1
PDFs, αs and quark masses
S.Alekhin (Univ. of Hamburg & IHEP Protvino)
UPHC19, Saclay, 26 Nov 2019
sa, Blümlein, Moch, Plačakytė PRD 96, 014011 (2017)sa, Blümlein, Moch EPJC 78, 477 (2018) sa, Blümlein, Moch hep-ph/1909.03533sa, Blümlein, Moch hep-ph/1910.11165
2
QCD evolution
massless NNLO, massive NLO OMEs (OPENQCDRAD)
DIS inclusive
NNLO(OPENQCDRAD)
Power corr.(TMC+high-twist)
t-quark
(Hathor, fasttop)
Drell-Yan (W,Z,γ)
NNLO(FEWZ-grids)
DIS heavy quark
NNLO(approx.)(OPENQCDRAD)
5-flavour PDFs3-flavour PDFs
ABM PDF fit framework
mc,b
mc,b
mt
3
Heavy-quark electro-production with FFN
Only 3 light flavors appear in the initial state
The dominant mechanism is photon-gluon fusion The complete coefficient functions up to the NLO
Involved high-order calculations:
– NNLO terms due to threshold resummation
– NNLO Mellin moments
Witten NPB 104, 445 (1976)
Laenen, Riemersma, Smith, van Neerven NPB 392, 162 (1993)
Lo Presti, Kawamura, Lo Presti, Moch, Vogt NPB 864, 399 (2012)Laenen, Moch PRD 59, 034027 (1999)
Ablinger at al. NPB 844, 26 (2011)
Bierenbaum, Blümlein, Klein NPB 829, 417 (2009)
Ablinger et al. NPB 890, 48 (2014)
4
Modeling NNLO massive coefficients
Combination of the threshold corrections (small s), high-energy limit (small x), and the NNLO massive OMEs (large Q2) Kawamura, Lo Presti, Moch, Vogt NPB 864, 399 (2012)
small ssmall x
large Q2
ξ=Q2/m2
η=s/4m2-1
Catani-Hautmann
5
Recent progress in FFN scheme Wilson coefficients
Update with the pure singlet massive OMEs → improved theoretical uncertaintiessa, Moch, Blümlein PRD 96, 014011 (2017)
6
Running mass in DIS
The quantum corrections due to the self-energy loop Integrals receive contribution down to scale of O(Λ
QCD)
→ sensitivity to the high order corrections, particularly at the production threshold
The pole mass is defined for the free (unobserved) quarks as a the QCD Lagrangian parameter and is commonly used in the QCD calculations
sa, Moch PLB 699, 345 (2011)
7
m
c(m
c)=1.250±0.019(exp.) GeV
ABMP16upd m
c(m
c)=1.252±0.018(exp.) GeV
ABMP16
HERA charm data and mc
Kiyo, Mishima, Sumino PLB 752, 122 (2016)
Kühn, LoopsLegs2018
H1, ZEUS EPJC 78, 473 (2018)
Good consistency with the earlier resultsand other determinations → further confirmation of the FFN scheme relevance for the HERA kinematics
Theory: FFN scheme, running massdefinition
mc(m
c)=1.246±0.023 (h.o.) GeV
mc(m
c)=1.279±0.008 GeV
8
m
b(m
b)=3.96±0.10(exp.) GeV
ABMP16upd
mb(m
b)=3.84±0.13(exp.) GeV
ABMP16 m
b(m
b)=4.18+0.04-0.03 GeV
HERA beauty data and mb
PDG 2018
H1, ZEUS EPJC 78, 473 (2018)
Improved agreement with other determinations, evidently due to data purification
9
Buza, Matiounine, Smith, van Neerven EPJC 1, 301 (1998)
The VFN scheme works well at μ ≫ mh (W,Z,t-quark production,….)
Problematic for DIS ⇒ additional modeling of power-like terms required at small scales (ACOT, BMSN, FONLL, RT….)
FFN and VFN schemes
⇒ ⊗
Collins, Tung NPB 278, 934 (1986)
LO:
NLO:
Asymptotic 3-flavor coefficient function
Massive operator matrix elements (OMEs)
Matching condition for the heavy-quark PDFs
NNLO: log-terms; constant terms up to the gluonic one Blümlein, et al., work in progress
2-mass contributions in NLO and NNLOBlümlein et al. PLB 782, 362 (2018)
10
Glück, Reya, Stratmann NPB 422, 37 (1994)
BMSN prescription of GMVFN scheme
Smooth matching with the FFNS at Q → mh
without additional damping or re-scaling factors
FOPT heavy-quark PDFs → large logs missing?
In the O(αs
2) the FFNS and GMVFNS are comparable at
large scales since the big logs appear in the high order corrections to the massive coefficient functions
Buza, Matiounine, Smith, van Neerven EPJC 1, 301 (1998)
sa, Blümlein, Klein, Moch PRD 81, 014032 (2010)
FONLL: Cacciari, Greco, Nason JHEP 9805, 007 (1998)
11
Comparison of the FOPT and evolved c-quark PDFs
LO: The FOPT and evolved PFGs nicely match at mh; at large scales they diverge due to
large logs are resummed by evolution
NLO (NLO OMES and NLO evolution): The difference between FOPT and evolved PDFs at large scales dramatically reduces due to large log are partially included into NLO OMEs and therefore are taken into account In the FOPT as well.
NNLO (NLO OMES and NNLO evolution): A kink w.r.t. FOPT appears at small x
12
BMSN scheme with the evolved PDFs Comparison with the model FFN fit: – NLO massive Wison coeffs., – m
c(pole)=1.4 GeV
The difference with FOPT appears rather due to inconsistent evolution than due to big-logs → theoretical uncertainty in the VFN schemes
Two variants of 4-flavor PDF evolution: NNLO (commonly used in the VFN fits) – consistent with light PDF evolution inconsistent with NLO matching NLO – inconsistent with light PDF evolution consistent with NLO matching Substantial difference between NLO and NNLO versions
The evolved predictions demonstrate strong x-dependence and weak Q2-dependence
13
Impact ov the scheme variation on the PDFs
Only heavy-quark data are used (inclusive DIS dropped) → illuminating impact of the Scheme choice
Gluon distribution goes down by ~25% at x~10-4 for the NNLO evolved VFN scheme → should be considered as the scheme uncertainty
14
GMVFN modeling (Thorne’s scheme)
15
Big spread in mc(pole) preferred by the PDF fits with various schemes;
value of mc(pole) used in the PDF fits are systematically lower than the PDG value
c-quark mass in the GMVFN schemes
Wide spread of the mc obtained in different version of the GMVFN schemes →
quantitative illustration of the GMVFNS uncertainties
H1/ZEUS PLB 718, 550 (2012)
mc(m
c)=1.19+0.08-0.15 GeV ACOT....
Gao, Guzzi, Nadolsky EPJC 73, 2541 (2013)
mc(m
c)=1.34+0.04-0.01 GeV FONLL
Bertone et. al JHEP 1608, 050 (2016)
mc(pole) ~ 1.3 GeV in VFN PDF fits
16
Running mass for the t-quark data
HATHOR (NNLO terms are checked with TOP++)
Langenfeld, Moch, Uwer PRD 80, 054009 (2009)
Czakon, Fiedler, Mitov PRL 110, 252004 (2013)
Pole MSbar
Running mass definition provides nice perturbative stability
17
Impact of t-quark data
Running t-quark mass is determined simultaneously with PDFs
mt(m
t)= 160.9±1.1 GeV
mt(pole)=170.4±1.2 GeV
mt(MC)~172.5 GeV from LHC
mt(MC)~174 GeV from Tevatron
mt(pole)=170.5±0.8 GeV
mt(pole)=171.1±1.1 GeV
Ongoing efforts to quantify the difference between m
t(MC) and
other determinations
ABMP16updated
ATLAS hep-ex/1905.02302
CMS hep-ex/1904.05237
Hoang et al.
18
sa, Moch, Thier PLB 763, 341 (2016)
t-quark: single production (mass determination)
mt(m
t)= 161.1± 3.8 GeV (single-top only)
19
Vacuum stability is quite sensitive to the t-quark mass; stability is provided up to Plank-mass scale using α
s and m
t in a consistent way.
Electroweak vacuum stability
mr: Kniehl, Pikelner, Veretin CPC 206, 84 (2016)
Buttazzo et al., JHEP 12, 089 (2013)
20
Combination of the DY data (disentangle PDFs) and the DIS ones (constrain αs )
Run-II HERA data pull αs up by 0.001
the value of αs is still lower than the PDG one: pulled up by the SLAC and NMC
data; pulled down by the BCDMS and HERA ones
αsfrom DIS
21
Higher twists in DIS: generalities
Virchaux, Milsztajn PLB 274, 221 (1992)
High twists appear in the DIS dataat large x(equiv. W) and/or small Q2
Operator product expansion:
F2,T
=F2,T
(leading twist) + H2,T
(x)/Q2 + ... – additive
F2,T
=F2,T
(leading twist) (1 + h2,T
(x)/Q2 +…) –
multiplicative
The only one in accordance with QCD
For multiplicative form the LT anomalous dimensions strongly affect the HT terms at small x
22
The value of αS and twist-4 terms are strongly
correlated both at large and at small x
With HT=0 the errors are reduced → no uncertainty due to HTs
With account of the HT terms the value of αS is
stable with respect to the cuts
MRST: αS(M
Z)=0.1153(20) (NNLO)
(W2>15 GeV2, Q2> 10 GeV2)
A stringent cut on Q is necessary for the fit with HT=0
Correlation of αS
with twist-4 terms
23
Summary
The values of quark masses and αS provide excellent benchmarking tool when
fitted with simultaneously with the PDFs
– the FFN scheme provides nice agreement with existing HERA data on charm production; running c- and b-quark masses
mc(m
c)=1.250±0.019(exp.) GeV
mb(m
b)=3.96±0.10(exp.) GeV
from the updated version of the ABMP16 fit
– consistent values of
αS(M
Z)=0.1147(8) with proper treatemnt of the higher-twist terms
αS(M
Z)=0.1153(8) with proper higher-twist terms set to 0 and
the cuts W2>12.5 GeV2, Q2> 10 GeV2 on DIS data – consistent values of
mt(m
t)== 160.8±1.1 GeV (ttbar + single top)
mt(m
t)= 161.1± 3.8 GeV (single-top only)
with the use of running mass definition
24
EXTRAS
25
High twists at small x
HT(x) continues a trend observed at larger x
H2(x) is comparable to 0 at small x
hT=0.05±0.07 → slow vanishing at x → 0
Alternative explanations are considered: resummation, saturation, data defects, etc.
F2,T
=F2,T
(leading twist) + H2,T
(x)/Q2 H(x)=xhP(x)
Controlled bySLAC data
26
No mass singularities for massive partons ⇒ collinear QCD evolution does not work
The mass singularities ~ln(μ/mh) appear at μ≫m
h and the evolution restores. New
charm(bottom) quark distribution may be introduced, however, extrapolation to smaller scales is still problematic
Intrinsic charm is often introduced within the VFN framework ⇒ interplay with the “standard” VFN modeling of power-like terms
Original formulation of the intrinsic charm implies its power-like behavior;
Strong constraint on such terms was obtained from analysis of the DIS inclusive and semi-inclusive data
Intrinsic charm: pitfalls
Jimenez-Delgado, Hobbs, Londergan, Melnitchouk PRL 114, 082002 (2015)
Brodsky, Peterson, Sakai PRD 23, 2745 (1981)
27
ABMP16 CJ15 CT10 CT14 epWZ16 MMHT14
NPDF
28 21 26 26 14 31
μ0
2 (GeV2) 9 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.9 1
χ2 4065 4108 4148 4153 4336 4048
PDF shape xα(1-x)β
exp[P(x,ln(x))]xα(1-x)βP(x,√x) xα(1-x)β
exp[P(x,√x)]xα(1-x)β
exp[P(x,√x)]xα(1-x)βP(x,√x) xα(1-x)βP(x,√x)
Constraints ū=đ (x→0) αuv
=αdv
αū=α
đ=α
s
ū=đ (x→0)
αuv
=αdv
βuv
=βdv
αū=α
đ=α
s
αū=α
đ=α
s
ū=đ (x→0)
αs(M
Z) 0.1153 0.1147 0.1150 0.1160 0.1162 0.1158
Checking styles of PDF shape
Various PDF-shape modifications provide comparable description with NPDF
~30
Some deterioration, which happens in cases is apparently due to constraints on large(small)-x exponents
Conservative estimate of uncertainty in αs(M
Z): 0.0007, more optimistic: 0.0003