1: 

2: %\documentstyle[12pt,epsfig]{article}

3: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

4: \usepackage{epsfig} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsfonts}

5: \usepackage{psfig}

6: 

7: %\textheight 230mm

8: \textheight 240mm

9: \textwidth 160mm

10: \hoffset -2.0cm

11: \voffset -2.0cm

12: \pagestyle{plain}

13: \pagenumbering{arabic}

14: \setcounter{page}{1}

15: 

16: 

17: \newcommand{\z}{&&\hspace*{-1cm}}

18: \newcommand{\zz}{&&\hspace*{-4cm}}

19: \newcommand{\ep}{\varepsilon}

20: \newcommand{\cita} [1] {$^{\hbox{\scriptsize \cite{#1}}}$}

21: %

22: \newcommand{\prepr}[1] {\begin{flushright} {\bf #1} \end{flushright}

23:   \vskip 1.5cm}

24: \newcommand{\titul}[1] {\begin{center}{\large\bf #1 }

25: \end{center}\vskip 1.cm}

26: \newcommand{\autor}[1] {\begin {center}

27:                 {\large \lineskip .5em #1 } \end   {center} }

28: \newcommand{\lugar}[1] {\begin{center} {\it #1} \end{center}}

29: \newcommand{\abstr}[1] {{\begin{center} \vskip .5cm {\bf Abstract

30:                         \vspace{0pt}} \end{center}}\begin{quote} #1

31:                         \end{quote}}

32: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

33: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

34: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

35: \newcommand{\MSbar}{\overline{\rm MS}}

36: \newcommand{\as}{\alpha_s}

37: \newcommand{\asMZ}{\alpha_s(M^2_Z)}

38: \newcommand{\ar}{\overline a_s}

39: 

40: \begin{document}

41: 

42: %                          Title

43: \begin{center}

44: {\Large \bf QCD coupling constant value and

45: deep inelastic measurements

46: } \\

47: 

48: \vspace{4mm}

49: 

50: %                      author/address

51: %Author's name\\

52: V.G. Krivokhijine and A.V. Kotikov\\ 

53: 

54: \vspace{4mm}

55: Joint Institute for Nuclear

56: Research, 141980 Dubna, Russia

57: \end{center}

58: 

59: 

60: %                        Abstract

61: \begin{abstract}

62: We reanalyze 

63: %high statistic 

64: deep inelastic scattering data 

65: of BCDMS Collaboration by including proper cuts of  ranges

66: with large systematic errors. 

67: We perform also the 

68: %combine 

69: fits of high statistic deep inelastic scattering data 

70: of BCDMS, SLAC, NM and BFP Collaborations  

71: taking the data separately and in combined way and find good agreement

72: between these analyses. We

73: %and 

74: extract the values of

75: the QCD coupling constant $\alpha_s(M^2_Z)$ up to

76: NLO level.

77: \end{abstract}

78: 

79: 

80: %\vspace{-4mm}

81: %\vskip -0.4cm

82: \section{ Introduction }

83: 

84: 

85: The deep inelastic scattering (DIS) leptons on hadrons is the basical

86:  process to study the values of the parton distribution functions (PDF)

87: which are universal (after choosing of factorization and renormalization 

88: schemes) and

89: can be used in other processes.

90: The accuracy of the present data for deep inelastic

91: %(DIS) 

92: structure functions (SF) reached the level at which

93: the $Q^2$-dependence of logarithmic QCD-motivated terms and power-like ones

94: %are observed and 

95: may be studied separately 

96: %(see, for example, the recent reviews 

97: (for a review, see the recent papers \cite{Beneke} and references 

98: therein).

99: 

100: In the present letter we sketch the results of our analysis \cite{KriKo}

101: at the next-to-leading order (NLO)

102: %large experience in fits of data

103: of perturbative QCD for

104: the most known DIS SF 

105: $F_2(x,Q^2)$ 

106: \footnote{Here $Q^2=-q^2$ and $x=Q^2/(2pq)$ are standard DIS variables,

107: where $q$ and $p$ are photon and hadron momentums, respectively.}

108: taking into account experimental data \cite{SLAC1}-\cite{BFP} of

109: SLAC, NM,  BCDMS and BFP Collaborations.

110: We

111: stress the power-like effects, so-called twist-4 (i.e.

112: $\sim 1/Q^2$) 

113: %and twist-6 (i.e. $\sim 1/Q^4$) 

114: contributions.

115: To our purposes we represent the SF $F_2(x,Q^2)$ as the contribution

116: of the leading twist part $F_2^{pQCD}(x,Q^2)$ 

117: described by perturbative QCD, 

118: %including 

119: when the target mass corrections are taken into account

120: (and coincides with $F_2^{tw2}(x,Q^2)$

121: when the target mass corrections are withdrawn), and the  

122: nonperturbative part (``dynamical'' twist-four terms):

123: % $\sim 1/Q^2$):

124: \vskip -0.5cm

125: \begin{equation}

126: F_2(x,Q^2) 

127: \equiv F_2^{full}(x,Q^2)

128: =F_2^{pQCD}(x,Q^2)\,

129: %\left(

130: \Bigl(

131: 1+\frac{\tilde h_4(x)}{Q^2}

132: \Bigr),

133: \label{1}

134: \end{equation}

135: %\vskip -0.2cm

136: where $\tilde h_4(x)$ is magnitude of twist-four terms.

137: 

138: Contrary to standard fits (see, for example, \cite{Al2000}- \cite{fits}) 

139: when the direct

140: numerical calculations based on 

141: Dokshitzer-Gribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi 

142: (DGLAP) 

143: equation \cite{DGLAP} are used to evaluate structure functions, 

144: we use the exact solution of DGLAP equation

145: for the Mellin moments $M_n^{tw2}(Q^2)$ of

146: %$F_2^{full}(x,Q^2)$, $F_2^{pQCD}(x,Q^2)$ and

147: SF $F_2^{tw2}(x,Q^2)$:

148: \vskip -0.5cm

149: \begin{equation}

150: M_n^{k}(Q^2)=\int_0^1 x^{n-2}\,F_2^{k}(x,Q^2)\,dx~~~~~~~ (

151: %X\mbox{hereafter }

152: k=full, pQCD, tw2, ...)

153: \label{2}

154: \end{equation}

155: \vskip -0.3cm

156: \noindent

157: and

158: the subsequent reproduction of $F_2^{k}(x,Q^2)$

159: %$F_2^{full}(x,Q^2)$, $F_2^{pQCD}(x,Q^2)$  and/or $F_2^{tw2}(x,Q^2)$ 

160: at every needed $Q^2$-value with help of the Jacobi 

161: Polynomial expansion method \cite{Barker,Kri}

162: (see similar analyses at the NLO level 

163: \cite{Kri,Vovk}

164: and at the next-next-to-leading order (NNLO) level and above \cite{PKK}.

165: 

166: In this letter we 

167: do not present exact formulae of $Q^2$-dependence

168: of SF $F_2$ which are 

169: %also 

170: given in \cite{KriKo}. We note only that

171: the moments $M_{n}^{tw2}(Q^2)$ at 

172: some $Q^2_0$ is theoretical input of our analysis and 

173: the twist-four term $\tilde h_4(x)$

174: is considered as a set of free parameters (one constant

175: $\tilde h_4(x_i)$ per $x_i$-bin):

176: $\tilde h_4^{free}(x)=\sum_{i=1}^{I} \tilde h_4(x_i)$, 

177: where $I$ is the number of bins.

178: 

179: 

180: \vskip -0.3cm

181: \section{ 

182: Fits of $F_2$: procedure}

183: \label{sec:form}

184: 

185: \vskip -0.2cm

186: Having the QCD expressions for the Mellin moments

187: %$M_n^{k}(Q^2)$

188: $M_n^{k}$ we can reconstruct the SF $F_2^k(x)$

189: as

190: \vskip -0.5cm

191: \begin{equation}

192: F_{2}^{k,N_{max}}(x,Q^2)=x^{a}(1-x)^{b}\sum_{n=0}^{N_{max}}

193: \Theta_n ^{a , b}

194: (x)\sum_{j=0}^{n}c_{j}^{(n)}{(\alpha ,\beta )}

195: M_{j+2}^{k} \left ( Q^{2}\right ),

196: \label{2.1}

197: \end{equation}

198: \vskip -0.3cm

199: \noindent

200: where $\Theta_n^{a,b}$ are the Jacobi polynomials

201: \footnote{We 

202: %would like to 

203: note here that there is similar method 

204: \cite{Ynd}, based on Bernstein polynomials. The method has been used 

205: in the analyses at the NLO level in \cite{KaKoYaF}

206: and at the NNLO level in \cite{SaYnd}.}

207: and $a,b$ are fitted parameters.

208: 

209: 

210: 

211: First of all, we choose the cut $Q^2 \geq 1$ GeV$^2$ in all our studies.

212: For $Q^2 < 1$ GeV$^2$, the applicability of twist expansion is very

213: questionable. 

214: Secondly, we

215: choose quite large values of the normalization point

216: $Q^2_0$: our

217: perturbative formulae should be applicable at the value of

218: $Q^2_0$. Moreover, the higher order corrections $\sim \as^k(Q^2_0)$ 

219: and $\sim (\as(Q^2)-\as(Q^2_0))^k$

220: ($k \geq 2$) should be

221: %, coming from normalization conditions of PDF, are 

222: less important at higher $Q^2_0$ values.

223: 

224: %\noindent

225: We use MINUIT program \cite{MINUIT} for

226: minimization of 

227: $\chi^2(F_2) = {\left|(F_2^{exp} - F_2^{teor})/\Delta F_2^{exp}

228: \right| }^2$. 

229: %

230: We consider

231: %use 

232: free normalizations of data for different experiments. 

233: For the reference, we use the most stable deuterium BCDMS data

234: at the value of energy $E_0=200$ GeV 

235: ($E_0$ is the initial energy lepton beam). 

236: %The usage 

237: Using other types of data as reference gives

238: negligible changes in our results. The usage of fixed normalization

239: for all data leads to fits with a bit worser $\chi^2$.

240: 

241: 

242: 

243: \vspace{-0.3cm}

244: \section{ Results of fits }

245: 

246: 

247: \vskip -0.2cm

248: Hereafter 

249: %at nonsinglet case of evolution 

250: we choose

251:  $Q^2_0$ = 90 GeV$^2$ ($Q^2_0$ = 20 GeV$^2$) for the 

252: nonsinglet (combine nonsinglet and singlet) evolution, 

253: %and $Q^2_0$ = 20 GeV$^2$ for the combine nonsinglet and singlet evolution, 

254:  that is in good agreement with above 

255: conditions. We use also $N_{max} =8$.

256: 

257: \vspace{-0.2cm}

258: \subsection { BCDMS ~~${}^{12}C + H_2 + D_2$ data }

259: %{\bf 4.1.} {\bf SLAC data}

260: 

261: We start our analysis with the most precise experimental data 

262: \cite{BCDMS1} obtained  by BCDMS muon

263: %$\mu h$ 

264: scattering experiment at the high $Q^2$ values.

265: The full set of data is 762 (607) points (for the bounded 

266: $x$ range: $x \geq 0.25$).

267: %The starting point of QCD evolution is $Q^2_0=90$ GeV$^2$.

268: 

269: It is well known that the original analyses 

270: %of 

271: given by BCDMS Collaboration itself (see

272: also Ref. \cite{ViMi}) lead to quite small values 

273:  $\alpha_s(M^2_Z)=0.113$.

274: Although in some recent papers (see, for example, 

275: \cite{Al2000,H1BCDMS})

276: more higher values of the coupling constant 

277: $\alpha_s(M^2_Z)$ have been observed, we think that

278: an additional reanalysis of BCDMS data should be very useful. 

279: 

280: Based on study \cite{Kri2} 

281: %(see also \cite{H1BCDMS}) 

282: we proposed in

283: \cite{KriKo} that 

284: the reason for small values

285: of $\alpha_s(M^2_Z)$ coming from BCDMS data was the existence of the subset

286: of the data having large systematic errors. 

287: We studied this subject by 

288: introducing several so-called $Y$-cuts 

289: \footnote{Hereafter we use the kinematical variable $Y=(E_0-E)/E_0$,

290: where 

291: %$E_0$ and 

292: $E$ is

293: %are initial and 

294: scattering energies of lepton.} 

295: %respectively.}

296: (see \cite{KriKo}). 

297: Excluding this set of data with large systematic errors

298: leads to essentially larger values of $\alpha_s(M^2_Z)$ and very slow

299: dependence of the values on the concrete choice of the $Y$-cut (see below).

300: 

301: We use the following $x$-dependent $Y$-cuts:

302: \vskip -0.7cm

303: \bea

304: & &y \geq 0.14 \,\,~~~\mbox{ when }~~~ 0.3 < x \leq 0.4, ~~~~~~~ 

305: %\nonumber \\& &

306: y \geq 0.16 \,~~~\mbox{ when }~~~ 0.4 < x \leq 0.5 \nonumber \\

307: & &y \geq Y_{cut3} ~~~\mbox{ when }~~~ 0.5 < x \leq 0.6, ~~~~~~

308: %\nonumber \\ & &

309: y \geq Y_{cut4} ~~~\mbox{ when }~~~ 0.6 < x \leq 0.7 \nonumber \\

310: & &y \geq Y_{cut5} ~~~\mbox{ when }~~~ 0.7 < x \leq 0.8 

311: \label{cut}

312: \eea

313: \vskip -0.3cm

314: \noindent

315: and

316: %We use 

317: several $N$ sets  for the cuts at $0.5 < x \leq 0.8$: 

318: %

319: %%%  Tab. 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

320: \begin{table}[h]

321: \begin{center}

322: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

323: \hline

324: %& & & & & & & \\

325: $N$ & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 \\

326: %& & & & & & & \\

327: \hline \hline

328: $Y_{cut3}$ & 0 & 0.14 & 0.16 & 0.16 & 0.18 & 0.22 & 0.23 \\  

329: %\hline

330: $Y_{cut4}$ & 0 & 0.16 & 0.18 & 0.20 & 0.20 & 0.23 & 0.24 \\

331: $Y_{cut5}$ & 0 & 0.20 & 0.20 & 0.22 & 0.22 & 0.24 & 0.25 \\

332: \hline

333: \end{tabular}

334: \caption{The values of $Y_{cut3}$, $Y_{cut4}$ and $Y_{cut5}$.

335: }\label{tab2}

336: \end{center}

337: \end{table}

338: 

339: 

340: %  Fig. 2,   Fig. 3

341: \begin{figure}[t]

342: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.48\linewidth}

343: \begin{center}

344: %\includegraphics[width=2.37in]{Fig3a.eps} \\

345: %\includegraphics[width=2.37in]{sistno1.ps} \\

346: \includegraphics[width=3.1in]{sistno1.ps} \\

347: \end{center}

348: \caption{

349: The study of systematics at different $Y_{cut}$ values

350: in the fits based on nonsinglet evolution.

351: The  QCD analysis of BCDMS ${}^{12}C, H_2, D_2$ data (nonsinglet case)

352: is given at

353: $x_{cut}=0.25$ and $Q_0^2=90$ GeV$^2$. 

354: The inner (outer) error-bars show statistical (systematic) errors.

355: }

356:  \label{fig:3}

357: \end{minipage}%

358: \hspace{0.04\textwidth}%

359: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.48\linewidth}

360: \begin{center}

361: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{Fig4a.eps} \\

362: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{sistsi1.ps} \\

363: \includegraphics[width=3.1in]{sistsi1.ps} \\

364: \end{center}

365:  \caption{

366: The study of systematics at different $Y_{cut}$ values

367: in the fits based on combine singlet and nonsinglet evolution. 

368: All other notes are as in Fig. 1 with two exceptions:

369: no a $x_{cut}$ and  $Q_0^2=20$ GeV$^2$. 

370: Moreover, the points $N_{Ycut}=1,2,3,4,5$ correspond the values

371: $N=1,2,4,5,6$ in the Table 1.

372: }\label{fig:4}

373: \end{minipage}

374: \end{figure}

375: 

376: \vskip -0.5cm

377: The systematic errors for BCDMS data were given \cite{BCDMS1}

378: as multiplicative factors to be applied to $F_2(x,Q^2)$: $f_r, f_b, f_s, f_d$

379: and $f_h$ are the uncertainties due to spectrometer resolution, beam momentum,

380: calibration, spectrometer magnetic field calibration, detector inefficiencies 

381: and energy normalization, respectively.

382: %

383: For this study each experimental point of the undistorted set was multiplied

384: by a factor characterizing a given type

385: of uncertainties and a new (distorted) data set was fitted again

386: in agreement with our procedure considered in the previous section. The factors

387: ($f_r, f_b, f_s, f_d, f_h$) were taken from papers \cite{BCDMS1}

388: (see CERN preprint versions in \cite{BCDMS1}).

389: The 

390: %absolute differences between the values of $\alpha_s$ 

391: $\alpha_s$ values  

392: for the distorted

393: and undistorted sets of data are given in 

394: %Table 2 and 

395: the Figs. 1 and 2 (for the cases of nonsinglet and complete evolutions,

396: respectively) together with the total systematic

397: error 

398: %of $\alpha_s$ 

399: estimated in quadratures. 

400: 

401: 

402: 

403: 

404: From 

405: %the Table 2 and 

406: the Figs. 1 and 2 we can see that the $\alpha_s$ values are obtained

407: for $N=1 \div 6$ of $Y_{cut3}$, $Y_{cut4}$ and $Y_{cut5}$ are very stable and

408: statistically consistent. The case $N=6$ of the Table 1 reduces the 

409: systematic error

410: in $\alpha_s$ by factor $1.8$ and increases the value of $\alpha_s$,

411: while increasing the statistical error on the 30\%.

412: 

413: 

414: After the cuts have been implemented 

415: (we use the set $N=6$ of the Table 1),

416: we have 590 (452) points (for the bounded 

417: $x$ range: $x \geq 0.25$).

418: Fitting them in agreement with the same procedure considered in the previous 

419: Section,

420: we obtain the following results:

421: 

422: from fits, based on nonsinglet evolution (i.e. when

423: $x \geq 0.25$):

424: \bea

425: \as(M_Z^2) &=& 0.1153 \pm 0.0013 ~\mbox{(stat)} 

426: \pm 0.0022 ~\mbox{(syst)} \pm 0.0012 ~\mbox{(norm)},

427: \nonumber

428: \eea

429: 

430: from fits, based on combined singlet and 

431: nonsinglet evolution:

432: \bea

433: \as(M_Z^2) &=& 0.1175 \pm 0.0014 ~\mbox{(stat)} 

434: \pm 0.0020 ~\mbox{(syst)} \pm 0.0011 ~\mbox{(norm)},

435: \label{ta}

436: \eea

437: where

438: hereafter the symbol 

439: %``stat'', ``syst'' and 

440: ``norm'' marks the 

441: %statistical error, systematic one and the 

442: error of normalization of experimental data.

443: 

444: The results are agree each other within considered errors. In Ref. 

445: \cite{KriKo} we have also analyzed the combine SLAC, NM and BFP data

446: and found 

447: %results for $\as(M_Z^2)$, which are in 

448: good agreement with

449: %ones of 

450: (\ref{ta}). So, we have a possibility to fit together all the data.

451: It is the subject of the following subsection.

452: 

453: \subsection{ SLAC, BCDMS, NM and BFP data }

454: \label{subsec:revi1}

455: After these $Y$-cuts have been incorporated (with $N=6$) for BCDMS data, 

456: the full set of combine data is 1309 (797) points (for the bounded

457: $x$ range: $x \geq 0.25$).

458: 

459: To verify the range of applicability of perturbative QCD,

460: we analyze firstly the data without a contribution of twist-four terms,

461: i.e. when $F_2 = F_2^{pQCD}$. We do several fits using the cut 

462: $Q^2 \geq Q^2_{cut}$ and increase the value $Q^2_{cut}$ step by step.

463: We observe  good agreement of the fits with the data when 

464: $Q^2_{cut} \geq 10 \div 15$ GeV$^2$ (see the Figs. 3 and 4).

465: %

466: Later we add the twist-four corrections and fit the data with the

467: standard cut $Q^2 \geq 1$ GeV$^2$.

468: We have find very good agreement with the data. Moreover 

469: the predictions for $\asMZ$ in both above procedures 

470: are very similar (see the 

471: %Table 6 and 

472: Figs. 3 and 4).

473: %  Fig. 2,   Fig. 3

474: \begin{figure}[t]

475: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.48\linewidth}

476: \begin{center}

477: %\includegraphics[width=2.37in]{Fig3a.eps} \\

478: %\includegraphics[width=2.37in]{nonsi4.ps} \\

479: \includegraphics[width=3.0in]{nonsi4.ps} \\

480: \end{center}

481: \caption{

482: The values of $\asMZ$ and $\chi^2$ at different $Q^2$-values of data cuts

483: in the fits based on nonsinglet evolution.

484: %regimes of fits. 

485: The black (white) 

486: points show the 

487: analyses of data without (with) twist-four contributions.

488: Only statistical errors are shown.

489: }

490:  \label{fig:3}

491: \end{minipage}%

492: \hspace{0.04\textwidth}%

493: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.48\linewidth}

494: \begin{center}

495: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{Fig4a.eps} \\

496: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{si4.ps} \\

497: \includegraphics[width=3.0in]{si4.ps} \\

498: \end{center}

499:  \caption{

500: The values of $\asMZ$ and $\chi^2$ at different $Q^2$-values of data cutes

501: in the fits based on combine singlet and nonsinglet evolution. 

502: All other notes are as in Fig. 3.

503: }\label{fig:4}

504: \end{minipage}

505: \end{figure}

506: The results of the fits are compiled in Summary (see Eqs. 

507: (\ref{re1n})-(\ref{re2s})).

508: 

509: 

510: %\vspace{-0.5cm}

511: \section{ Summary }

512: 

513: 

514: We

515: have demonstrated several steps of our study \cite{KriKo}

516: of the $Q^2$-evolution of DIS structure function $F_2$ fitting all

517: modern fixed target experimental data. 

518: %at Bjorken variable $x$ values: $x \geq 10^{-2}$. 

519: 

520: %{\bf 1.} 

521: From the fits we have obtained the value of the normalization 

522: $\asMZ$

523: of QCD coupling constant. First of all, we have reanalyzed the BCDMS data 

524: cutting the range with large systematic errors. As it is possible to see

525: in 

526: the Fig. 1, 

527: the value of $\asMZ$ rises strongly when

528: the cuts of systematics were incorporated. In another side, 

529: the value of $\asMZ$ does not dependent on the concrete type of the

530: cut within 

531: %in the range of 

532: modern statistical errors.

533: 

534: We have found that at $Q^2 \geq 10 \div 15$ GeV$^2$ 

535: the formulae of pure perturbative

536: QCD (i.e. twist-two approximation together with target mass corrections)

537: are in good agreement with all data. 

538: \footnote{We note that at small $x$ values, the perturbative QCD

539: works well starting with $Q^2 = 1.5 \div 2$ GeV$^2$

540: and higher twist corrections are important only at very low $Q^2$:

541: $Q^2 \sim 0.5$ GeV$^2$ (see \cite{Q2evo,HT} and references therein).

542: As it is was observed in \cite{DoShi,bfklp} (see also discussions in

543: \cite{Q2evo,HT,BoAnd}) the good agreement between perturbative QCD and

544: experiment seems connect with large effective argument of coupling

545: constant at low $x$ range.}

546:  The 

547: results for  $\asMZ$ are very similar (see \cite{KriKo}) for the 

548: both types of analyses: ones, based on

549: nonsinglet evolution, and ones, based on combined singlet and 

550: nonsinglet evolution.

551: %ones and singlet ones. 

552: They have the following form:

553: %

554: \begin{itemize}

555: %

556: %\vskip -0.3cm

557: \item  from fits, based on nonsinglet evolution:

558: %\vskip -0.3cm

559: \bea 

560: \as(M_Z^2) &=& 0.1170 \pm 0.0009 ~\mbox{(stat)}

561: \pm 0.0019 ~\mbox{(syst)} \pm 0.0010 ~\mbox{(norm)}, \label{re1n} 

562: \eea

563: %

564: \item from fits, based on combined singlet and 

565: nonsinglet evolution:

566: \bea

567: \as(M_Z^2) &=& 0.1180 \pm 0.0013 ~\mbox{(stat)}

568: \pm 0.0021 ~\mbox{(syst)} \pm 0.0009 ~\mbox{(norm)}, 

569: \label{re1s}

570: \eea

571: \end{itemize}

572: \vskip -0.3cm

573: 

574: When we have added twist-four corrections, we have very good agreement

575: between QCD (i.e. first two coefficients of Wilson expansion)

576: and data starting already with $Q^2 = 1$ GeV$^2$, where the Wilson

577: expansion should begin

578: %start 

579: to be applicable.

580: The results for  $\asMZ$ coincide for the both types of analyses:

581: %nonsinglet ones and singlet ones. They have the following form:

582: ones, based on

583: nonsinglet evolution, and ones, based on combined singlet and 

584: nonsinglet evolution.

585: %ones and singlet ones. 

586: They have the following form:

587: %

588: \begin{itemize}

589: %

590: \item  from fits, based on nonsinglet evolution:

591: \bea 

592: \as(M_Z^2) &=& 0.1174 \pm 0.0007 ~\mbox{(stat)}

593: \pm 0.0019 ~\mbox{(syst)} \pm 0.0010 ~\mbox{(norm)}, \label{re2n} 

594: \eea

595: %

596: \item from fits, based on combined singlet and 

597: nonsinglet evolution:

598: \bea

599: \as(M_Z^2) &=& 0.1177 \pm 0.0007 ~\mbox{(stat)}

600: \pm 0.0021 ~\mbox{(syst)} \pm 0.0009 ~\mbox{(norm)}, 

601: \label{re2s}

602: \eea

603: \end{itemize}

604: \vskip -0.3cm

605: 

606: 

607: Thus, there is very good agreement (see Eqs. (\ref{re1n}), (\ref{re1s}),

608: (\ref{re2n}) and (\ref{re2s}))

609: between results based on pure perturbative QCD at quite large $Q^2$ values

610: (i.e. at $Q^2 \geq 10 \div 15$ GeV$^2$) and the results based on 

611: %fits with using of 

612: first two twist terms

613: %coefficients 

614: of Wilson expansion (at $Q^2 \geq 1$ GeV$^2$, 

615: where the Wilson expansion should  be applicable).

616: 

617: We would like to note that we have good agreement also with the analysis 

618: \cite{H1BCDMS} of

619: combined H1 and BCDMS data, which has been given by H1 Collaboration very 

620: recently. 

621: Our results for $\as(M_Z^2)$ are in good agreement also with 

622: the average value for coupling constant,

623: %for $\asMZ$, 

624: presented in the recent studies (see \cite{Al2000,NeVo,SaYnd,LEP}

625: and references therein) and in

626: famous Altarelli and Bethke reviews \cite{Breview}.

627: 

628: The last result (\ref{re2s}) based on all data with $Q^2 \geq 1$ GeV$^2$

629: %and combined 

630: %%singlet and nonsinglet 

631: %evolution, 

632: can be considered as ``best

633: value'' for the coupling constant $\as(M_Z^2)$ coming in our analysis. 

634: 

635: 

636: \vskip 0.2cm

637: %

638: {\bf Acknowledgments.}

639: ~~The study is supported in part by 

640: %the RFBR grant 02-02-17513 and  by 

641: the Heisenberg-Landau program.

642: Authors

643:  would like to express their sincerely thanks to the Organizing

644:   Committee of Vth Int. Conference ``Renormalization group 2002''

645: for the kind invitation, the financial support

646:  at  such remarkable Conferences, and 

647:  for fruitful discussions.

648: A.V.K. was supported in part by Alexander von Humboldt

649: fellowship and INTAS  grant N366.

650: 

651: 

652: \vspace{-0.5cm}

653: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

654: 

655: \bibitem{Beneke} M. Beneke, Phys.Report. 317 (1999) 1;

656: M. Beneke, V.M. Braun, hep-ph/0010208. 

657: \vspace{-0.2cm}

658: %

659: \bibitem{KriKo} A.V. Kotikov, V.G. Krivokhijine, Dubna preprint E2-2001-190 

660: (hep-ph/0108224);

661: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108224;%%

662: in: 

663: {\it Proceedings of the XVIth International Workshop 

664: ``High Energy Physics and Quantum Field Theory``} (2001), Moscow 

665: (hep-ph/0206221);

666: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206221;%%

667: \vspace{-0.2cm}

668: %

669: \bibitem{Stirling} K. Long et al., {\it in} Proc. of the 9th Int. Workshop 

670: on Deep Inelastic

671: Scattering, DIS 2001 (2001), Bologna

672: %, R. Nisius, W.J. Stirling, 

673: (hep-ph/0109092).

674: \vspace{-0.2cm}

675: %Summary of Structure Function section on DIS2001.

676: %

677: \bibitem{SLAC1}

678: SLAC Collab., L.W. Whitlow et al., Phys.Lett.  B282 (1992) 475. 

679: SLAC report

680: 357 (1990).

681: \vspace{-0.2cm}

682: %

683: \bibitem{NMC}

684: NM Collab., M. Arneodo et al.,  Nucl. Phys.  

685: B483 (1997) 3. 

686: \vspace{-0.2cm}

687: %

688: \bibitem{BCDMS1}

689: BCDMS Collab., A.C.~ Benevenuti et al., Phys.Lett. 

690: %{\bf B195}(1987) 91, 97; 

691: B223 (1989) 485; B237 (1990) 592; B195 (1987) 91; Preprints CERN-EP/89-06,

692: CERN-EP/89-170, Preprint CERN-EP/87-100.

693: \vspace{-0.2cm}

694: %

695: \bibitem{BFP} BFP Collab.: P.D. Mayers et al., Phys.Rev. 

696: D34 (1986) 1265.

697: \vspace{-0.2cm}

698: %

699: \bibitem{Al2000}

700: S.~I.~Alekhin, 

701: Eur.Phys.J. C10 (1999) 395;

702: Phys.Rev. D59 (1999) 114016;

703: D63 (2001) 094022; Phys.Lett. B519 (2001) 57.

704: %Preprint IHEP 01-30, Protvino, 2000 (hep-ph/0107197).

705: \vspace{-0.2cm}

706: %

707: \bibitem{ViMi} M. Virchaux, A. Milsztajn, Phys.Lett. B274 (1992) 221.

708: \vspace{-0.2cm}

709: %

710: \bibitem{fits} A.D. Martin et al., 

711: %R.G. Roberts, W.J. Stirling and R.S. Thorne, 

712: Eur.Phys.J. C14 (2000) 133;

713: M. Glueck et al., 

714: %E. Reya and A. Vogt, 

715: Eur.Phys.J. C5 (1998) 461;

716: STEQ Collab., H.Lai et al., 

717: Eur.Phys.J. C12 (2000) 375.

718: \vspace{-0.2cm}

719: %

720: %

721: \bibitem{DGLAP}  V.N.~Gribov, L.N.~Lipatov, Sov.J.Nucl.Phys.

722: {\bf 15} (1972) 438;

723: %%CITATION = YAFIA,15,781;%%

724: {\bf 15} (1972) 675;

725: %%CITATION = YAFIA,15,1218;%% 

726: L.N.~Lipatov, Sov.J.Nucl.Phys. 20 (1975) 94;

727: %%CITATION = SJNCA,20,94;%%

728: G.~Altarelli, G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. B126 (1977) 298;

729:  Yu.L.~Dokshitzer, JETP 46 (1977) 641.

730: \vspace{-0.2cm}

731: %

732: \bibitem{Barker}

733: G.~Parisi, N.~Sourlas, Nucl. Phys. B151 (1979) 421;

734:  I.S.~Barker et al., 

735: %C.B.~Langensiepen and  G.~Shaw,  

736: Nucl. Phys. B186 (1981) 61;

737: %\\  I.S.~Barker, B.R.~Martin, and  G.~Shaw,

738: Z.Phys. C19 (1983) 147;

739: %\\ I.S.~Barker and  B.R.~Martin, Z. Phys. 

740: C24 (1984) 255.

741: \vspace{-0.2cm}

742: %

743: \bibitem{Kri}

744: V.G.~Krivokhizhin et al.,

745: %S.P.~Kurlovich, V.V.~Sanadze, I.A.~Savin, A.V.~Sidorov and

746: %N.B.~Skachkov, 

747: Z.Phys. C36 (1987) 51;

748: %\vspace{-0.2cm}

749: %

750: %\bibitem{Kri1}

751: %V.G.~Krivokhizhin, S.P.~Kurlovich, R.~Lednicky, S.~ Nemechek,

752: %V.V.~ Sanadze, I.A.~ Savin, A.V.~ Sidorov and N.B.~ Skachkov,  Z. Phys.

753: C48 (1990) 347.

754: \vspace{-0.2cm}

755: %

756: \bibitem{Vovk}

757: V.I.~ Vovk, Z.Phys. C47 (1990) 57;

758: A.V.~ Kotikov, 

759: %et al., 

760: G.~ Parente and J.~ Sanchez Guillen,  

761: Z.Phys. C58 (1993) 465;

762: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C58,465;%%

763: %

764: %\bibitem{KKDIS}

765: A.V. Kotikov and V.G. Krivokhijine, {\it in} Proc. of the 6th Int. 

766: Workshop on Deep Inelastic

767: Scattering, DIS 98 (1998), Brussels (hep-ph/9805353).

768: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9805353;%%

769: \vspace{-0.2cm}

770: %

771: \bibitem{PKK}

772: G.~Parente et al., 

773: %A.V.~Kotikov and  V.G.~Krivokhizhin,

774: Phys.Lett.  B333 (1994) 190;

775: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9405290;%%

776: %

777: %\bibitem{KKPS1}

778: A.L.~Kataev et al., 

779: %A.V.~Kotikov, G.~Parente and A.V.~Sidorov,

780: Phys.Lett. B388 (1996) 179;

781: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9605367;%%

782: %

783: %\bibitem{KKPS2}

784: %A.L.~Kataev, A.V.~Kotikov, G.~Parente and A.V.~Sidorov,

785: %Phys. Lett. 

786: B417 (1998) 374;

787: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9706534;%%

788: %Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. B64 (1998) 138;

789: hep-ph/9709509;

790: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9709509;%%

791: %

792: %\bibitem{KPS}

793: %A.L.~Kataev, G.~Parente and A.V.~Sidorov,

794: Nucl.Phys. B573 (2000) 405.

795: %

796: %\bibitem{KPS1}

797: %A.L.~Kataev, G.~Parente and A.V.~Sidorov,

798: %Preprint CERN-TH/2001-58 (hep-ph/0106221).

799: %

800: %\bibitem{Buras}

801: %A.~Buras,  Rev.Mod.Phys. 52 (1980) 199.

802: 

803: %\bibitem{Yndu}

804: %F.J. Yndurain, Quantum Chromodynamics (An Introduaction to the Theory

805: %of Quarks and Gluons).-Berlin, Springer-Verlag (1983).

806: %

807: %\bibitem{YF93}

808: %A.V.~Kotikov,  Phys. Atom. Nucl. {\bf 56} (1993) 1276.

809: %%%CITATION = PANUE,56,1276;%%

810: %%[ Yad. Fiz. {\bf 56} (1993) N9, 217].

811: %

812: \vspace{-0.2cm}

813: %

814: \bibitem{Ynd} 

815: F.J. Yndurain, Phys.Lett. B74 (1978) 68.

816: \vspace{-0.2cm}

817: %

818: \bibitem{KaKoYaF} 

819: B. Escobles et al., 

820: %M.J. Herrero, C. Lopez, and F.J. Yndurain, 

821: Nucl.Phys. B242 (1984) 329;

822: D.I. Kazakov, A.V. Kotikov,

823:  Sov.J.Nucl.Phys. 46 (1987) 1057 

824: [Yad.\ Fiz.\  46 (1987) 1767];

825: %%CITATION = YAFIA,46,1767;%%

826: %

827: %\bibitem{KaKo} D.I. Kazakov and A.V. Kotikov,

828: %Theor.Math.Phys. {\bf 73} (1987) 1264;

829: Nucl.Phys. B307 (1988) 721;

830: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B307,721;%%

831: B345 (1990) 299

832: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B345,299;%%

833: \vspace{-0.2cm}

834: %[Yad.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 46} (1987) 1767].

835: %

836: \bibitem{SaYnd} 

837: J. Santiago, F.J. Yndurain, Nucl.Phys. B563 (1999) 45.

838: %Nucl. Phys. {\bf B563} (1999) 45.

839: \vspace{-0.2cm}

840: %

841: \bibitem{MINUIT}

842: F.~James, M.Ross, ``MINUIT'', CERN Computer Center Library, 

843: D 505, Geneve, 1987.

844: \vspace{-0.2cm}

845: %

846: \bibitem{H1BCDMS} H1 Collab.: C. Adloff et al., 

847: Eur. Phys. J. C21 (2001) 33.

848: %Preprint DESY-00-181 (hep-ex/0012053).

849: \vspace{-0.2cm}

850: %

851: \bibitem{Kri2}

852: V. Genchev et al.,  {\it in} Proc. Int. Conference of Problems of High Energy

853: Physics (1988), Dubna, V.2., p.6;

854: %V.G.~Krivokhizhin et al., ????\\

855: %

856: %\bibitem{Syst}

857: A. Milsztaijan et al., Z.Phys. C49 (1991) 527.

858: \vspace{-0.2cm}

859: %

860: %\bibitem{H1} H1 Collab.: C. Adloff et al.,

861: %Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C21} (2001) 33.

862: %\vspace{-0.2cm}

863: %

864: %\bibitem{ZEUS} ZEUS Collab.: S. Chekanov et al., 

865: %Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C21} (2001) 443.

866: %\vspace{-0.2cm}

867: %

868: \bibitem{Q2evo} A.V. Kotikov and G. Parente,

869: Nucl. Phys. B549 (1999) 242; 

870: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807249;%%

871: %Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 99A} (2001) 196 (hep-ph/0010352); 

872: hep-ph/0010352;

873: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010352;%%

874: {\it in} Proc. of the Int. Conference PQFT98 (1998), Dubna

875: (hep-ph/9810223);

876: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810223;%%

877: {\it in} Proc. of the 8th Int. Workshop on Deep Inelastic

878: Scattering, DIS 2000 (2000), Liverpool, p. 198 

879: (hep-ph/0006197).

880: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006197;%%

881: %

882: \vspace{-0.2cm}

883: %

884: %\bibitem{Bartels1}

885: %J. Bartels, K. Golec-Biernat, K. Peters,

886: %Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C17} (2000) 121.

887: %\vspace{-0.2cm}

888: %

889: %

890: \bibitem{HT} A.V. Kotikov and G. Parente,

891:  {\it in} Proc. Int. Seminar Relativistic Nuclear Physics and Quantum 

892: Chromodynamics (2000), Dubna

893: (hep-ph/0012299); 

894: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012299;%%

895: {\it in} Proc. of the 9th Int. Workshop on Deep Inelastic

896: Scattering, DIS 2001 (2001), Bologna \\

897: (hep-ph/0106175).

898: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106175;%%

899: \vspace{-0.2cm}

900: %%

901: \bibitem{DoShi}

902: Yu.L. Dokshitzer, D.V. Shirkov, 

903: Z. Phys. C67 (1995) 449;

904: %

905: %\bibitem{Rsmallx} 

906: A.V. Kotikov, JETP Lett. 59 (1994) 1;

907: Phys. Lett. B338 (1994) 349.

908: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B338,349;%%

909: %

910: %

911: %\bibitem{Wong}  

912: W.K.~Wong, 

913: Phys. Rev.~D54 (1996)\\ 1094

914: \vspace{-0.2cm}

915: %%

916: \bibitem{bfklp}  S.J. Brodsky, V.S. Fadin, V.T. Kim, L.N. Lipatov and G.B.

917: Pivovarov, JETP. Lett. {\bf 70} (1999) 155; 

918: in: {\it Proc. of the

919: PHOTON2001}, Ascona, Switzerland, 2001 (CERN-TH/2001-341, SLAC-PUB-9069,

920: hep-ph/0111390);

921: %\newline

922: V.T. Kim, L.N. Lipatov and G.B. Pivovarov, in: {\it Proc. of the

923: VIIIth Blois Workshop at IHEP}, Protvino, Russia, 1999 (IITAP-99-013,

924: hep-ph/9911228); %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911228;%%

925: in: {\it Proc. of the Symposium on Multiparticle Dynamics (ISMD99)},

926: Providence, Rhode Island, 1999 (IITAP-99-014, hep-ph/9911242).

927: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911242;%%

928: %

929: %\bibitem{bfklp1}  S.J. Brodsky, V.S. Fadin, V.T. Kim, L.N. Lipatov and G.B.

930: %Pivovarov, 

931: %in: {\it Proc. of the

932: %PHOTON2001}, Ascona, Switzerland, 2001 (CERN-TH/2001-341, SLAC-PUB-9069,

933: hep-ph/0111390.

934: \vspace{-0.2cm}

935: %

936: \bibitem{BoAnd}  Bo Andersson et al., hep-ph/0204115.

937: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204115;%%

938: \vspace{-0.2cm}

939: %%

940: \bibitem{NeVo} 

941: W.L. van Neerven, A. Vogt, Nucl.Phys. B568 (2000) 263;

942: B603 (2001) 42;

943: %

944: %\bibitem{NeVo1} 

945: %W.L. van Neerven and A. Vogt, Nucl. Phys. 

946: B588 (2000) 345.

947: \vspace{-0.2cm}

948: %

949: \bibitem{LEP} G. Dissertori, hep-ex/0105070;

950: T. Affolder et al., hep-ex/0108034;

951: %

952: %\bibitem{Bethke} 

953: P.A. Movilla Fernandez et al., 

954: %S. Bethke, O.Biebel and S. Kluth,

955: Preprint MPI-Ph/2001-005 (hep-ex/0105059).

956: \vspace{-0.2cm}

957: %

958: \bibitem{Breview}

959: G. Altarelli, hep-ph/0204179;

960: S. Bethke, J.Phys. G26   (2000) R27 (hep-ex/0004021).

961: \vspace{-0.2cm}

962: %

963: %

964: %\bibitem{DELPHI}

965: %DELPHI Collab., P. Abreu et al., Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C6} (1999) 19.

966: %

967: %\bibitem{Al1999}

968: %S.~I.~Alekhin, 

969: %Phys. Rev. {\bf D59} (1999) 114016.

970: %

971: 

972: 

973: \end{thebibliography}

974: 

975: 

976: \end{document}

977: