1: \section{Global fit to Scattering Data}

2: \subsection{Data Sets and Details of the Fit}

3: In this section we present the results of a global parton fit adopting the $\DIS(\chi)$ factorisation scheme outlined in the preceding sections, implementing the resummed splitting functions in the parton evolution and the resummed coefficient functions in the theoretical $F_2$ and $F_L$ predictions for electromagnetic current DIS. We include structure function data from the H1 \cite{H1a,H1b,H1c} and ZEUS \cite{ZEUSa,ZEUSb,ZEUSc} collaborations at HERA; proton data from BCDMS \cite{BCDMSep}, NMC \cite{NMC}, SLAC \cite{SLAC,SLAC2} and E665 \cite{E665}; deuterium data from BCDMS \cite{BCDMSeD}, NMC, SLAC and E665; CCFR data on $F_{2,3}^{\nu(\bar{\nu})N}(x,Q^2)$ \cite{CCFRF2, CCFRF3}; data on the deuterium-proton ratio $F_2^D/F_2^p$ from NMC \cite{NMCrat}; charged current data from H1 \cite{H1a} and ZEUS \cite{ZEUSCC}; data on the charm structure function $F_{2,c}$ from H1 \cite{F2c1} and ZEUS \cite{F2c2}. The non-DIS data sets used are Drell-Yan (DY) data from the E866/NuSea collaboration \cite{DY}; DY asymmetry data from NA51 \cite{DYasym}; data on the DY ratio $\sigma_{DY}^{pD}/\sigma_{DY}^{pp}$ from E866 \cite{DYrat}; W-asymmetry data from CDF \cite{Wasym}. By means of a consistency check, we also compare the resulting gluons with a gluon from a previous NLO fit, which includes Tevatron jet data from the D0 \cite{Tevjet1} and CDF \cite{Tevjet2} collaborations. \\

4: 

5: The parton distributions are parameterised using the forms given in \cite{MRST2001} at a starting scale of $Q_{init}^2=1\text{GeV}^2$, allowing for a valence-like or even negative gluon at the starting scale. The running coupling is implemented according to the prescription of \cite{Marciano} for dealing with heavy flavour thresholds. As well as including small $x$ resummations as outlined in this paper, we also include a resummation of the leading large $x$ divergences in the anomalous dimension $P_{qq}$ by modifying the argument of $\alpha_S$ acting on the plus distribution from $Q^2\rightarrow Q^2(1-x)$ \cite{Amati}. As will be seen, such a resummation is needed in order to achieve agreement between theory and data at high $x$. To avoid encountering the Landau pole in the coupling as a result of this modification, $\alpha_S$ is frozen for $Q^2\leq0.144\text{GeV}^2$ ($\alpha_S\sim 0.6$).\\

6: 

7: A problem occurs with the Drell-Yan data in that the NLO QCD corrections to the cross-section are known to be large \cite{AltarelliDY}. To obtain a reasonable fit to the Drell-Yan data, we thus employ a constant ``K-factor'' ($\sim 1.4$) as in \cite{MRSTLO}, whose effect is normalise the DY data outside the confines of the systematic error. Although strictly absent at LO, such a factor does not have any $x_1$, $x_2$ or $Q^2$ dependence and thus only poorly models the known higher order corrections.\\

8: 

9: \subsection{Results}

10: In table \ref{LLfit2}, we show the $\chi^2$ values for each data set obtained in the LL fit, together with the results obtained from a LO fit with no resummations at small or large $x$.\\

11: \begin{table}

12: \begin{center}

13: \begin{tabular}{|cc|ccc|}

14: \hline

15: Data Set & No. data pts & $\chi^2_{LL}$ & $\chi^2_{LO}$ & $\chi^2_{NLO}$ \\

16: \hline

17: H1 ep & 417 &342 &414 & 427\\

18: ZEUS ep &356 &282 &287 &279\\

19: $F_2^c$ &27 &26 &24&32\\

20: BCDMS $\mu$ p &167 &170 &263&191\\

21: BCDMS $\mu$ D &155 &230 &208&216\\

22: NMC $\mu$ p &126 &111 &154&136\\

23: NMC $\mu$ D &126 &89 &141&103\\

24: SLAC ep &53 &77 &195&67\\

25: SLAC eD &54 &74 &188&56\\

26: E665 $\mu$ p &59 &59 &56&61\\

27: E665 $\mu$ D &57 &55 &54&51\\

28: CCFR $F_2^{\nu N}$ &74 &99 &158&83\\

29: CCFR $F_3^{\mu N}$ &105 &138 &126&115\\

30: H1 CC & 28 &33 &34 &29\\

31: ZEUS CC &30 &46 &34 &35\\

32: NMC $n/p$ &156 &164 &144&154\\

33: E866/ NuSea DY &174 &307 &276&237\\

34: NA51 DY asym. &1 &11 &6&11\\

35: E866 $\sigma_{DY}^{pD}/\sigma_{DY}^{pp}$ &15 &7 &29&10\\

36: CDF $W$ asym. &11 &16 &26&14\\

37: \hline

38: Total &2181 &2336 &2817& 2307\\

39: \hline 

40: \end{tabular}

41: \caption{The quality of fit from the LL and LO fits for each dataset, as well as results from a previous NLO fit.}

42: \label{LLfit2}

43: \end{center}

44: \end{table}

45: 

46: The LO fit is reasonable, but misleading. It fails due to the fact that the evolution is too slow. Some compensation is achieved by increasing the QCD scale parameter $\Lambda$, in that by raising the coupling constant $\alpha_S$ the quarks evolve faster, and one can increase the theoretical predictions to be more in line with the data. The LO fit gives $\alpha_S(M_Z^2)=0.1305$, which is indeed rather high when compared to the world average of $0.1187(20)$ \cite{PDG}. This is not strictly a problem at LO, where one is free to redefine the renormalisation scale - chosen here to be $\mu_R^2=Q^2$. It is still, however, a cause for concern given that $Q^2$ is the natural scale choice. As well as a raised coupling constant, the H1 and ZEUS normalisations are required to be lower in the LO fit than the corresponding resummed fit parameters. The description of $F_2$ at small and high $x$ fails ultimately because the shape is too flat. The fit to the SLAC data, for example, improves significantly once high $x$ resummations are included. \\

47: 

48: The description of the small $x$ DIS data is improved by resummation. In figures \ref{data} and \ref{data2} we show the resummed theoretical predictions alongside the data for a range of low $x$ values. The data are clearly fit very well, with no systematic tendency to undershoot. This is in contrast to results from a NLO fit, also shown in figures \ref{data} and \ref{data2}. The LL fit clearly has the increased slope needed to continue to fit the data well as $Q^2$ increases.

49: \begin{figure}

50: \begin{center}

51: \scalebox{0.7}{\includegraphics{data.ps}}

52: \caption{Theoretical predictions for the structure function $F_2$ alongside the data (normalisation dictated by the fit), for $5\times10^{-5}\leq x\leq4\times10^{-4}$.}

53: \label{data}

54: \end{center}

55: \end{figure}

56: \begin{figure}

57: \begin{center}

58: \scalebox{0.7}{\includegraphics{data2.ps}}

59: \caption{Theoretical predictions for the structure function $F_2$ alongside the data (normalisation dictated by the fit), for $5\times10^{-4}\leq x\leq8\times10^{-3}$.}

60: \label{data2}

61: \end{center}

62: \end{figure}

63: The charm structure function $F_2^c$ is also fit well, and in figure \ref{charmdata} we show the resummed theoretical prediction alongside the data and NLO fit results. Both the LL and NLO fits give a good overall fit, due to the somewhat large uncertainties associated with many of the data points. However, the resummed fit performs better at very small $x$. 

64: \begin{figure}

65: \begin{center}

66: \scalebox{0.7}{\includegraphics{cdata.ps}}

67: \caption{Resummed predictions for the charm structure function $F_2^c$ alongside HERA data, for $1.3\times10^{-4}\leq x\leq 2\times10^{-2}$.}

68: \label{charmdata}

69: \end{center}

70: \end{figure}

71: Even so, theory still underestimates $F_2^c$ at the lowest $x$ values ($\lesssim 3\times10^{-4}$). This may indicate the importance of higher orders in the resummed expansion. \\

72: 

73: Note that a poor fit is obtained for the DY data in the LL fit. This is not surprising, given the large perturbative corrections at NLO and the crude nature of the constant factor ${\cal K}^{DY}$. Consistent with this expectation, the NLO fit performs much better for this data set. The DY ratio data is better fit, which one expects given that some perturbative uncertainty cancels in taking the ratio of cross-sections. \\

74: 

75: Whilst the small $x$ fits to the HERA data improve, one can see from table \ref{LLfit2} that fits to some of the data sets actually worsen when resummations are implemented. One expects some tension between theory and data for non-electromagnetic DIS and other processes, due to the fact that resummed partons are being used without the appropriate resummed impact factors. However, these data sets do not contain points at very low values of $x$. Instead the problem lies at intermediate values of $x$ ($10^{-2}\lesssim x\lesssim 5\times10^{-1}$), where the theoretical prediction underestimates the deuterium data (proton structure function data, on the other hand, is fit rather well - in many cases the LL fit to $F_2^p$ outperforms the NLO fit). This indicates that the effect of the resummation in the partons is felt at higher values of $x$ than one na\"{i}vely expects. The higher evolution in the moderate $x$ region means that the sea quarks evolve much more quickly than the non-singlet quark combinations, leading to problems describing the relative shape of the sea and valence quarks. This accounts for the poorer fits to the deuterium and charged current data, and also the results for the Drell-Yan data. One sees from table \ref{LLfit2} that the E866 DY set is fit worse in the LL fit, even with the use of a variable K-factor. The exaggerated influence of small $x$ resummations is also evident in the value of $\alpha_S(M_Z^2)$ obtained in the LL fit of 0.1126, which is rather low compared to the world average. For comparison, the NLO fit gives $\alpha_S=0.120$ \footnote{One must bear in mind, however, that the definition of $\alpha_S$ is order dependent.}. \\

76: 

77: We find that the gluon obtained from the LL fit is inconsistent with the gluon obtained from a previous NLO fit to the Tevatron jet data. The LL gluon is shown in figure \ref{gluons} together with a typical NLO gluon \cite{MRST2001} for two different scales.

78: \begin{figure}

79: \begin{center}

80: \scalebox{0.9}{\includegraphics{gluons.ps}}

81: \caption{The gluon distribution at $Q_{init}^2=1\text{GeV}^2$ and $Q^2=100\text{GeV}^2$ obtained in the LL resummed fit and a previous NLO fit \cite{MRST2001}. Also shown is the result obtained from the modified LL fit described in the text.}

82: \label{gluons}

83: \end{center}

84: \end{figure}

85: At the starting scale in a LO fit, the gluon remains positive at small $x$, due to the fact that larger partons together with a raised coupling constant are needed to try and fit the HERA data. Once higher order corrections or resummations are implemented, one expects a lower gluon at small $x$, due to the faster evolution in this regime. In fact, figure \ref{gluons} shows that a negative gluon is needed at the starting scale in both the LL and NLO fits. However, the LL gluon turns negative at significantly higher $x$ (different by about an order of magnitude) than the NLO gluon. Furthermore, there is a large suppression of the LL result relative to the NLO gluon in the intermediate $x$ region. This is further evidence that the effects of the small $x$ resummations are felt too strongly at moderate $x$. The suppression of the gluon in the LL fit persists at higher $Q^2$, as can be seen from the right-hand panel of figure \ref{gluons}. We note that the left-hand plot shows the input scale gluon from the resummed fit agreeing extremely closely with the corresponding NLO gluon at small $x$. This is nothing more than a coincidence, as can be seen from the right-hand panel where the evolution drives the gluons to be quite different at higher scales.\\ 

86: 

87: The solution to the problem of resummations manifest at moderate $x$ is found by considering higher order terms in the fixed order expansion - NLO corrections help to suppress small $x$ resummation effects until lower values of $x$, due to the inclusion of the correct higher order moderate $x$ behaviour. Indeed, a NLO fit with no resummations shows significant improvement over a LO fit, and the subsequent improvement upon performing a NNLO analysis stems largely from the inclusion of the extra small and large $x$ terms (see \cite{MRSTNNLO}). The characteristic feature of the complete NLO $P_{qg}$ and $P_{qq}$ is a dip at moderate $x$, followed by a rapid increase at very high $x$ due to the presence of high $x$ divergences (absent in the $\msbar$ scheme). One can therefore approximate subleading behaviour at small $x$ by modifying the resummed splitting function, replacing the ${\cal O}(\alpha_S^2)$ term as follows:

88: \begin{equation}

89: \gamma_{qg}^{LL, mod.(2)}=34.67\left[\frac{1}{x}-\frac{A}{x^\alpha}\right],

90: \label{mod1}

91: \end{equation}

92: where one chooses the values of $A$ and $\alpha$ to closely model the dip at moderate $x$. We use $\alpha=0.47$ and $A=1.2$. Note that this does not have a serious impact on the splitting function at high $x$, given:

93: \begin{equation}

94: \lim_{x\rightarrow1}(x^{-1}-1.2x^{-\alpha})=-0.2,

95: \end{equation}

96: whereas the complete NLO DIS scheme splitting function is divergent as $x\rightarrow 1$. \\

97: 

98: We performed a global fit using this modified anomalous dimension (which also affects $P_{qq}$ by equation (\ref{colourcharge})). No modification to the resummed $P_{gg}$ (and, thus, $P_{gq}$ by the colour relation) was implemented. However, this has no term at ${\cal O}(\alpha_S^2)$ in the resummed expression. Furthermore, the NLO corrections in the fixed order quantity are small. We find a more favourable comparison to the gluon arising from the Tevatron jet data. The gluon which emerges is shown alongside those from the other fits in figure \ref{gluons} and one can see that although it is qualitatively the same as the LL result, the suppression at moderate $x$ is no longer as severe. Indeed, it is qualitatively more similar to the gluon obtained from a NLO or NNLO fit. This is therefore an indication that a next-to-leading order analysis (n.b. NLO and NLL) is what is really needed. It is still not possible even in the modified fit to obtain a very good fit to all the charged current data (or, for that matter, the gluon from the jet data), suggesting again the necessary inclusion of higher orders. 

99: