Upload
norman-melton
View
32
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Update on QCD Fits, error estimates. Outlook. Parameterizations Assumptions for central fit Systematics from model dependence Variations Options to be decided. Parameterizations. All based on the same PDF functional form : x f(x) = A x B (1 - x) C (1 + D x + E x 2 +F x 3 ) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
25/03/2008 H1Z Meeting Joël Feltesse 2
Outlook
• Parameterizations• Assumptions for central fit• Systematics from model dependence• Variations• Options to be decided
25/03/2008 H1Z Meeting Joël Feltesse 3
Parameterizations
• All based on the same PDF functional form :
x f(x) = A xB (1 - x)C (1 + D x + E x2 +F x3 )
• The optimal number of parameters depend on the data set.
• The former ‘H1 parameterization’ (H1PDF2K), ‘ZEUS-Jet’, ‘Inbetween’ (EP) have been optimised to the H1-ZEUS combined data set (see previous meetings)
25/03/2008 H1Z Meeting Joël Feltesse 6
Additional assumptions for heavy quark
• H1 param : s = 0.33 Dbar• ZEUS param : (s + sbar) = 0.2 sea• Wthin the Zero Mass Variable Flavour Number (ZMVFN)
– H1 : charmed quark = 0.15 Ubar above threshold.– ZEUS : charmed quark, dynamically introduced by
evolution • H1 parameterization: dbar/ubar → 1 as x → 0. • ZEUS param’s : dbar – ubar = fixed function of x• In between : same assumptions as H1 parameterization.
25/03/2008 H1Z Meeting Joël Feltesse 7
Choice of parameterization
• All parametrizations give an excellent Chi2 / 573 :– Inbetween : 476.3– H1 param : 479.1– ZEUS_Jet : 475.6
• Chosen central parameterization : ‘optimized Inbetween’ • Motivations :
– Less model dependence on B parameters than in H1 param.– No need for an additional input (ubar-dbar) x distribution as in
ZEUS-Jet param– Most conservative errors.– It is inspired by both H1 and ZEUS parameterizations.
• The two other parameterizations are considered in the model dependence or in the variations ?
25/03/2008 H1Z Meeting Joël Feltesse 8
Central fit uses :
• The data sets which we have already been using for our comparisons- not any new MB99 or ZVTX 2000 (low Q2 from H1).
• Parameterization : ‘optimized in_between‘• DGLAP NLO fit based on QCDNUM package• alpha_s = PDG 2006 = 0.1176• Cuts Q2 = 3.5 GeV2
• Q02 = 4. GeV2
• mc = 1.4 GeV2
• mb = 4.75 GeV2
• fs = 0.33• fc = 0.15• ZMVFNS • Chi2 definition : uncorrelated for the 43 errors of the two
experiments, but correlated for the 4-procedural errors (here Hessian method, but ZEUS uses offset method)
25/03/2008 H1Z Meeting Joël Feltesse 9
Model dependence
Each source to be considered as a variation from the central job.1) Q0
2 = 2.0 GeV2 - 6.0 GeV2
2) Q2 min = 2.5 GeV2 - 5.0 GeV2
3) mc = 1.3 GeV2 - 1.55 GeV2
4) mb = 4.3 GeV2 - 5. GeV2
5) fs = 0.25 – 0.406) fc = 0.10 – 0.207) Optimized H1 and New ZEUS_JETS parameterization
(debatable)
Each systematic effect has been compared between H1 and ZEUS package → Excellent agreement.(one minor issue : Q2 min = 2 (H1) or 2.5 (ZEUS))
Excellent agreement also with QCDFIT (Li et al.) tested on a few key issues.
25/03/2008 H1Z Meeting Joël Feltesse 16
Blue : experimental errorsRed : (exp + model) errors.
Q2 = 4 GeV2
uv
dv
gluon
All model dependence with uncertainty on input parametrisation(i.e. 7 sources)
25/03/2008 H1Z Meeting Joël Feltesse 17
All model dependence without uncertainty on input parametrisation(i.e. 6 sources)
25/03/2008 H1Z Meeting Joël Feltesse 18
Blue : experimental errorsRed : (exp + model) errors.
