 assumption, the overall formula (\[eqn:finale\]) does no more depend on the factorization scale $Q_f$. We have shown in ref. [@mp] that the behaviour of $\omega(\gamma)$ when $\gamma$ becomes large cannot be steeper than a polynomial. This constraint comes from the region where $k_\bot$ is large, i.e. where we expect rather a DGLAP evolution. Taking into account this constraint, we will now focus on two definite models relying on different formulations of the residue function $\omega(\gamma)$ at small $\gamma$. On the one hand, the model 1, with $\omega(\gamma)=C (\mbox{constant})$ corresponds to the factorization at the gluon level: all the perturbative content of $k_\bot$-factorization is kept. On the other hand, in model 2, we consider an input compensating the $1/\gamma$ pole of $h_T(\gamma;M^2)$: $\omega(\gamma)\sim\gamma C$ at small $\gamma$. This model corresponds to a factorization at the quark level [@nikolaev], and was discussed in ref. [@mp]. Both models lead to an expression for the proton structure functions depending on three free parameters, $C$, $\alpha_s$, and $Q_0$.

We determine these parameters for both models by a fit of $F_2=F_T+F_L$ in their kinematical region of validity ($x\leq 10^{-2}$, moderate $Q^2$). Using the corresponding 103 experimental points given by the H1 collaboration [@f2], we fit our results (\[eqn:finale\]) with the contribution of the three light quarks $u,d,s$ (assumed massless) and of the charm quark (mass $M_c$). The $F_2$-fit for the medium mass $M_c=1.5\;\mbox{GeV}$ is displayed in figure 1, together with the predictions for its charm component $F_2^c$. For model 1, the $\chi^2$ per point is always less than $0.9$, while for model 2 it is even lower. For model 1, the value of $Q_0$ is around 330 MeV which is a typical non perturbative scale for the proton. The value of the effective coupling constant in the BFKL mechanism $\alpha_s$ ($0.07$) is rather low. For model 2, the data for
assumption, the overall formula (\[eqn: finale\ ]) does no more depend on the factorization scale $ Q_f$. We have testify in referee.   [ @mp ] that the behaviour of $ \omega(\gamma)$ when $ \gamma$ becomes big cannot be exorbitant than a polynomial. This constraint comes from the area where $ k_\bot$ is large, i.e. where we expect rather a DGLAP development. take into account this restraint, we will now focus on two definite models relying on unlike formulations of the residue affair $ \omega(\gamma)$ at small $ \gamma$. On the one hand, the exemplar 1, with $ \omega(\gamma)=C (\mbox{constant})$ corresponds to the factorization at the gluon level: all the perturbative content of $ k_\bot$-factorization is keep. On the other hand, in model 2, we consider an input signal compensating the $ 1/\gamma$ pole of $ h_T(\gamma;M^2)$: $ \omega(\gamma)\sim\gamma C$ at small $ \gamma$. This model corresponds to a factorization at the quark grade   [ @nikolaev ], and was discussed in ref.   [ @mp ]. Both models lead to an expression for the proton social organization function depending on three free parameters, $ C$, $ \alpha_s$, and $ Q_0$. 

 We determine these parameters for both models by a fit of $ F_2 = F_T+F_L$ in their kinematical region of validity ($ x\leq 10^{-2}$, moderate $ Q^2 $). use the corresponding 103 experimental points feed by the H1 collaboration [ @f2 ], we match our results (\[eqn: finale\ ]) with the contribution of the three light quarks $ u, d, s$ (simulate massless) and of the charm quark (mass $ M_c$). The $ F_2$-fit for the medium bulk $ M_c=1.5\;\mbox{GeV}$ is displayed in figure 1, together with the predictions for its charm component $ F_2^c$. For mannequin 1, the $ \chi^2 $ per point is always less than $ 0.9 $, while for model 2 it is even lower. For exemplar 1, the value of $ Q_0 $ is around 330 MeV which is a typical non perturbative plate for the proton. The value of the effective yoke changeless in the BFKL mechanism $ \alpha_s$ ($ 0.07 $) is rather low. For model 2, the datum for
 asdumption, the overall foroula (\[eqn:finale\]) bies no more sepend ov the factorization scale $Q_f$. Ww havt shown in ref. [@mp] thxt the bejaviour if $\onwga(\gamma)$ wisn $\gamma$ becojcs laxgx cannot be stegper than a [olynomial. Thiv zoustraint comes from the region where $k_\bot$ ix parge, i.e. where we txpqct dather a DGLAP evolution. Taking info accolnt this constraimt, we will now focus on twl devinite models relylng on diffgdene formulationr of the rtsndue functikn $\omega(\gamma)$ at small $\gamma$. On the pne hand, tye mofgl 1, with $\omeja(\gammw)=C (\mbox{constant})$ corrasponds to the factorlzatimn qt the gluon level: aln the perturbative content mf $k_\bot$-factorizatiob us kekt. On the ithdr gaid, jn modfl 2, we considsr an input compensating the $1/\gsmiq$ pole of $h_T(\gzmma;M^2)$: $\jmqga(\gamma)\sim\gamma C$ at small $\gamma$. This kodsl corresponds to a facrorization at the quatk level [@niholaev], and was discussed in ref. [@mp]. Both models leag to en exkrcfruoj for the proton structure functions dependind om nhree free paramebers, $C$, $\alpha_s$, and $A_0$.

Wf cgtermine these paramzfeds for both models by a fyt of $F_2=F_T+F_L$ in theor kinematical region of vaoidity ($x\leq 10^{-2}$, noderate $Q^2$). Using tke corresponbing 103 gxperikental points given by che H1 dollaboratiln [@f2], we fjg our results (\[eqv:fikala\]) with the contribution of the threx ligkt quarkr $u,d,x$ (assuied massleds) and of the charm quarn (masd $K_c$). The $F_2$-fih for the medium mass $M_c=1.5\;\mbox{GeV}$ is displayed on ficure 1, toyether with the preqictions for ijs charm eompondnt $F_2^c$. For model 1, the $\chi^2$ pew point is alfwys less thai $0.9$, while sor nodeo 2 it ir even lower. Fot model 1, nht value of $Q_0$ is around 330 MeV xhicf is a typical nin keeturbative scake wor tje pwmton. The valge ow tfr effdctive coupokng vonstant in the BFKL mecganism $\alpha_s$ ($0.07$) is tabher low. Dor modej 2, the data fpr
assumption, the overall formula (\[eqn:finale\]) does no on factorization scale We have shown behaviour $\omega(\gamma)$ when $\gamma$ large cannot be than a polynomial. This constraint comes the region where $k_\bot$ is large, i.e. where we expect rather a DGLAP Taking into account this constraint, we will now focus on two definite models on formulations the function $\omega(\gamma)$ at small $\gamma$. On the one hand, the model 1, with $\omega(\gamma)=C (\mbox{constant})$ corresponds the factorization at the gluon level: all the content of $k_\bot$-factorization is On the other hand, in 2, consider an compensating $1/\gamma$ of $h_T(\gamma;M^2)$: $\omega(\gamma)\sim\gamma at small $\gamma$. This model corresponds to a factorization at the quark level [@nikolaev], and was discussed ref. [@mp]. lead to expression the structure functions depending free parameters, $C$, $\alpha_s$, and $Q_0$. parameters for both models by a fit of in their region of validity ($x\leq 10^{-2}$, moderate Using the corresponding 103 experimental points given by H1 collaboration [@f2], we fit our results (\[eqn:finale\]) with the contribution of the three light (assumed massless) and of charm quark (mass The for medium $M_c=1.5\;\mbox{GeV}$ is in figure 1, together with the predictions for its charm component For model 1, the $\chi^2$ per point is always less while model 2 it even lower. For model the of $Q_0$ is around which a scale the The value of the coupling constant in the BFKL $\alpha_s$ ($0.07$) is rather data for
 assumption, the overall formuLa (\[eqn:finalE\]) does No mOre DePend On thE factorization SCale $q_f$. We have shown in ref. [@mp] thAt the BeHAvioUR oF $\omegA(\gamma)$ wHEn $\GAMma$ BeCoMes LaRGe CannoT be Steeper Than a polynOmiAl. this constraiNT cOmes from thE reGion where $k_\boT$ is Large, i.E. wHerE We expEct RatheR a DGLAp EvolutIon. Taking InTO accouNT this coNSTrAint, We will now focus on tWO dEFinite models reLying oN dIFfEREnt ForMulations oF tHe resIDue funcTIoN $\OMEga(\GAmma)$ at small $\gaMma$. On the one HAnd, The modEl 1, WitH $\Omega(\gAmma)=C (\MbOX{coNstant})$ correSponDs to the faCtorizATion at tHE gluon lEvel: alL thE peRturBAtIvE coNtENt oF $K_\bOt$-fACtoRization Is KePt. On tHe otHER HAnd, iN moDel 2, wE consIder an input coMpeNsatINg tHe $1/\gamMa$ polE of $h_t(\gAmma;M^2)$: $\Omega(\gAmma)\sIm\Gamma C$ at small $\gaMma$. THis model cOrrEsPonDs To a faCTorizaTioN at The quarK level [@nIKolAeV], AND wAs discussed in ref. [@mp]. boTH MoDels lead To an exPReSsIOn for the PrOtoN strUCTure fUnctIOnS dependiNg on thREe FrEe paramEtErs, $C$, $\alPhA_s$, aNd $Q_0$.

we detERminE these ParameteRs for BOth models by a fiT Of $F_2=F_T+F_L$ in theiR KiNEMaTIcal RegIon of validiTy ($x\lEQ 10^{-2}$, modEratE $q^2$). USinG The coRrespOnDInG 103 Experimental points gIvEn by thE H1 colLaboration [@f2], we Fit our resuLTS (\[Eqn:finalE\]) witH ThE Contribution of The thRee light quARks $u,d,s$ (asSumed Massless) And of the cHARm quark (mAss $m_c$). THe $F_2$-Fit FOR tHe medium mass $M_C=1.5\;\MBox{GEV}$ Is displAyeD in figuRe 1, tOgeTheR wiTh The predicTions for ItS cHaRm ComPonenT $f_2^c$. For modEl 1, The $\ChI^2$ peR poinT Is alwaYs lesS thaN $0.9$, wHiLE foR model 2 iT Is EVEn loWeR. FOr moDel 1, ThE valuE of $Q_0$ IS arOund 330 MeV Which is a tYpiCAl noN pErTurbatiVe scale for the PrOton. The valUe Of tHe effeCTIve couplIng constant in the BFKL mecHAnism $\alPha_S$ ($0.07$) is raTher Low. For modEl 2, tHe data For
 assumption, the overall f ormula (\[ eqn:f ina le\ ])  doe s no  more depend o n  the  factorization scale $ Q_f$.  W e  hav e  s hownin ref. [@ m p ] t ha tthe  b e ha viour  of  $\omeg a(\gamma)$  wh en  $\gamma$ be c om es large c ann ot be steepe r t han apo lyn o mial.  Th is co nstrai n t come s from th er egionw here $k _ \ bo t$ i s large, i.e. whe r ew e expect rathe r a DG LA P  e v o lut ion . Taking i nt o acc o unt thi s  c o n s tra i nt, we will n ow focus on two  defin it e m o dels r elyin go n d ifferent fo rmul ations of  the r e sidue f u nction$\omeg a(\ gam ma)$ at  s mal l$ \ga m ma $.O n t he one h an d,  themode l 1 ,  wit h $ \ome ga(\g amma)=C (\mbo x{c onst a nt} )$ co rresp onds  t o the  facto rizat io n at the gluonleve l: all th e p er tur ba tivec ontent  of  $k _\bot$- factori z ati on i s  k ept. On the otherha n d ,in model  2, we co ns i der an i np utcomp e n satin g th e  $ 1/\gamma $ pole of  $ h_T(\ga mm a;M^2) $:  $\ ome ga(\g a mma) \sim\g amma C$at sm a ll $\gamma$. T h is model corr e sp o n ds to a  fa ctorization  att he q uark le vel [@nik olaev ], an d  was discussed in r ef . [@mp ]. Bo th models lea d to an ex p r e ssion fo r th e  p r oton structure  func tions depe n ding onthree  free pa rameters, $ C$, $\al pha _s$ , a nd$ Q _0 $.

We determ i n e th es e param ete rs forbot h m ode lsby  a fit of  $F_2=F_ T+ F_ L$  i n t heirk inematic al  re gi onof va l idity($x\l eq 1 0^ {- 2 }$,  modera t e$ Q ^2$) .Us ingthe  c orres pond i ng103 exp erimental  po i ntsgi ve n by th e H1 collabor at ion [@f2],  w e f it our r esults ( \[eqn:finale\]) with th e  contri but ion o f th e three l igh t quar ks$ u,d,s$  (assu med m as sle s s ) and o fthe  c harm quark ( mas s $M_ c$ ). T he $F_2 $-fit for the medi u m m ass $M_c=1.5\ ;\m box{ G e V} $ i s  d i spl ay e d i n figure 1, toget her with t he pr edictionsf orit s charm  compon ent $ F _2^c$.For model  1, the $ \c hi^2 $ per  point isalways l ess than$ 0.9$, wh ile f ormodel2itis ev en low e r.For m odel 1 ,the va lue o f$Q_0$ is  around 330 MeV which i s a ty pical  no n perturb ati v e s cale fortheproton. Th e v alu e ofthe effec tive co upl i ng co nsta n t in theB FK L m e c ha nism $\alph a _ s $ ( $0.07 $)i s rath er l ow. For model 2,t he data for
 assumption,_the overall_formula (\[eqn:finale\]) does no_more depend_on_the factorization_scale_$Q_f$. We have_shown in ref. [@mp]_that the behaviour of_$\omega(\gamma)$ when $\gamma$_becomes_large cannot be steeper than a polynomial. This constraint comes from the region where_$k_\bot$_is large,_i.e._where_we expect rather a DGLAP_evolution. Taking into account this_constraint, we_will now focus on two definite models relying_on_different formulations of_the residue function $\omega(\gamma)$ at small $\gamma$. On the_one hand, the model 1, with_$\omega(\gamma)=C (\mbox{constant})$ corresponds_to_the_factorization at the gluon_level: all the perturbative content of_$k_\bot$-factorization is kept. On the other_hand, in model 2, we consider an_input compensating the $1/\gamma$ pole of_$h_T(\gamma;M^2)$: $\omega(\gamma)\sim\gamma C$ at small_$\gamma$. This_model corresponds to a factorization_at the quark_level [@nikolaev], and_was discussed in_ref. [@mp]. Both models lead to an_expression for the_proton structure functions depending on three_free_parameters, $C$, $\alpha_s$,_and_$Q_0$.

We_determine these_parameters for both_models_by a_fit_of $F_2=F_T+F_L$ in their kinematical region_of_validity ($x\leq 10^{-2}$, moderate $Q^2$). Using the_corresponding 103 experimental points_given_by the H1 collaboration_[@f2], we fit our results_(\[eqn:finale\]) with the contribution of the_three light_quarks $u,d,s$_(assumed massless) and of the charm quark (mass $M_c$). The $F_2$-fit_for the medium mass $M_c=1.5\;\mbox{GeV}$ is_displayed in figure 1,_together with_the_predictions for its_charm_component $F_2^c$._For model 1, the $\chi^2$ per point_is always_less than $0.9$, while for model_2 it is even_lower._For model 1, the value of_$Q_0$ is around 330 MeV which_is a typical non perturbative_scale_for_the proton. The value of_the effective coupling constant in the_BFKL mechanism $\alpha_s$_($0.07$) is rather low. For model 2,_the_data for