1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{mymoriond,epsfig}
3: \usepackage{amsmath}
4: \usepackage{amssymb}
5:
6: \bibliographystyle{unsrt}
7: % for BibTeX - sorted numerical labels by order of
8: % first citation.
9:
10: % A useful Journal macro
11: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}
12:
13: % Some useful journal names
14: \def\NCA{\em Nuovo Cimento}
15: \def\NIM{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods}
16: \def\NIMA{{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods} A}
17: \def\NPB{{\em Nucl. Phys.} B}
18: \def\PLB{{\em Phys. Lett.} B}
19: \def\PRL{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}
20: \def\PRD{{\em Phys. Rev.} D}
21: \def\ZPC{{\em Z. Phys.} C}
22:
23: % Some other macros used in the sample text
24: \def\st{\scriptstyle}
25: \def\sst{\scriptscriptstyle}
26: \def\mco{\multicolumn}
27: \def\epp{\epsilon^{\prime}}
28: \def\vep{\varepsilon}
29: \def\ra{\rightarrow}
30: \def\ppg{\pi^+\pi^-\gamma}
31: \def\vp{{\bf p}}
32: \def\ko{K^0}
33: \def\kb{\bar{K^0}}
34: \def\al{\alpha}
35: \def\ab{\bar{\alpha}}
36: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
37: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
38: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
39: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
40: \def\CPbar{\hbox{{\rm CP}\hskip-1.80em{/}}}
41:
42: \begin{document}
43: \vspace*{4cm}
44:
45: \title{PERTURBATIVE STABILITY OF THE QCD ANALYSIS OF DIS DATA}
46:
47: \author{S.I.~ALEKHIN}
48:
49: \address{Institute for High Energy Physics, 142281 Protvino, Russia}
50:
51: \maketitle\abstracts{We perform pQCD analysis of
52: the existing DIS data for charged leptons
53: with account of corrections up to the NNLO.
54: The parton distributions, value of strong coupling constant,
55: and high-twist terms are extracted and their stability with respect to account
56: of the NNLO corrections is analyzed. All the quantities are generally
57: stable within their experimental errors.
58: Obtained value of the strong coupling constant is
59: $\alpha_s^{\rm NNLO}(M_{\rm Z})=0.1143\pm 0.0014 ({\rm exp})$ with a
60: guess $\alpha_s^{\rm NNNLO}(M_{\rm Z})\sim 0.113$.}
61:
62:
63: Perturbative method is a powerful tool of the modern quantum field theory.
64: In particular, analysis of the deep-inelastic-scattering (DIS)
65: data in terms of perturbative QCD (pQCD)
66: allows for quantitative description of this process and extraction
67: of parton distribution functions (PDFs) together with value of
68: the strong coupling constant $\alpha_{\rm s}$, which can be used
69: for calculation of the cross sections for
70: other processes with hadronic beams and targets
71: and check of self-consistency of Standard Model.
72: The common practice for analysis of such kind
73: is to take into account only the $O(\alpha_{\rm s})$
74: (or next-to-leading-order (NLO)) corrections to the DIS cross sections
75: since the next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) corrections has not been
76: completely calculated yet.
77: Meanwhile the value of $\alpha_{\rm s}$ is rather large at the values of
78: transferred momentum $Q$
79: typical for existing DIS data and the higher-order (HO)
80: correction may have impact on the value of extracted quantities.
81: Particular important is to know the HO PDFs that
82: is motivated by the need to calculate
83: precise value of the Higgs boson production
84: cross section since these calculations require account of the HO QCD
85: corrections~\cite{Harlander:2002wh} and corresponding HO PDFs
86: as consistent input.
87: Account of the HO corrections is also important for reducing the
88: total uncertainty in the value of $\alpha_{\rm s}$ determined from
89: the existing DIS data since the theoretical error due to HO
90: corrections dominates the error in value of $\alpha_{\rm s}$
91: obtained in the NLO approximation~\cite{Alekhin:2000ch}.
92: Besides, account of HO corrections
93: is necessary for clarification of nature of the $1/Q^2$
94: terms, which are apparent in the NLO analysis of DIS data.
95: These terms correspond to the high-twist (HT) contributions, but
96: also can be simulated by the HO contributions since they are
97: proportional to factors $[\alpha_{\rm s}(Q)]^n$ and also fall with $Q$.
98: If such simulation does take place,
99: the HT terms observed in NLO should decrease with account
100: of the HO corrections
101: (see Ref.\cite{Kataev:1999bp} and references therein).
102:
103: The NNLO corrections to the DIS coefficient functions
104: have been calculated about decade ago, but
105: substantial progress in calculation of the corrections
106: to the anomalous dimensions
107: has been achieved only recently with estimation of their Mellin moments
108: up to 14-th~\cite{Retey:2000nq}. This input
109: reduces uncertainties in the values of corresponding splitting functions
110: up to O(\%) in the region of $x$
111: covered by existing DIS data that would provide
112: reasonable level of theoretical uncertainties due
113: to incomplete knowledge of the NNLO evolution kernel in the analysis
114: of these data~\cite{vanNeerven:2000wp}.
115: We perform the QCD fit to the existing
116: data on DIS of charged leptons off proton/deuteron
117: targets~\cite{data} with account of the available QCD
118: corrections to the coefficient and splitting functions up to the NNLO.
119: Details of the analysis are published elsewhere~\cite{Alekhin:2001ih}.
120: We fitted PDFs, value of
121: $\alpha_{\rm s}$ and the twist-4 contributions, which are included
122: to the fitted structure functions $F_{\rm 2,L}$ in additive form:
123: $F_{\rm 2,L}=F_{\rm 2,L}^{\rm LT,TMC}+{H_{\rm 2,L}(x)}/{Q^2},$
124: where $F_{\rm 2,L}^{\rm LT,TMC}$ are the leading-twist
125: terms with account of the target mass corrections
126: and $H(x)$ are parameterized in the piece-linear form
127: with $x$-spacing equal to 0.1.
128: The principal feature of our analysis is quantitative estimation of the
129: experimental errors in fitted parameters. These errors give
130: natural scale
131: for estimation of stability of the fit with respect to different
132: corrections:
133: Effect with the magnitude less than corresponding experimental error
134: cannot be considered as significant since at this level
135: it can be simulated by fluctuation of the data.
136:
137: \begin{figure}[h]
138: \centerline{\epsfig{file=pert.ps,width=14cm,height=9.5cm}}
139: \caption{Experimental error bands
140: for the gluon distributions obtained in our NNLO (full),
141: NLO (dashes), and in the NNLO MRST analysis (dots).}
142: \label{fig:pdf}
143: \end{figure}
144:
145: The NNLO PDFs obtained in our analysis
146: are generally comparable to the NLO ones within
147: their experimental errors. Perturbative stability of the gluon
148: distribution at small $x$ is demonstrated in Fig.\ref{fig:pdf}.
149: For comparison we give in the same figure the gluon distribution
150: obtained in the recent NNLO analysis of Ref.\cite{Martin:2002dr}.
151: The latter is smaller than ours and gets negative
152: at $x\sim 10^{-4}$ at low $Q^2$, contrary to ours.
153:
154: \begin{table}[h]
155: \begin{center}
156: \caption{Values of $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})$ obtained in different
157: orders of pQCD.}
158: \vspace{0.4cm}
159: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
160: \hline
161: LO& $0.1301\pm0.0026 ({\rm exp})\pm0.0149 ({\rm RS})$ \\ \hline
162: NLO & $0.1171\pm0.0015 ({\rm exp})\pm0.0033 ({\rm RS})$ \\ \hline
163: NNLO & $0.1143\pm0.0014 ({\rm exp})\pm0.0009 ({\rm RS})$ \\ \hline
164: \end{tabular}
165: \end{center}
166: \label{tab:als}
167: \end{table}
168:
169: \begin{figure}[h]
170: \centerline{\epsfig{file=alpha.ps,width=14cm,height=8cm}}
171: \caption{Values of $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})$ and their experimental errors
172: obtained in different orders of pQCD (full symbols). Open symbol shows
173: extrapolation to the NNNLO.}
174: \label{fig:als}
175: \end{figure}
176:
177: The values of $\alpha_{\rm s}$ obtained in different pQCD orders
178: are given in Table~1. The associated renormalization scale
179: (RS) error is calculated as the shift of $\alpha_{\rm s}$
180: under variation of the QCD RS
181: from $Q^2$ to $4Q^2$. This shift is regularly considered as the
182: uncertainty due to inaccount of the HO corrections. Such estimate
183: is very crude since the the range of
184: variation of the RS is conventional and no possible $x$-dependence
185: of the RS is taken into account. Nevertheless, comparing the RS
186: errors to the corresponding change of $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})$
187: with the orders of pQCD one can convince that they coincide with good accuracy.
188: Extrapolation of this regularity to the NNNLO
189: illustrated in Fig.\ref{fig:als} leads to the estimate
190: $\alpha^{\rm NNNLO}_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z}) \sim 0.113$.
191: The theoretical error in $\alpha_{\rm s}$ , which is dominated by
192: the RS error is larger than the experimental error in the NLO. In the NNLO
193: the RS error gets smaller than experimental one. Probably this
194: is valid for the NNNLO too and thus both the central
195: value and the error in $\alpha_{\rm s}$ extracted from the
196: existing DIS data in NNNLO would be the about the same as in NNLO.
197:
198: \begin{figure}[h]
199: \centerline{\epsfig{file=h2p.ps,width=14cm,height=8cm}}
200: \caption{The twist-4 contribution to the
201: proton structure function $F_2^p$ obtained in the different orders
202: of pQCD.}
203: \label{fig:ht}
204: \end{figure}
205:
206: The HT terms are also stable with respect to the NNLO corrections
207: (see Fig.\ref{fig:ht}). They do decrease from LO to NLO and from NLO to NNLO,
208: but in the second case the shift is smaller and is comparable to
209: the experimental error. The magnitude of the $H_2^p$
210: at $x=0.6$ and $Q^2=5~{\rm GeV}^2$ is $\sim 10\%$ of the LT term.
211: At lower $Q^2$ corresponding to the resonance region the
212: relative contribution of the HT terms is even larger~\cite{Liuti:2001qk}.
213: The value of $H_2^p$ is comparable to the experimental error in $F_2^p$ up to
214: $Q^2\sim 20~{\rm GeV}^2$, i.e. an analysis
215: of these data without account of the HT terms is biased
216: if one does not apply very stringent cut in $Q^2$.
217: This result is in disagreement with the conclusion
218: of Ref.\cite{Yang:1999xg} that the HT term in $F_2$ vanishes in the NNLO.
219: Meanwhile this disagreement may be insignificant since
220: the analysis of Ref.\cite{Yang:1999xg}
221: is based on the model-dependent determination of the HT terms
222: and quality of the data description is poor
223: ($\chi^2/{\rm NDP}$=1375/926 versus 2521/2274 in our fit).
224: Note also that the HT term in the nonsinglet part of $F_2^p$
225: obtained in the NNLO analysis of Ref.\cite{Schaefer:2001uh} does not vanish.
226: In the NNLO analysis of Ref.\cite{Kataev:1999bp} vanishing of
227: the HT term in the neutrino-nucleon structure function $xF_3$
228: was observed, but in this case we see no disagreement with our results
229: since error in $H_3$ obtained in Ref.\cite{Kataev:1999bp}
230: is about order of magnitude larger than magnitude of $H_2$
231: obtained in our analysis. If the magnitudes of $H_2$ and $H_3$ are not very
232: different, the conclusive study of the latter
233: is possible only if it is determined with
234: the precision $O(0.01)~{\rm GeV}^2$, which
235: can be achieved in experiments with luminositities
236: typical for the proposed neutrino factories~\cite{Mangano:2001mj}.
237:
238: In conclusion, we observe relative perturbative stability of the
239: QCD analysis of existing data on DIS of charged leptons:
240: The change of PDFs, $\alpha_{\rm s}$, and HT terms
241: due to NNLO corrections is generally of the order of the
242: experimental errors in these quantities.
243:
244: \section*{Acknowledgments}
245: The work was supported by the RFBR grant 00-02-17432.
246:
247: \section*{References}
248: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
249:
250: \bibitem{Harlander:2002wh}
251: R.~V.~Harlander and W.~B.~Kilgore, \Journal{\PRL}{88}{201801}{2002}.
252:
253: \bibitem{Alekhin:2000ch}
254: S.~I.~Alekhin, \Journal {\PRD}{63}{094022}{2001}.
255:
256: \bibitem{Kataev:1999bp}
257: A.~L.~Kataev, G.~Parente, and A.~V.~Sidorov, \Journal{\NPB}{573}{405}{2000}.
258:
259: \bibitem{Retey:2000nq}
260: A.~Retey and J.~A.~Vermaseren, \Journal{\NPB}{604}{281}{2001}.
261:
262: \bibitem{vanNeerven:2000wp}
263: W.~L.~van Neerven and A.~Vogt, \Journal{\PLB}{490}{111}{2000}.
264:
265: \bibitem{data}
266: L.~W.~Whitlow {\it et al.}, \Journal{\PLB}{282}{475}{1992};
267: A.~C.~Benvenuti {\it et al.}, \Journal{\PLB}{223}{485}{1989};
268: A.~C.~Benvenuti {\it et al.}, \Journal{\PLB}{237}{592}{1990};
269: M.~Arneodo {\it et al.}, \Journal {\NPB}{483}{3}{1997};
270: C.~Adloff {\it et al.} , \Journal{JPC}{21}{33}{2001};
271: S.~Chekanov {\it et al.}, \Journal{JPC}{21}{443}{2001}.
272:
273: \bibitem{Alekhin:2001ih}
274: S.~I.~Alekhin, \Journal{\PLB}{519}{57}{2001}.
275:
276: \bibitem{Martin:2002dr}
277: A.~D.~Martin {\it et al.}, \Journal{\PLB}{531}{216}{2002}.
278:
279: \bibitem{Liuti:2001qk}
280: S.~Liuti {\it et al.}, arXiv:hep-ph/0111063.
281:
282: \bibitem{Yang:1999xg}
283: U.~K.~Yang and A.~Bodek, \Journal{JPC}{13}{241}{2000}.
284:
285: \bibitem{Schaefer:2001uh}
286: S.~Schaefer, A.~Schafer and M.~Stratmann, \Journal{\PLB}{514}{284}{2001}.
287:
288: \bibitem{Mangano:2001mj}
289: M.~L.~Mangano {\it et al.}, arXiv:hep-ph/0105155.
290:
291: \end{thebibliography}
292:
293: \end{document}
294:
295:
296:
297:
298:
299:
300:
301:
302:
303:
304:
305:
306:
307:
308:
309:
310:
311:
312:
313:
314:
315:
316:
317:
318:
319:
320:
321:
322: