1: \documentstyle[eqsecnum,epsfig,aps,preprint,tighten]{revtex}

2: \def\btt#1{{\tt$\backslash$#1}}

3: \def\BibTeX{\rm B{\sc ib}\TeX}

4: \begin{document}

5: \draft

6: \preprint{IHEP 2000-39}

7: \title{Global fit to the charged leptons DIS data:

8: \boldmath{$\alpha_{\rm s}$,} parton distributions, and high twists}

9: \author{S. I. Alekhin}

10: \address{Institute for High Energy Physics, Protvino, 142284, Russia}

11: \date{October 2000}

12: \maketitle

13: \begin{abstract}

14: We perform the NLO QCD analysis of the world data 

15: on inclusive deep inelastic scattering cross sections 

16: of charged leptons off the proton and the deuterium targets. 

17: The parton distributions, the value of strong coupling constant

18: $\alpha_{\rm s}$, 

19: and the twist 4 contributions to the structure functions 

20: $F_2$ and $F_{\rm L}$ are extracted with the complete

21: account for the correlations of data points due to the systematic errors.

22: Sensitivity of the $\alpha_{\rm s}$ value and the high twist 

23: contribution to the procedures of accounting for 

24: the systematic errors is studied.

25: The impact of theoretical uncertainties 

26: on the value of $\alpha_{\rm s}$ and on the parton distributions is 

27: analysed. The obtained value of strong coupling constant

28: with the account of these uncertainties is 

29: $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})=0.1165\pm0.0017({\rm stat+syst})

30: \pm^{0.0026}_{0.0034}({\rm theor})$. The uncertainties of 

31: parton-parton luminosities for the FNAL and LHC colliders 

32: are estimated.

33: \end{abstract}

34: 

35: \pacs{PACS number(s): 13.60Hb,12.38Bx,06.20.Jr}

36: 

37: 

38: \section{Introduction}

39: \label{introduction}

40: 

41: Experiments on deep inelastic scattering (DIS) of leptons off nucleons is 

42: a unique source of information about strong interaction.

43: These experiments were initiated at SLAC linac and later were continued

44: at different accelerators using the fixed targets and the colliding 

45: electron-proton beams. The data  

46: for proton and deuterium targets, given in 

47: Refs.~\cite{Whitlow:1992uw,Benvenuti:1989rh,Arneodo:1997qe,Adams:1996gu}

48: are especially valuable, since no heavy-nucleus corrections are needed

49: for their interpretation. Those data combined with the 

50: results from HERA electron-proton collider 

51: \cite{Aid:1996au,Derrick:1996hn} allows one to determine 

52: the parton distribution functions (PDFs) and 

53: are widely used for this purpose. In particular, global 

54: fits of PDFs, which are regularly updated by 

55: collaborations MRST \cite{Martin:2000ww}

56: and CTEQ\cite{Lai:2000wy}, rely heavily on the DIS data.

57: It is often mentioned, that the MRST and CTEQ PDFs lack information on 

58: uncertainties, that does not allow one to estimate the uncertainties 

59: on the cross sections, which are calculated using those PDFs.

60: Most often these uncertainties are estimated as a spread of results,

61: obtained using different PDFs sets. Meanwhile, it is evident, that  

62: if different PDFs are based on the same theoretical model

63: fitted to a similar data sets, this spread 

64: mainly reflects uncertainties of calculations, rather, than

65: real uncertainties arising from statistical and systematic 

66: errors on the data used for the extraction of PDFs.

67: Besides, those collaborations combine statistical and systematic errors

68: in quadrature, i.e. do not account for the correlation of the latter. 

69: Since systematic errors dominate over statistical ones for many DIS experiments, 

70: they govern total experimental errors on the 

71: PDFs parameters fitted to the data and ignorance of their correlations 

72: may lead to the distortion of the parameters errors and to the bias 

73: of their central values. 

74: 

75: Statistical and systematic errors are combined in quadrature 

76: in part by historical reasons. The other reason is that,

77: contrary to the case of statistical errors,

78: existing approaches to the account of systematic errors are not so 

79: straightforward and encounter with technical difficulties 

80: generated by correlations between measurements, which 

81: become more significant when the systematic errors rise,

82: as compared with the statistical ones. Nevertheless, as it was shown 

83: in Ref.\cite{Alekhin:1999za} on the example of combined analysis 

84: of DIS data from 

85: Refs.\cite{Benvenuti:1989rh,Arneodo:1997qe,Aid:1996au,Derrick:1996hn}

86: with the complete account of correlations due to systematic errors,

87: these difficulties can be overcomed using in the fit 

88: an estimator based on the covariance matrix. 

89: The results of the combined analysis of data from 

90: Refs.\cite{Whitlow:1992uw,Benvenuti:1989rh,Arneodo:1997qe,Adams:1996gu,Aid:1996au,Derrick:1996hn}, 

91: which attempted to account for correlations of systematic errors, was 

92: later given in Ref.\cite{Botje:2000dj},

93: but due to the large number of 

94: independent sources of the systematic errors, they were  

95: combined with the statistical errors partially. Regardless of the expressed confidence 

96: that this procedure should have minimal impact

97: on the results, this point is not ultimately clarified and 

98: it is evident that errors on the obtained PDFs may be distorted.

99: 

100: In this paper we describe the results of the combined analysis 

101: of the world data on the charged leptons DIS off the proton and deuterium 

102: targets given in Refs.  

103: \cite{Whitlow:1992uw,Benvenuti:1989rh,Arneodo:1997qe,Adams:1996gu,Aid:1996au,Derrick:1996hn}.

104: In comparison 

105: with our previous fit of Ref.\cite{Alekhin:1999za} in the present analysis we 

106: use data with lower values of transferred momentum $Q$.

107: Besides, the data from the SLAC experiments and the experiment FNAL-E-665 

108: are added. As well as in Ref.\cite{Alekhin:1999za}, we extract from the data 

109: the nucleon PDFs and the value of strong coupling constant 

110: $\alpha_{\rm s}$. In addition, wealth of data at low $Q$ allows one to determine 

111: the high twist (HT) contributions to the structure functions

112: $F_2$ and $F_{\rm L}$ as well.

113: Analysis is performed in the NLO QCD approximation with the complete 

114: account of correlations due to systematic errors within approach 

115: described in Ref.\cite{Alekhin:2000es}.

116: 

117: \section{The DIS phenomenology}

118: \label{sec:theory}

119: 

120: It is well known that the DIS cross section of charged leptons off 

121: nucleons can be expressed in terms of structure functions 

122: $F_{2,3,{\rm L}}$\footnote{The comprehensive analysis of 

123: lepton-nucleon scattering amplitudes, including notations used 

124: throughout our paper is given, e.g., in review \protect\cite{Altarelli:1982ax}.}.

125: For example, at 4-momentum transfers $Q$ less, than the  

126: $Z$-boson mass the charged leptons cross section reads

127: \begin{equation}

128: \frac{d^2\sigma}{dxdy}=\frac{4\pi\alpha^2(s-M^2)}{Q^4}

129: \left[\left(1-y-\frac{(Mxy)^2}{Q^2}\right)F_2+

130: \left(1-2\frac{m_{\rm l}^2}{Q^2}\right)

131: \frac{y^2}{2}\left(F_2-F_{\rm L}\right)\right],

132: \label{eqn:discs}

133: \end{equation}

134: where $s$ is the s.c.m. energy, $m_{\rm l}$ is the lepton mass,

135: $y$ is the ratio of the energy lost by lepton to

136: the initial lepton energy,

137: $x$ is the Bjorken scaling variable, 

138: $M$ is the nucleon mass,

139: $\alpha$ is the electro-magnetic coupling constant.

140: The structure functions 

141: $F_{2,\rm L}$ depend on the variables $x$ and $Q$.

142: Within the operator product expansion \cite{Wilson:1969zs} 

143: the structure functions are given by the sum of contributions 

144: coming from operators of different twists. For the unpolarized 

145: lepton scattering the even twists larger or equal to two contribute only.

146: Thus with the account of the twist-4 contribution 

147: \begin{equation}

148: F_{2,\rm L}(x,Q)=F_{2,\rm L}^{\rm LT,TMC}(x,Q)

149: +H_{2,\rm L}(x)\frac{1~{\rm GeV}^2}{Q^2},

150: \label{eqn:addht}

151: \end{equation}

152: where $F_{2,\rm L}^{\rm LT,TMC}$ gives the leading twist (LT) 

153: with the account of target mass corrections, as calculated in 

154: Ref.~\cite{Georgi:1976ve}:

155: \begin{equation}

156: F_2^{\rm LT,TMC}(x,Q)=\frac{x^2}{\tau^{3/2}}

157: \frac{F_2^{\rm LT}(\xi_{\rm TMC},Q)}{\xi_{\rm TMC}^2}+

158: 6\frac{M^2}{Q^2}\frac{x^3}{\tau^2}I_2,

159: \label{eqn:f2tmc}

160: \end{equation}

161: \begin{equation}

162: F_{\rm L}^{\rm LT,TMC}(x,Q)=F_{\rm L}^{\rm LT}(x,Q)

163: +\frac{x^2}{\tau^{3/2}}(1-\tau)

164: \frac{F_2^{\rm LT}(\xi_{\rm TMC},Q)}{\xi_{\rm TMC}^2}

165: +\frac{M^2}{Q^2}\frac{x^3}{\tau^2}(6-2\tau)I_2,

166: \label{eqn:fltmc}

167: \end{equation}

168: where

169: $$

170: I_2=\int^{1}_{\xi_{\rm TMC}}dz\frac{F_2^{\rm LT}(z,Q)}{z^2},

171: $$

172: \begin{displaymath}

173: \xi_{\rm TMC}=\frac{2x}{1+\sqrt{\tau}},~~~~\tau=1+\frac{4M^2x^2}{Q^2},

174: \end{displaymath}

175: and $F_{2,\rm L}^{\rm LT}$ are the structure functions of twist 2.

176: Such approach allows us to separate pure kinematical corrections, 

177: so that the functions $H_{2,\rm L}(x)$ correspond to 

178: ``genuine'' or ``dynamical'' contribution of the twist 4 operators.

179: Note, that the parametrization (\ref{eqn:addht})

180: implies, that the anomalous dimensions of the twist 4 operators 

181: are equal to zero, that is invalid in general case.

182: Moreover, there are attempts to estimate these anomalous dimensions

183: from the account of the correlations between partons

184: (see Ref.\cite{Bukhvostov:1983te}). Meanwhile, in view of 

185: limited precision of the data, approximation (\ref{eqn:addht})

186: is rather good (see also discussion in Ref.\cite{Alekhin:2000iq}).

187: 

188: The leading twist structure functions can be expressed in 

189: factorized form as the Mellin convolution of PDFs $q$ with the coefficient 

190: functions $C$: 

191: \begin{equation}

192: F_{2,\rm L}^{\rm LT}(x,Q)=

193: \sum_i\int_x^1\frac{dz}{z}

194: C^i_{2,\rm L}\left[z,\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu_{\rm R}),

195: Q/\mu_{\rm F}\right]q_i(x/z,\mu_{\rm F}),

196: \label{eqn:factor}

197: \end{equation}

198: where index $i$ marks the partons species and 

199: $\alpha_{\rm s}$ is running strong coupling constant.

200: The dependence of PDFs on $Q$ is described by the DGLAP

201: evolution equations \cite{Gribov:1972ri}

202: \begin{equation}

203: Q\frac{\partial q_i(x,Q)}{\partial Q}

204: =\sum_j\int_x^1 \frac{dz}{z}

205: P_{ij}\left[z,\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu_{\rm R}),Q/\mu_{\rm R}\right]q_j(x/z,Q),

206: \label{eqn:dglap}

207: \end{equation}

208: and the PDFs evolution is governed by the splitting functions 

209: $P_{ij}$, which in turn depend on $\alpha_{\rm s}$.

210: The quantities $\mu_{\rm F}$ and $\mu_{\rm R}$

211: in Eqs.(\ref{eqn:factor}) and (\ref{eqn:dglap}) give

212: the factorization and  renormalization scales respectively.

213: In the $\overline{\rm MS}$ renormalization-factorization scheme,

214: used in our analysis, these scales are chosen 

215: equal to the value of $Q$ usually. The splitting and coefficient functions 

216: can be calculated in perturbative QCD as series in $\alpha_{\rm s}$.

217: For the coefficient functions these series are completely calculated 

218: up to the next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) \cite{SanchezGuillen:1991iq}; 

219: for the splitting functions the next-to-leading order (NLO)

220: corrections are known, while for the NNLO corrections  

221: a limited set of the Mellin moments \cite{Larin:1997wd}, as well 

222: as some asymptotes, are available only (see  

223: references in \cite{vanNeerven:2000ca}).

224: Nevertheless, there are attempts to analyse the DIS data in the NNLO QCD 

225: approximation with the consideration of the available moments only  

226: \cite{Kataev:1998nc,Kataev:1998ce,Santiago:1999pr}, or 

227: modelling splitting functions \cite{Vogt:1999ik}.

228: Our analysis is performed in the NLO QCD approximation

229: with the use of the splitting and 

230: coefficient functions in $x$-space as they are given in Ref.

231: \cite{Furmanski:1982cw}. 

232: 

233: The dependence of $\alpha_{\rm s}$ on $Q$ is given by the 

234: renormalization group equation, which in the NLO QCD approximation

235: reads\footnote{Analogous equations given in Refs.

236: \protect\cite{Alekhin:1999za,Alekhin:1999hy} contain misprints, 

237: meanwhile, the calculations were performed using the correct 

238: Eqn.(\protect\ref{eqn:alphanlo}).}:

239: \begin{equation}

240: \frac{1}{\alpha_{\rm s}(Q)}-\frac{1}{\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})}=

241: \frac{\beta_0}{2\pi}\ln\left(\frac{Q}{M_{\rm Z}}\right)+

242: \beta\ln\left[\frac{\beta+1/\alpha_{\rm s}(Q)}{\beta+1/

243: \alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})}\right],

244: \label{eqn:alphanlo}

245: \end{equation}

246: where $\beta=\frac{\beta_1}{4\pi\beta_0}$, 

247: $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$ are regular coefficients of 

248: $\beta$-function: 

249: $\beta_0=11-(2/3)n_{\rm f}$, $\beta_1=102-(38/3)n_{\rm f}$, 

250: $n_{\rm f}$ is the number of active fermions, which depends on 

251: $Q$. In our analysis $n_{\rm f}$ was chosen equal to 3 for 

252: $Q\le m_{\rm c}$, 4 for $m_{\rm c}\le Q\le m_{\rm b}$, and 5 for 

253: $m_{\rm b}\le Q\le m_{\rm t}$, where 

254: $m_{\rm c},m_{\rm b},m_{\rm t}$ are masses of the 

255: $c$-, $b$- and $t$-quarks correspondingly, and

256: when $n_{\rm f}$ changes, the continuity of 

257: $\alpha_{\rm s}(Q)$ is kept (see Ref.\cite{Bernreuther:1982sg} 

258: for argumentation of this approach). The choice 

259: of the quark mass value as the threshold for    

260: $n_{\rm f}$ switching is optional. E.g., in the 

261: analysis of heavy quark contribution to the DIS

262: sum rules, given in Ref.\cite{Blumlein:1999sh},

263: this threshold is chosen equal to $6.5m_{\rm c,b,t}$.

264: Unfortunately any choice cannot be completely justified, while  

265: the dependence of results on the variation of threshold,

266: say in the interval from $m_{\rm c,b,t}$ to $6.5m_{\rm c,b,t}$, generates 

267: one of the sources of theoretical uncertainties inherent to this 

268: analysis. Since the value of $\alpha_{\rm s}$ depends on the threshold 

269: position logarithmically, for estimation of this  uncertainty 

270: we shifted this threshold value to the logarithmic 

271: centre of this interval, i.e. from $m_{\rm c,b,t}$ to 

272: $\sqrt{6.5}m_{\rm c,b,t}$. Very often, 

273: approximate solutions of Eq.(\ref{eqn:alphanlo}), based on the 

274: expansions of $\alpha_{\rm s}$ in inverse powers of 

275: $\ln(Q)$ are used in calculation. Inaccuracy of 

276: these expansions for evolution of $\alpha_{\rm s}$ 

277: from $O({\rm GeV})$ to $M_{\rm Z}$ may be as large as 

278: $0.001$ \cite{Barnett:1996hr}, which is comparable with 

279: the experimental uncertainties of the $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})$

280: value extracted from the data. In order to escape these uncertainties we use 

281: in the analysis the exact numerical solution of Eq.(\ref{eqn:alphanlo}) 

282: instead.

283: 

284: Since we use the truncated perturbative series, the 

285: results depend on the factorization scale $\mu_{\rm F}$

286: and the renormalization scale  

287: $\mu_{\rm R}$. These dependences cause 

288: additional theoretical uncertainties of the analysis

289: The accurate estimate of 

290: these uncertainties is difficult, because the possible range of 

291: the scales variation is undefined and besides, one is to 

292: change factorization scheme as well. In our analysis we 

293: estimate only the theoretical uncertainty due to the choice 

294: of $\mu_{\rm R}$ in the evolution equations (\ref{eqn:dglap})

295: using the approach described in Ref.\cite{Martin:1991jd}. 

296: In accordance with this approach the renormalization scale $\mu_{\rm R}$ 

297: is chosen equal to $k_{\rm R}Q$ and the NLO

298: evolution equations are modified in 

299: the following way

300: $$

301: Q\frac{\partial q_i(x,Q)}{\partial Q}

302: =\frac{\alpha_{\rm s}(k_{\rm R}Q)}{\pi}\sum_j\int_x^1 \frac{dz}{z}

303: \left\{P^{(0)}_{ij}(z)+\frac{\alpha_{\rm s}(k_{\rm R}Q)}{2\pi}

304: \left[P^{(1)}_{ij}(z)+\beta_0 P^{(0)}_{ij}(z)\ln(k_{\rm R})\right]

305: \right\}q_j(x/z,Q),

306: $$

307: where $P^{(0)}$ and $P^{(1)}$ are respectively the LO and NLO 

308: coefficients of the splitting functions series.

309: The change of results under variation of 

310: $k_{\rm R}$ from 1/2 to 2 gives an estimate of the 

311: error due to renormlization scale uncertainty. 

312: Evidently that, by definition, 

313: this uncertainty is connected with the impact of 

314: unaccounted terms of the perturbative series. 

315:  

316: In order to obtain the PDFs from evolution equations, one 

317: is to supply a boundary conditions at some starting value 

318: $Q_0$. The $x$-dependence of PDFs cannot be calculated from 

319: the modern strong interaction theory, it is determined from 

320: the comparison with data. Usual parametrization of the PDFs at $Q_0$ 

321: reads 

322: $$

323: xq_i(x,Q_0)=x^{a_i}(1-x)^{b_i}.

324: $$

325: For this parametrization the behaviour of $q$ at low $x$ is motivated by the Regge

326: phenomenology (see, e.g., book \cite{INDUR}) and at high 

327: $x$, by the quark counting rules \cite{Matveev:1973ra,Brodsky:1973kr}. 

328: If such a simple form is insufficient for the fair

329: data description, polynomial-like factors are added.

330: Value of $Q_0$ is arbitrary, but it is natural to choose 

331: it as $O({\rm GeV})$ to allow for simple interpretation of 

332: the boundary PDFs. Meanwhile, it was recently shown in 

333: Ref.\cite{Alekhin:1999kt}, that the choice of $Q_0$ 

334: is important to provide the results stable with respect 

335: to the account of higher order QCD corrections

336: (see also Ref.\cite{Kataev:1998ce}). At low $Q_0$ the twist 4 contribution

337: extracted from the data is less sensitive to 

338: the choice of the renormalization scale $\mu_{\rm R}$ 

339: in Eq. (\ref{eqn:dglap}), than at high $Q_0$. 

340: The $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})$ behaves in opposite way,

341: and then the choice $Q_0^2=9~{\rm GeV}^2$, made in our 

342: analysis, provides stability of the $\alpha_s$ and PDFs values

343: if the NNLO QCD corrections are considered.  

344: 

345: Despite of the fact, that the evolution equations have been  

346: used in the DIS data analysis

347: for many years, no unique approach for solving them exists.

348: Analytical expressions can be obtained only for the simplified 

349: splitting functions, and direct numerical approaches demand 

350: threefold integration, which is time consuming.

351: There are semi-analytical approaches, based on expansion of 

352: PDFs in terms of selected sets of functions, but such approaches, 

353: as a rule, lead to loosing of the universality with respect 

354: to the choice of splitting functions and require 

355: careful control of the calculations precision. Due to the form 

356: of the evolution equation kernel is rather complicated, 

357: correct implementation of a sophisticated integration algorithm 

358: meets the difficulties.

359: In the comparative analysis of different codes, used for the 

360: DGLAP equations integration,

361: the codes of the  CTEQ and MRST collaborations were found to 

362: contain the bugs (see Ref.\cite{Blumlein:1996rp}).

363: Taking into account these points, we use in the analysis 

364: our own code for direct numerical integration of 

365: Eq.(\ref{eqn:dglap}), based on the Euler predictor-corrector algorithm

366: (see Ref.\cite{MATHBOOK}). This code allows one to modify kernels 

367: of the evolution equations in order to debug the code, to control 

368: the calculation precision, to take into account effects of new physics, 

369: and to implement special cases of evolution.

370: Integration region can be expanded easily, and the integration 

371: precision is regulated by the external parameters of the code.

372: For typical values of these parameters

373: the code integration precision, as estimated 

374: using benchmark described in Ref.\cite{Blumlein:1996rp}, 

375: is given in Fig.~\ref{fig:bench}. One can see that the relative 

376: precision is better, than 0.001 in the region $x\lesssim0.5$ and 

377: better, than 0.01 in the region $x\gtrsim0.5$.

378: This is well enough for our purposes, since 

379: the errors on data are larger, than the integration 

380: errors for all $x$.

381: 

382: Since Eq.(\ref{eqn:dglap}) is valid for 

383: massless partons only, the heavy quarks contribution, 

384: which is significant at low $x$, should be considered

385: in a peculiar way. In 

386: the approach described in Ref.~\cite{Collins:1986mp} 

387: the heavy quarks are considered as massless ones.

388: They are included 

389: into the general evolution starting from a threshold 

390: value of $Q$, which is proportional to the quark mass, while at 

391: the values of $Q$ lower the threshold these distributions 

392: are put to zero. Evidently, in this approach the heavy quarks

393: contribution is overestimated in the vicinity of the threshold. 

394: Alternative way to consider the heavy quarks contribution is to 

395: calculate it using the photon-gluon fusion model

396: of Ref.\cite{Witten:1976bh}. At high $Q$ and low $x$

397: ``large logarithms'' arise in the elementary cross section of this 

398: process, that may demand its resummation \cite{Shifman:1978yb}.

399: Meanwhile, as it was shown in Ref.\cite{Gluck:1994dp}, 

400: the region of $x$ and $Q$, where the resummation is really needed 

401: lays outside the region of the available DIS data. For this reason

402: we calculated the $c$- and $b$- quarks contributions 

403: to the structure functions $F_{2,\rm L}$ using the 

404: photon-gluon fusion model with the NLO coefficient functions 

405: of Ref.\cite{Laenen:1993xs} and the 

406: renormalization/factorization scales equal to 

407: $\sqrt{Q^2+4m^2_{\rm c,b}}$ at the quark masses 

408: $m_{\rm c}=1.5~{\rm GeV}$ and $m_{\rm b}=4.5~{\rm GeV}$.

409: 

410: The LT contribution to the DIS structure functions 

411: is rather well understood both from theoretical and experimental 

412: points of view. Since this contribution depends on $Q$ weakly

413: one can reject the low $Q$ data points and leave  

414: the data set, which is both statistically significant, and 

415: can be analysed within perturbative QCD in order to determine 

416: the LT $x$-dependence. The HT contribution is worse known, 

417: than the LT one. The theoretical analysis of the HT $x$-dependence 

418: is equally difficult as for the LT $x$-dependence and, as a 

419: result, it should be determined from data. Meanwhile, due to the fast 

420: fall of the HT contribution with $Q$ it is significant for

421: $Q^2\lesssim10~{\rm GeV}^2$ only. At very low $Q$ 

422: the subtraction of the LT contribution, as calculated 

423: in perturbative QCD is problematic due to the rise 

424: of $\alpha_{\rm s}$. As a result, only the data for 

425: $Q^2\lesssim 1~{\rm GeV}^2$ $Q$ can be used for the HT extraction 

426: and the results precision is poor.

427: 

428: Study of the possibility to separate the HT and LT contributions

429: has a long history (see Refs. 

430: \cite{Berger:1979du,Abbott:1980as,Buras:1980yt,Bednyakov:1984gh}). 

431: Despite of that the $Q$-dependences of these contributions are different, 

432: in the limited range of $Q$ the HT power corrections

433: can simulate the logarithmic LT behaviour

434: \cite{Penin:1997zk}. Moreover, as it was shown in 

435: Refs.\cite{Abbott:1980as,Mahapatra:1997av},

436: the power corrections can almost entirely describe the 

437: scaling violation observed for the DIS data,

438: if the data precision is limited. In particular, this 

439: causes large correlations between the fitted values of 

440: $\alpha_{\rm s}$ and the HT contribution.

441: This correlation leads to the rise of the fitted parameters errors. 

442: The rise of errors is unpleasant effect, moreover,  

443: the fitted model non-linearity can become essential as a result. 

444: Besides, the fit results become less stable with respect to 

445: the change of the non-fitted parameters and adoptions of the fitted model, 

446: i.e., the theoretical errors on the fitted parameters rise also.

447: Finally, if large correlations between parameters occur, 

448: the second derivative matrix for the minimized functional

449: is poor determined and 

450: the calculations inaccuracies increase when its inversion. 

451: For this reason in order to get satisfactory precision of 

452: the parameters errors one is to guarantee better precision 

453: of the fitted model calculation, which may be time consuming, 

454: if manifold integration is involved. Due to this is the case 

455: for our analysis,  

456: estimation of the correlation coefficients between the fitted 

457: values of 

458: $\alpha_{\rm s}$ and the HT contribution is non-trivial problem.

459: 

460: \section{Data used in the fit and starting PDFs}

461: 

462: We fit the PDFs to the data on the charged leptons DIS off 

463: proton and deuterium given in Refs.

464: \cite{Whitlow:1992uw,Benvenuti:1989rh,Arneodo:1997qe,Adams:1996gu,Aid:1996au,Derrick:1996hn}.

465: The data points with $Q^2<2.5~{\rm GeV}^2$ were not used 

466: in the analysis in order to  

467: reject the region, where $\alpha_{\rm s}$ is rather large 

468: and the NNLO order QCD correction may be important. The points with 

469: $x>0.75$, for which the nuclear corrections are large,

470: were removed also. The data used in the analysis occupy the region 

471: $10^{-4}\lesssim x\le 0.75$, 

472: $2.5~{\rm GeV}^2\le Q^2\lesssim 5000~{\rm GeV}^2$.

473: The number of data points for each experiment is given in  

474: Table~\ref{tab:global}.

