Deep inelastic scattering (DIS) data on \({{F}_{2}}\) structure function accumulated by various collaborations in fixed-target experiments are analyzed in the nonsinglet approximation and within \(\overline {MS} \) and DIS schemes. The study of high statistics deep inelastic scattering data provided by BCDMS, SLAC and NMC collaborations, is carried out by applying a combined analysis. The application of the deep inelastic scheme leads to the resummation of contributions that are important in the region of large x values. It is found that using the deep inelastic scheme does not significantly change the strong coupling constant itself but does strongly change the values of the twist-4 corrections.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 INTRODUCTION
Currently, the accuracy of data for the deep-inelastic scattering (DIS) structure functions (SFs) allows us to study \({{Q}^{2}}\)-dependence of logarithmic corrections based on QCD and power-like (non-perturbative) corrections separately (see, e.g., [1] and references therein).
Nowadays a commonly adopted benchmark tool for this kind of analyses turns out to be at the next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) level (see, e.g., [2–17] and references therein). However, the relevant papers have recently been published in which QCD analysis of DIS SFs has been carried out up to the next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order (NNNLO) [18, 19].
This article is closely related to those devoted to similar studies, with the main difference being that here we work within the so-called DIS scheme [20], whose application leads to effective resummation of large-x logarithms into the Wilson coefficient functions. We analyze DIS structure function \({{F}_{2}}(x,{{Q}^{2}})\) with SLAC, NMC and BCDMS experimental data [21–26] at NNLO level of massless perturbative QCD.
As in our previous works [14–17, 27, 28], the function \({{F}_{2}}(x,{{Q}^{2}})\) is represented as a sum of the leading twist \(F_{2}^{{{\text{pQCD}}}}(x,{{Q}^{2}})\) and the twist-4 terms:Footnote 1
2 THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF THE ANALYSIS
Here we briefly describe some aspects of the theoretical part of our analysis. For a more detailed description, see [14, 27, 28]. In the large x-values region gluons do almost not contribute, and the \({{Q}^{2}}\) evolution of the twist-2 DIS structure function \({{F}_{2}}(x,{{Q}^{2}})\) is determined by the so-called nonsinglet (NS) part.
In this approximation, there is a direct relation between the moments of the DIS structure function \({{F}_{2}}(x,{{Q}^{2}})\) and the moments of the NS parton distribution function (PDF) \(f(x,{{Q}^{2}})\)Footnote 2
in the form
where the strong coupling constant
and \(C(n,{{a}_{s}}({{Q}^{2}}))\) stands for the Wilson coefficient function. The constant \({{R}_{{{\text{NS}}}}}(f)\) depends on weak and electromagnetic charges and is fixed to one sixth for \(f = 4\) [29].
2.1 Strong Coupling Constant
The strong coupling constant is determined from the corresponding renormalization group equation. At the NLO level, the latter is as follows:
where
At the NNLO level, the strong coupling constant is derived from the equation
The expression for I has the form
where \(\Delta = 4{{b}_{2}} - b_{1}^{2}\) and \({{b}_{i}} = {{\beta }_{i}}{\text{/}}{{\beta }_{0}}\) are taken from the QCD β-function:
2.2 \({{Q}^{2}}\)-Dependence of SF Moments
Wilson coefficient function \(C(n,{{a}_{s}}({{Q}^{2}}))\) is expressed in terms of the coefficients \({{B}_{j}}(n)\) (hereafter \((j = 1,2)\)), which are exactly known (see, e.g., [14])Footnote 3
The \({{Q}^{2}}\)-evolution of the PDF moments can be calculated within the framework of perturbative QCD (see, e.g., [29]):
where
and
are combinations of the NLO and NNLO anomalous dimensions \({{\gamma }_{1}}(n)\) and \({{\gamma }_{2}}(n)\).
For large n (this corresponds to large x values), the coefficients \({{Z}_{j}}(n) \sim \ln n\) and \({{B}_{j}}(n) \sim \mathop {\ln }\nolimits^{2j} n\). So, the terms \( \sim {\kern 1pt} {{B}_{j}}(n)\) may lead to potentially large contributions and, therefore, should be resumed.
2.3 Factorization \({{\mu }_{F}}\) Scale
We intend to consider the dependence of the results on the factorization \({{\mu }_{F}}\) scale caused by (see, e.g., [14]) the truncation of a perturbative series when performing the calculus. The modification is achieved by replacing \({{a}_{s}}({{Q}^{2}})\) in Eq. (3) with the expressions in which the scale was accounted in the following way: \(\mu _{F}^{2} = {{k}_{F}}{{Q}^{2}}\).
Then, Eq. (3) takes the form
The function \(\hat {C}\) is to be obtained from C by modifying the right-hand side of Eq. (8) as follows:
Taking a special form for the coefficient \({{k}_{F}}\), we can decrease contributions coming from the terms \( \sim {\kern 1pt} {{B}_{j}}(n)\).
3 DIS SCHEME
Let us consider the case of the so-called DIS-scheme [20] (it was also called the \({{\Lambda }_{n}}\)-scheme [33, 34]), where NLO corrections to the Wilson coefficients are completely compensated by the factorization scale variation.
3.1 NLO
In this order
where
i.e., \(\hat {C}(n,a_{n}^{{{\text{DIS}}}}({{Q}^{2}})) = 1 + O((a_{n}^{{{\text{DIS}}}}{{)}^{2}})\).
The NLO coupling constant \(a_{n}^{{{\text{DIS}}}}({{Q}^{2}})\) obeys the equation
3.2 NNLO
In this case we have Eqs. (14) and (15) and additionally
that leads to the cancellation of the larger terms \( \sim {\kern 1pt} \mathop {\ln }\nolimits^4 (n)\) in \(B_{2}^{{{\text{DIS}}}}(n)\).
The NNLO coupling constant \(a_{n}^{{{\text{DIS}}}}({{Q}^{2}})\) obeys the following equation
4 FIT METHOD
The most popular approach (see, e.g., [8–13]) to carrying out QCD analyses over DIS data is associated with Dokshitzer–Gribov–Lipatov–Altarelli–Parisi (DGLAP) integro-differential equations [35–38]. It is a brute force method and allows one to analyze the data directly.
However, as seen from our previous efforts we advocate another approach. The analysis is carried out with the moments of SF \({{F}_{2}}(x,{{Q}^{2}})\) defined in Eq. (2). Then, for each \({{Q}^{2}}\), SF \({{F}_{2}}(x,{{Q}^{2}})\) is recovered using the Jacobi polynomial decomposition method [39–41]:
where \(\Theta _{n}^{{a,b}}\) are the Jacobi polynomials, \(a,b\) are the parameters to be fit. As usual, the compliance condition is the requirement to minimize the error in restoring the structure functions.
The program MINUIT [42] is used to minimize the variable
5 RESULTS
We use free data normalizations for various experiments. As a reference set, the most stable hydrogen BCDMS data are used at the value of the initial beam energy \({{E}_{0}} = 200\) GeV. Contrary to previous analyses [14–17], the cut \({{Q}^{2}} \geqslant 2\) GeV2 is used throughout, since for smaller \({{Q}^{2}}\) values Eqs. (16) and (18) have no real solutions.
The starting point of \({{Q}^{2}}\)-evolution is taken at \(Q_{0}^{2} = 90\) GeV2. This particular value of \(Q_{0}^{2}\) is close to the average values of \({{Q}^{2}}\) covering the corresponding data. Based on previous investigations (see [40]), the maximum number of moments to be accounted for is \({{N}_{{\max }}} = 8\), and the cut \(0.25 \leqslant x \leqslant 0.8\) is applied on the data.
We work within the framework of the variable-flavor-number scheme (VFNS) (see [14]). To make it clearer the effect of changing the sign for twist-4 corrections, the fixed-flavor-number scheme with \({{n}_{f}} = 4\) is also used.
As is seen from Table 1 the central values of \({{\alpha }_{s}}(M_{Z}^{2})\) are fairly the same given total experimental and theoretical errors (see [14–17]):
We plan to study the errors in more detail and present them in an upcoming publication.
From Table 1, it can also be seen that upon resuming at large x values (i.e., in the DIS scheme), the twist-4 corrections become large and negative in this x region. Moreover, it seems that they rise as \(1{\text{/}}(1 - x)\) at large x but this observation needs additional investigations.
Such a behavior is completely contrary to the analyses [14–18, 43] performed in \(\overline {MS} \) scheme, where twist-4 corrections are mostly positive at large x and rise as \(1{\text{/}}(1 - x)\). Note that this rise is usually less pronounce in higher orders (see [14–18]) and sometimes is even absent at NNLO level (see Table 1).
The negative values of power-law corrections at large x obtained in DIS scheme leads to the following phenomenon: (part of) power-law terms can be absorbed into the difference between usual strong coupling and QCD analytical one [44] just the same way as it was done at low x values (see [45–49]) in the framework of the so-called double asymptotic scaling approach [50–52]. Of course, such a phenomenon was absent in the case of \(\overline {MS} \) scheme, where using [53] the QCD analytical coupling simply increases the magnitude of twist-4 corrections.
In previous works [2, 54], where resuming at large values of x was performed within the framework of the Grunberg approach [55, 56], only a decrease in the twist-4 contribution was seen, since the relevant terms were not studied in detail. Therefore, it looks promising if the Grunberg approach will be used in the analysis similar to the present one and thus promote the study in some detail of the twist-4 correction values.
6 SUMMARY
We have performed fits of experimental data of BCDMS, SLAC and NMC collaborations for DIS SF \({{F}_{2}}(x,{{Q}^{2}})\) by resuming large logarithms at large x values into the corresponding coefficient function within the DIS scheme.
It is seen that the resummation does not change the values of the strong coupling constant \({{\alpha }_{s}}(M_{Z}^{2})\), though the values of the twist-4 corrections become large and negative contrary to the results obtained in the \(\overline {MS} \) scheme analyses. We plan to study this phenomenon using another scheme of resuming large logarithms at large x values, such as the Grunberg approach [55, 56].
Change history
12 January 2023
An Erratum to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0021364022350028
Notes
Hereinafter, superscripts pQCD, LT denote the twist two approximation with and without target mass corrections (see, e.g., [27]).
Unlike the standard case, here PDF is multiplied by x.
REFERENCES
M. Beneke, Phys. Rep. 317, 1 (1999).
G. Parente, A. V. Kotikov, and V. G. Krivokhizhin, Phys. Lett. B 333, 190 (1994).
A. L. Kataev, A. V. Kotikov, G. Parente, and A. V. Sidorov, Phys. Lett. B 388, 179 (1996).
A. L. Kataev, A. V. Kotikov, G. Parente, and A. V. Sidorov, Phys. Lett. B 417, 374 (1998).
A. V. Sidorov, Phys. Lett. B 389, 379 (1996).
A. L. Kataev, G. Parente, and A. V. Sidorov, Nucl. Phys. B 573, 405 (2000).
A. L. Kataev, G. Parente, and A. V. Sidorov, Phys. Part. Nucl. 34, 20 (2003).
T. J. Hou, J. Gao, T. J. Hobbs, K. Xie, S. Dulat, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, P. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin, C. Schmidt, I. Sitiwaldi, D. Stump, and C.-P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 103, 014013 (2021).
S. Bailey, T. Cridge, L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, and R. S. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 341 (2021).
R. D. Ball, S. Carrazza, J. Cruz-Martinez, et al. (NNPDF Collab.), Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 958 (2021).
I. Abt, R. Aggarwal, V. Andreev, et al. (ZEUS and H1 Collabs.), arXiv: 2112.01120 [hep-ex].
S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, S. Moch, and R. Placakyte, Phys. Rev. D 96, 014011 (2017).
P. Jimenez-Delgado and E. Reya, Phys. Rev. D 89, 074049 (2014).
B. G. Shaikhatdenov, A. V. Kotikov, V. G. Krivokhizhin, and G. Parente, Phys. Rev. D 81, 034008 (2010).
A. V. Kotikov, V. G. Krivokhizhin, and B. G. Shaikhatdenov, JETP Lett. 101, 141 (2015).
A. V. Kotikov, V. G. Krivokhizhin, and B. G. Shaikhatdenov, J. Phys. G 42, 095004 (2015).
A. V. Kotikov, V. G. Krivokhizhin, and B. G. Shaikhatdenov, Phys. At. Nucl. 81, 244 (2018).
J. Blumlein and H. Bottcher, Phys. Lett. B 662, 336 (2008).
J. Blümlein and M. Saragnese, Phys. Lett. B 820, 136589 (2021).
G. Altarelli, R. K. Ellis, and G. Martinelli, Nucl. Phys. B 143, 521 (1978).
L. W. Whitlow, E. M. Riordan, S. Dasu, S. Rock, and A. Bodek, Phys. Lett. B 282, 475 (1992).
L. W. Whitlow, Ph. D. Thesis, SLAC Report No. 357 (Standford Univ. Press, Standford, 1990).
M. Arneodo, A. Arvidson, B. Badeek, et al. (NM Collab.), Nucl. Phys. B 483, 3 (1997).
A. C. Benevenuti, D. Bolini, G. Bruni, et al. (BCDMS Collab.), Phys. Lett. B 223, 485 (1989).
A. C. Benevenuti, D. Bolini, G. Bruni, et al. (BCDMS Collab.), Phys. Lett. B 237, 592 (1990).
A. C. Benevenuti, D. Bolini, G. Bruni, et al. (BCDMS Collab.), Phys. Lett. B 195, 91 (1987).
V. G. Krivokhizhin and A. V. Kotikov, Phys. At. Nucl. 68, 1873 (2005).
V. G. Krivokhizhin and A. V. Kotikov, Phys. Part. Nucl. 40, 1059 (2009).
A. Buras, Rev. Mod. Phys. 52, 199 (1980).
D. I. Kazakov and A. V. Kotikov, Nucl. Phys. B 307, 791 (1988);
Nucl. Phys. 345, 299(E) (1990).
A. V. Kotikov and V. N. Velizhanin, hep-ph/0501274.
A. V. Kotikov, Phys. At. Nucl. 57, 133 (1994).
M. Bace, Phys. Lett. B 78, 132 (1978).
W. A. Bardeen, A. J. Buras, D. W. Duke, and T. Muta, Phys. Rev. D 18, 3998 (1978).
V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15, 438 (1972).
L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 20, 94 (1975).
G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. B 126, 298 (1977).
Yu. L. Dokshitzer, Sov. Phys. JETP 46, 641 (1977).
G. Parisi and N. Sourlas, Nucl. Phys. B 151, 421 (1979).
V. G. Krivokhizhin, S. P. Kurlovich, V. V. Sanadze, I. A. Savin, A. V. Sidorov, and N. B. Skachkov, Z. Phys. C 36, 51 (1987).
V. G. Krivokhizhin, S. P. Kurlovich, R. Lednicky, S. Nemechek, V. V. Sanadze, I. A. Savin, A. V. Sidorov, and N. B. Skachkov, Z. Phys. C 48, 347 (1990).
F. James and M. Ross, Comput. Phys. Commun. 10, 343 (1975).
S. I. Alekhin, Phys. Rev. D 63, 094022 (2001).
D. V. Shirkov and I. L. Solovtsov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1209 (1997).
G. Cvetic, A. Y. Illarionov, B. A. Kniehl, and A. V. Kotikov, Phys. Lett. B 679, 350 (2009).
A. V. Kotikov and B. G. Shaikhatdenov, Phys. Part. Nucl. 44, 543 (2013).
A. V. Kotikov and B. G. Shaikhatdenov, Phys. At. Nucl. 78, 525 (2015).
A. V. Kotikov and B. G. Shaikhatdenov, Phys. Part. Nucl. 48, 829 (2017).
A. V. Kotikov and B. G. Shaikhatdenov, AIP Conf. Proc. 1606, 159 (2015).
A. V. Kotikov and G. Parente, Nucl. Phys. B 549, 242 (1999).
A. V. Kotikov and G. Parente, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 97, 859 (2003).
A. Yu. Illarionov, A. V. Kotikov, and G. Parente, Phys. Part. Nucl. 39, 307 (2008).
A. V. Kotikov, V. G. Krivokhizhin, and B. G. Shaikhatdenov, Phys. At. Nucl. 75, 507 (2012).
A. V. Kotikov, G. Parente, and J. Sanchez Guillen, Z. Phys. C 58, 465 (1993).
G. Grunberg, Phys. Lett. B 95, 70 (1980).
G. Grunberg, Phys. Rev. D 29, 2315 (1984).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A.V. Kotikov thanks the Organizing Committee of the International Conference “Alphas-2022: Workshop on Precision Measurements of the QCD Coupling Constant” for invitation.
Funding
A.V. Kotikov acknowledges the partial support of the Russian Science Foundation, project no. 22-22-00387.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
The original online version of this article was revised: Due to a retrospective Open Access order.
Rights and permissions
Open Access. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Kotikov, A.V., Krivokhizhin, V.G. & Shaikhatdenov, B.G. αs in the Deep-Inelastic Scattering Scheme. Jetp Lett. 115, 429–433 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0021364022100411
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0021364022100411