
\centering
\epsfig{file=H1prelim-08-032.fig8_testcolor.eps,
width=75mm,angle=270,bbllx=1pt,bblly=20pt,bburx=570pt,bbury=670pt,clip= }
\caption{test color}
\label{final11}
\end{figure}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\end{document}