475: 

476: The starting PDFs were initially parametrized at $Q_0^2=9~{\rm GeV}^2$ 

477: as follows: 

478: \begin{equation}

479: xq_i(x,Q_0)=A_ix^{a_i}(1-x)^{b_i}(1+\gamma^i_1\sqrt{x}+\gamma^i_2 x)

480: \label{GENPDF}

481: \end{equation}

482: and then the parameters $\gamma$, which agree with zero within errors,

483: were by turn fixed at zero till such 

484: parameters existed. Evidently, the fit quality could not get 

485: worse, when such parameters are fixed. The PDFs functional 

486: form resulted from this simplification 

487: and used in the final fit reads:

488: \begin{displaymath}

489: xu_{\rm V}(x,Q_0)=\frac{2}{N^{\rm V}_{\rm u}}

490: x^{a_{\rm u}}(1-x)^{b_{\rm u}}(1+\gamma_2^{\rm u}x),

491: \end{displaymath}

492: \begin{displaymath}

493: xu_{\rm S}(x,Q_0)=\frac{A_{\rm S}}{N_{\rm S}}

494: \eta_{\rm u} x^{a_{\rm su}}(1-x)^{b_{\rm su}},

495: \end{displaymath}

496: \begin{displaymath}

497: xd_{\rm V}(x,Q_0)=\frac{1}{N^{\rm V}_{\rm d}}x^{a_{\rm d}}(1-x)^{b_{\rm d}},

498: \end{displaymath}

499: \begin{displaymath}

500: xd_{\rm S}(x,Q_0)=\frac{A_{\rm S}}{N^{\rm S}}x^{a_{\rm sd}}(1-x)^{b_{\rm sd}},

501: \end{displaymath}

502: \begin{displaymath}

503: xs_{\rm S}(x,Q_0)=\frac{A_{\rm S}}{N^{\rm S}}\eta_{\rm s}

504: x^{a_{\rm ss}}(1-x)^{b_{\rm ss}},

505: \end{displaymath}

506: \begin{displaymath}

507: xG(x,Q_0)=A_{\rm G}x^{a_{\rm G}}(1-x)^{b_{\rm G}}

508: (1+\gamma^{\rm G}_1\sqrt{x}+\gamma^{\rm G}_2 x),

509: \end{displaymath}

510: where $u,d,s,G$ are the up, down, strange quarks,

511: and gluons distributions respectively; 

512: indices $V$ and $S$ correspond to the valence 

513: and sea quarks. The parameters $N^{\rm V}_{\rm u}, N^{\rm V}_{\rm d}$  and 

514: $A_{\rm G}$ were not fitted, instead they were calculated 

515: from the other parameters using the conservation of the partons momentum 

516: and the fermion number. The parameter $N^{\rm S}$ was calculated using 

517: the relation 

518: $$

519: 2\int_0^1x\bigl[u_{\rm s}(x,Q_0)+d_{\rm s}(x,Q_0)

520: +s_{\rm s}(x,Q_0)\bigr]dx=A_{\rm S}.

521: $$

522: It is well known, that the charged leptons data do not allow to 

523: confine the sea quarks contribution. For this reason the 

524: parameter $\eta_{\rm s}$ was fixed at 0.42, 

525: which agrees with the recent results of the NuTeV

526: collaboration, given in Ref.\cite{Adams:1999sx}.

527: The other sea distributions parameters

528: were constrained as $a_{\rm su}=a_{\rm sd}=a_{\rm ss}$, 

529: $b_{\rm ss}=(b_{\rm su}+b_{\rm sd})/2$.

530: 

531: The DIS cross sections calculated from the QCD evolved PDFs  

532: using Eq.(\ref{eqn:discs}) with the account of the TMC 

533: corrections given by Eq.(\ref{eqn:f2tmc}) and the twist 4 

534: contribution in additive form as in Eq.(\ref{eqn:addht}), 

535: were fitted to the cross section data\footnote{Since the 

536: high $Q$ data from the H1 and 

537: ZEUS experiments were corrected for the 

538: $Z$-boson contribution, Eq.(\protect\ref{eqn:discs}) 

539: is applicable for these data also.}. The HT contributions

540: to the proton and neutron structure functions $F_2$ were 

541: parametrized by separate functions 

542: $H_2^{\rm p}$ and $H_2^{\rm n}$ respectively, 

543: and the HT contributions 

544: to the proton and neutron structure 

545: functions $F_{\rm L}$, by the common function  

546: $H^{\rm N}_{\rm L}$, since the latter coincide within errors.

547: The functions $H_2^{\rm p,n}$ and $H_{\rm L}^{\rm N}$

548: were parametrized in the model independent way: 

549: at $x=0.,0.1,\dots 0.8$ their values were fitted to the data, 

550: and between these point the functions were linearly interpolated.  

551: The common approach for the PDFs global fits is to use 

552: data on $F_2$ instead of the data on cross sections.

553: Within this approach one ignores the fact,  

554: that the $F_2$ values given by different experiments  

555: are often extracted from the cross sections using 

556: different values of $F_{\rm L}$.

557: In our fit the $F_{\rm L}$ contribution to the cross 

558: section was calculated iteratively and, efficiently, the data were 

559: reduced to the common value of $F_{\rm L}$. 

560: Since the $F_{\rm L}$ contribution rises with $y$, 

561: the effect of this reduction is 

562: more important at high $y$. Due to the collision energy of 

563: each experiment is limited, the highest values of $y$ 

564: correspond to the minimal values of $x$.

565: For this reason 

566: the $F_2$ data points shifts due to the reduction to the common 

567: value of $F_{\rm L}$ are not very significant in average, but 

568: at the edges of the experiments data regions may reach several 

569: percents. Note, that at low $x$ the $F_{\rm L}$ value 

570: strongly depends on the gluon distribution and, hence, in the fit 

571: to the cross sections data an additional constraint for 

572: the gluon distribution occurs, i.e. it 

573: is better confined, as compared to the fit to the $F_2$ data.

574: 

575: The TMC correction is most important for the 

576: SLAC data, less important for the BCDMS data, almost 

577: unimportant for the NMC data, and negligible for the others.

578: Note, that our TMC correction to $F_2$

579: given by Eq.(\ref{eqn:f2tmc})

580: differs from that applied in Ref.\cite{Martin:1995kk}, where

581: the substitution 

582: \begin{equation}

583: F_2^{\rm LT,TMC}(x,Q)=F_2^{\rm LT}(\xi_{\rm TMC},Q)

584: \label{eqn:tmcmrs}

585: \end{equation}

586: was used to account for the target mass effect.

587: The numerical difference between these two approaches is 

588: maximal at high $x$ and low $Q$, e.g., for the SLAC data 

589: it reaches 40\%. Besides, our TMC correction, contrary 

590: to that given by Eq.(\ref{eqn:tmcmrs}), changes sign at 

591: $x\approx0.5$.

592: 

593: The deuterium data were corrected for the Fermi motion effect

594: as in the model of Ref.\cite{Atwood:1973zp} with 

595: the deuterium wave function from Ref.\cite{Lacombe:1980dr}. 

596: The deuterium correction value rises with $x$ and reaches 16\% 

597: for the SLAC data. This correction was calculated 

598: iteratively in the fit to provide consistency of the 

599: analysis. The two-dimensional integrals involved in the model   

600: were calculated using the code of Ref.\cite{Sokolov:1988mw},

601: which provides better numerical stability, than the standard

602: codes based on the Gauss integration algorithm.

603: For the calculations time saving we adopted, that 

604: the Fermi motion correction for the structure function 

605: $xF_1=F_2-F_{\rm L}$ is the same, as for the structure 

606: function $F_2$ (we checked that this adoption does not 

607: significantly affect the results).

608: 

609: \section{Fitting procedure and results}

610: 

611: The fitted parameters including the PDFs parameters, the value

612: of $\alpha_{\rm s}$, and the coefficients of the functions 

613: $H_{2,\rm L}$ were determined from the minimization of 

614: the functional

615: \begin{equation}

616: \chi^2=\sum_{K,i,j}(f_i-\xi_Ky_i)E_{ij}(f_j-\xi_Ky_j),

617: \label{eqn:chi2}

618: \end{equation}

619: where $E_{ij}$ is inverse of the covariance matrix

620: $C_{ij}$,

621: $$

622: C_{ij}=\xi_K^2\delta_{ij}\sigma_i\sigma_j

623: +f_if_j(\vec{\eta}_i^K \cdot \vec{\eta}_j^K),

624: $$

625: index $K$ runs through the data subsets corresponding to the 

626: different experiments and the different targets within one experiment,

627: indices $i,j$ run through the data points in these subsets.

628: The other notations: $y_i$ are the measurements;

629: $\sigma_i$ are the statistical errors; 

630: $\xi_K$ are the renormalization factors;

631: $f_i$ are the fitted model calculations depending on the fitted 

632: parameters; $\vec\eta^{K}_i$ are the systematic errors vectors 

633: (the dimensions of these vectors for each experiment are given 

634: in Table~\ref{tab:global} as NSE). The systematic errors were considered as 

635: multiplicative, that is natural way for the counting experiments. 

636: All systematic errors, excluding the normalization errors on the old SLAC 

637: experiments, were accounted for in the covariance matrix. 

638: The data from the old SLAC experiments, as they were given in 

639: Ref.\cite{Whitlow:1992uw}, are the result of re-analysis

640: of the original experimental data published earlier 

641: (for the details see Ref.\cite{Whitlow:1990dr}).

642: One of the purposes of this re-analysis was to renormalize 

643: the old data on the data from dedicated experiment SLAC-E-140.

644: However, due to the latter did not release the proton target data, 

645: the renormalization of the proton data was performed using 

646: the experiment SLAC-E-49B as a ``bridge''.

647: Such technique certainly brings additional uncertainties on the re-analysed data.

648: In order to escape those uncertainties we performed the independent renormalization of 

649: the old SLAC experiments without a ``bridging'', that is possible in our case,

650: since we use more proton data, than in the analysis of Ref.\cite{Whitlow:1992uw}.

651: For this purpose we fitted the factors $\xi_K$ for each 

652: target of each old SLAC experiment independently.

653: Alongside, to keep the analysis consistency the errors due to normalization 

654: uncertainties of the old SLAC experiments, 

655: given in Ref.\cite{Whitlow:1992uw}, were cancelled out.

656: For other experiments the parameters $\xi_K$ were fixed at 1.

657: The asymmetrical systematic errors on the ZEUS data were 

658: symmetrized, when including in the covariance matrix, 

659: and systematic errors on the BCDMS data for the proton and deuterium targets

660: were considered as perfectly correlated.

661: 

662: The statistical properties of the estimator based on covariance matrix (CME)

663: were considered in Ref.\cite{Alekhin:2000es} 

664: in comparison with the statistical properties of the simplest 

665: $\chi^2$ estimator (SCE), based on the minimization of the functional 

666: $$

667: \chi^2=\sum_{i} \frac{(f_i-y_i)^2}{\sigma_i^2},

668: $$

669: which is often used in particle physics for the analysis 

670: of data including the correlated ones as well. For the CME 

671: the fitted parameters systematic errors 

672: due to the data systematic errors are automatically

673: included in the total error; 

674: for SCE the parameters systematic errors  

675: are estimated as the shift  

676: of the parameters under the shift of the data by the value of 

677: their systematic errors. The SCE dispersion is always larger, than 

678: the CME dispersion and, as it was shown in Ref.\cite{Alekhin:2000es}, 

679: the ratio of these dispersions can reach several units

680: for realistic cases. It was shown also, that 

681: the CME is unbiased if the systematic errors 

682: on the parameters are not much more, than the statistical ones.

683: In order to control the estimator bias one can trace 

684: the value of the net residual $R$, equal to the mean of 

685: weighted residual $(f-y)/\sqrt{\sigma^2+(f\eta)^2}$ .

686: The $\chi^2$ values and the net residuals for 

687: the total data set and for each 

688: experiment separately calculated at the parameters values

689: fitted using the CME are given in Table~\ref{tab:global}.

690: One can see, that the net residual value is within

691: its standard deviation\footnote{The $R$ standard deviation was calculated using 

692: Eq.~(3.11) from Ref.\protect\cite{Alekhin:2000es}.} 

693: and the data description is good, 

694: excluding description of the ZEUS data.

695: For more detailed analysis of the confidence of the 

696: ZEUS data description we calculated for those data 

697: the diagonalized residuals $r^{\rm D}$ using the relation

698: $$

699: r^{\rm D}_i=\sum^N_{j=1}\sqrt{E}_{ij}(f_j-y_j),

700: $$

701: where indices $i,j$ run through the data points. If data are 

702: well described by fitted model, then for large $N$ the values

703: of $r^{\rm D}_i$ obey the normal distribution, i.e. 

704: the Gauss distribution with zero mean and the dispersion

705: equal to 1.

706: The distribution of $r^{\rm D}_i$ for the ZEUS data is given in 

707: Fig.~\ref{fig:resid}. Evidently it does not agree with 

708: the normal distribution, that is not surprising, since the 

709: data description is poor. Note, that the diagonalized residuals

710: mean is small for the ZEUS data (0.05), meanwhile, 

711: the dispersion is equal to 2.1, 

712: i.e. it is far from the normal distribution dispersion. It is 

713: difficult to ascribe this discrepancy to the shortcoming of the 

714: fitted model, since, as it seen from Fig.~\ref{fig:resid},

715: analogues distribution for the H1 data agrees with the 

716: normal distribution perfectly, whereas both experiments gained similar 

717: statistical and kinematical coverage. One more possible 

718: explanation of this disagreement is, 

719: that the systematic errors given by the ZEUS collaboration 

720: are underestimated, but still are Gaussian distributed.

721: In such cases the PDG scales the errors so that 

722: $\chi^2/{\rm NDP}$ becomes equal to 1 (see review \cite{Barnett:1996hr}).

723: In our case this approach cannot be used, since number 

724: of independent sources of the systematic errors in the ZEUS experiment 

725: is large and a lot of variants of such rescaling can be applied.

726: Besides, the distribution of residuals would

727: remain non-Gaussian after the errors rescaling 

728: (see dashed curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:resid}).

729: Driven by this consideration one can suppose that systematic errors

730: on the ZEUS data are non-Gaussian distributed (but with zero mean)

731: and then $\chi^2/{\rm NDP}$ must not be equal to 1.

732: If so, the fitted parameters, which are confined by the ZEUS data, 

733: also may be distributed in arbitrary way (see in this connection 

734: Ref.\cite{Giele:1998gw}). Due to exact estimation of 

735: the confidence intervals for unknown distribution is impossible, 

736: we recommend for this purpose, in particular for 

737: evaluating the PDFs errors at low $x$,

738: the robust estimate of the confidence intervals, based on the Chebyshev 

739: inequality (see discussion in Ref.\cite{Alekhin:2000es}).

740:  

741: The dispersion of the net residual $R$ is maximal for the

742: SLAC-E-140, BCDMS, and NMC data sets. (Remind, that this dispersion 

743: rises with the increase of data correlation, full correlation 

744: corresponds to the dispersion of $R$ equal to 1).

745: Thus, one can conclude, that  

746: the account of the BCDMS and NMC data correlations

747: has the largest impact on the analysis results, 

748: since number of points in the 

749: SLAC-E-140 data set is small. This conclusion 

750: is in line with the results of Ref.\cite{Alekhin:1999hy},

751: where it was obtained, that in the combined fit to 

752: the non-singlet SLAC-BCDMS data the 

753: account of the BCDMS data correlations leads to much more 

754: significant shift of the parameters, than the account of the 

755: SLAC data correlations. The value of $R$ for the total data set 

756: is well within its standard deviation, that confirms

757: the fit unbiasness.

758: 

759: The fitted PDFs parameters are given in Table~\ref{tab:pdfpars}. 

760: We underline, that in our fit the universality of the 

761: valence $u$- and $d$-quarks

762: behaviour at low $x$ is not initially assumed, contrary to the   

763: popular global fits practice, and the fit results confirm this 

764: universality with the few percents precision.

765: At the same time the 

766: Regge phenomenology prediction (see, e.g., book~\cite{INDUR})

767: \begin{equation}

768: a_{\rm u}=a_{\rm d}=0.5

769: \label{eqn:redge}

770: \end{equation}

771: is in disagreement with the fit results\footnote{We especially 

772: underline this point, since Eq.(\protect\ref{eqn:redge})

773: is often used for theoretical estimates.}.

774: A possible interpretation of this disagreement is, that 

775: Eq.(\ref{eqn:redge}), as it is deduced, is 

776: not related to a particular value of $Q$, while 

777: the QCD evolution does change the PDFs $x$-behaviour.

778: As it was shown in Ref.\cite{Gross:1974fm}, for the non-singlet 

779: distributions at low $x$ this change is not very significant, 

780: but at least partially it can help to explain the observed 

781: disagreements. The values of the parameters $a_{\rm u}$ and $a_{\rm d}$

782: agrees with the results of our earlier analysis of 

783: Ref.\cite{Alekhin:1999za} and with the value of the parameter

784: describing the low $x$-behaviour of the non-singlet neutrino

785: structure function $xF_3$, which was obtained from the fit to 

786: the CCFR data in Refs.~\cite{Seligman:1997fe,Kataev:2000dp}.

787: For the obtained values of the 

788: parameters, which describe the valence $u$- and $d$-quarks

789: behaviour at high $x$, the relation 

790: $b_{\rm d}=a_{\rm u}+1$ holds with good precision, 

791: in line with the quark counting rules. Meanwhile, the absolute 

792: values of these parameters deviate from the 

793: quark counting rules predictions $b_{\rm u}=3$, $b_{\rm d}=4$.

794: This disagreement can also be due to the QCD evolution, moreover

795: for the non-singlet distribution 

796: the evolution effect is stronger at high $x$.

797: 

798: As one can see from Table~\ref{tab:pdfpars}, the 

799: systematic errors on the parameters describing 

800: the valence $u$-quark distributions

801: at high $x$ and the sea quarks distributions at 

802: low $x$ are especially large. At the same time  

803: the ratio of the total error to the pure statistical one is 

804: $O(1)$ for any fitted parameter, that 

805: guarantees their unbiasness. In order to estimate the sensitivity 

806: of the parameters values to the approach used for the account of 

807: the systematic errors we performed the fit using the SCE

808: and the fit with the statistical and systematic error combined 

809: in quadrature. Results of these fits are also given in 

810: Table~\ref{tab:pdfpars}. One can see, that in the SCE fit 

811: the central values of some parameters are shifted by more, than 

812: two standard deviations, as compared with the CME fit and 

813: the shift is larger for the parameters with large 

814: ratio of the systematic errors to the statistical ones, 

815: in particular, for $b_{\rm u}$ and $\gamma^2_{\rm u}$.

816: Nevertheless, the SCE fit provides correct estimate 

817: of the parameters, the only shortcoming of the SCE

818: is that the SCE errors  

819: may be several times larger, that the CME errors. 

820: In our analysis maximal ratio of these errors is about 5 and 

821: within the errors the results of both fits agree.

822: At the same time the fit with the statistical and 

823: systematic errors combined in quadrature does may 

824: give incorrect estimate of the parameters, since the 

825: data correlation information is lost in this case.

826: As a result, the central values of some parameters,

827: in particular, $b_{\rm G}$ and $a_{\rm sd}$, obtained 

828: from this fit are shifted from the CME fit results by the 

829: statistically significant values (see Table~\ref{tab:pdfpars}).

830: Some parameters errors obtained in these two fits 

831: are very different also, e.g., the errors on 

832: $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})$ 

833: and the parameters describing the gluon distribution at high $x$.

834: These differences evidently may lead to the fake  

835: disagreements with another experimental results

836: and cause discussions on new physics manifestation, if 

837: the results of the fit performed without the account of the data 

838: correlations are used for the comparison. (The example of 

839: resolution of such 

840: ``disagreement'' encountered in the comparison of the 

841: SLAC-BCDMS and LEP data

842: on $\alpha_{\rm s}$ was given in Ref.\cite{Alekhin:1999hy}).

843: 

844: \section{The experimental PDFs uncertainties}

845: 

846: The fitted PDFs with their experimental errors, 

847: including both statistical and systematic ones 

848: are given in Fig.~\ref{fig:pdfs}, 

849: and the relative experimental errors on the PDFs 

850: are given in Fig.~\ref{fig:pdfs_err}. To estimate the separate  

851: contribution of the systematic errors to the total ones

852: we calculated the parameters dispersions  

853: keeping the central values of the 

854: fitted parameters, but without the account of systematic errors on the data.

855: Then we extracted these reduced dispersions from the total 

856: dispersions of the parameters and took the square roots of these differences 

857: as the systematic errors on the parameters.

858: The ratio of systematic errors on the selected PDFs to their statistical errors 

859: is given in Fig.~\ref{fig:pdfs_syst}. As it was noted above, 

860: the systematic errors impact is more important for the 

861: $u$-quark distribution at all $x$ in question and for 

862: $d$-quark distribution at low $x$. The PDFs errors, as well as their 

863: parameters errors, depend on the approach used for the accounting 

864: of systematic errors. The PDFs errors

865: obtained in the CME and SCE fits are compared in Fig.~\ref{fig:bot} 

866: and one can see, that for the latter the errors

867: are several times larger generally.

868: The errors on PDFs obtained from the CME fit 

869: in our earlier analysis of Ref.\cite{Alekhin:1999za} 

870: are also given in the same figure. In that analysis we used data of 

871: Refs.\cite{Benvenuti:1989rh,Arneodo:1997qe,Aid:1996au,Derrick:1996hn}

872: with $Q^2>9~{\rm GeV}^2$ and $W>4~{\rm GeV}$.

873: At small and moderate $x$

874: the errors on PDFs obtained in the earlier 

875: analysis are several times larger, that the PDFs errors obtained in 

876: the present analysis.

877: At high $x$ these errors are of the same order, 

878: and for some PDFs the earlier analysis errors are even smaller.

879: This occurs due to in the analysis of Ref.\cite{Alekhin:1999za} 

880: the HT contribution was fixed at zero, that decreased 

881: the PDFs errors. The correlation coefficients 

882: matrix for the PDFs parameters is given in Table~\ref{tab:pdfcor}

883: and the selected PDFs correlation coefficients are given in 

884: Fig.~\ref{fig:pdfs_corr}. The correlations are larger for 

885: the valence and sea quarks distributions. This can be readily 

886: understood, since these distributions contribute to the 

887: charged leptons DIS structure 

888: functions as the sum and hence can be separated hardly.

889: Due to the large correlations between some PDFs the ratio of the systematic

890: errors on their linear combinations to the statistical errors 

891: on these combinations may be not proportional to  

892: such ratios for the PDFs themselves.

893: For example, as one can see in Fig.~\ref{fig:pdfs_syst}, 

894: the relative systematic errors on the sum of non-strange quarks 

895: distributions at low $x$

896: are significantly smaller, than for the $u$- and $d$-quarks

897: distributions separately.

898: 

899: The relative experimental error on the gluon distribution rises with 

900: $x$ due to rapid falloff of the distribution itself.

901: The prompt photon data were often used to better confine 

902: the gluon distribution at 

903: high $x$, but the prompt photon production data, 

904: which appeared recently, turned out to be in disagreement with  

905: the earlier data (see review \cite{Werlen:1999fn}).

906: Besides, it was shown, that in the theoretical analysis of this process

907: large uncertainties occur (see review \cite{Laenen:2000ii}). 

908: For these reasons one cannot use the prompt

909: photon data for pinning down the gluon distribution

910: in a consistent way.

911: In our analysis the gluon distribution at low $x$ is

912: determined by 

913: by the slope of the structure function $F_2$ on $Q$

914: (see Ref.\cite{Prytz:1993vr}) and at high $x$, 

915: from the partons momentum conservation. The experimental errors on the 

916: sea quarks distributions are also rather large, since we did not use 

917: in the analysis the Drell-Yan process data.

918: 

919: Unfortunately, the obtained PDFs and their errors suffers from definite

920: model dependence. For example, if one releases the constraint 

921: $a_{\rm su}=a_{\rm sd}=a_{\rm ss}$, the 

922: quarks distributions errors at low $x$ rise significantly.

923: Analogous effect is observed, if more polynomial factors 

924: are added to the starting PDFs. Such model dependence is inevitable, 

925: since it is impossible to determine a continuous distribution from 

926: limited number of measurements without additional constraints.

927: The model dependence is stronger for the PDFs

928: correlated with another PDFs, e.g., for the sea and valence quarks 

929: distributions, while the model dependence is weak for the sum of these 

930: distributions. The gluon distribution is also insensitive 

931: to the variation of the quark distributions due to rather

932: weak correlation with the latter (see Table~\ref{tab:pdfcor}).

933: 

934: The MRST and CTEQ PDFs are given in 

935: Fig.~\ref{fig:pdfs} in comparison with ours, although the comparison 

936: is incomplete, since the errors on the MRST and CTEQ PDFs 

937: are unknown. Note, that the difference between 

938: the MRST and CTEQ PDFs almost everywhere is smaller, than 

939: our PDFs errors. At high $x$ it may occur due to those 

940: collaborations use in the analysis more data, but more probable 

941: explanation is that the MRST and CTEQ collaborations get 

942: similar results due to they use similar data sets.

943: In particular, this means, that 

944: the difference between the MRST and CTEQ PDFs cannot be used 

945: as the estimate of the PDFs uncertainty. In the whole, with the account 

946: of our PDFs errors, there is no striking disagreement of our 

947: PDFs with the MRST and CTEQ ones. Our gluon distribution 

948: is slightly higher, than the MRST one at low $x$, but this 

949: disagreement is statistically insignificant. Excess of our 

950: sea quarks distributions over the MRST and CTEQ ones at low $x$

951: is statistically significant, but there are several reasons for it.

952: Firstly, both collaborations use massless scheme for the account of 

953: the heavy quarks contribution, that can lead to the overestimation of this 

954: contribution, and the corresponding underestimation of the 

955: light quarks contribution at low $x$. Secondly, the MRST and CTEQ 

956: collaborations use in the analysis the CCFR neutrino data of 

957: Ref.\cite{Seligman:1997mc}, which confine the sea quarks 

958: contribution and which were recently corrected by the authors

959: just at low $x$ (see Ref.\cite{Bodek:2000yr}).

960: Finally, the discrepancy between the MRST and CTEQ 

961: PDFs is of the order of discrepancy between those PDFs and ours, 

962: i.e. one needs to perform a detailed analysis of all 

963: parametrizations to clarify this discrepancy.

964: Excess of the $u$- and $d$-quarks distributions over 

965: the MRST and CTEQ ones at $x\lesssim 0.3$ is most 

966: statistically significant. We checked, that that this excess 

967: occurs due the MRST and CTEQ 

968: collaborations renormalize the BCDMS data by 1-2\% downward.

969: Since we do not apply such renormalization, our parametrization 

970: for $F_2$, as well as the $u$- and $d$-quarks distributions, lays higher.

971: Besides, we applied the TMC correction and the correction on the 

972: Fermi-motion in deuterium, that also leads do the rise 

973: of the quarks distributions at moderate $x$.

974: Note, that this excess may help to explain the 

975: excess of the TEVATRON jet production cross section data 

976: at transverse energies of $E_{\rm T}=200-400~{\rm GeV}$

977: over the QCD predictions, since this 

978: cross section gets large contribution from the quark-quark

979: scattering at $x\sim 0.2$.

980: 

981: The comparison of our PDFs errors with the errors on PDFs 

982: of Ref.\cite{Botje:2000dj} is given in Fig.~\ref{fig:bot}.

983: One can see that, despite of that in the analysis of Ref.\cite{Botje:2000dj}

984: an additional NMC data on the 

985: neutron and proton structure functions ratio and the 

986: CCFR neutrino data are used, our PDFs errors are smaller generally. 

987: We ascribe this difference to that in the analysis

988: of Ref.\cite{Botje:2000dj} the SCE was used in the fit.

989: This conclusion is supported by the comparison of the 

990: structure function $F_2$ band, calculated from the  

991: PDFs of Ref.\cite{Botje:2000dj}, with the data used in that fit. 

992: The comparison is given in Fig.~\ref{fig:f2p}.

993: One can see that the most left point error  

994: is smaller, than the error on the $F_2$ parametrization 

995: of Ref.\cite{Botje:2000dj} for 

996: this point, i.e. SCE applied for that analysis

997: uses information given by this measurement inefficiently.

998: The qualitative explanation

999: of such behaviour of the SCE is that for this estimator 

1000: the fitted parameters 

1001: systematic errors are basically determined by the data points with 

1002: the largest systematic errors. The CME used in our analysis 

1003: is more efficient, than SCE and, as one can 

1004: conclude from Fig.~\ref{fig:f2p}, our error on the $F_2$ parametrization

1005: is basically confined by the point with the lowest 

1006: systematic error. The difference of the SCE and CME PDFs errors 

1007: is more the more  

1008: is the relative contribution of the systematic errors to the total 

1009: one. As a consequence this difference 

1010: is especially large for the $u$-quark distribution and 

1011: it is demonstrative, that the error on the $u$-quark distribution of

1012: Ref.\cite{Botje:2000dj} almost coincide with the 

1013: $u$-quark distribution errors obtained from our SCE fit

1014: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:bot}). The error on $d$- and $u$-quarks 

1015: distributions ratio at high $x$ given by our PDFs  

1016: is also smaller, as compared with this error given by the 

1017: PDFs of Ref.\cite{Botje:2000dj} (see Fig.~\ref{fig:du}).

1018: 

1019: \section{The theoretical uncertainties}

1020: \label{sec:theor-uns}

1021: 

1022: The theoretical uncertainties inherent for a phenomenological analysis

1023: cannot be ultimately defined, since in the study progress 

1024: the set of such uncertainties may increase or

1025: decrease. In our analysis we accounted for the following 

1026: sources of the theoretical uncertainties:

1027: \begin{itemize}

1028: \item[{ ${\rm MC}$}] -- the change of the $c$-quark mass by 0.25 GeV;

1029: 

1030: \item[{ ${\rm SS}$}] -- the change of the strange sea suppression factor 

1031: by 0.1, in line with the estimate given by 

1032: the ${\rm NuTeV}$ collaboration \cite{Adams:1999sx};

1033: 

1034: \item[{ ${\rm TS}$}] -- the change of the heavy quarks threshold values

1035: from $m_{\rm c,b}$ to $\sqrt{6.5}m_{\rm c,b}$, in accordance with the 

1036: consideration of Sec.\ref{sec:theory};

1037: 

1038: \item[{ ${\rm RS}$}] -- the change of the renormalization scale 

1039: in evolution the equations from $Q/2$ to $2Q$;

1040: 

1041: \item[{ ${\rm DC}$}] -- the change of the deuterium nuclear model 

1042: based on the account of Fermi-motion \cite{Atwood:1973zp}

1043: on the phenomenological model of Ref.\cite{Gomez:1994ri}. 

1044: In view of the discussion of Refs.\cite{Melnitchouk:1999un,Yang:2000ew}

1045: on the applicability of the model of Ref.\cite{Gomez:1994ri} 

1046: to the light nuclei, 

1047: one may suppose that this change leads to the overestimation of the 

1048: corresponding error.

1049: \end{itemize}

1050: These changes were made in turn and the fitted parameters shifts

1051: for each change were taken as the theoretical errors on the parameters. 

1052: Sometimes in other similar analysis the PDFs theoretical errors due to 

1053: the $\alpha_{\rm s}$ and HT uncertainties are estimated using the same approach. 

1054: In our analysis these errors are included in the total experimental errors, since 

1055: both $\alpha_{\rm s}$ and the HT contribution are fitted.

1056: We underline, that the scales of the considered theoretical errors are rather 

1057: conventional, 

1058: since they are based on the ``reasonable'' estimates of the model uncertainties.

1059: For this reason the theoretical errors should be accounted for with certain cautions. 

1060: 

1061: 

1062: 

1063: \section{The \boldmath{$\alpha_{\rm s}$} value and the HT contribution}

1064: \label{sec:alphag}

1065: 

1066: We obtained from the fit the value 

1067: $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})=0.1165\pm0.0017({\rm stat+syst})$.

1068: The experimental error on $\alpha_{\rm s}$

1069: obtained in our analysis is two times less, than in the NLO

1070: analysis of similar data set described in Ref.\cite{Santiago:1999pr},

1071: where the value 

1072: $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})=0.1160\pm0.0034({\rm exp})$ was obtained.

1073: The contributions of separate sources of the theoretical errors

1074: on our value of $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})$ are given in 

1075: Table~IV.

1076: %\protect\ref{tab:alpha-teor}. 

1077: One can see, that the largest 

1078: contributions give uncertainties of the QCD renormalization scale 

1079: and the heavy quarks threshold values (especially for $b$-quark).

1080: Combining all these contributions in quadrature, we obtain

1081: \begin{equation}  

1082: \alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})=0.1165\pm0.0017({\rm stat+syst})

1083: \pm^{0.0026}_{0.0034}({\rm theor}),

1084: \label{eqn:alpha-glob}

1085: \end{equation}  

1086: which agrees with the modern world average

1087: $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})=0.1184\pm0.0031$

1088: given in Ref.\cite{Bethke:2000ai}. 

1089: Our estimate of the $\alpha_{\rm s}$ value is 

1090: insensitive to the complication of the PDFs form, since 

1091: it is almost uncorrelated with the PDFs parameters, in particular, 

1092: with the gluon distribution ones (see Table~\ref{tab:pdfcor}).

1093: 

1094: As it was recently reported in Ref.\cite{Vogt:1999ik}, 

1095: the net partons momentum for the PDFs, obtained from the data set 

1096: similar to one used in our analysis, is not equal to 1, if 

1097: one does not cut the data with $Q^2\lesssim 10~{\rm GeV}^2$.

1098: In particular, the net partons momentum obtained from  

1099: the analysis of the world charged leptons DIS 

1100: data with $Q^2\ge 3~${\rm GeV}$^2$ is 

1101: $<x>\approx1.08\pm0.02$, as it is given in Ref.\cite{Vogt:1999ik}.

1102: The conclusion drawn from this observation is 

1103: that the DIS data at low $Q$ are irrelevant 

1104: for the NLO QCD analysis and reliable results can be 

1105: obtained from the fit to the data with  

1106: $Q^2\ge 10~{\rm GeV}^2$, $W^2\ge 10~{\rm GeV}^2$ only. 

1107: The value of $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})=0.114\pm0.002$

1108: obtained in this analysis differs from ours.

1109: In order to perform comparison with this result, 

1110: we repeated our fit without imposing the momentum 

1111: conservation constraint on the PDFs and obtained that 

1112: at $Q^2=9~{\rm GeV}^2$ the net partons momentum is   

1113: $<x>=0.979\pm0.029$, which agrees with 1 and differs 

1114: from the results of Ref.\cite{Vogt:1999ik}.

1115: For this reason we

1116: cannot support the conclusion of Ref.\cite{Vogt:1999ik} 

1117: about irrelevance of the low $Q$ charged leptons DIS data

1118: for the NLO QCD analysis.

1119: For more detailed comparison we performed the

1120: test fit with the cuts of Ref.\cite{Vogt:1999ik}

1121: and also obtained the lower value

1122: $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})=0.1098\pm0.0055$,

1123: but with the error, which is significantly larger, than 

1124: one obtained in Ref.\cite{Vogt:1999ik}, and 

1125: the $\alpha_{\rm s}$ value obtained in this test 

1126: fit is in agreement with (\ref{eqn:alpha-glob})

1127: within the errors. 

1128: The observed difference of the $\alpha_{\rm s}$ errors

1129: evidently occurs due to in  

1130: our analysis we simultaneously fit both the $\alpha_{\rm s}$

1131: value and the HT contribution to $F_2$. As it was shown in 

1132: Refs.~\cite{Alekhin:1999hy,Alekhin:2000iq}, the latter are  

1133: strongly correlated, that certainly leads to the rise of 

1134: the parameters errors. In support of this conclusion, 

1135: if in our test fit the HT contribution is fixed, 

1136: the $\alpha_{\rm s}$ error

1137: falls from 0.0055 to 0.0014. However, the results of the  

1138: fit with the HT fixed are model dependent and essentially the 

1139: decrease of the experimental error is accompanied by the 

1140: uncontrolled rise of the theoretical errors. 

1141: 

1142: The HT contributions to the nucleon structure functions 

1143: $F_{\rm L}$ and to the proton and neutron structure functions

1144: $F_2$ are given in Fig.~\ref{fig:hts} and in Table~\ref{tab:hts}. 

1145: It is interesting that up to minimal $x$ the twist 4 contribution 

1146: to the structure function $F_2$ is non-zero,

1147: that coincides with the results of 

1148: Ref.\cite{Arneodo:1993kz} on the analysis of the NMC 

1149: data. The deviation of the $F_{\rm L}$ twist 4 contribution 

1150: off zero at low $x$ is even more significant.

1151: As one can see from Table~\ref{tab:hts}, the HT contributions 

1152: to $F_2$ and to $F_{\rm L}$ at low $x$ are very 

1153: sensitive to the approach used to account for the systematic errors

1154: on data. This is due to at low $x$ the HT contributions are 

1155: determined from the comparison of the data at the 

1156: kinematical edges of different experiments, 

1157: where the systematic errors are largest as a rule. 

1158: Note, that the HT parameters errors obtained in

1159: the CME fit are 2-3 times smaller, than in the SCE fit, 

1160: as well as the PDFs parameters errors.

1161: 

1162: The twist 4 contributions obtained at the different values of the QCD 

1163: evolution equations renormalization scale $\mu_{\rm R}$ 

1164: are given in Fig.~\ref{fig:hts}. The evident dependence of 

1165: $H_2$ on $\mu_{\rm R}$ at low $x$ indicates that in this 

1166: $x$-region the twist 4 contribution to $F_2$ can simulate the 

1167: effect of the NNLO corrections to the splitting functions

1168: $P$. Analogous effect for the structure function $xF_3$

1169: was demonstrated in Ref.~\cite{Alekhin:2000af}, while the direct 

1170: observation of the re-tuning of the twist 4 contribution to $xF_3$

1171: due to the account of the NNLO corrections was reported in 

1172: Ref.~\cite{Kataev:1998nc}. At the same time the $\mu_{\rm R}$

1173: dependence of $H_{\rm L}$ and of $H_2$ at high $x$ 

1174: is not so strong. The explanation of such behaviour 

1175: is given in Ref.~\cite{Alekhin:1999kt}. As it was also shown there,

1176: due to the HT contribution can partially absorb the NNLO corrections

1177: effects, the $\mu_{\rm R}$ dependence of the $\alpha_{\rm s}$

1178: value obtained in the simultaneous fit of the HT contribution

1179: and $\alpha_{\rm s}$

1180: is weaker, than in the fit with the HT contribution fixed. In particular, 

1181: due to this absorption, the $\alpha_{\rm s}$ renormalization scale error 

1182: obtained in our analysis is smaller, than in the analysis of 

1183: Ref.~\cite{Vogt:1999ik}.

1184:  

1185: The difference of the HT contributions to the proton and neutron 

1186: structure functions $F_2$ is given in Fig.~\ref{fig:ht-n}.

1187: One can see, that at low $x$ these contributions coincide

1188: within errors. This is in disagreement with the results of 

1189: Ref.~\cite{Szczurek:2000wp}.In that paper the data on the 

1190: difference of the proton and neutron structure functions $F_2$ 

1191: are compared with the calculations based on the standard PDFs

1192: and found to be lower than that calculations at 

1193: $x\sim 0.3$. This discrepancy was attributed to 

1194: the existence of the large HT 

1195: contribution to the difference of the proton and neutron 

1196: structure functions $F_2$. 

1197: We do observe the statistically significant deviation of 

1198: $H_2^{\rm n}-H_2^{\rm p}$ off zero, but at $x\sim 0.7$ instead of 

1199: $x\sim 0.3$. Unfortunately, this difference strongly depends on the 

1200: deuterium nuclear corrections model at large $x$ 

1201: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:ht-n}) and in order to 

1202: obtain a reliable estimate of the twist 4 contribution to $F_2^{\rm n}$ 

1203: an additional comparative analysis of the deuterium models is needed.

1204: 

1205: \section{The parton luminosities at the FNAL and LHC colliders}

1206: \label{sec:lum}

1207: 

1208: All errors on the hard processes cross sections due to the PDFs uncertainties 

1209: are concentrated in the parton luminosities (PLs), defined as 

1210: $$

1211: L_{ij}(M)=\frac{1}{s}\int^1_{\tau}\frac{dx}{x} q_i(x,M^2) 

1212: q_j(\tau/x,M^2),  

1213: $$

1214: where $s$ is the s.c.m. energy squared; $M$ is the produced mass; 

1215: $\tau=M^2/s$; $i$ and $j$ mark the parton species.

1216: Since the PLs errors strongly depend

1217: on the latter, one is to estimate the impact of the PDFs errors on the 

1218: calculated cross sections errors in each particular case.

1219: Our PDFs total errors, comprised of the theoretical errors combined 

1220: with the experimental ones are given in Fig.~\ref{fig:pdfs_err}.

1221: Despite of that the data set used for the extraction of our PDFs is limited

1222: by the DIS data, the PDFs errors are rather small at low $x$, i.e. in the  

1223: region especially important for the FNAL and LHC experiments.

1224: The valence quarks distributions errors are small at high $x$ also

1225: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:pdfs_err}). The experimental errors dominate

1226: for the sea and gluon distributions at high $x$ only (note, that 

1227: this is not the case for the SCE fit, as one can see from the comparison 

1228: of Fig.~\ref{fig:pdfs_err} and Fig.~\ref{fig:bot}).

1229: As one can see from Fig.~\ref{fig:pdfs_stat},

1230: the dominating source for the gluon distribution at low $x$ 

1231: is the RS uncertainty, for the sea distribution at low $x$, 

1232: the MC one, for the $d$-quark distribution, the DC one. 

1233: Remind, that in our analysis the errors due to the uncertainties 

1234: of the $\alpha_{\rm s}$

1235: value and the HT contribution are included into the experimental error.

1236: To estimate their contribution to the total error we re-calculated the 

1237: PDFs dispersions fixing the $\alpha_{\rm s}$ value and the HT

1238: contribution by turn, then extracted obtained dispersions from the 

1239: nominal dispersions 

1240: calculated with these parameters released. The square roots of these 

1241: differences were taken as the PDFs errors due to the $\alpha_{\rm s}$ and 

1242: the HT uncertainties respectively. The ratios of these errors to the total 

1243: PDFs errors are also given in Fig.~\ref{fig:pdfs_stat}. One can see, 

1244: that the $\alpha_{\rm s}$ uncertainty affects the gluon distribution 

1245: only, while the HT uncertainty contributes to the errors of all PDFs.

1246: 

1247: The errors on the PLs relevant for the most common processes 

1248: at the energy of the FNAL collider are given in Fig.~\ref{fig:lums-fnal}. 

1249: The upper limit of the pictures was chosen 

1250: so that the PLs at the upper limit is 

1251: $\sim 0.01$~1/pb, i.e. corresponds to the maximal sensitivity of 

1252: the planned experiments. One can see, that at the FNAL collider energy

1253: the theoretical errors dominate over the experimental ones at  

1254: $M\lesssim 0.2~{\rm TeV}$ and vice versa at 

1255: $M\gtrsim 0.2~{\rm TeV}$. The total PLs errors for the FNAL collider

1256: generally do not exceed 10\% at $M\lesssim 0.2~{\rm TeV}$, while

1257: for the quark-antiquark PL the total error is smaller, than 

1258: 10\% almost for all $M$ in question. The PLs pictures for the LHC energy, 

1259: given in Fig.~\ref{fig:lums-lhc}, approximately reproduce the FNAL 

1260: pictures with the produced mass $M$ scaled in 5 times and the quark-antiquark

1261: PL replaced by the quark-quark PL.

1262: 

1263: Due to the PDFs correlations generally are not small 

1264: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:pdfs_corr}), 

1265: the account of these correlations may affect the 

1266: calculated hard processes cross sections errors. 

1267: In some cases the PLs errors 

1268: may cancel in their ratio, as in the example given 

1269: in Table~\ref{tab:wz}.

1270: Calculating the theoretical errors on the hard processes cross sections

1271: one is also to take into account the correlations of PDFs with the 

1272: elementary processes cross sections, if the latter depend on the parameters 

1273: responsible for the PDFs theoretical uncertainties. Besides,  

1274: the RS PDFs uncertainty may be compensated by the NNLO 

1275: corrections to the elementary processes cross sections.

1276: 

1277: \section{Conclusion}

1278: 

1279: Significant part of the studies planned for the  

1280: next generation hadron-hadron and lepton-hadron colliders is devoted to the 

1281: precise Standard Model checks (see, e.g., review \cite{QCD}). 

1282: Such studies certainly imply careful control of all possible uncertainties, 

1283: including the PDFs errors.

1284: The PDFs obtained in our analysis are supplied by the experimental 

1285: and theoretical errors and can be used for the correct estimate of the 

1286: calculated hard processes cross sections uncertainties, necessary for 

1287: a precise phenomenological comparison aiming to detect a 

1288: manifestation of new physics

1289: (e.g., compositness in proton-proton and electron-proton collisions,

1290: the partons recombination at low $x$, precise determination of the 

1291: $W$ and $Z$ masses, etc.). A particular feature of our PDFs is that 

1292: they were obtained using efficient estimator and, as a result, have 

1293: minimal errors. The convenient code allowing to account 

1294: for the PDFs uncertainties in the Monte Carlo calculations is 

1295: accessible through the computer network\footnote{The WWW address is 

1296: http://www.ihep.su/$\tilde{~}$alekhin/pdf99}.

1297: Using the current version of this code one can obtain the  

1298: random Gaussian smeared PDFs values with the account 

1299: of the experimental and the theoretical uncertainties and their correlations.

1300: The special parameters allow one to scale the dispersions corresponding to the 

1301: separate sources of the PDFs uncertainties to give user the possibility 

1302: to study effects of each uncertainty and vary the confidence level of

1303: the errors on the calculations results.

1304: 

1305: 

1306: Author is indebted to A.L.~Kataev and S.A.~Kulagin for the careful 

1307: reading of the manuscript and valuable comments, 

1308: S.~Keller and W.J.~Stirling for 

1309: the interesting discussions. The work was partially supported by 

1310: the RFBR grant 00-02-17432. The final part of the work was completed during 

1311: the visit to CERN and author is grateful to the staff of the TH division for 

1312: providing good working conditions. 

1313: 

1314: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1315: 

1316: \bibitem{Whitlow:1992uw}

1317: L.~W.~Whitlow, E.~M.~Riordan, S.~Dasu, S.~Rock and A.~Bodek,

1318: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B282}, 475 (1992).

1319: 

1320: \bibitem{Benvenuti:1989rh}

1321: A.~C.~Benvenuti {\it et al.}  [BCDMS Collaboration],

1322: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B223} (1989) 485;\\

1323: A.~C.~Benvenuti {\it et al.}  [BCDMS Collaboration],

1324: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B237} (1990) 592.

1325: 

1326: \bibitem{Arneodo:1997qe}

1327: M.~Arneodo {\it et al.}  [New Muon Collaboration],

1328: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B483} (1997) 3

1329: [hep-ph/9610231].

1330: 

1331: \bibitem{Adams:1996gu}

1332: M.~R.~Adams {\it et al.}  [E665 Collaboration],

1333: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D54} (1996) 3006.

1334: 

1335: \bibitem{Aid:1996au}

1336: S.~Aid {\it et al.}  [H1 Collaboration],

1337: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B470}, 3 (1996)

1338: [hep-ex/9603004].

1339: 

1340: \bibitem{Derrick:1996hn}

1341: M.~Derrick {\it et al.}  [ZEUS Collaboration],

1342: Z.\ Phys.\  {\bf C72}, 399 (1996)

1343: [hep-ex/9607002].

1344: 

1345: \bibitem{Martin:2000ww}

1346: A.~D.~Martin, R.~G.~Roberts, W.~J.~Stirling and R.~S.~Thorne,

1347: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\  {\bf C14}, 133 (2000)

1348: [hep-ph/9907231].

1349: 

1350: \bibitem{Lai:2000wy}

1351: H.~L.~Lai {\it et al.}  [CTEQ Collaboration],

1352: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\  {\bf C12}, 375 (2000)

1353: [hep-ph/9903282].

1354: 

1355: \bibitem{Alekhin:1999za}

1356: S.~I.~Alekhin,

1357: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\  {\bf C10} (1999) 395

1358: [hep-ph/9611213].

1359: 

1360: \bibitem{Botje:2000dj}

1361: M.~Botje,

1362: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\  {\bf C14}, 285 (2000)

1363: [hep-ph/9912439].

1364: 

1365: \bibitem{Alekhin:2000es}

1366: S.~I.~Alekhin, Preprint IFVE-2000-17 (2000) [hep-ex/0005042].

1367: 

1368: \bibitem{Altarelli:1982ax} 

1369: B.~L.~Ioffe, V.~A.~Khoze and L.~N.~Lipatov,

1370: ``Hard Processes. Vol. 1: Phenomenology, Quark Parton Model,''

1371: {\it  Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland ( 1984) 340p}.

1372: 

1373: \bibitem{Wilson:1969zs}

1374: K.~G.~Wilson,

1375: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf 179}, 1499 (1969).

1376: 

1377: \bibitem{Georgi:1976ve}

1378: H.~Georgi and H.~D.~Politzer,

1379: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D14}, 1829 (1976).

1380: 

1381: \bibitem{Bukhvostov:1983te}

1382: A.~P.~Bukhvostov, E.~A.~Kuraev and L.~N.~Lipatov,

1383: Yad.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 38}, 439 (1983).

1384: 

1385: \bibitem{Alekhin:2000iq}

1386: S.~I.~Alekhin,

1387: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\  {\bf C12}, 587 (2000)

1388: [hep-ph/9902241].

1389: 

1390: \bibitem{Gribov:1972ri}

1391: V.~N.~Gribov and L.~N.~Lipatov,

1392: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 15}, 438 (1972);\\

1393: V.~N.~Gribov and L.~N.~Lipatov,

1394: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 15}, 675 (1972);\\

1395: G.~Altarelli and G.~Parisi, Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B126}, 298 (1977);\\

1396: Y.~L.~Dokshitzer, Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf 46}, 641 (1977).

1397: 

1398: \bibitem{SanchezGuillen:1991iq}

1399: J.~Sanchez Guillen, J.~Miramontes, M.~Miramontes, G.~Parente and O.~A.~Sampayo,

1400: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B353}, 337 (1991);\\

1401: W.~L.~van Neerven and E.~B.~Zijlstra,

1402: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B272}, 127 (1991), ibid. {\bf B273}, 476 (1991),

1403: ibid. {\bf B297}, 377 (1992);\\

1404: W.~L.~van Neerven and E.~B.~Zijlstra,

1405: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B382}, 11 (1992).

1406: 

1407: \bibitem{Larin:1997wd}

1408: S.~A.~Larin, T.~van Ritbergen and J.~A.~Vermaseren,

1409: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B427}, 41 (1994);\\

1410: S.~A.~Larin, P.~Nogueira, T.~van Ritbergen and J.~A.~Vermaseren,

1411: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B492}, 338 (1997)

1412: [hep-ph/9605317];\\

1413: A.~Retey and J.~A.~Vermaseren, hep-ph/0007294 (2000).

1414: 

1415: \bibitem{vanNeerven:2000ca}

1416: W.~L.~van Neerven and A.~Vogt,

1417: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B568}, 263 (2000)

1418: [hep-ph/9907472];\\

1419: W.~L.~van Neerven and A.~Vogt,

1420: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B490}, 111 (2000)

1421: [hep-ph/0007362].

1422: 

1423: \bibitem{Kataev:1998nc}

1424: A.~L.~Kataev, A.~V.~Kotikov, G.~Parente and A.~V.~Sidorov,

1425: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B417}, 374 (1998)

1426: [hep-ph/9706534].

1427: 

1428: \bibitem{Kataev:1998ce}

1429: A.~L.~Kataev, G.~Parente and A.~V.~Sidorov,

1430: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B573}, 405 (2000)

1431: [hep-ph/9905310].

1432: 

1433: \bibitem{Santiago:1999pr}

1434: J.~Santiago and F.~J.~Yndurain,

1435: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B563}, 45 (1999)

1436: [hep-ph/9904344].

1437: 

1438: \bibitem{Vogt:1999ik}

1439: A.~Vogt,

1440: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 79}, 102 (1999)

1441: [hep-ph/9906337]

1442: 

1443: \bibitem{Furmanski:1982cw}

1444: W.~Furmanski and R.~Petronzio,

1445: Z.\ Phys.\  {\bf C11}, 293 (1982);\\

1446: W.~Furmanski and R.~Petronzio,

1447: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B97}, 437 (1980);\\

1448: G.~Curci, W.~Furmanski and R.~Petronzio,

1449: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B175}, 27 (1980).

1450: 

1451: \bibitem{Alekhin:1999hy}

1452: S.~I.~Alekhin,

1453: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D59}, 114016 (1999)

1454: [hep-ph/9809544].

1455: 

1456: \bibitem{Bernreuther:1982sg}

1457: W.~Bernreuther and W.~Wetzel,

1458: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B197}, 228 (1982), 

1459: ibid.{\bf B513}, 758 (1998) (Err);\\

1460: S.~A.~Larin, T.~van Ritbergen and J.~A.~Vermaseren,

1461: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B438}, 278 (1995)

1462: [hep-ph/9411260];\\

1463: K.~G.~Chetyrkin, B.~A.~Kniehl and M.~Steinhauser,

1464: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 79}, 2184 (1997)

1465: [hep-ph/9706430].

1466: 

1467: \bibitem{Blumlein:1999sh}

1468: J.~Blumlein and W.~L.~van Neerven,

1469: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B450} (1999) 417

1470: [hep-ph/9811351].

1471: 

1472: \bibitem{Barnett:1996hr}

1473: R.~M.~Barnett {\it et al.},

1474: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D54}, 1 (1996).

1475: 

1476: \bibitem{Martin:1991jd}

1477: A.~D.~Martin, W.~J.~Stirling and R.~G.~Roberts,

1478: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B266}, 173 (1991).

1479: 

1480: \bibitem{INDUR} Yndurain, F.J.,

1481:    ``Quantum Chromodynamics: an Introduction to the Theory of Quarks

1482: and Gluons'', Springer-Verlag, 1983. 227p.

1483: 

1484: \bibitem{Matveev:1973ra}

1485: V.~A.~Matveev, R.~M.~Muradian and A.~N.~Tavkhelidze,

1486: Lett.\ Nuovo Cim.\  {\bf 7}, 719 (1973).

1487: 

1488: \bibitem{Brodsky:1973kr}

1489: S.~J.~Brodsky and G.~R.~Farrar,

1490: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 31}, 1153 (1973).

1491: 

1492: \bibitem{Alekhin:1999kt}

1493: S.~I.~Alekhin, 

1494: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B488}, 187 (2000)

1495: [hep-ph/9912484].

1496: 

1497: \bibitem{Blumlein:1996rp}

1498: J.~Blumlein, S.~Riemersma, M.~Botje, C.~Pascaud, F.~Zomer, W.~L.~van Neerven 

1499: and A.~Vogt, in ``Hamburg 1995/1996, Future physics at HERA'', p.23 (1996)

1500: [hep-ph/9609400].

1501: 

1502: \bibitem{MATHBOOK} ``Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs,

1503: and Mathematical Tables'', ed. by M.~Abramowitz and I.~A.~Stegun., 

1504: Dover, 1972. 1046p.  (Applied Math Series, 55)

1505: 

1506: \bibitem{Collins:1986mp}

1507: J.~C.~Collins and W.~Tung,

1508: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B278}, 934 (1986).

1509: 

1510: \bibitem{Witten:1976bh}

1511: E.~Witten,

1512: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B104}, 445 (1976).

1513: 

1514: \bibitem{Shifman:1978yb}

1515: M.~A.~Shifman, A.~I.~Vainshtein and V.~I.~Zakharov,

1516: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B136}, 157 (1978).

1517: 

1518: \bibitem{Gluck:1994dp}

1519: M.~Gluck, E.~Reya and M.~Stratmann,

1520: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B422}, 37 (1994).

1521: 

1522: \bibitem{Laenen:1993xs}

1523: E.~Laenen, S.~Riemersma, J.~Smith and W.~L.~van Neerven,

1524: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B392}, 229 (1993).

1525: 

1526: \bibitem{Berger:1979du}

1527: E.~L.~Berger and S.~J.~Brodsky,

1528: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 42}, 940 (1979);\\

1529: J.~F.~Gunion, P.~Nason and R.~Blankenbecler,

1530: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D29}, 2491 (1984).

1531: 

1532: \bibitem{Abbott:1980as}

1533: L.~F.~Abbott and R.~M.~Barnett,

1534: Annals Phys.\  {\bf 125}, 276 (1980);\\

1535: L.~F.~Abbott, W.~B.~Atwood and R.~M.~Barnett,

1536: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D22}, 582 (1980).

1537: 

1538: \bibitem{Buras:1980yt}

1539: A.~J.~Buras,

1540: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\  {\bf 52}, 199 (1980).

1541: 

1542: \bibitem{Bednyakov:1984gh}

1543: V.~A.~Bednyakov, I.~S.~Zlatev, Y.~P.~Ivanov, P.~S.~Isaev and S.~G.~Kovalenko,

1544: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf 40}, 494 (1984).

1545: 

1546: \bibitem{Penin:1997zk}

1547: A.~A.~Penin and A.~A.~Pivovarov,

1548: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B401}, 294 (1997)

1549: [hep-ph/9612204].

1550: 

1551: \bibitem{Mahapatra:1997av}

1552: B.~P.~Mahapatra, Preprint SU-PHY-97-03 (1997).

1553: 

1554: \bibitem{Adams:1999sx}

1555: T.~Adams {\it et al.}  [NuTeV Collaboration],

1556: Talk given at 34th Recontres de Moriond: QCD and Hadronic 

1557: Interactions, Les Arcs, France, Mar 1999

1558: [hep-ex/9906037].

1559: 

1560: \bibitem{Martin:1995kk}

1561: A.~D.~Martin, W.~J.~Stirling and R.~G.~Roberts,

1562: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D51}, 4756 (1995)

1563: [hep-ph/9409410].

1564: 

1565: \bibitem{Atwood:1973zp}

1566: W.~B.~Atwood and G.~B.~West,

1567: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D7} (1973) 773.

1568: 

1569: \bibitem{Lacombe:1980dr}

1570: M.~Lacombe, B.~Loiseau, J.~M.~Richard, R.~Vinh Mau, J.~Cote, P.~Pires 

1571: and R.~De Tourreil,

1572: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf C21}, 861 (1980);\\

1573: M.~Lacombe, B.~Loiseau, R.~Vinh Mau, J.~Cote, P.~Pires and R.~de Tourreil,

1574: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B101}, 139 (1981).

1575: 

1576: \bibitem{Sokolov:1988mw}

1577: S.~N.~Sokolov, Preprint IFVE-88-110 (1988).

1578: 

1579: \bibitem{Whitlow:1990dr}

1580: L.~W.~Whitlow, Report SLAC-0357 (1990).

1581: 

1582: \bibitem{Giele:1998gw}

1583: W.~T.~Giele and S.~Keller,

1584: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D58}, 094023 (1998)

1585: [hep-ph/9803393].

1586: 

1587: \bibitem{Gross:1974fm}

1588: D.~J.~Gross,

1589: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 32}, 1071 (1974).

1590: 

1591: \bibitem{Seligman:1997fe}

1592: W.~G.~Seligman, Report NEVIS-292 (1997).

1593: 

1594: \bibitem{Kataev:2000dp}

1595: A.~L.~Kataev, G.~Parente and A.~V.~Sidorov,

1596: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf A666}, 184 (2000)

1597: [hep-ph/9907310].

1598: 

1599: \bibitem{Werlen:1999fn}

1600: M.~Werlen, Preprint LAPTH-734-99 [hep-ph/9906483].

1601: 

1602: \bibitem{Laenen:2000ii}

1603: E.~Laenen, G.~Sterman and W.~Vogelsang,

1604: Contributed to 8th Inetrnational Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering

1605: and QCD (DIS 2000), Liverpool, England, Apr 2000

1606: [hep-ph/0006352].

1607: 

1608: \bibitem{Prytz:1993vr}

1609: K.~Prytz,

1610: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B311}, 286 (1993).

1611: 

1612: \bibitem{Seligman:1997mc}

1613: W.~G.~Seligman {\it et al.},

1614: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 79}, 1213 (1997).

1615: 

1616: \bibitem{Bodek:2000yr}

1617: U.~K.~Yang {\it et al.}  [CCFR/NuTeV Collaboration],

1618: hep-ex/0009041 (2000). 

1619: 

1620: \bibitem{Gomez:1994ri}

1621: J.~Gomez {\it et al.},

1622: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D49} (1994) 4348.

1623: 

1624: \bibitem{Melnitchouk:1999un}

1625: W.~Melnitchouk, I.~R.~Afnan, F.~Bissey and A.~W.~Thomas,

1626: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 84}, 5455 (2000)

1627: [hep-ex/9912001].

1628: 

1629: \bibitem{Yang:2000ew}

1630: U.~K.~Yang and A.~Bodek,

1631: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 84}, 5456 (2000)

1632: [hep-ph/9912543].

1633: 

1634: \bibitem{Bethke:2000ai}

1635: S.~Bethke,

1636: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf G26}, R27 (2000)

1637: [hep-ex/0004021].

1638: 

1639: \bibitem{Arneodo:1993kz}

1640: M.~Arneodo {\it et al.}  [New Muon Collaboration],

1641: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B309}, 222 (1993).

1642: 

1643: \bibitem{Alekhin:2000af}

1644: S.~I.~Alekhin and A.~L.~Kataev,

1645: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf A666-667}, 179 (2000)

1646: [hep-ph/9908349].

1647: 

1648: \bibitem{Szczurek:2000wp}

1649: A.~Szczurek and V.~Uleshchenko,

1650: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B475}, 120 (2000)

1651: [hep-ph/9911467];\\

1652: A.~Szczurek,

1653: Talk given at 8th International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering

1654: and QCD (DIS 2000), Liverpool, England, Apr 2000

1655: [hep-ph/0006320].

1656: 

1657: \bibitem{QCD} 

1658: A.~Ahmadov, {\it et al.},

1659: Proceedings of the Workshop on Standard Model Physics

1660: (and more) at the LHC, ed. G.Altarelli and M.L.Mangano, CERN-2000-04 (2000);//

1661: S.~Catani {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0005025.

1662: 

1663: 

1664: \end{thebibliography}

1665: 

1666: \newpage 

1667: 

1668: \begin{figure}

1669: \centerline{\epsfig{file=bench.eps,width=12cm,height=10cm}}

1670: \caption{$\Delta$ is relative precision of our code used for 

1671: the evolution equations integration. Indices $u$ and $d$ 

1672: correspond to the valence quarks;

1673: $S$, to the sea quarks; $G$, to gluon.}

1674: \label{fig:bench}

1675: \end{figure}

1676: 

1677: \begin{figure}

1678: \centerline{\epsfig{file=rzeush.eps,width=12cm,height=7cm}}

1679: \caption{The distribution of diagonalized residuals for the 

1680: ZEUS and H1 data (full curves: normal distribution, 

1681: dashes: the Gauss distribution with the dispersion and the mean 

1682: equal to the dispersion and the mean of the residuals distribution).

1683: All curves are normalized to the number of points in each experiment.}

1684: \label{fig:resid}

1685: \end{figure}

1686: 

1687: 

1688: \begin{figure}

1689: \centerline{\epsfig{file=pdf.eps,width=12cm,height=18cm}}

1690: \caption{The 1$\sigma$ experimental error bands for our 

1691: PDFs at $Q^2=9~{\rm GeV}^2$ (full lines).

1692: For comparison the nominal 

1693: MRST99 (dots) and CTEQ5 (dashes) PDFs are also given.}

1694: \label{fig:pdfs}

1695: \end{figure}

1696: 

1697: 

1698: \begin{figure}

1699: \centerline{\epsfig{file=rerr.eps,width=12cm,height=9cm}}

1700: \caption{The relative experimental PDFs errors [\%] (full lines: the total errors, 

1701: dashes: the experimental ones). For comparison the relative 

1702: experimental errors on the PDFs of Ref.\protect\cite{Alekhin:1999za} are also 

1703: given (dots).}

1704: \label{fig:pdfs_err}

1705: \end{figure}

1706: 

1707: \begin{figure}

1708: \centerline{\epsfig{file=pdfsys.eps,width=12cm,height=8cm}}

1709: \caption{The ratio of the systematic errors on the 

1710: fitted PDFs to the statistical ones (full lines: the gluon distribution;

1711: dashes: the total sea one; dots: the $d$-quark one; dotted-dashes: the $u$-quark one).} 

1712: \label{fig:pdfs_syst}

1713: \end{figure}

1714: 

1715: \begin{figure}

1716: \centerline{\epsfig{file=bot.eps,width=12cm,height=9cm}}

1717: \caption{The relative experimental PDFs errors [\%]

1718: (full lines: our analysis, dashes: the analysis of Ref.\protect\cite{Botje:2000dj}).

1719: For comparison the relative experimental PDF errors obtained in our analysis 

1720: from the SCE fit are also given (dots).}

1721: \label{fig:bot}

1722: \end{figure}

1723: 

1724: \begin{figure}

1725: \centerline{\epsfig{file=pdfcor.eps,width=12cm,height=10cm}}

1726: \caption{The PDFs correlation coefficients at different $Q^2$.}

1727: \label{fig:pdfs_corr}

1728: \end{figure}

1729: 

1730: \begin{figure}

1731: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f2p.eps,width=12cm,height=8cm}}

1732: \caption{The $1\sigma$ experimental error bands for 

1733: $F_2^{\rm p}$ calculated using different PDFs

1734: (full line: our PDFs; dashes: the PDFs of 

1735: Ref.\protect\cite{Botje:2000dj}).

1736: Circles: the SLAC data; squares: the BCDMS ones.}

1737: \label{fig:f2p}

1738: \end{figure}

1739: 

1740: \begin{figure}

1741: \centerline{\epsfig{file=du.eps,width=12cm,height=8cm}}

1742: \caption{The $1\sigma$ experimental error bands for 

1743: the ratio of $d$- and $u$-quarks distributions at 

1744: $Q^2=9~{\rm GeV}^2$ (full lines: our PDFs; dashes:

1745: the PDFs of Ref.\protect\cite{Botje:2000dj}.}

1746: \label{fig:du}

1747: \end{figure}

1748: 

1749: \begin{figure}

1750: \centerline{\epsfig{file=hts.eps,width=12cm,height=7cm}}

1751: \caption{The twist 4 contribution to the 

1752: proton structure function $F_2$ and to the nucleon 

1753: structure function $F_{\rm L}$ (full circles: 

1754: $\mu_{\rm R}=Q$; open circles: $\mu_{\rm R}=2Q$; 

1755: squares: $\mu_{\rm R}=Q/2$). For better view the points 

1756: corresponding to different $\mu_{\rm R}$

1757: are shifted to left-right along the $x$-axis.}

1758: \label{fig:hts}

1759: \end{figure}

1760: 

1761: \begin{figure}

1762: \centerline{\epsfig{file=htn.eps,width=12cm,height=7cm}}

1763: \caption{The difference of the twist 4 contributions to the 

1764: neutron and proton structure functions $F_2$ obtained in the 

1765: fits using the different deuterium models (full circles: the 

1766: Fermi-motion model; open circles: the model of 

1767: Ref.\protect\cite{Gomez:1994ri}.

1768: For better view the points corresponding to different models 

1769: are shifted to left-right along the $x$-axis.}

1770: \label{fig:ht-n}

1771: \end{figure}

1772: 

1773: 

1774: \begin{figure}

1775: \centerline{\epsfig{file=ahs.eps,width=12cm,height=10cm}}

1776: \caption{The ratios of the PDFs errors due to separate sources 

1777: to the total PDFs errors (full lines: the gluon distribution;

1778: dashes: the non-strange sea one; dots: the $d$-quark one; 

1779: dotted-dashes: the $u$-quark one).

1780: THEOR means the sum of the MC,SS,RS,TS, and DC 

1781: contributions.}

1782: \label{fig:pdfs_stat}

1783: \end{figure}

1784: 

1785: 

1786: \begin{figure}

1787: \centerline{\epsfig{file=lums_fnal.eps,width=12cm,height=9cm}}

1788: \caption{The relative errors on selected PLs for the FNAL 

1789: collider (full lines: experimental errors, short dashes:

1790: RS; dotted-dashes: TS; sparse dots: DC; dense dots: MC;

1791: long dashes: SS). Other notations:

1792: $L_{\rm qq}=L_{\rm uu}+L_{\rm dd}+L_{\rm du}$; 

1793: $L_{\rm q\bar q}=L_{\rm u \bar d}+L_{\rm d \bar u}$; 

1794: $L_{\rm (q+\bar q)G}=L_{\rm uG}+L_{\rm \bar uG}+L_{\rm dG}+L_{\rm \bar dG}$.}

1795: \label{fig:lums-fnal}

1796: \end{figure}

1797: 

1798: \begin{figure}

1799: \centerline{\epsfig{file=lums.eps,width=12cm,height=9cm}}

1800: \caption{The relative errors on selected PLs for the LHC

1801: collider. The notations are the same as in Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:lums-fnal}.} 

1802: \label{fig:lums-lhc}

1803: \end{figure}

1804: 

1805: \newpage 

1806: \begin{table}

1807: \caption{Total number of points (NDP), number of independent 

1808: sources of systematic errors (NSE), $\chi^2/{\rm NDP}$ 

1809: and the net residual $R$ for each experiment (standard deviation of $R$ is 

1810: given in parenthesis). Also the renormalization factors

1811: $\xi$ for the old SLAC experiments are given.}

1812: \begin{center}

1813: \scriptsize

1814: \begin{tabular}{cccccc} 

1815: &\multicolumn{2}{c}{${\rm NDP}/(1-\xi)$[\%]}&&& \\ \cline{2-3}

1816: experiment&proton&deuterium&${\rm NSE}$&

1817: $\chi^2/{\rm NDP}$&$R$\\  \hline

1818: ${\rm SLAC}$-${\rm E}$-${\rm 49A}$  &58~/~$1.8\pm1.3$ &58~/~-$0.4\pm1.2$   &3&0.52&--0.05(0.23)   \\ 

1819: ${\rm SLAC}$-${\rm E}$-${\rm 49B}$  &144~/~$2.0\pm1.3$&135~/~$-0.1\pm1.3$ &3&1.20&0.22(0.29)     \\  

1820: ${\rm SLAC}$-${\rm E}$-${\rm 87}$   &90~/~$2.0\pm1.2$&90~/~$0.2\pm1.2$   &3&0.91&0.01(0.37)   \\  

1821: ${\rm SLAC}$-${\rm E}$-${\rm 89A}$   &66~/~$4.2\pm1.8$&59~/~$1.2\pm1.9$  &3&1.34&--0.18(0.45)    \\  

1822: ${\rm SLAC}$-${\rm E}$-${\rm 89B}$  &79~/~$1.5\pm1.2$&62~/~$-0.7\pm1.2$   &3&0.82&0.46(0.49)   \\  

1823: ${\rm SLAC}$-${\rm E}$-${\rm 139}$   &--&16~/~$1.0\pm1.2$  &3&0.64&--0.10(0.43)    \\ 

1824: ${\rm SLAC}$-${\rm E}$-${\rm 140}$  &--&26   &4&0.89&0.51(0.86)   \\ 

1825: ${\rm BCDMS}$  &351&254 &9&1.15&0.07(0.68)        \\ 

1826: ${\rm NMC}$    &245&245 &13&1.32&0.05(0.62)   \\  

1827: ${\rm H1(94)}$    &--&147 &5&0.96&0.11(0.25)   \\ 

1828: ${\rm ZEUS(94)}$  &--&188 &20&2.14&0.32(0.34)   \\

1829: ${\rm FNAL}$-${\rm E}$-${\rm 665}$    &47&47 &10&1.23&0.38(0.38)   \\  

1830: Total  &1080&1327 &79&1.20&0.12(0.22)     \\ 

1831: \end{tabular}

1832: \label{tab:global}

1833: \end{center}

1834: \normalsize

1835: \end{table}

1836: 

1837: \begin{table}

1838: \caption{The fitted $\alpha_{\rm s}$ and the 

1839: PDFs parameters values (I: the CME fit; II: the SCE fit;

1840: III: the fit with the statistical and systematic errors

1841: combined in quadrature). Given errors on the parameters

1842: include both statistical and systematic errors, pure 

1843: statistical errors are given in parenthesis.}

1844: \scriptsize

1845: \begin{center}

1846: \begin{tabular}{lcccc}   

1847:        && I &II & III\\ \hline

1848: Valence quarks:&&&&        \\

1849:             &$a_{\rm u}$&$0.693\pm0.033(0.027)$&$0.715\pm0.114(0.029)$

1850: &$0.703\pm0.035$        \\

1851:        &$b_{\rm u}$&$3.945\pm0.050(0.039)$&$4.119\pm0.257(0.038)$

1852: &$4.037\pm0.049$        \\

1853:        &$\gamma_2^{\rm u}$&$1.29\pm0.44(0.37)$&$1.39\pm1.86(0.40)$

1854: &$1.42\pm0.49$    \\

1855:        &$a_{\rm d}$&$0.725\pm0.086(0.082)$&$0.703\pm0.172(0.094)$

1856: &$0.717\pm0.13$        \\

1857:        &$b_{\rm d}$&$4.93\pm0.13(0.12)$&$4.83\pm0.27(0.17)$

1858: &$5.00\pm0.17$        \\

1859: Gluon:&&&&        \\

1860: &$a_G$&$-0.225\pm0.035(0.031)$&$-0.169\pm0.065(0.029)$

1861: &$-0.135\pm0.044$        \\

1862:        &$b_{\rm G}$&$6.1\pm2.1(1.8)$&$4.9\pm5.6(1.7)$

1863: &$4.07\pm1.3$        \\

1864:        &$\gamma_1^{\rm G}$&$-2.63\pm0.83(0.71)$&$-3.41\pm0.99(0.45)$

1865: &$-4.06\pm0.48$    \\

1866:        &$\gamma_2^{\rm G}$&$4.7\pm2.9(2.4)$&$4.44\pm3.4(1.3)$

1867: &$5.41\pm1.2$    \\

1868: Sea quarks:&&&&        \\

1869: &$A_{\rm S}$&$0.166\pm0.011(0.0095)$ &$0.167\pm0.025(0.011)$

1870: &$0.167\pm0.017$       \\

1871: &$a_{\rm sd}$&$-0.1987\pm0.0067(0.0050)$&$-0.1853\pm0.0181(0.0050)$

1872: &$-0.1833\pm0.0075$       \\

1873:        &$b_{\rm sd}$&$5.1\pm1.4(1.3)$ &$5.4\pm2.8(1.4)$

1874: &$4.9\pm2.1$       \\

1875:        &$\eta_{\rm u}$&$1.13\pm0.11(0.087)$ &$1.10\pm0.23(0.086)$

1876: &$1.16\pm0.16$       \\

1877:        &$b_{\rm su}$&$10.29\pm0.97(0.81)$ &$10.56\pm3.2(0.83)$

1878: &$11.2\pm1.1$       \\

1879: &&&&        \\

1880:        &$\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})$&$0.1165\pm0.0017(0.0014)$ 

1881: &$0.1138\pm0.0044(0.0021)$&$0.1190\pm0.0036$ \\

1882: \end{tabular}

1883: \end{center}

1884: \normalsize

1885: \label{tab:pdfpars}

1886: \end{table}

1887: 

1888: \begin{table}

1889: \caption{The correlation coefficients for the starting PDFs parameters.

1890: The largest coefficients are printed in bold.}

1891: \tiny

1892: \begin{tabular}{cccccccccccccccc}

1893: &$a_{\rm u}$ & $b_{\rm u}$ & $\gamma_2^{\rm u}$ & $a_{\rm d}$ & $b_{\rm d}$ 

1894: & $A_{\rm S}$ & $a_{\rm sd}$ & $b_{\rm sd}$ &

1895: $\eta_{\rm u}$ & $b_{\rm su}$ & $a_{\rm G}$ & $b_{\rm G}$ & 

1896: $\gamma_1^{\rm G}$ & $\gamma_2^{\rm G}$ & $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})$  \\ 

1897: $a_{\rm u}$   &1.00 &&&&&&&&&&&&&& \\

1898: $b_{\rm u}$&--{\bf 0.84}&1.00 &&&&&&&&&&&&& \\

1899: $\gamma_2^{\rm u}$

1900: &\bf{-0.97}&\bf{0.92}&1.00 &&&&&&&&&&&& \\

1901:  $a_{\rm d}$ 

1902: &--0.09&--0.09&0.05&1.00 &&&&&&&&&&& \\

1903:  $b_{\rm d}$ 

1904: &--0.21&0.02&0.19&0.71&1.00 &&&&&&&&&& \\

1905:  $A_{\rm S}$ 

1906: &--0.14&0.34&0.24&\bf{--0.86}&--0.54&1.00 &&&&&&&&& \\

1907:  $a_{\rm sd}$ 

1908: &0.58&--0.45&--0.55&0.37&0.16&--0.46&1.00 &&&&&&&& \\

1909: $b_{\rm sd}$ 

1910: &--0.05&--0.10&0.00&\bf{0.97}&0.54&\bf{--0.88}&0.40&1.00 &&&&&&& \\

1911: $\eta_{\rm u}$

1912: &0.25&--0.13&--0.23&--0.69&--0.24&0.47&0.01&--0.78&1.00 &&&&&& \\

1913:  $b_{\rm su}$ 

1914: &\bf{0.83}&--0.74&\bf{--0.86}&--0.14&--0.16&--0.24&0.62&--0.10&0.44&1.00 &&&&& \\

1915: $a_{\rm G}$

1916: &0.23&--0.22&--0.23&0.37&0.20&--0.38&0.53&0.37&--0.21&0.18&1.00 &&&& \\

1917:  $b_{\rm G}$ 

1918: &0.18&--0.17&--0.20&0.11&0.17&--0.08&--0.10&0.06&--0.11&--0.02&0.27&1.00 &&& \\

1919:  $\gamma_1^{\rm G}$ 

1920: &--0.36&0.34&0.36&--0.45&--0.30&0.48&--0.52&--0.44&0.18&--0.30&\bf{--0.82}&--0.47&1.00 && \\

1921:  $\gamma_2^{\rm G}$ 

1922: &0.34&--0.34&--0.36&0.28&0.26&--0.32&0.15&0.23&--0.11&0.20&0.46&\bf{0.89}&--0.77&1.00&\\ 

1923:  $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})$

1924: &0.22&--0.31&--0.18&0.01&--0.05&--0.05&0.04&--0.01&0.04&0.17&0.01&--0.39&0.03&--0.18&1.00\\

1925: \end{tabular}

1926: \label{tab:pdfcor}

1927: \end{table}

1928: 

1929: \begin{table}

1930: \begin{center}

1931: \caption{The $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})$ theoretical errors due to different sources.}

1932: \begin{tabular}{cc} 

1933: Source & Value \\ 

1934: ${\rm MC}$ & $\pm0.0003$ \\ 

1935: ${\rm SS}$ & $\pm0.0001$ \\ 

1936: ${\rm RS}$ & $\pm_{0.0024}^{0.0026}$ \\ 

1937: ${\rm TS}$ & $-0.0020$ \\ 

1938: ${\rm DC}$ & $-0.0012$ \\ 

1939: \end{tabular}

1940: \end{center}

1941: \protect\label{tab:alpha-teor}

1942: \end{table}

1943: 

1944: \begin{table}

1945: \caption{The fitted twist 4 contributions 

1946: (I: the CME fit; II: the SCE fit; III: the fit with 

1947: the statistical and systematic errors combined in quadrature).

1948: Given errors on the parameters

1949: include both statistical and systematic errors, pure 

1950: statistical errors are given in parenthesis.}

1951: \scriptsize

1952: \begin{center}

1953: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}  

1954:                 &  $x$      &      I            & II                & III              \\  \hline

1955: $H_2^{\rm p}$:&&   &   &   \\

1956: &0.& $-0.085\pm0.026(0.020)$  & $-0.124\pm0.051(0.020)$  & $-0.132\pm0.035$  \\ 

1957: &0.1          & $-0.057\pm0.019(0.014)$  & $-0.107\pm0.076(0.014)$  & $-0.094\pm0.021$ \\

1958: &0.2          & $-0.024\pm0.012(0.0097)$  & $-0.057\pm0.049(0.010)$  & $-0.054\pm0.016$  \\ 

1959: &0.3          & $-0.010\pm0.010(0.0089)$  & $-0.027\pm0.024(0.0090)$  & $-0.017\pm0.015$  \\ 

1960: &0.4          & $0.002\pm0.010(0.0089)$  & $0.002\pm0.024(0.0090)$   & $-0.002\pm0.016$   \\ 

1961: &0.5          & $0.0292\pm0.0085(0.0074)$   & $0.041\pm0.020(0.0079)$   & $0.025\pm0.015$   \\ 

1962: &0.6          & $0.0522\pm0.0078(0.0069)$   & $0.068\pm0.017(0.0074)$   & $0.051\pm0.013$   \\ 

1963: &0.7          & $0.0535\pm0.0061(0.0055)$   & $0.074\pm0.013(0.0058)$     & $0.056\pm0.010$     \\ 

1964: &0.8          & $0.0488\pm0.0064(0.0061)$     & $0.0545\pm0.0085(0.0060)$     & $0.0471\pm0.0085$     \\  

1965: $H_{\rm L}^{\rm N}$:&&   &   &   \\

1966: &0.    & $0.332\pm0.046(0.033)$  & $0.13\pm0.11(0.033)$  & $0.028\pm0.061$  \\ 

1967: &0.1    & $0.108\pm0.020(0.016)$  & $0.117\pm0.065(0.016)$  & $0.118\pm0.022$  \\ 

1968: &0.2    & $0.094\pm0.019(0.015)$  & $0.145\pm0.047(0.015)$  & $0.097\pm0.021$  \\ 

1969: &0.3    & $0.096\pm0.018(0.016)$  & $0.133\pm0.031(0.016)$  & $0.115\pm0.021$  \\ 

1970: &0.4    & $0.014\pm0.017(0.015)$   & $0.040\pm0.027(0.015)$   & $0.033\pm0.019$   \\ 

1971: &0.5    & $0.0179\pm0.0088(0.0068)$   & $0.023\pm0.014(0.0069)$   & $0.015\pm0.011$   \\ 

1972: &0.6    & $0.0031\pm0.0094(0.0076)$   & $-0.016\pm0.024(0.0076)$   & $-0.0033\pm0.0089$   \\ 

1973: &0.7    & $0.0195\pm0.0064(0.0056)$   & $0.008\pm0.016(0.0055)$     & $0.0134\pm0.0067$     \\ 

1974: &0.8    & $0.024\pm0.012(0.012)$     & $0.01\pm0.023(0.012)$     & $0.012\pm0.014$     \\

1975: $H_2^{\rm n}-H_2^{\rm p}$:&&   &   &   \\

1976: &0.    & $0.054\pm0.050(0.041)$  & $0.045\pm0.112(0.041)$  & $0.095\pm0.077$  \\ 

1977: &0.1    & $0.031\pm0.027(0.026)$  & $0.041\pm0.047(0.026)$  & $0.003\pm0.037$  \\ 

1978: &0.2    & $-0.017\pm0.018(0.017)$  & $0.024\pm0.046(0.017)$  & $-0.014\pm0.024$  \\ 

1979: &0.3    & $0.010\pm0.017(0.016)$  & $0.052\pm0.038(0.016)$  & $0.014\pm0.021$  \\ 

1980: &0.4    & $0.023\pm0.016(0.015)$  & $0.047\pm0.037(0.015)$  & $0.036\pm0.019$  \\ 

1981: &0.5    & $0.0068\pm0.011(0.010)$  & $0.009\pm0.026(0.011)$  & $0.019\pm0.016$  \\ 

1982: &0.6    & $-0.029\pm0.0091(0.0086)$  & $-0.037\pm0.016(0.0092)$  & $-0.022\pm0.015$  \\

1983: &0.7    & $-0.052\pm0.0073(0.0068)$  & $-0.073\pm0.014(0.0071$)  & $-0.055\pm0.011$  \\ 

1984: &0.8    & $-0.075\pm0.011(0.010)$  & $-0.079\pm0.014(0.010)$  & $-0.073\pm0.013$  \\

1985: \end{tabular}

1986: \end{center}

1987: \normalsize

1988: \label{tab:hts}

1989: \end{table}

1990: 

1991: \begin{table}

1992: \caption{The relative errors on the PLs involved in the 

1993: calculations of the $W$ and $Z$ production cross sections 

1994: at the FNAL collider ($L_{\rm W}=L_{\rm u\bar d}+L_{\rm d\bar u}$, 

1995: $L_{\rm Z}=L_{\rm u\bar u}+L_{\rm d\bar d}$,

1996: $L_{\rm W/Z}=(L_{\rm u\bar d}+L_{\rm d\bar u})

1997: /(L_{\rm u\bar u}+L_{\rm d\bar d})$).}

1998: \begin{center}

1999: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}  

2000: & stat+syst & ${\rm RS}$ & ${\rm TS}$ & 

2001: ${\rm SS}$ & ${\rm MC}$ & ${\rm DC}$ \\

2002: $\Delta L_W (\%)$       &1.5 & -- & -- & 1.2 & 1.1  & 1.5\\

2003: $\Delta L_{\rm Z} (\%)$ &1.2 & -- & -- & 1.2 & 1.1  & 1.5\\

2004: $\Delta L_{W/Z} (\%)$ & 0.7 & -- & -- & -- & -- & --\\

2005: \end{tabular}

2006: \end{center}

2007: \label{tab:wz}

2008: \end{table}

2009: 

2010: 

2011: \end{document}

2012: 

2013: 

2014: 

2015: