1: %TCIDATA{Version=4.10.0.2345}
2: %TCIDATA{LaTeXparent=0,0,../StrAsym.tex}
3:
4: %TCIDATA{ChildDefaults=chapter:4,page:1}
5:
6:
7: \section{Global Analysis}
8:
9:
10: \label{sec:global}
11:
12: We now describe the global QCD analysis, which includes all relevant
13: experimental data and implements the theoretical ideas outlined above. This
14: may be considered an extension of the on-going CTEQ program of global
15: analysis. Several new elements (compared to the latest CTEQ6M \cite{cteq6m}
16: analysis) are present. On the experimental side, we have added the CDHSW
17: inclusive $F_{2}$ and $F_{3}$ data sets \cite{cdhsw}, and the CCFR-NuTeV
18: dimuon data sets \cite{CN}. On the theoretical side, we have expanded the
19: parameter space to include the strangeness sector as discussed in Sec.~\ref%
20: {sec:param}.
21:
22: Compared to the global analyses of BPZ \cite{BPZ}, which also allow $s\neq
23: \bar{s}$, the major difference experimentally is our inclusion of the dimuon
24: data, which provide a direct handle on $s$ and $\bar{s}$; and,
25: theoretically, the generality and naturalness of our parametrization of the
26: strange distributions.%%
27: \footnote{%
28: Ref.\,\cite{BPZ} parametrizes $s(x)$ and $\bar{s}(x)$
29: rather than $s^\pm(x)$.} Since the results of
30: \cite{BPZ} on strangeness asymmetry rely on small differences of
31: inclusive DIS charged-current and neutral-current measurements, BPZ
32: performed the analysis at the cross section level, applying uniform
33: procedures to treat data from different experiments in the comparison
34: to theory. Considering small differences between inclusive cross
35: sections, the possible strange asymmetry is but one of many sources
36: that could lead to such differences.
37:
38: As the dimuon data more directly constrain the strange PDFs, this is
39: an important new element to our fit. For all inclusive DIS processes
40: we use the standard procedure of comparing theory with the published
41: $F_2$ and $F_3$ structure function data. In our analysis, the fit to
42: charged-current (neutrino) inclusive structure functions is dominated
43: by the high statistics CCFR data. Although we have included the
44: earlier inclusive CDHSW data (which play a prominent role in the
45: analysis of \cite{BPZ}), they have no discernible influence on the
46: results presented below.
47:
48: To include the CCFR-NuTeV neutrino and antineutrino dimuon production data
49: in a global QCD analysis is not a straightforward task. The experimental
50: measurement is presented as a series of \textquotedblleft forward
51: differential cross sections\textquotedblright\ with kinematic cuts, whereas
52: the theoretical quantities that are most directly related to the parton
53: distribution analysis are the underlying (semi-) inclusive \textquotedblleft
54: charm quark production cross sections\textquotedblright .\ The gap between
55: the two is bridged using a Monte Carlo program that incorporates kinematic
56: cuts as well as fragmentation and decay models. In our analysis, we use a
57: Pythia program provided by the CCFR-NuTeV collaboration to do this
58: efficiency-correction.\footnote{%
59: We thank Tim Bolton and Max Goncharov, in particular, for providing this
60: program, as well as assistance in its use. Their help was vital for carrying
61: out this project.\label{fn:Bolton}} %%
62: This Monte Carlo calculation is done in the spirit and the framework of
63: leading-order (LO) QCD. CTEQ5L parton distributions and Peterson
64: fragmentation functions were used. The parameters of the model were tuned to
65: reproduce, as closely as possible, the detailed differential dimuon cross
66: sections published in \cite{CN}.
67:
68: \subsection{$d\protect\sigma ^{\protect\nu N\rightarrow cX}$ in QCD}
69:
70: At LO in PQCD, the cross section formula for $\nu N\rightarrow cX$ is \cite%
71: {gkr1}
72: \begin{eqnarray}
73: \xi s^{\prime }(\xi ,Q^{2})_{\mathrm{eff}}\ &\equiv &\frac{1}{2}\ \frac{\pi
74: (1+Q^{2}/M_{W}^{2})^{2}}{G_{F}^{2}M_{N}E_{\nu }}\ \left\vert
75: V_{cs}\right\vert ^{-2}\ \frac{d^{2}\sigma ^{\nu N\rightarrow cX}}{dx\ dy}
76: \notag \\
77: &=&\ (1-\frac{m_{c}^{2}}{2M_{N}E_{\nu }\xi })\ \xi s^{\prime }(\xi ,Q^2)
78: +{\mathcal{O}}(\alpha _{s})\ \ \ , \label{eq:seff}
79: \end{eqnarray}%
80: with the CKM matrix element $\left\vert V_{cs}\right\vert $ and where the
81: Barnett-Gottschalk parameter \cite{barnett,gotts}
82: \begin{equation}
83: \xi \equiv x\ \left( 1+\frac{m_{c}^{2}}{Q^{2}}\right)
84: \end{equation}%
85: approaches Bjorken-$x$ as $Q\rightarrow \infty $ (relative to
86: $m_{c}=1.3\ \mathrm{GeV}$). The quantity $s^{\prime }(\xi ,Q^{2})_{%
87: \mathrm{eff}}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:seff}) includes Cabibbo suppressed
88: contributions in neutrino scattering via
89: \begin{equation}
90: s^{\prime }\equiv s+\frac{\left\vert V_{cs}\right\vert ^{2}}{\left\vert
91: V_{cd}\right\vert ^{2}}\ d
92: \end{equation}%
93: with obvious adjustments for the anti-neutrino case\footnote{$q\rightarrow {%
94: \bar{q}}$ for $q=s,d$.}.
95:
96: The NLO corrections to $\xi s^{\prime }(\xi ,Q^{2})_{\mathrm{eff}}$, defined
97: via the perturbative series
98: \begin{equation}
99: \xi s^{\prime }(\xi ,Q^{2})_{\mathrm{eff}}=\sum_{i}\alpha _{s}^{i}\ \xi
100: s^{\prime }(\xi ,Q^{2})_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(i)}\ \ \ ,
101: \end{equation}%
102: are generically of the form
103: \begin{equation}
104: \xi s^{\prime }(\xi ,Q^{2})_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}\propto \sum_{f=g,s^{\prime
105: }}\ f\otimes H_{f} \label{eq:nlo}
106: \end{equation}%
107: with $\otimes $ denoting a convolution integral over parton momentum. These
108: were first calculated more than 20 years ago \cite{gotts}. Later
109: calculations \cite{gkr1,ks} corrected minor typos
110: and employed the modern ${%
111: \overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ renormalization scheme and the ACOT treatment \cite%
112: {acotcc} of amplitudes with massive quarks ($m_{s,c}\neq 0$). Very recently,
113: the NLO charm production contributions to the full set of electroweak
114: structure functions were calculated \cite{kr}, including terms that are
115: suppressed by $m_{\mu }^{2}/ME_{\nu }$. In order to apply detector
116: acceptance corrections to the data \cite{CN}, differential NLO distributions
117: were calculated in \cite{gkr2} and \cite{disco} that provide the charm
118: hadron (D meson) kinematics in terms of the fragmentation variable $z$ and
119: rapidity $\eta $. The $d\sigma /dxdydzd\eta $ code DISCO \cite{disco},
120: written by two of the authors of the present article in collaboration with
121: D.~Mason of NuTeV, exists as an interface to the NuTeV MC event generator.
122: Detailed results can be found in the articles listed above. It suffices to
123: say: (i) the NLO calculations all agree; and (ii) for the fixed target
124: kinematics under investigation, the NLO corrections to the LO results are
125: modest---no bigger than $\lesssim 20\%$ (see Fig.~1 in \cite{gkr1}).
126:
127: As mentioned before, the global fits performed in our study are extensions
128: of the full NLO CTEQ6 analysis with the addition of constraints due to
129: neutrino dimuon production. For the latter process, we have done extensive
130: studies using either the LO formula, Eq.~(\ref{eq:seff}), or the NLO
131: treatment of \cite{gkr1}, Eq.~(\ref{eq:nlo}). The results obtained in the
132: two cases are quite similar. For definiteness, the main results presented in
133: Sec.~\ref{sec:results} are those obtained by using Eq.~(\ref{eq:seff}),
134: since the acceptance corrections made to the data set are currently based on
135: a LO model, as mentioned earlier. \ Since we have determined that the NLO
136: corrections to the hard cross section are small (compared to experimental
137: errors, for instance), and since we found the uncertainty range of the main
138: result (on $[S^{-}]$ ) is much broader than the difference between the
139: central values obtained by using Eq.~(\ref{eq:seff}) with or without
140: the corrections in Eq.~(\ref{eq:nlo})
141: (cf.~Sec.~\ref{sec:compare}), this approximation does not affect the outcome
142: of our analysis.\footnote{%
143: It is certainly desirable to have the inclusive cross sections corrected for
144: acceptance based on NLO models (such as \cite{disco}), that can be compared
145: to (\ref{eq:nlo}) in a full NLO global analysis.\ This is under active
146: development by a theory (CTEQ)-experiment (CCFR-NuTeV) collaboration.}
147:
148: \subsection{Procedure}
149:
150: \label{sec:procedure}
151:
152: Our analysis is carried out in several stages. First we must find
153: appropriate starting values for the fitting parameters.
154: For this purpose, we implement the following steps.
155:
156: \begin{Simlis}{1em}
157: \item We rerun the CTEQ6M global fit with the added CDHSW inclusive neutrino
158: scattering data, keeping all other conditions the same. \ This intermediate
159: fit is extremely close to the CTEQ6M one, since the fit to inclusive DIS
160: data is totally dominated by the high statistics neutral current experiments
161: on the one hand, and the CCFR charged current experiment on the other.
162:
163: \item We then fix all of the \textquotedblleft
164: conventional\textquotedblright\ parton parameters to their values in this
165: intermediate fit, and fit the complete set of data, including the new dimuon
166: data, by varying only the parameters associated with the new degrees of
167: freedom in $s^{-}$. We obtain results consistent with expectations:
168:
169: \begin{Simlis}{1em}
170: \item[(i)] Most of the data sets used in the previous analysis are not
171: affected at all by the variation in $s^{-}$.
172:
173: \item[(ii)] A few fully inclusive cross sections are slightly affected by
174: the variation of $s^{-}$, mainly:
175:
176: \begin{Simlis}[]{1em}
177: \item[a.] $F_{3}$ which depends on $u-\bar{u}+d-\bar{d}+s-\bar{s}\,\dots $.
178:
179: \item[b.] The $W^\pm$ charge asymmetry which receives a contributions from
180: $gs \rightarrow W^- c$.
181: \end{Simlis}
182:
183: These sensitivities to $s^{-}$ are weak.
184:
185: \item[(iii)] The CCFR-NuTeV dimuon data sets are the most constraining ones
186: for fitting $s^{-}(x)$.
187: \end{Simlis}
188:
189: We obtain good fits using either the 3-parameter ($a,b,c$) or the 4- or
190: 5-parameter ($a,b,c,d,e$) versions of Eqs.(\ref{eq:StrParam2},\ref%
191: {eq:StrParam3}). There are not enough constraints to choose among these fits.
192: The higher-order polynomials allow oscillatory behavior of $s^{-}(x)$ which
193: the 3-parameter form does not. We consider the number of crossings a
194: distinctive property of the physical asymmetry $s^-(x)$ rather than a
195: volatile function of the continuous fit parameter space. As explained in
196: Section \ref{sec:general}, one zero-crossing is unavoidably enforced by the
197: sum rule in Eq.~(\ref{eq:NumSR}). We are not aware of any solid theoretical
198: argument that would suggest a second crossing; nor do we find that the fits
199: show any preference for more than one crossing. We therefore restrict the
200: search for best fits in this section to one crossing.
201: This choice also seems to be a stable feature of
202: models \cite{models} based on baryon-meson fluctuations.
203:
204: \item Using these candidate fits as a basis, we perform a second round of
205: fitting allowing the parameters associated with $s^{+}$, Eq.(\ref%
206: {eq:StrParam1}), to vary in addition to the $s^{-}$ variables. This improves
207: the fit to all data sets slightly. We observe that the shape of $s^{+}(x)$
208: now deviates from the starting configuration in which $s^{+}(x)$ was set
209: proportional to $\bar{u}(x)+\bar{d}(x)$. Defining, as in Eq.~(\ref{eq:kappa}%
210: ), the strangeness suppression parameter $\kappa $ as the ratio of the
211: momentum fraction carried by the strange quarks, $[S^{+}]$, to that carried
212: by $\bar{u}+\bar{d}$ at $Q_{0} = 1.3 \, \mathrm{GeV}$, we find that $\kappa $
213: may vary in the range $0.3$\thinspace --\thinspace $0.5$: $\chi ^{2}$ has a
214: shallow minimum around $\kappa =0.4$. This value agrees with previous
215: analyses \cite{dmdata}.
216:
217: Because the experimental constraints are not sufficient to uniquely
218: determine all the $s^{-}$ and $s^{+}$ parameters, we categorize several
219: classes of equally good solutions based on %such factors as the number of
220: %crossing points of $s^{-}(x)$, and
221: the behavior of $s^{-}(x)/s^{+}(x)$ as $x\rightarrow 0$ or $x\rightarrow 1$.
222:
223: \item We finalize these classes of solutions by allowing all parton
224: parameters to vary so that the non-strange parton distributions can adjust
225: themselves to yield the best fit to all the experimental data sets. (As one
226: would expect, these final adjustments are generally small.) The differences
227: in the $\chi ^{2}$ values between the various categories of solutions are
228: not significant; i.e.~we find nearly degenerate minima with distinctively
229: different $s^-(x)$ solutions, classified according to their small $x$
230: behaviour. These solutions do not correspond to isolated local minima in $%
231: \chi^2$ space; rather they are to be thought of as specific examples of a
232: class of acceptable fits that lie along a nearly flat ``valley'' along which
233: $\chi^2$ changes very slowly.
234: \end{Simlis}
235:
236: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
237:
238: \subsection{Central Results}
239:
240: \label{sec:results}
241:
242: %The following description of results is based on a few representative
243: %examples chosen from a large number of candidate fits obtained by the above
244: %procedure.
245: The quality of the fits to the global data sets other than the
246: CCFR-NuTeV dimuon data remains unaltered from the previous CTEQ6M analysis,
247: so we focus our discussion on the strangeness sector. Specifically, we
248: examine closely the asymmetry functions %%
249: $s^{-}(x),\,S^{-}(x)$ and the momentum integral $[S^{-}]$. %%
250: The asymmetry functions from three typical good fits, with different
251: behaviors at small $x$ (labeled as classes A,B,C), were previewed in Fig.\,%
252: \ref{fig:B} as illustrations.
253:
254: In the accompanying table, for each sample fit we list the small-$x$
255: exponent $\beta_-$ [$s^-(x)\sim x^{\beta_-}$, cf.~Eq.~\ref{eq:betam}], the
256: integrated momentum fraction $[S^-]$, and the relative $\chi ^{2}$ values,
257: normalized to the $\chi ^{2}$ of solution B ($\chi^2_B$),
258: which we use as the reference
259: for comparison purposes. (Under column ``B'', we give the absolute $\chi^2$%
260: 's in parentheses.)\footnote{%
261: The $\chi^2$ values of the dimuon data sets, like those of some other data
262: sets, do not carry rigorous statistical significance, because the correlated
263: systematic errors are not available and, hence, cannot be included. In the
264: global analysis context, the $\chi^2$ value is nevertheless used as the only
265: practical ``figure of merit'' for the fit. The relatively small value of the
266: total $\chi^2$ for the dimuon data sets, compared to the number of data
267: points, underlines this fact. Under this circumstance, it is common practice
268: to use the normalized $\chi^2$ values to compare the quality of different
269: fits.} To gain some insight on the constraints on the strangeness sector due
270: to the various types of experiments, we show separately the $\chi ^{2}$
271: values for the dimuon data sets, the inclusive data sets (I) that are
272: expected to be somewhat sensitive to $s^{-}$ (consisting of the CCFR and
273: CDHSW $F_3(x,Q)$ and the CDF $W$-lepton asymmetry measurements), and the
274: remaining data sets (II) that are only indirectly affected by $s^{-}$ (the
275: rest of the inclusive data sets).
276:
277: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
278:
279: \begin{center}
280: \begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|}
281: \hline
282: & \# pts & B+ & A & B & C & B$-$ \\ \hline\hline
283: $\beta_-$ & - & $-0.78$ & $-0.99$ & $-0.78$ & 0 & $-0.78$ \\ \hline
284: $[S^{-}]\times 100$ & - & 0.540 & 0.312 & 0.160 & 0.103 & $-0.177$ \\
285: \hline\hline
286: Dimuon & 174 & 1.30 & 1.02 & \emph{1.00} (126) & 1.01 & 1.26 \\ \hline
287: Inclusive I & 194 & 0.98 & 0.97 & \emph{1.00} (141) & 1.03 & 1.09 \\ \hline
288: Inclusive II & 2097 & 1.00 & 1.00 & \emph{1.00} (2349) & 1.00 & 1.00 \\
289: \hline
290: \end{tabular}
291: \\[0pt]
292: \rule{0em}{4ex}Table~1. The representative parton distribution sets,
293: arranged in order by the value of $[S^-]$.
294: \end{center}
295:
296: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
297:
298: Focusing on the three good fits \{A,\,B,\,C\} first, we note the following
299: features:
300:
301: \begin{Simlis}{1em}
302: \item All three solutions \{A,\,B,\,C\} feature positive $[S^-]$; and the
303: more singular the behavior of $s^-(x)$ as $x\rightarrow 0$, the higher the
304: value of $[S^-]$. These are natural consequences of the strangeness sum rule
305: (equal $+/-$ areas under the curve of $s^-(x)$) and the small $x$
306: suppression of the momentum integral, as discussed earlier in Sec.~\ref%
307: {sec:general}.
308:
309: \item Solution B is slightly favored over the other two. This, plus the fact
310: that its small-$x$ behavior lies in the middle of the favored range,
311: motivates its use as the reference fit.
312:
313: \item We chose these examples among fits with the simplest parametrizations:
314: all cross the $x$ axis only once. With 4- or 5-parameters, which can allow
315: more than one crossing point, many solutions can be found that entail
316: oscillatory $s^-(x)$. But since the $\chi^2$ values are essentially the same
317: as for the simple case, we deem it premature to dwell on complicated
318: behaviors, which may be mere artifacts of the parametrization rather than
319: reflections of physical constraints. Further studies described in Sec.~\ref%
320: {sec:uncertainty} reinforce this point.
321: \end{Simlis}
322:
323: \figC To show how these fits compare with data, we plot in Fig.\,\ref{fig:C}
324: the ratio of data/theory for the reference fit B. The four graphs correspond
325: to the CCFR and NuTeV neutrino and antineutrino data sets respectively. The
326: data points are sorted in $x$-bins, and within each $x$-bin, by $y$ value.
327: We see that the quality of the fit is good, within the experimental
328: uncertainties. There are no significant systematic deviations.
329: %% [continuing the paragraph]
330: (The CCFR antineutrino data set may appear to be systematically higher than
331: theory. However, upon closer inspection the difference is not significant.
332: The data points that lie above theory consist mostly of points with large
333: error bars, which tend to catch the attention of the eye; whereas the fit is
334: actually dominated by points with small errors, which closely bracket the
335: theory line on both sides.%%
336: \footnote{%
337: This becomes apparent if the data points are re-plotted ordered by the size
338: of the error bars.} The value of $\chi^{2}/N$ for this data set is less than
339: 1, comparable to those for the other sets.)
340:
341: The parameters for all the fits described in this section are given in
342: detail in the Appendix. As is already obvious from Fig.~\ref{fig:B},
343: solutions with nearly degenerate $\chi^2$ may correspond to parametrizations
344: of $s^-(x)$ with quite different parameter values, so that a simple linear
345: error analysis cannot be applied. This reflects the fact that $s^-(x)$ is
346: not well determined as a detailed function of $x$, even when the dimuon data
347: are included in the fit. On the other hand, reducing the parameter space to
348: even fewer parameters than our minimal set would risk introducing artifacts
349: of an inflexible parametrization. In the next section we will, therefore,
350: apply the Lagrangian multiplier method to deduce the integrated momentum
351: asymmetry $[S^-]$ and its uncertainty.
352:
353: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
354:
355: \subsection{Range of $[S^-]$ by the Lagrange Multiplier Method}
356:
357: \label{sec:range}
358:
359: Beyond the best fits (A, B, C), we can study the range of $[S^-]$ consistent
360: with our global analysis in a quantitative way by applying the Lagrange
361: Multiplier (LM) method developed in \cite{LM}. By varying the Lagrange
362: multiplier parameter, this method explores the entire strangeness parameter
363: space in search of solutions with specified values of $[S^-]$,
364: i.e.,~constrained fits. The B$^-$ solution listed in Table 1 was obtained by
365: forcing $[S^-]= -0.0018$ (a relatively large negative value, but not as
366: large as the value $-0.0027$ quoted by \cite{NuTeV2,moch}). The B$^+$
367: solution was generated by forcing $[S^-]$ to go in the other (positive)
368: direction until the increment of the overall $\chi^2$ became comparable to
369: that of B$^-$; this results in $[S^-]=0.0054$.
370:
371: We see from the relevant entries in Table 1 that: (i) the $\chi^2$ values of
372: the dimuon data sets increase by about 30\% in both B$^\pm$ fits; (ii) the
373: ``inclusive I'' data sets disfavor the negative $[S^-]$; and (iii) the
374: ``inclusive II'' data sets are completely neutral. These results are shown
375: graphically in Fig.\,\ref{fig:D}a, where the square points represent the
376: (relative) $\chi^2$ values of the dimuon data sets, and the triangle points
377: of the ``inclusive I'' data sets. (Not shown are those for the ``inclusive
378: II'' data sets, which remain flat (at $1.00$).) The LM fits are chosen from
379: a large number of fits spanning the entire strangeness parameter space. The
380: pattern of dependence of the $\chi^2$ values for the dimuon data sets on the
381: value of $[S^-]$ is nearly parabolic. This is clear evidence that the dimuon
382: measurement is indeed sensitive to the strangeness asymmetry as expected.
383: Further discussion of this observation, including the contrast to the
384: sensitivity of other experiments, will be given in Sec.~\ref{sec:uncertainty}%
385: .
386:
387: \figD
388:
389: We see from Fig.\,\ref{fig:D}a that, in this series of fits, the dimuon data
390: sets favor a range of $[S^-]$ centered around 0.0017, whereas the
391: ``inclusive I'' data sets disfavor negative values of $[S^-]$. Fig.\,\ref%
392: {fig:D}b shows the dependence of the combined $\chi^2$ of the two categories
393: of data sets on $[S^-]$. (The $\chi^2$ of the remaining data sets used in
394: the global analysis are totally insensitive to $[S^-]$, cf.\,Table 1, hence
395: is not included in this plot.) We would like to determine a ``range of
396: uncertainty" of $[S^-]$ from these results. This is far from straightforward
397: because of well-known problems shared by all error assessments in global
398: analysis (mainly due to the unquantified systematic errors that show up as a
399: lack of statistical compatibility among the input data sets).\footnote{%
400: These difficulties, and practical methods to handle them, are discussed in
401: detail in \cite{LM,cteq6m,Mandy}.}
402:
403: One naive method is to apply the $\Delta\chi^{2} = 1$ criterion.
404: From the
405: parabola in Fig.\,\ref{fig:D}b, which comes from 368 data points, this
406: ``estimation-of-parameters criterion" corresponds to an uncertainty of $[S^-]
407: $ of $\pm 0.0005$. (Cf.\,the lowest horizontal line in Fig.\,\ref{fig:D}b.)
408: It has been known, however, that the $\Delta\chi^{2} = 1$ criterion is
409: unrealistic in global analysis when combining data sets with diverse
410: systematic errors from many different experiments \cite{LM,cteq6m,Mandy}; in
411: this circumstance, the overall $\chi^2$ function provides a simple measure
412: of relative goodness-of-fit in the minimization process, but it does not
413: have the strict statistical significance of a pure parameter fitting problem
414: as presented in textbook examples. This estimate of the uncertainty of $[S^-]
415: $ is far too small.
416:
417: Another often-used method to evaluate "goodness-of-fit" is to apply
418: the {\it cumulative distribution function} $P$ for the $\chi^{2}$
419: distribution. One considers unacceptable values of $\chi^{2}$ greater
420: than $\chi^{2}_{68}$ (or $\chi^{2}_{90}$) where $P(\chi^{2} <
421: \chi^{2}_{f})=f$.
422: For 386 data points, the 68\% (90\%) criterion corresponds to $%
423: \chi ^{2}/\chi _{min}^{2}=1.033\ (1.1)$ respectively. These two criteria are
424: represented by the two upper horizontal lines in Fig.\thinspace \ref{fig:D}%
425: b. The uncertainty range of $[S^{-}]$ for these two cases are $\pm 0.002\
426: (0.003)$ respectively.
427:
428: The extensive studies on quantifying uncertainties in the global analysis
429: context \cite{LM,cteq6m,Mandy} suggest that for this case, a realistic
430: range should be somewhere between the two extreme cases shown in Fig.\,\ref%
431: {fig:D}b. Hence we adopt the uncertainty range $0 < [S^-] < 0.004$ by this
432: analysis, which corresponds to the middle horizontal line in the graph (or
433: the $\chi^{2}_{68}$ criterion). Whereas a very small strangeness asymmetry,
434: consistent with zero, is not ruled out by this criterion, large negative
435: values of $[S^-]$ (such as -0.0027, cited in \cite{NuTeV2}) are
436: strongly disfavored; cf.~also Table 1. Additional sources of uncertainty
437: will be discussed in the following section.
438:
439: \subsection{Additional Sources of Uncertainty}
440:
441: \label{sec:uncertainty}
442:
443: We have performed three series of studies to further assess the rebustness
444: of our main results. These will help us to determine a better estimate of
445: the overall uncertainty of $[S^{-}]$.
446:
447: \paragraph{Pure Leading Order Fits}
448:
449: Since the experimental analyses of the CCFR-NuTeV dimuon data have been done
450: in LO QCD \cite{CN,NuTeV2}, we have carried out a whole series of purely LO
451: global analyses, following the same procedures as outline above, in order to
452: provide a basis for comparison. The results can be summarized as follows.
453: \begin{Simlis}{1 em}
454: \item The overall $\chi^2$ for the global fit increased by $\sim 200$ over
455: the
456: comparable fits described above; while the $\chi^2$'s for the dimuon data
457: sets actually decreased slightly. This is not surprising, since the current
458: state of global analysis, with precision data from many experiments,
459: requires the use of NLO QCD theory -- in particular for the collider data
460: with typically large perturbative corrections.
461: On the other hand, the new dimuon data
462: still have comparably large experimental errors
463: and the NLO corrections are small
464: [${\cal{O}}(\lesssim 20\%)$], such that an LO fit is
465: adequate for them.
466:
467: \item We explored the allowed range of strangeness asymmetry $[S^-]$ in
468: this LO study under different assumptions on the $x\rightarrow 0$ and
469: $x\rightarrow 1$ behavior of the $s^+(x)$ and $s^-(x)$ functions. First, we
470: found that the dependence of $\chi^2_{\rm dimuon}$ on $[S^-]$ is generally
471: parabolic, rather similar to Fig.\,\ref{fig:D}. The
472: width of the distribution is comparable to Fig.\,\ref{fig:D}. The
473: central value for $[S^-]$ is within the range $(0,0.0015)$; the exact value
474: depends on the $x\rightarrow 0$ and
475: $x\rightarrow 1$ behavior of $s^\pm(x)$ assumed.
476:
477: \item We also found that the $\chi^2_{\rm inclusive\; I}$ vs.~$[S^-]$ curve,
478: while generally flatter, does ``flop around'' enough for the cases studied
479: so that no clear pattern
480: can be discerned. The specific shape of this curve shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:C}
481: is not a common characteristic of these fits.
482: \end{Simlis}
483:
484:
485: \paragraph{Charm Mass Dependence}
486:
487: The CCFR-NuTeV dimuon analysis treated the charm mass as one of the fit
488: parameters. Their analyses favored a rather high value of $m_c=1.6$\,GeV
489: (compared to, e.g., the PDG estimate of $1.0\,\mathrm{GeV} < m_c < 1.4\,%
490: \mathrm{GeV}$). The CTEQ global analyses are usually done with a fixed value
491: of $m_c =$ 1.3 GeV. To see whether the comparison between our results is
492: strongly influenced by the choice of the charm mass, we have performed
493: several series of fits with $m_c$ varying from 1.3 GeV to 1.7 GeV. Again,
494: the general features, as described above, stay the same. The central value
495: of $[S^-]$ does vary with the choice of $m_c$ within a given series of fits,
496: but the pattern is not universal. The range over which the central value
497: wanders is of the order $\sim 0.0015$, comparable to the width of the
498: parabola in Fig.~\ref{fig:D}. Unlike the specific analysis of CCFR-NuTeV,
499: the overall $\chi^2$ for the global analysis does favor a lower value of $%
500: m_c $.
501:
502: \paragraph{Dependence on Decay and Fragmentation Model}
503:
504: To estimate the dependence of our results on the model used to convert the
505: measured dimuon cross sections to structure functions for charm production,
506: we repeated our analyses using an alternative conversion table provided by
507: the CCFR-NuTeV collaboration.%%
508: \footnote{%
509: We thank Kevin MacFarland for supplying this table.} %%
510: This alternative table is based on Buras-Gaemers PDFs used in CCFR-NuTeV
511: analyses with Collins-Spiller fragmentation functions. It is similarly tuned
512: to detailed features of the measured dimuon cross sections as that described
513: in Sec.~\ref{sec:procedure}.%%
514: \footnote{%
515: However, since our CTEQ6-like PDFs are rather different from the CCFR
516: Buras-Gaemers PDFs, it is not clear how good the approximation is to use
517: this conversion table. That is, the self-consistency of the procedure is not
518: assured.} The results obtained from the alternative fits are, again, similar
519: to those described earlier. The $\chi^2_{\mathrm{dimuon}}$ vs.~$[S^-]$
520: parabola generally has the same width as in Fig.~\ref{fig:D}. The central
521: value
522: for $[S^-]$ is in the range $0<[S^-]<0.0015$---in the lower half of the
523: range
524: quoted at the end of Sec.\,\ref{sec:range}. The dependence of
525: $\chi^2_{\mathrm{inclusive\; I}}$ on $[S^-]$ shows no definitive trend.
526:
527:
528: \vspace{2ex}\noindent Taken together, the results of the additional studies
529: described in these three paragraphs lead to several conclusions. (i) The
530: general features described in Secs.~\ref{sec:results} and \ref{sec:range}
531: are robust; (ii) The central value of $[S^-]$ wanders around within a range
532: that is consistent with the width of the $\chi^2_{\mathrm{dimuon}}$ vs.~$%
533: [S^-]$ parabola; and (iii) These additional results do not significantly
534: change the estimates of the previous section, except to shift the central
535: estimated value of $[S^-]$ to a slightly lower value, and to extend the
536: range of uncertainty on the lower side somewhat. The envelope of these
537: additional uncertainties provides an estimated range of uncertainty of the
538: strangeness asymmetry of\footnote{%
539: The uncertainties from the various sources need not be combined in
540: quadrature, because they are not statistically independent sources, but
541: rather systematic uncertainties of the theory.}
542: \begin{equation}
543: -0.001 < [S^-] < 0.004 \; . \label{eq:range}
544: \end{equation}
545: This large range reflects both the limit of current experimental constraints
546: and the considerable theoretical uncertainty, as explicitly discussed in the
547: text. The theoretical uncertainties can be reduced in a refined NLO
548: analysis; the results remain to be seen. The limitations on the experimental
549: constraints will remain, until new experiments are done .
550: