1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{amsmath}
3: \usepackage{amssymb}
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5: \usepackage{lscape}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \begin{center}
10: {\Large \bf Value of \boldmath{$\alpha_{\rm s}$} from
11: deep-inelastic-scattering data}
12: \vspace{1cm}
13:
14: {\bf S.~I.~Alekhin}
15: \vspace{0.1in}
16:
17: {\baselineskip=14pt Institute for High Energy Physics, 142281 Protvino, Russia}
18: \begin{abstract}
19: We report the value of $\alpha_{\rm s}$ obtained from QCD analysis
20: of existing data on deep-inelastic scattering
21: of charged leptons off proton and deuterium and
22: estimate its theoretical uncertainties with
23: particular attention paid to impact of the high-twist contribution
24: to the deep-inelastic-scattering structure functions.
25: Taking into account the major uncertainties the value
26: $\alpha^{\rm NNLO}_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})=0.1143
27: \pm 0.0014({\rm exp.})\pm 0.0013({\rm theor.})$ is obtained.
28: An extrapolation of the LO--NLO--NNLO results to the higher orders
29: makes it possible to
30: estimate $\alpha^{\rm N^3LO}_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})\sim 0.113$.
31: \end{abstract}
32: \end{center}
33: {\bf PACS numbers:} 06.20.Jr,12.38.Bx\\
34: {\bf Keywords:} deep inelastic scattering, strong coupling constant
35:
36: \newpage
37:
38: \section{Introduction}
39: The value of strong coupling constant $\alpha_{\rm s}$ can be extracted
40: from the existing data on deep-inelastic-scattering (DIS)
41: with experimental uncertainty at the one-percent level.
42: With such experimental accuracy achieved the theoretical uncertainties
43: become dominant. One of the major theoretical uncertainty
44: in $\alpha_{\rm s}$ derived
45: from the next-to-leading-order (NLO) QCD analysis of DIS data comes from
46: the higher-order (HO) corrections.
47: Therefore, consideration of the next-to-next-to-leading (NNLO)
48: corrections is of great importance
49: for suppression of the errors in $\alpha_{\rm s}$.
50: Indeed, account of the NNLO terms in the
51: QCD evolution equations for the DIS structure functions, which
52: have been calculated recently~\cite{Retey:2000nq,vanNeerven:2000wp},
53: allows to reduce the HO uncertainty
54: in $\alpha_{\rm s}$ by a factor of $2\div 3$,
55: as it was estimated in Ref.~\cite{vanNeerven:1999ca}. Another important
56: source of the uncertainty in $\alpha_{\rm s}$ is the high-twist (HT)
57: contribution to the structure functions.
58: This contribution inevitably appear in the
59: operator product expansion~\cite{Wilson:zs}, but unfortunately
60: cannot be reliably estimated hitherto. In the limited range
61: of the momentum transfer $Q$ the HT terms, which fall with $Q$
62: by the power law, can simulate the logarithmic-type behavior of the
63: leading twist (LT) term.
64: For this reason the magnitude of HT terms is correlated
65: with the value of $\alpha_{\rm s}$, which defines the slope
66: of the LT term, and the uncertainty in HT terms propagates into
67: the uncertainty of $\alpha_{\rm s}$.
68:
69: \begin{figure}[ht]
70: \centerline{\epsfig{file=alpha.ps,width=14cm,height=8cm}}
71: \caption{The central
72: values of $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})$ and the experimental errors
73: obtained in different orders of pQCD (full symbols). The open symbol shows
74: the result of extrapolation to the N$^3$LO.}
75: \label{fig:als}
76: \end{figure}
77:
78: We study impact of these
79: sources of uncertainties on the value of $\alpha_{\rm s}$ obtained
80: from a NNLO QCD analysis of existing data on the charged-leptons
81: DIS off the proton and deuterium targets~\cite{Whitlow:1992uw}.
82: The data outside the kinematical region of
83: $Q^2=2.5\div 300~{\rm GeV}^2$ and $x=10^{-4}\div 0.75$ are left out
84: to suppress potentially dangerous theoretical uncertainties
85: keeping sufficient sensitivity of
86: data to the value of $\alpha_{\rm s}$. The data are analyzed
87: using a numerical integration of the QCD evolution equations in
88: the $x$-space (details are described elsewhere~\cite{Alekhin:2001ch}).
89: The value of $\alpha_s$ obtained in the recent update of this fit
90: is~\cite{Alekhin:2002fv}
91: \begin{equation}
92: \alpha^{\rm NNLO}_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})=0.1143\pm 0.0014({\rm exp.}),
93: \label{eqn:asa}
94: \end{equation}
95: to be compared with
96: \begin{equation}
97: \alpha^{\rm NNLO}_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})=0.1166\pm 0.0009({\rm exp.})
98: \label{eqn:asy}
99: \end{equation}
100: obtained by Santiago and Yndurain from the analysis of the proton subset of
101: data~\cite{Santiago:2001mh}.
102: The achieved experimental error in $\alpha_s$ is quite small and
103: therefore, complimentary analysis of theoretical
104: uncertainties is necessary in order
105: to clarify the confident range of $\alpha_{\rm s}$ variation.
106:
107: \section{Uncertainty due to the higher-order corrections}
108:
109: Generally, estimate of the HO uncertainty is impossible
110: before the HO corrections are known. However, the approach
111: based on variation of the QCD renormalization scale (RS) is
112: commonly used for estimation of the HO uncertainties.
113: This approach is very approximate since it does not account
114: for a possible $x$-dependence of the corresponding scale-factor
115: and since the variation range of the scale-factor
116: is optional. Nevertheless, following this
117: approach we estimate the HO uncertainty as the change of $\alpha_{\rm s}$
118: caused by variation of the QCD RS from $Q$ to $2Q$.
119: The estimates obtained are given in Table~\ref{tab:als}.
120: Note the reduction of $\alpha_{\rm s}$ with the pQCD order
121: approximately coincide with the corresponding
122: HO uncertainties\footnote{The decrease in
123: $\alpha_{\rm s}$ because of going
124: from the NLO to the NNLO disagrees
125: with the results of NNLO analysis by Santiago and Yndurain, but
126: agrees with the estimates of Ref.\cite{vanNeerven:1999ca}
127: and results of the NNLO fit of Ref.\cite{Martin:2002dr}.}.
128: Extrapolating this regularity to the N$^3$LO we have an estimate
129: $\alpha_{\rm s}^{\rm N^3LO}(M_{\rm Z})\sim 0.113$.
130:
131: \begin{table}[ht]
132: \begin{center}
133: \caption{The values of $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})$ obtained in different
134: orders of pQCD analysis and their RS errors.}
135: \vspace{0.4cm}
136: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
137: \hline
138: LO& $0.1301\pm0.0026 ({\rm exp.})\pm0.0149 ({\rm RS})$ \\ \hline
139: NLO & $0.1171\pm0.0015 ({\rm exp.})\pm0.0033 ({\rm RS})$ \\ \hline
140: NNLO & $0.1143\pm0.0014 ({\rm exp.})\pm0.0009 ({\rm RS})$ \\ \hline
141: \end{tabular}
142: \end{center}
143: \label{tab:als}
144: \end{table}
145:
146: \section{Uncertainty due to the high-twist contribution}
147:
148: The HT terms can be taken into account using different approaches.
149: Firstly, one can parameterize the HT terms by a flexible
150: model independent function. In this approach possible uncertainties
151: in variation of the HT terms allowed by data merge into the
152: total experimental error in $\alpha_{\rm s}$.
153: Secondly, one can cut data with low
154: momentum transfer $Q$ and/or hadronic mass $W$.
155: Evidently in the second approach the HT error vanishes, however
156: the statistical error can rise
157: because the QCD evolution introduces the largest effect
158: at small $Q$ and therefore this region
159: is most sensitive to the value of $\alpha_{\rm s}$.
160: Thirdly, one can take into account the HT terms using
161: available theoretical models. In this approach the HT uncertainty
162: is subject of belief in reliability of the model.
163:
164: \begin{figure}[ht]
165: \centerline{\epsfig{file=cor.ps,width=14cm,height=8cm}}
166: \caption{Shown is the correlation coefficient for the
167: fitted values of $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})$ and $H_2^p$
168: at different $x$.}
169: \label{fig:cor}
170: \end{figure}
171:
172: \begin{figure}[ht]
173: \centerline{\epsfig{file=scanq.ps,width=13cm,height=8cm}}
174: \caption{The values of $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})$ obtained from the
175: fit with $H_{\rm 2,L}=0$ and different cuts $Q_{\rm min}$ (left panel)
176: and the corresponding
177: values of $\chi^2/NDP$ (right panel). The horizontal lines
178: in the left panel correspond to the central value and the error band
179: of $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})$ in the analysis with
180: the HT parameterized in the piece-linear form, the error bars in the
181: right panel are $\sqrt{2/NDP}$.}
182: \label{fig:scanq}
183: \end{figure}
184:
185: In the analysis of Ref.\cite{Alekhin:2002fv} we parameterize
186: the twist-4 terms in additive form,
187: $F_{\rm 2,L}=F_{\rm 2,L}^{\rm LT,TMC}+{H_{\rm 2,L}(x)}/{Q^2}$,
188: where $F_{\rm 2,L}^{\rm LT,TMC}$ are the LT terms corrected
189: for the target mass effects~\cite{Georgi:1976ve}. The functions
190: $H_{\rm 2,L}$ are defined in a piece-linear form with fitted coefficients
191: that provides the model-independent account of the HT terms.
192: One does need to include
193: the HT terms in the analysis since they improve quality of the fit
194: ($\chi^2/NDP=2521/2274$ with and $\chi^2/NDP=2851/2274$ without them).
195: Possible logarithmic $Q$-dependence of $H(x)$ at $x\rightarrow 1$
196: could decrease the
197: fitted $\alpha_{\rm s}$ value~\cite{Gardi:2002xm}, however
198: data used in our analysis
199: are not sensitive to such modifications of $H(x)$
200: because of the cut on $x$.
201: The value of $\alpha_{\rm s}$ is strongly anti-correlated with
202: $H_2$ at large $x$ (see Fig.\ref{fig:cor}).
203: For this reason the error in $\alpha_{\rm s}$ is much
204: larger than it could be in the absence of the HT terms.
205: Indeed, in our trial fit with the HT terms set
206: to 0, the error in $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})$ is 0.0003.
207: Comparing this error with the error in $\alpha_{\rm s}$ obtained in our
208: analysis with the HT terms accounted for, we estimate the HT error in
209: $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})$ to be 0.0014. This is the major
210: source of the error in $\alpha_{\rm s}^{\rm NNLO}$, more important than
211: the estimated uncertainty due to the HO.
212:
213: The results of scan fits
214: with different cuts on $Q$ and with no HT terms included
215: are given in Fig.\ref{fig:scanq}.
216: These results suggest the optimal value
217: of $Q_{\rm min}\sim 20~{\rm GeV}^2$, which provide
218: balance between stability of the central value of $\alpha_{\rm s}$
219: and its error. For $Q^2_{\rm min}=21.5~{\rm GeV}^2$ the value of
220: $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})=0.1106\pm 0.0020~({\rm exp.})$ was
221: obtained. This value agrees with the results of analysis
222: with the HT terms included that supports the both approaches.
223: At that the value of $\alpha_s$ derived from the fit with
224: the HT terms included is preferable since it is more robust due
225: to the wider set of data was used in this case. The cut on $W$ leaves out the
226: data at small $Q$ and large $x$ and therefore
227: makes fit less sensitive to the HT terms however not so efficiently
228: as the cut on $Q$ since
229: the HT terms are important for moderate $x$ as well.
230: With the increase of the minimal value of $W$
231: the error in $\alpha_{\rm s}$ gets inappreciably large earlier than
232: its central value is sustained.
233:
234: \begin{figure}[ht]
235: \centerline{\epsfig{file=gsa.ps,width=14cm,height=8cm}}
236: \caption{One-standard-deviation band for the HT term in the proton structure
237: function $F_2$ obtained in the gradient model fit (curves) compared to the
238: model independent determination (points).}
239: \label{fig:gsa}
240: \end{figure}
241:
242: In the analysis by Santiago and Yndurain the value of $\alpha_{\rm s}$ was
243: obtained from the fit with the HT terms set to 0. The uncertainty in
244: $\alpha_{\rm s}$ caused by this constraint was estimated as
245: a difference between the value of $\alpha_{\rm s}$ obtained
246: from the fit with the HT terms set to 0 and that of
247: the fit with HT terms described by the gradient model.
248: In this model the HT contribution to $F_2$ reads
249: $A_2 [{dF_2^{NS}(x)}/{dx}]/Q^2$,
250: where $F_2^{NS}$ is the non-singlet structure function and $A_2$ is
251: a normalization parameter determined from data.
252:
253: We find $A_2=-0.018\pm0.006~{\rm GeV}^2$ in the trail
254: fit with $H_2(x)$ described by the gradient model\footnote{In
255: the trial fit we leave out the data
256: points with $Q^2<3.5~{\rm GeV}^2$ in order
257: to better match the data set used in Ref.\cite{Santiago:2001mh}.}.
258: We find that in this fit $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})$ changes by 0.0006
259: with respect to that of the fit with HT terms set to 0.
260: This value agrees with 0.0004
261: obtained in the analysis by Santiago and Yndurain.
262: However this shift in $\alpha_{\rm s}$ cannot be considered
263: as a reliable estimate of the HT uncertainty in $\alpha_{\rm s}$, since
264: the gradient model describes the HT terms very poorly ($\chi^2/NDP=2543/2067$).
265: This is not surprising, because the gradient model can only be justified
266: at $x\rightarrow 1$ and cannot be applied in
267: the whole region of $x$ (see Fig.\ref{fig:gsa}).
268: A correct estimate of the HT uncertainty in $\alpha_{\rm s}$
269: in the analysis by Santiago and Yndurain would be given by a variation
270: of $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})$ due to going
271: from the fit
272: with the HT terms set to 0 to the fit with the HT terms parameterized
273: in the model-independent way. In our analysis such variation
274: is $-0.0069$, much larger than
275: estimate of the HT uncertainty based on the gradient model.
276:
277: Taking into account this variation, we conclude that in fact
278: Eqn.(\ref{eqn:asa}) disagrees with Eqn.(\ref{eqn:asy})
279: This disagreement is evidently connected with the
280: substantial difference between the gluon distributions obtained in
281: different fits.
282: The gluon distribution was estimated in the analysis by
283: Santiago and Yndurain as $\sim x^{-0.44}(1-x)^{8.1}$~\cite{Santiago:1999xb}
284: with the momentum carried by gluons
285: $0.752\pm0.014$ at $Q^2=12~{\rm GeV}^2$.
286: This is much larger than the typical value of $\sim 0.4$ obtained in
287: the recent global fits of PDFs~\cite{Alekhin:2002fv,Martin:2002aw}.
288: Independent estimation of this quantity based on the results
289: of CDHS collaboration \cite{deGroot:1978hr} is $0.56\pm0.02$, also much
290: lower than the result by Santiago and Yndurain. We comment that
291: due to the value of $\alpha_{\rm s}$ is
292: anti-correlated with the gluon distribution at small $x$, the
293: increase in $\alpha_{\rm s}$ caused by
294: the absence of the HT terms in that analysis is
295: compensated by its decrease due to enhanced gluons.
296:
297: \section{Conclusion}
298:
299: We also estimate theoretical errors connected with account of the heavy
300: quarks contribution. These errors are more important than in our
301: previous determination of $\alpha_{\rm s}$ due to growing impact of
302: the recent low-$x$ HERA data. The uncertainty
303: in $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})$ due to choice between
304: the fixed-flavor-number and the variable-flavor-number
305: factorization schemes is estimated as 0.0007.
306: The variation of the $c$-quark mass by $0.25~{\rm GeV}$
307: leads to the variation in $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})$ of 0.0006.
308: Other possible sources of theoretical errors,
309: including uncertainties in the NNLO evolution kernel and
310: in the strange quarks distribution, are not considered because they
311: give much smaller effect. Summarizing all sources of theoretical errors we get
312: $$
313: \alpha^{\rm NNLO}_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})=0.1143
314: \pm 0.0014({\rm exp.})\pm 0.0013({\rm theor.}).
315: $$
316: This value is somewhat
317: lower than the world average value of Ref.\cite{Bethke:2000ai}
318: but agrees with it within errors.
319:
320: {\bf Acknowledgments}
321:
322: I am indebted to S.A.~Kulagin for careful reading of manuscript and
323: valuable comments, D.V.~Shirkov, and A.~Vogt
324: for stimulating discussions, and F.J.~Yndurain
325: for communication of the details of his analysis.
326: I am grateful to the Theory Division of CERN, where the part of
327: this work was done, for a hospitality.
328:
329: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
330:
331: \bibitem{Retey:2000nq}
332: A.~Retey and J.~A.~Vermaseren,
333: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 604}, 281 (2001)
334: [arXiv:hep-ph/0007294].
335: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007294;%%
336:
337: \bibitem{vanNeerven:2000wp}
338: W.~L.~van Neerven and A.~Vogt,
339: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 490}, 111 (2000)
340: [arXiv:hep-ph/0007362].
341: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007362;%%
342:
343: \bibitem{vanNeerven:1999ca}
344: W.~L.~van Neerven and A.~Vogt,
345: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 568} (2000) 263
346: [arXiv:hep-ph/9907472].
347: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907472;%%
348:
349: \bibitem{Wilson:zs}
350: K.~G.~Wilson,
351: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 179} (1969) 1499.
352: %%CITATION = PHRVA,179,1499;%%
353:
354: \bibitem{Whitlow:1992uw}
355: L.~W.~Whitlow, E.~M.~Riordan, S.~Dasu, S.~Rock and A.~Bodek,
356: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B282}, 475 (1992);
357: A.~C.~Benvenuti {\it et al.} [BCDMS Collaboration],
358: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B223} (1989) 485;
359: A.~C.~Benvenuti {\it et al.} [BCDMS Collaboration],
360: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B237} (1990) 592;
361: M.~Arneodo {\it et al.} [New Muon Collaboration],
362: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B483} (1997) 3
363: [hep-ph/9610231];
364: C.~Adloff {\it et al.} [H1 Collaboration],
365: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 21}, 33 (2001)
366: [arXiv:hep-ex/0012053];
367: S.~Chekanov {\it et al.} [ZEUS Collaboration],
368: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 21}, 443 (2001)
369: [arXiv:hep-ex/0105090].
370:
371: \bibitem{Alekhin:2001ch}
372: S.~I.~Alekhin,
373: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 094022
374: [hep-ph/0011002].
375: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011002;%%
376:
377: \bibitem{Alekhin:2002fv}
378: S.~Alekhin,
379: arXiv:hep-ph/0211096.
380: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211096;%%
381:
382: \bibitem{Santiago:2001mh}
383: J.~Santiago and F.~J.~Yndurain,
384: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 611} (2001) 447
385: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102247].
386: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102247;%%
387:
388: \bibitem{Martin:2002dr}
389: A.~D.~Martin, R.~G.~Roberts, W.~J.~Stirling and R.~S.~Thorne,
390: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 531} (2002) 216
391: [arXiv:hep-ph/0201127].
392: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201127;%%
393:
394: \bibitem{Georgi:1976ve}
395: H.~Georgi and H.~D.~Politzer,
396: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D14}, 1829 (1976).
397:
398: \bibitem{Gardi:2002xm}
399: E.~Gardi and R.~G.~Roberts,
400: arXiv:hep-ph/0210429.
401: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210429;%%
402:
403: \bibitem{Santiago:1999xb}
404: J.~Santiago and F.~J.~Yndurain,
405: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 86} (2000) 69
406: [arXiv:hep-ph/9907387].
407: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907387;%%
408:
409: \bibitem{Martin:2002aw}
410: A.~D.~Martin, R.~G.~Roberts, W.~J.~Stirling and R.~S.~Thorne,
411: arXiv:hep-ph/0211080;\\
412: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211080;%%
413: J.~Pumplin, D.~R.~Stump, J.~Huston, H.~L.~Lai, P.~Nadolsky and W.~K.~Tung,
414: JHEP {\bf 0207} (2002) 012
415: [arXiv:hep-ph/0201195].
416: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201195;%%
417:
418: \bibitem{deGroot:1978hr}
419: J.~G.~de Groot {\it et al.},
420: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 1} (1979) 143.
421: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C1,143;%%
422:
423: \bibitem{Bethke:2000ai}
424: S.~Bethke,
425: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 26} (2000) R27
426: [arXiv:hep-ex/0004021].
427: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0004021;%%
428:
429: \end{thebibliography}
430: \end{document}