Q2 = 4 GeV2
Ubar
Dbar
Sea
All model dependence with uncertainty on input parametrisation(i.e. 7 sources)
25/03/2008 H1Z Meeting Joël Feltesse 19
All model dependence without uncertainty on input parametrisation(i.e. 6 sources)
25/03/2008 H1Z Meeting Joël Feltesse 21
Blue : experimental errorsRed : (exp + model) errors
Q2 = 10000 GeV2
uv
dv
gluon Impressive shrinkage oferrors at low x
25/03/2008 H1Z Meeting Joël Feltesse 22
Blue : experimental errorsRed : (exp + model) errors
Q2 = 10000 GeV2
Ubar
Dbar
Sea
25/03/2008 H1Z Meeting Joël Feltesse 23
Variations - not model dependences.
Not to be added together in quadrature but shown separately.– use of general mass VFN -like Robert Thorne's or
(and) ACOT (not yet ready but not mandatory for preliminary results)
– use of alpha_s = 0.1176 +/- 0.002 – use of humpy not straight solution.
25/03/2008 H1Z Meeting Joël Feltesse 26
Comparison with humpy solution
Reminder : two minima havebeen observed:Chi2 straight = 476.3 / 573Chi2 humpy = 494.6 / 573(With original inbetween parameterization)
All model dependence with uncertainty on input parametrisation without double minima
uv
dv
gluon
25/03/2008 H1Z Meeting Joël Feltesse 27
All model dependence with uncertainty on input parametrisationand on double minima(i.e.8 sources)
25/03/2008 H1Z Meeting Joël Feltesse 28
Comparison with published H1 and ZEUS PDFs (2002-2003)
Without double minima uncertainty
Much narrowerError band !
25/03/2008 H1Z Meeting Joël Feltesse 29
Comparison with published H1 and ZEUS PDFs (2002-2003)
With double minima uncertainty
25/03/2008 H1Z Meeting Joël Feltesse 32
New H1/ZEUS combined PDFs with total experimental uncertainty bands plus model uncertainty bands from 6 sources of model variation:
AT THE STARTING SCALE Q20 = 4 GeV2
Last result from ZEUS Package Last result from H1 Package
25/03/2008 H1Z Meeting Joël Feltesse 33
New H1/ZEUS combined PDFs with total experimental uncertainty bands plus model uncertainty bands from 6 sources of model variation:
AT THE STARTING SCALE Q20 = 4 GeV2
25/03/2008 H1Z Meeting Joël Feltesse 34
New H1/ZEUS combined PDFs with total experimental uncertainty bands plus model uncertainty bands from 6 sources of model variation:
AT THE STARTING SCALE Q20 = 4 GeV2
25/03/2008 H1Z Meeting Joël Feltesse 35
Final options to decide today
• Q2 min = 2.5 or 2 GeV2 ?• Offset or Hessian for the 4 correlated errors ?
• Add parameterizatios uncertainty in model dependence or show it as a variation ?
• Add double minima uncertainty in model dependence or show it as a variation ?
• Which plots do we want to be stamped by H1 and ZEUS ?
25/03/2008 H1Z Meeting Joël Feltesse 37
The sources of procedural errors related to the averaging procedure :
– Center of Mass Energy correction
– Multiplicative vs additive systematic errors
– Uncertainty on correlations between experiments
They are at the few permille level across most of
kinematic plane (with few exceptions)
25/03/2008 H1Z Meeting Joël Feltesse 40
Results of ZEUS-Jet
Old ZEUS-JET parametrisation (11 parameters) A B C D E!
gluon From Sum Rule
0.
uv From Sum Rule
0.
dv From Sum Rule
= Buv 0.
ubar - dbar from Z_S_11 fit
from Z_S_11 fit
from Z_S_11 fit
0. 0.
Sea
0. 0.
New ZEUS-JET parametrisation (11 parameters) A B C D E!
gluon From Sum Rule
0.
uv From Sum Rule
0.
dv From Sum Rule
= Buv 0.
ubar - dbar from Z_S_11 fit
from Z_S_11 fit
from Z_S_11 fit
0. 0.
Sea
0. 0.