1: \documentclass[aps,preprint,groupedaddress,showpacs,showkeys,floatfix]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{amsmath}
3: \usepackage{amssymb}
4: \usepackage{graphicx}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \title{The NNLO predictions for the rates of the
9: \\ \boldmath{$W/Z$} production in
10: \boldmath{$\stackrel{(-)~~}{pp}$} collisions\footnote{\it Contributed to
11: 21th International Symposium on Lepton and Photon
12: Interactions at High Energies (LP 03), 11-16 Aug 2003, Batavia, Illinois}}
13: \author{S.~I.~Alekhin}
14:
15: \affiliation{Institute for High Energy Physics, 142281 Protvino, Russia}
16:
17:
18: \begin{abstract}
19: {The NNLO rates of the intermediate vector boson production (IVB)
20: are calculated
21: and found to agree with the preliminary results of Run II at the Fermilab
22: $\overline{p}p$ collider.
23: The estimated uncertainties in NNLO predictions for
24: the IVB rates including the errors in PDFs, $\alpha_{\rm s}$, and the
25: factorization/renormalization scales are about 2\%
26: for the Fermilab collider and 3\% for the LHC
27: that allows to use these predictions
28: as a competitive benchmark for calibration of the collision luminosity.}
29: \end{abstract}
30: \pacs{13.60.Hb,06.20.Jr,12.38.Bx}
31: \keywords{Intermediate vector bosons, hadron colliders}
32:
33: \maketitle
34:
35: The increase of the collision energy and intensity
36: of the colliding beams in a new generation of the hadron colliders
37: requires new approaches in the precise
38: monitoring of the collisions' luminosity
39: necessary for detecting manifestation of new physics.
40: The measurement of the rate of Intermediate Vector Bosons (IVB) production
41: is one of the promising tool for this purpose \cite{Dittmar:1997md}.
42: Due to large scale given by the IVB masses
43: the production cross section can be reliably calculated in the
44: QCD-improved quark parton model. With the IVB masses and electroweak
45: coupling well constraint from the wealth of other measurements
46: the largest source of the uncertainty in
47: the calculated IVB rates comes from the high-order (HO) QCD corrections.
48: However the recent progress in the NNLO QCD calculations
49: allows to minimize the uncertainty due to missing HO corrections as well.
50: The NNLO coefficient functions for the Drell-Yan process
51: have been calculated~\cite{Hamberg:1990np}.
52: Despite the NNLO anomalous dimensions
53: are not known completely yet, the remaining uncertainty in
54: the NNLO splitting functions~\cite{vanNeerven:2000wp} is at the level of
55: several percents in the x-region relevant for existing data.
56: As a result the uncertainty in the NNLO PDFs due to incomplete knowledge
57: of the NNLO anomalous dimensions does not exceed the experimental
58: uncertainties in the PDFs through the whole kinematics of the existing and
59: planned hadron colliders~\cite{Alekhin:2001ih} and, therefore,
60: calculations of the IVB rates up to the NNLO make sense.
61:
62: \begin{figure}[h]
63: \includegraphics[width=14cm,height=12cm]{fnal.ps}
64: \caption{The NNLO $W/Z$ production rates in
65: the $\overline{p}p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=1.96~{\rm TeV}$ compared to the
66: preliminary results for Run II. The area between dashes gives $1\sigma$ band
67: uncertainty in the calculations. The inner bars of the data points give the
68: statistical error, the outer ones give the
69: total errors including the luminosity uncertainty.}
70: \label{fig:fnal}
71: \end{figure}
72:
73: In this letter we give the NNLO calculations of the IVB rates
74: at the Fermilab $\overline{p}p$ collider
75: and the $pp$ Large Hadron Collider
76: (LHC). The calculations are based on the
77: code of Ref.\cite{Hamberg:1990np} with
78: the NNLO PDFs of Ref.~\cite{Alekhin:2002fv} extracted from the
79: fit to the global deep-inelastic-scattering (DIS) data. This choice of PDFs
80: provides an advantage in comparison with the
81: Martin-Roberts-Stirling-Thorne (MRST) PDFs
82: of Ref.\cite{Martin:2002dr} since in the later case the PDFs are
83: fitted using wider set of processes including the data on jet production
84: for which the NNLO corrections are unknown. Besides, the MRST fit includes
85: the data for IVB production as well and thus the predictions of the
86: IVB rates based on these PDFs are not truly independent.
87:
88: \begin{table}
89: \caption{\label{tab:fnal}
90: The production cross sections (in nb)
91: for the $W$-boson and $Z$-boson (in parenthesis)
92: in the $\overline{p}p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=1.96$~{\rm TeV}
93: calculated in different approximations for the PDFs and
94: the coefficient functions.}
95: \begin{ruledtabular}
96: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
97: PDFs & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Coefficient functions} \\ \cline {2-3}
98:
99: & NLO & NNLO \\
100:
101: NLO & 25.5(7.6) & 26.2(7.8) \\
102:
103: NNLO & 25.9(7.7) & 26.6(7.9) \\
104: \end{tabular}
105: \end{ruledtabular}
106: \end{table}
107: \begin{table}
108: \caption{\label{tab:lhc}
109: The same as Table~\protect\ref{tab:fnal} for the $pp$
110: collisions at $\sqrt{s}=14$~TeV.}
111: \begin{ruledtabular}
112: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
113: PDFs & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Coefficient functions} \\ \cline {2-3}
114:
115: & NLO & NNLO \\
116:
117: NLO & 200.9(58.8) & 200.6(58.8) \\
118:
119: NNLO & 204.4(59.9) & 204.6(60.0) \\
120: \end{tabular}
121: \end{ruledtabular}
122: \end{table}
123:
124: In our calculations the values of the IVB
125: masses were set as $M_W=80.423~{\rm GeV}$, $M_Z=91.188~{\rm GeV}$,
126: the widths as $\Gamma_W=2.118~{\rm GeV}$, $\Gamma_Z=2.495~{\rm GeV}$,
127: the branching ratios of the IVB leptonic decays
128: as $BR(W \rightarrow l\nu)=0.107$, $BR(Z \rightarrow ll)=0.034$,
129: squared sine of the Weinberg angle $x_W(M_{\rm Z})=0.2311$,
130: squared cosine of the Cabibbo angle $c_C=0.9505$~\cite{Hagiwara:fs}.
131: The value of strong coupling constant
132: $\alpha^{NNLO}_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})=0.1143$ used in the calculations
133: was found in the analysis of
134: Ref.~\cite{Alekhin:2002fv} simultaneously with the parameterization of
135: the PDFs.
136:
137: \begin{figure}[h]
138: \label{fig:rfnal}
139: \includegraphics[width=14cm,height=12cm]{rfs_fnal.ps}
140: \caption{Dependence of the NNLO predictions for the IVB rates
141: in the $\overline{p}p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=1.96$~{\rm TeV}
142: on the factorization (solid lines) and the
143: renormalization (dashes) scales $\mu$.}
144: \end{figure}
145: \begin{figure}[h]
146: \label{fig:rlhc}
147: \includegraphics[width=14cm,height=12cm]{rfs_lhc.ps}
148: \caption{The same as Fig.1 for the $pp$
149: collisions at $\sqrt{s}=14$~TeV.}
150: \end{figure}
151:
152: The NNLO IVB production rates in the
153: $\overline{p}p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=1.96~{\rm TeV}$
154: calculated at the renormalization factorization scales set to
155: the IVB masses are given in Fig.\ref{fig:fnal}.
156: The horizontal lines correspond to the $1\sigma$ bands of the predictions.
157: These bands stem from the PDFs errors and the error in $\alpha_{\rm s}$,
158: which is correlated with the PDFs errors
159: due to its value was extracted simultaneously with
160: the PDFs from the same data set. The errors due to the high-twist (HT)
161: contribution to the DIS cross sections
162: are also effectively included into the error bands given since
163: the HT terms were also fitted in the analysis of Ref.~\cite{Alekhin:2002fv}.
164: All errors were estimated by straightforward propagation of
165: the uncertainties in the inputs of the fit
166: without introduction a scale factors.
167: This allows for rigorous treatment of
168: these errors in terms of the probability theory and
169: correct calculation of the confidence intervals.
170: The preliminary results of Run II for the IVB rates
171: \cite{Evans:2002wj} are given in Fig.\ref{fig:fnal} for comparison.
172: The measured rates and predictions agree within the errors.
173: The errors in the measured rates due to the luminosity uncertainty are
174: typically about 10\% that is much larger than the errors in the
175: predictions. This allows to use the predictions
176: for the complementary cross-checks of the luminosity monitor.
177: For the $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=14~{\rm TeV}$
178: the NNLO IVB rates are estimated as
179: $$
180: \sigma_{\rm Z}=60.0\pm1.9~{\rm nb},
181: $$
182: $$
183: \sigma_{\rm W}=204.6\pm6.4~{\rm nb}
184: $$
185: with the uncertainty about 3\%.
186:
187: To estimate the importance of the NNLO corrections on the IVB rates
188: and to separate impacts of the NNLO corrections to
189: the coefficient functions and to the PDFs we performed
190: calculations combining the PDFs and the coefficient functions in different
191: approximations. The value of $\alpha^{NLO}_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})=0.1171$ was
192: used with the NLO PDFs,
193: in accordance with the results of the NLO fit of Ref.~\cite{Alekhin:2002fv}.
194: The results for the Fermilab collider and the LHC are given
195: in Tables~\ref{tab:fnal},\ref{tab:lhc}.
196: For the Fermilab collider the both corrections have the same sign and
197: comparable scale. For the LHC the effect of the NNLO corrections to the
198: coefficient functions is marginal, while the change of the NLO PDFs by
199: the NNLO ones causes sizeable increase of the cross sections
200: with the relative scale of increase
201: comparable to the case of the Fermilab collider.
202: The latter is in disagreement with the results of
203: Ref.\cite{Martin:2000gq}, which
204: reported negative contribution of the NNLO corrections
205: to the IVB rates at the LHC.
206: This disagreement can be attributed to the difference in the data sets used
207: for fitting of the PDFs and needs further clarification.
208: Both for the Fermilab collider and the LHC the uncertainty in the IVB rates
209: due to possible variation of the NNLO anomalous dimensions
210: is less than 1\%.
211:
212: An additional source of the uncertainty in the
213: predictions for the IVB rates is variation of the
214: factorization and the renormalization scales.
215: However, in the NNLO these uncertainties
216: are greatly suppressed as compared to the NLO case~\cite{Hamberg:1990np}.
217: As one can see in Figs.2,3
218: the factorization uncertainty in the NNLO IVB rates
219: estimated for very wide variation of the scale
220: is less than 1\% for the Fermilab collider and $2\div3\%$
221: for the LHC, while the errors due to the renormalization scale
222: are generally smaller
223: than ones due to the factorization scale. In conclusion,
224: the estimated uncertainties in the NNLO predictions for
225: the IVB rates including the errors in PDFs, $\alpha_{\rm s}$, and the
226: factorization/renormalization scales are about 2\%
227: for the Fermilab collider and 3\% for the LHC
228: that allows to use these predictions
229: as a competitive benchmark for calibration of the collision luminosity.
230:
231: I am indebted to S.~Kulagin for reading the manuscript and valuable comments,
232: W.~Giele and C.P.~Yuan for stimulating discussions.
233: The work was supported by the RFBR grant 03-02-17177.
234:
235: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
236:
237: \bibitem{Dittmar:1997md}
238: M.~Dittmar, F.~Pauss and D.~Zurcher,
239: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56} (1997) 7284
240: [arXiv:hep-ex/9705004];\\
241: W.~T.~Giele and S.~A.~Keller,
242: arXiv:hep-ph/0104053.
243:
244: \bibitem{Hamberg:1990np}
245: R.~Hamberg, W.~L.~van Neerven and T.~Matsuura,
246: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 359} (1991) 343
247: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 644} (2002) 403].
248: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B359,343;%%
249:
250: \bibitem{vanNeerven:2000wp}
251: W.~L.~van Neerven and A.~Vogt,
252: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 490} (2000) 111
253: [arXiv:hep-ph/0007362].
254: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007362;%%
255:
256: \bibitem{Alekhin:2001ih}
257: S.~I.~Alekhin,
258: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 519} (2001) 57
259: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107197].
260: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107197;%%
261:
262: \bibitem{Alekhin:2002fv}
263: S.~Alekhin,
264: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 114002 [arXiv:hep-ph/0211096].
265: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211096;%%
266:
267: \bibitem{Martin:2002dr}
268: A.~D.~Martin, R.~G.~Roberts, W.~J.~Stirling and R.~S.~Thorne,
269: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 531} (2002) 216
270: [arXiv:hep-ph/0201127].
271: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201127;%%
272:
273: \bibitem{Hagiwara:fs}
274: K.~Hagiwara {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group Collaboration],
275: %``Review Of Particle Physics,''
276: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 010001.
277: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,010001;%%
278:
279: \bibitem{Evans:2002wj}
280: H.~G.~Evans,
281: [arXiv:hep-ex/0211061].
282: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0211061;%%
283:
284: \bibitem{Martin:2000gq}
285: A.~D.~Martin, R.~G.~Roberts, W.~J.~Stirling and R.~S.~Thorne,
286: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 18} (2000) 117
287: [arXiv:hep-ph/0007099].
288: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007099;%%
289:
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: