1 / 118

Emmanuelle Perez (CERN-PH)

School on QCD, Low x physics, Saturation and Diffraction Calabria, Italy, July 1-14, 2007. Determination of parton distribution functions, impact of HERA data & consequences for LHC. Emmanuelle Perez (CERN-PH). Plot shown by A. Martin yesterday. In these lectures we see how we

awentia
Télécharger la présentation

Emmanuelle Perez (CERN-PH)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. School on QCD, Low x physics, Saturation and Diffraction Calabria, Italy, July 1-14, 2007 Determination of parton distribution functions, impact of HERA data & consequences for LHC Emmanuelle Perez (CERN-PH) Plot shown by A. Martin yesterday. In these lectures we see how we get there : - experimental data - QCD fit techniques Emmanuelle.Perez@cern.ch

  2. Lecture 1 : Deep-inelastic scattering and HERA • Deep-inelastic scattering, formalism & basics • The HERA collider and experiments • DIS measurements at HERA Lecture 2 : QCD fits and low x physics • QCD fits : generalities • fits using HERA data alone • “global” fits • - Back to the rise of F2 at low x Lecture 3 : Looking at the future… • Determination of uncertainties related to pdfs • Pdf uncertainties for LHC processes • A better knowledge of pdfs from LHC experiments ? • and beyond LHC… Low x School, July 07

  3. ^ •  is the cross-section of the partonic subprocess, calculable in perturbative • QCD at a given order in S. • Beyond leading order, both the pdfs and the hard cross-section depend on • - the factorisation scale F (separates long & short distance parts of the • scattering process) • - the renormalisation scheme (usually MS , sometimes DIS ) and the • renormalisation scale R Parton distribution functions • Parton distribution functions are the non-perturbative inputs necessary to • calculate a process in a collision involving hadron(s). F2) F2) F2, • Ga/A (xa, F2) represents the probability to find a parton a in hadron A, • carrying a fraction xa of the hadron longitudinal momentum. • They cannot be calculated from first principles. Have to be measured. • Universality of pdfs : the above formula holds for any process. • i.e. measure pdfs from e.g. deep-inelastic scattering, apply them to predict • cross-sections at the LHC. Low x School, July 07

  4. nucleus nucleon quark NC+CC+gluon Low x, diff Probing the nucleon… Scattering of a punctual (e.g. lepton) probe on a target : used for long to underpin the target contents. GE, GM(Q2)  W1, W2() Fi(x,Q2) Form factors, Bjorken scaling, structure functions. Deep inelastic scattering of a lepton off a nucleon (nuclei) is the golden process to study the parton distribution functions. Other processes also bring important constraints, as will be seen later. Low x School, July 07

  5. W2 = squared mass of the hadronic system = ( P + q )2 e PT * e PT2 = ( 1 – y ) Q2 q q Deep-inelastic scattering q = k – k’, Q2 = -q2squared momentum transfer S = (p + k)2 square of center of mass energy Q2 = x y S • V can be : • a  or Z : Neutral Current DIS • a W : Charged Current DIS “inelasticity variable” In nucleon rest-frame, y = (E – E’ ) / E Cross-section depends on 2 variables, generally choose (x, Q2). Partonic interpretation: xBjorken is the fraction of the nucleon longitudinal momentum taken by the “struck” quark, in the frame of infinite momentum for the nucleon (light cone variables : p+(quark) = x P+(N) ) Low x School, July 07

  6.    A  2x P + q = 0 P k ’ eout pin q X ein k +z PX q = (0, 0, 0, Q) P = (Q, 0, 0, -Q) / (2x) (P.k) = (1/2x) (EeQ + Q2/2) = Sep/2 = Q2 / (2xy) Ee = Q(2-y) / (2y)  “Breit” frame : P = (Ep, 0, 0, - Ep) q = (E, 0, 0, qZ) Ep = qZ / 2x A02 = (2xP + q)2 = - Q2 + 4x(P.q) = Q2 (x = Q2 / 2(P.q) ) Hence Q2 = ( 2x Ep + E )2 = (qZ + E )2 Q2 = -q2 = qZ2 - E2 = (qZ - E) (qZ + E) Lepton side : E(ein) = E(eout) since E = 0 same pT  pZ(ein) = - pZ(eout) pZ(ein) = pZ(eout) + Q  pZ(ein) = Q/2 Low x School, July 07

  7. - + 2 2 2 a a ( 1 y ) ( ) 1 æ ö æ ö 1 • For transverse bosons : + = + a = 2 1 cos 2 2 ç ÷ ç ÷ cos sin - 2 ( 2 y ) è ø è ø 2 2 4 a a 2 æ ö 2 = - Contribution of L vanishes at y = 1 2 cos sin ( 1 y ) ç ÷ x ( ) - 2 è ø 2 2 2 y • For longitudinal bosons : Example : amplitudes for right-handed leptons : eout  q  ein z Projection of ein spin on z axis is ½ with d1/21/2, 1/2= cos(/2) and -½ with sin(/2). This gives the following terms in the differential cross-section : • Parity violating term : (R + L) Jz=+1 – (R + L) Jz=-1 goes like : Low x School, July 07

  8. L : 2 (1-y) T : 1 + (1-y)2 PV : y (2-y) Putting everything together : Contain the dependence on the nucleon structure The sum of the first two terms can be rewritten as : [ (1-y)2 + 1 ] [ FT + FL ] - y2FL FT + FL  F2 0  FL  F2 With Y = 1  (1-y)2 the Born-level cross-sections read : Effect of FL large only at large y. Low x School, July 07

  9. _ _ F2 =  e2qi[ qi(x) + qi(x) ] d2 / dydx =  (d / dy )qi [ qi(x) + qi(x) ] un = dp  d dn = up  u _ xF3 : given by the difference (e+ N) - (e- N) : xF3 ~  ci [ qi(x) - qi(x) ] valence e+ e- - from Z interference : 5 coupling ~ ae aq - frompure Z exchange : aeveaqvq - _ q q Partonic interpretation of Neutral Current DIS (I) Cross-section for eq scattering : ( d / dy )q = 22/Q4 e2q [ 1 + (1-y)2 ] qi(x) = probability to find a quark qi with momentum fraction x _ _ In lepton-proton : ~ 4 (u + u) + (d + d) In lepton-neutron : ~ 4 (d + d) + (u + u ) _ _ _ _ In lepton-deuterium : ~ (u + d + u + d ) lp & ld allows to “separate” the flavors. QCD improved parton model, qi(x)  qi(x,Q2) : these two eq. hold at Leading Order. At NLO : F2 and xF3 are given by convolutions of pdfs with coeff. functions. Low x School, July 07

  10. - At NLO, FL is given by a convolution involving the “quark singlet”  (q + q) (contribution from q  qg) and the gluon density (g  qq). - FL ~ gluon density (away from the “valence” region). - FL sensitive to kT of quarks produced in g  qq.  _ qin    0  JZ qout  Partonic interpretation of Neutral Current DIS (II) Quarks have spin 1/2 Helicity conservation FL : back to the Breit frame : JZ,in = JZ,out   must be transverse FL = 0 at Leading Order Non-zero FL at Next-to-Leading Order : when qg in the final state, or when the incoming quark has a non-zero transverse momentum. Happens when the interacting quark comes from a gluon splitting g  qq. Hence : Low x School, July 07

  11. _ _ e+R R R e+R W _ _ uL dL dR uR e+R    e+R qR e+R   qR   _ e+R qL Hence the e+p cross-section goes as (1 –y)2 xD + xU _  qL the e-p cross-section goes as (1 –y)2 xD + xU Comparing with eq. on slide 9 gives : with U = u + c, D = d + s ( + b) _ W2+ = x ( U + D ) W2- = x ( U + D ) _ _ xW3+ = x ( D – U ) xW3- = x ( U – D ) _ Partonic interpretation of Charged Current DIS (charged incident lepton, lp) J = 1 W ( d11,1 )2 ~ ( 1 + cos *)2 ~ ( 1 – y)2 W couples to left-handed fermions and right-handed antifermions. J = 0 ( d00,0 )2 ~ 1 CC(e-p) >> CC(e+p) CC DIS brings important information to separate up / down quarks. Low x School, July 07

  12. _ R +R W _ _ dL, uR uL, dR _ _ _ _ _ _ L -L n : (1-y)2 D + U p : (1-y)2 U + D p : (1-y)2 U + D n : (1-y)2 D + U W _ _ un = dp  d dL, uR uL, dR dn = up  u _ _ W2 = x ( U + D + U + D ) _ _ xW3 = x ( U - U + D - D ) Neutrino Deep-inelastic scattering On proton : On neutron : Weak cross-sections experiments use a heavy target, e.g. Pb (CCFR), Fe (NuTeV), which are nearly isoscalar (i.e. #n ~ #p) _ (  +  ) Hence : _ (  -  ) The data need to be corrected : - for nuclear effects ( q in heavy nuclei differs from q in proton) - to isoscalar target (e.g. 5.7% excess of n over p in Fe) Corrections are not trivial... Low x School, July 07

  13. Via  N -  N _ DIS Fixed target results F2: 1< Q2 < 200 GeV2 xF3: 1< Q2 < 200 GeV2 scaling violations Q2 > 5 GeV2 : data down to 10-2 only approximate Bjorken scaling FL Measurements only at high x Low x School, July 07

  14. Large spread in the theoretical predictions. Pre-HERA status…  What happens towards low x ??  What happens at high Q2 ?? Low x School, July 07

  15. DESY, Hamburg H1 ZEUS The HERA electron-proton collider Equivalent to fixed target exp. with 50 TeV e± Two colliding experiments : H1 and ZEUS HERA I (1992-2000) : ~ 130 pb-1 - mainly e+ p data (only 20 pb-1 of e- p) - several analyses getting finalised on HERA I data HERA II (2003 – 30/06/07) : - ~ 500 pb-1 of data, ~ equally shared between e+ and e- - polarised leptons, P typically 30 -40 % Low x School, July 07

  16. The H1 detector Asymmetric detector : reflects the beam energies asymmetry. p Complete 4π detector Tracking: - central jet chamber - z drift chambers - forward track. detector - Silicon μ-Vtx (operate in a B field of 1.2 T) Calorimeters: - Liquid Argon cal. (em : 10%/E had: 50%/E) - Lead-Fiber cal. (SPACAL) (7% / E) Muon chambers Very forward detectors (e.g. “roman pots”) for diffractive physics. e Low x School, July 07

  17. The ZEUS detector Complete 4π detector Tracking: - central tracking detector - Silicon μ-Vtx (operate in a B field of 1.43 T) Calorimeters: - uranium-scintillator (CAL) σ(E)/E=0.18/√E [emc] σ(E)/E=0.35/√E [had] - instrumented-iron (BAC) Muon chambers Low x School, July 07

  18. HERA kinematic domain Q2 from 0.1 to 105 GeV2 x from 10-6 to ~ 0.8 Up to very high Q2 ~ 105 GeV2 Q2 = xyS with S = (320)2 ~ 1.2 105 GeV2 Huge extension of the kin. domain compared to fixed target expts. For Q2 above ~ 1 GeV2 (perturbative regime), x down to ~ 10-5 Very low Q2 accessible, allow to study the pert – non-pert transition region. Down to very low x, ~ 10-6 ! Low x School, July 07

  19. - From electron only : Q2e = 2 E0e E’e ( 1+cos e) ye = 1 – (E’e/E0e) sin2(e/2) Drawbacks : - resolution in y goes as 1 / ye i.e. bad at low ye - in case of initial state radiation, E0e Ebeam Kinematic Reconstruction • Charged Current DIS : measure only the hadronic final state. Bad resolution at high yh (1) • Neutral Current DIS : HERA experiments measure both the scattered lepton • and the hadronic final state  kinematics is over-constrained. • Combine e and had : replace 2E0e in (1) by 2E0e = (E-pZ)h + (E-pZ)eand use • p2T,e = Q2(1-y) to get Q2 • Kinematics can also be • reconstructed only from • the measured angles of e • and of the had. final state • (HFS). B. Heinemann, PhD Thesis Used for the calibration of the el. energy. Low x School, July 07

  20. Kinematics (I) “kinematic peak” : Ee = Ee0, x = Ee0 / Ep H1 data, Q2 < 150 GeV2 electron Hadronic final state Q2 below ~ 150 GeV2 : e “backward”, Ee limited Higher Ee when e is “central”. Highest Q2 for  < 90o. High x & y NC High x & y CC HFS goes more central as y increases. e p  backward Low x School, July 07

  21. Kinematics (II) – focus on low x and low Q2 Angular acceptance limits the measurements down to Q2 ~ 1.5 – 2 GeV2. Going lower in Q2 requires special techniques or dedicated apparatus. • ~ 180o : y = 1 – E’ / E i.e. high y  low E’ Going towards highest y (for max. sensitivity to FL ) requires : - dedicated triggers, with an energy threshold down to 2-3 GeV - a good understanding of experimental backgrounds (easy to “fake” a low E el.) Low x School, July 07

  22. The first HERA results (1993) Q2 = 15 GeV2 Strong rise of F2 towards low x ! HERA DIS measurements Low x School, July 07

  23. e.g. de Rujula et al., PRD 10 (1974) 1649 Why this was somehow a surprise Extrapolation from pre-HERA data indicated a “flattish” F2 at low x – that’s also what came out from Regge-like arguments. However, it was known (QCD) that the gluon should rise at low x, for Q2 high enough. What was not known is “where” (in x and Q2) the rise should start. dg(x,Q2) / dlnQ2 ~ x dy/y Pgg(x/y) g(x/y) with Pgg(z) ~ 1/z DGLAP equation : Approximate solution : g ~ exp ( -K(Q2) ln(1/x) ) with K(Q2) ~ (ln Q2) Starting from a ~ flat gluon at the “starting” scale, a rising gluon is obtained at higher scales. The “starting” scale, i.e. the scale down to which pQCD was taken to hold, was believed to be ~ a few GeV2. The evolution between Q02 and Q2 ~ 15-20 GeV2 is not long enough to generate a rising gluon from a flattish distribution. Such a rise could be obtained : - from a steep input gluon which could be expected due to large ln(1/x) terms (resummed in the BFKL evolution equation) - from DGLAP and a flattish starting gluon, but at a much lower Q02. Low x School, July 07

  24. (not the final word …) 96-97 data ~ 20 pb-1 stat. accuracy < 1 % systematics ~ 3 % Compared with where we are now… No “gap” between HERA & fixed target data. Low x School, July 07

  25. H1 Collab., EPJ C21 (2001) 33 What is measured is actually not F2, but rather F2 – y2 FL / Y+ (cf slide 9) FL The reduction of the cross-section as y  1 (lowest x), due to the disappearance of the contribution of longitudinal photons, is observed indeed. (more on FL later…) Also note that there is no “gap” between HERA & fixed target data. Low x School, July 07

  26. With increasing luminosity, important statistics over the full kinematics domain. • Good agreement between H1 and ZEUS • and with fixed target measurements • Strong scaling violations observed at • low x – sign of a large gluon density • ( g  qq ) • Negative scaling violations at high x • ( q  qg, a high x quark splits into a • gluon and a lower x quark) Overlaid curves are the results of QCD fits based on the DGLAP equations (see later). Within DGLAP : via F2/lnQ2, access to the gluon density. Excellent agreement with DGLAP, over 5 orders in magnitude in Q2 and 4 orders of magnitude in x. Low x School, July 07

  27. Very precise reconstruction of event’s characteristics and kinematic variables: Phase-space region: 6x10-5 < x < 0.65 2.7 < Q2 < 30000 GeV2 How did we get there… (example of ZEUS analysis) Count nr. of events in appropriately defined (x,Q2) bins Extract reduced cross section Uncertainties are systematics dominated for Q2 < 800 GeV2 Slide from E. Tassi, CTEQ 2003 Low x School, July 07

  28. More on high Q2 NC measurements Recall that due to Z exchange, NC(e-p)  NC(e+p). The difference gives access to xF3. High Q2 measurements done both in e-p and in e+p : - Z exchange contributes for Q2 above a few 103 GeV2 - Z interference is constructive in e-p, destructive in e+p Statistics is limited ! ~ 2uv + dv Neglect pure Z contribution (small) and correct for propagator terms  bring all data to Q2 = 1500 GeV2 Test the x dependence of valence quarks. Low x School, July 07

  29. (subset ot meas.) Pushing towards highest x… ZEUS Collab., EPJ C49 (2007) 523. Quark pdfs are not well known at highest x : - highest measured points at x=0.75 (BCDMS) (data at higher x exist but are in the resonance region, can not easily be interpreted in terms of pdfs) - HERA, standard techniques: xmax=0.65 increasing x Method : if no jet is found at  > 7o, don’t try to reconstruct x, but put the event in a bin [ xedge; 1 ] and measure the integrated . Should bring constraints on high x quarks, especially with the full HERA statistics. No jet found Low x School, July 07

  30. Measurements of CC DIS Recall (slide 12) : _ CC(e+p) goes as (1 –y)2 xD + xU _ CC(e-p)goes as (1 –y)2 xD + xU As an example, our e+p measurements are shown on the plot. HERA I measurements are statistically limited. However, for x ~ 0.1, precision of about 15% is reached (but at highest Q2 where the stat. is low) Brings constraints on “flavor separation”, which are missing from F2p (4U+D) alone. Low x School, July 07

  31. CC(e,SM) ~ (1  Pe) • e+ p : first publications • on HERAII data e- p • e- p : prelim. measurements with the • full available 05 stat. 69 pb-1 HERA I (syst.) typically 4%, (stat.) from 2% to 8% 30 pb-1 27 pb-1 21 pb-1 H1, PLB 634 (2006) 173. ZEUS, PLB 637 (2006) 210. e+ p Extrapolations to Pe =  1 consistent with no WR Low x School, July 07

  32. The charm and beauty contents of the proton • Exclusive measurements : • D* D0 slow  K  slow • and b  X, exploiting PT,rel() and impact parameter • Semi-inclusive measurements : • distributions of the significance of track • impact parameters are used to fit simultaneously • the light q, c and b contributions to F2. • Use silicon vertex devices around the interaction • point. H1 Collab., EPJ C45 (2006) 23 H1 Central Silicon Tracker 2 cylindrical layers, at radii of ~ 5 cm and ~ 10 cm. Impact parameter resolution: As F2, F2bb,cc shows large scaling violations at low x. Note the difference between the MRST and CTEQ predictions. Data now included in the most recent CTEQ analysis. Low x School, July 07

  33. Charm fraction fcc - roughly constant with Q2 - around 24% on average Beauty fraction fbb - increases rapidly with Q2 from ~0.3% to ~3% (i.e. by a factor of 10) Low x School, July 07

  34. e  Extending to lowest Q2 Q2 = 2 E0e E’e ( 1 + cos e) e p To go lower in Q2, needs to : - access larger angles - or lower the incoming energy E0e Larger angles : • dedicated apparatus, e.g. ZEUS Beam Bipe Tracker : silicon strip tracking • detector & EM calorimeter very close to the Beam Pipe. • Was present at HERA I. Allows to cover the range 0.045 < Q2 < 0.65 GeV2 Shifted vertex • shift the interaction vertex in the • forward direction. Two short runs • runs such a setting, with zvtx = 70 cm. • QED Compton events 1 Final electron (2) in the acceptance, 1 larger. 2 Q2 = xyS, S reduced i.e. access higher x at a given Q2. Lower the incoming energy : Exploit initial state radiation events. Low x School, July 07

  35. Example of measurements at lowest Q2 H1 Collab., PLB 598 (2004) 159 • Good agreement with fixed target exps. • F2 continues to rise at low x, even at the • lowest Q2… • as Q2 0, F2 ~ Q2 as required by the • conservation of the EM current. ZEUS Collab., PLB 487 (2000) 53 Low x School, July 07

  36. End of first lecture… _ _ • F2 (ep) measures 4 ( U + U ) + D + D. • Precise measurements from HERA over a huge kinematic range, in particular • extending towards very low x, and towards very high Q2. • Strong rise of F2 towards low x. Unitarity ? • Strong scaling violations at low x. • Withing DGLAP, the measurements of the scaling violations give access to • the gluon density. • The measurement of Charged Current DIS brings information on the flavor • separation. The other source of information (F2p vs F2d,  N vs  N) requires • non trivial corrections to the data. • Measuring xF3 brings information on the valence quark distributions – but • statistics is quite limited. _ Next time : • Extracting pdfs from these measurements • and from these measurements plus those from other experiments • Take a closer look at the low x behavior of HERA measurements. Low x School, July 07

  37. Parameterize a set of pdfs at a “starting scale” Q02 e.g. xg(x) = A x (1-x) P(x) and a set of quark pdfs, e.g. uval, dval, TotalSea =  q, d - u _ _ _ - quite some freedom in choosing what to parameterize - quite some freedom in choosing the form of the parameterization QCD fits to DIS data • Choose the “order of the fit”, LO or NLO. • Usually fits are performed at NLO. NNLO is coming – but so far not many • processes calculated to NNLO. • For NLO : choose the renormalization scheme, MS or DIS. • When pdfs are used to predict e.g. a pp cross-section, scheme should match ! • Most NLO calculations done in MS  most often, fits in MS. • Choose the scales used in the calculation, e.g. R = F = Q2. • Choose how to deal with heavy flavors. • Choose the datasets, and kinematic cuts to be applied to the data points. • e.g. cut away very low x (where DGLAP may break down), very low W2 • (higher twist effects), very high x (would need a resum. of ln(1-x) ) Low x School, July 07

  38. and do assumptions to supplement the lack of sensitivity of the fitted data. • e.g. - s – s not well constrained yet, often assumed that s – s = 0. • - If only lepton-p data are fitted, no information on d – u, set to zero • or to something consistent with other data. _ _ _ _ • Starting scale : not too high, to keep as much data as possible (mainly DIS) • not too low, to be in the perturbative domain. • Typical value Q02 ~ a few GeV2. Id. for c, b • Usually impose number sum rules : And momentum sum rule : • Helps fix the gluon normalisation • “connects” the low x and high x behaviors of g(x) • DGLAP equations give f(x,Q2) at any Q2, once f(x, Q02) is known. • Allows to calculate theo (DIS, DY, jet data,…) and fit theory to data. Low x School, July 07

  39. F2 can be written from a “singlet” and a “non-singlet” distribution. E.g. at LO, below the charm threshold : _ _ _ Non-singlet singlet F2 = 4/9 ( u + u ) + 1/9 ( d + d + s + s ) = 4/18  + 1/6 ( ud – s+) H1 in “H1Pdf2000” fit : choice as close as possible to what is actually measured : g, U = u + c, D = d + s ( + b) , U = u + c , D = d + s ( + b ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ With  =  (q + q ) (singlet), ud = ( u + u ) – (d + d ) and s+ = s + s -  / 3 “Flavor decomposition” : choice of input combinations First, need to define the set of pdf’s combinations that will be evolved (one does not fit the 11 q, q and g distributions, since the data do not contain enough information). The gluon distribution is always one of those. _ Singlet & non-singlet evolve differently  need at least two quark distributions. Need more if interested in more than just the gluon density. Common examples : _ _ g, uVal, dVal, Total Sea, d – u Possibly add strange combinations if some of the included data are sensitive. Low x School, July 07

  40. Singlet part, i.e. gluon and sea quarks :  xg and xq ~ ( 1 / x) P(0) - 1 with P(0) = 1 +   1.08 i.e. xq, xg ~ “flatish” _ _ - Valence quarks : (qqq) ns = 2,  = 3 - Gluons : (qqqg) ns = 3,  = 5 - Antiquarks : (qqq qq ) ns = 4,  = 7 _ Choice of the parametrisation Early days : parameterize xg(x) and xq(x) as ~ x (1-x). Some “predictions” : • Low x behavior : suggested by Regge phenomenology Optical theorem relates F2p to tot(* p) at W2 = Q2 (1-x)/x Regge : tot(* p) ~ A Pomeron ( W2 )P(0) - 1 + A Reggeon ( W2 ) R(0) - 1 Pomeron has no contribution to the non-singlet part  xqval ~ ( 1 / x) R(0) - 1 with R(0) = 0.5 i.e. xqval ~ x 0.5 • High x behavior : simple “dimension arguments”,=2ns-1 where ns is the • number of “spectator quarks” : S. Brodsky et al., ~ 1973, e.g. PRL 31 (1973) 1153 and references therein Low x School, July 07

  41. Don’t forget that the parameterization includes assumptions, e.g. : _ _ d – u = A x (1-x) _ _ assumes that d – u  0 as x  0. Correct ? But : - at which Q2 should these naïve predictions hold ?? - current data show that x (1-x) is too simple ! • Current parameterizations : • e.g. xf(x) = A x (1-x) ( 1 + p0 x + p1 x + p2 x2..) • May use some more or less ad-hoc “2 saturation” procedure to decide whether • or not one adds a new term. • Param : needs to be flexible to allow for a good fit. But should still avoid • unstable fits, secondary minima… • The “best” parameterization depends on the starting scale. • E.g. one finds that, for a starting scale of a few GeV2, a param. • xg(x) = A x (1-x) ( Polynom ) works fine. • For a lower starting scale, ~ 1 GeV2, better fits can be obtained by giving • more flexibility to the gluon density, e.g. (MRST global fits) • xg(x) = A x (1-x) ( Polynom ) - x (1-x)Big Low x School, July 07

  42. Heavy flavor treatment Several “schemes” exist : • Zero-mass Variable Flavor Number scheme (ZM-VFNS) : • c = 0 until Q2 ~ 4 m2c. Above, charm is generated by gluon splitting and is • treated as massless. • drawback: ignores mc near the threshold… • Fixed Flavor Number scheme (FFNS) : • No pdf for c, b. Only 3 active flavors. • For W2 above the threshold (4m2c) • a cc pair can be produced by • photon-gluon fusion. • Drawback : at large Q2, large logs, ln(Q2/m2c). • General-mass Variable Flavor Number scheme • (GM-VFNS) : • the “state-of-the-art”. • somehow interpolates between the two • above approaches. • Not easy to implement esp. at NNLO. _  c c g _ Low x School, July 07

  43. Higher twists and target mass corrections “Higher twists” operators : generally related to correlations between partons in the nucleon. They contribute as additional terms in f(x)/Q2, g(x)/Q4,… to the structure functions, with f(x), g(x) large at high x only. • HT are important at low Q2 and high x • A cut W2 ( + Q2 (1-x)/x) > typically 10 GeV2 allows to be on the safe side. Important esp. for the data from fixed target experiments. • and/or one can correct the data for these HT effects, using some parameterized expressions for f(x) – but no general consensus. Target mass effects : take into account the finite mass of the nucleon (d or heavier). ( P + q)2 = 0 = -Q2 +  m2N + 2  (x.P) q And the measured F2 is related to the “massless” one by : P “higher twist” like, kinematic origin Effects largest at low Q2 and large x. Low x School, July 07

  44. x x x x x W2 > 10 GeV2 x Illustration of HT : MRST(HT) : fit with F2 = F2LT ( 1 + D(x) / Q2) Differences observed between MRST and MRST(HT) at low W2. A cut W2 > about 10 GeV2 allows to stay away from region where HT are important. Note that this cuts out many of the SLAC data points… Low x School, July 07

  45. Goal : determine the gluon density and S. Datasets : H1 low Q2, BCDMS p data. “Massive scheme”, assume symmetric sea : usea = u = d = dsea, s + s = ( u + d ) /2 Need only 3 input densities, the gluon & two quark combinations. _ _ _ _ _ Example 1 : QCD fit to low Q2 ep DIS data H1 Collab., EPJ C21 (2001) 33 Choice : Pure valence  sum rule ( V dx = 3 ) closest to what is measured at low x • Constraints on the gluon density only from • scaling violations. • Correlation between g and S, can be • alleviated only with other data. • Only ep data : no binding corrections needed. • More data needed to disentangle the quarks ! Low x School, July 07

  46. 0.7% 1.4% Model uncertainty : Scale uncertainties : > 5% ! (slide from M. Klein) Low x School, July 07

  47. _ _ Parameterize : xg(x), xU = xu + xc, xD = xd + xs ( + xb), xU , xD by : _ _ _ _ Relation between AU and AD such that d / u  1 as x  0 Example 2 : adding high Q2 DIS data H1 Collab., EPJ C30 (2003) 1 Low Q2 ep DIS data alone (~ 4U + D) give no information about the flavor separation. Would need data on deuterium, see fits presented later. Still with ep only : adding high Q2 CC, e+p and e-p, brings some information: - Charged Current in e+ p : mainly probes the d density - Charged Current in e- p : mainly probes the u density - Neutral Current e-p vs e+p : brings xF3 i.e. combination of uval and dval ( “2 saturation” procedure ) Assumptions : Such that the valence distributions vanish when x  0. Low x assumptions needed. Because no distinction of the rise at low x between xU and xD. xc constant fraction of xU, xs of xD, at starting scale Q02=4 GeV2 Results in 10 free parameters. Low x School, July 07

  48. Q20 = 4 GeV2 Chi2 / ndf = 0.88 for 621 data points (H1 only) Good determination with ep data alone ! Best precision for xU (1.5% at x=10-3, 6.5% at x=0.4). xD mainly from CC e+ (1.6% at x=10-3, 27% at x=0.4) Low x School, July 07

  49. _ _ _ Flavor decomposition : g, uval, dval, total sea =  (q + q ), d - u Assumptions : • p2 = 0.5 for uval and dval (little information on low x valence – cf Regge…) _ _ • d - u : the less constrained pdf with only DIS data… •  fix p2 = 0.5, fix the high-x parameter a la MRST, i.e. fit normalisation only. • ( Hence d = u is imposed by the param. as x  0, cf H1 assumptions) _ _ • xs = 20% of Total Sea (as suggested by dimuon data from CCFR) ZEUS Collab., PRD 67 (2003) 012007 Example 3 : fit (ZEUS) to DIS data Two fits performed : - to ZEUS DIS data only (low Q2 and high Q2, NC and CC) - to ZEUS NC DIS data and DIS data from fixed target experiments : - p and d data (BCDMS, NMC, E665) - NMC data for F2d / F2p  constraints d / u - CCFR data on xF3  constraints the high-x valence Starting scale Q02 = 7 GeV2, Q2min = 2.5 GeV2  11 parameter fit Low x School, July 07

  50. Reasonable agreement with e.g. the H1 and the CTEQ fit… ZEUS data + fixed target Differences however that are not embedded in the error bands, esp. for the valence distributions. • Sensitivity to those has a • different origin in the • H1 and ZEUS fits : • H1 : uses W & Z to do • the flavor separation • ZEUS : this comes mainly • from p vs. d and xF3 • measured in fixed target • experiments. Low x School, July 07

More Related