TMDlib and TMDplotter: library and plotting tools for transverse-momentum-dependent parton distributions

  • F. Hautmann
  • H. Jung
  • M. Krämer
  • P. J. Mulders
  • E. R. Nocera
  • T. C. Rogers
  • A. Signori
Open Access
Special Article - Tools for Experiment and Theory

Abstract

Transverse-momentum-dependent distributions (TMDs) are extensions of collinear parton distributions and are important in high-energy physics from both theoretical and phenomenological points of view. In this manual we introduce the library \({TMDlib }\), a tool to collect transverse-momentum-dependent parton distribution functions (TMD PDFs) and fragmentation functions (TMD FFs) together with an online plotting tool, TMDplotter. We provide a description of the program components and of the different physical frameworks the user can access via the available parameterisations.

1 PROGRAM SUMMARY

Computer for which the program is designed and others on which it is operable: any with standard C++, tested on Linux and Mac OSX systems

Programming Language used: C++

High-speed storage required: No

Separate documentation available: No

Keywords: QCD, TMD factorisation, high-energy factorisation, TMD PDFs, TMD FFs, unintegrated PDFs, small-\(x\) physics.

Other programs used: LHAPDF (version 6) for access to collinear parton distributions, Boost (required by LHAPDF version 6), Root (version higher than 5.30) for plotting the results

Download of the program:http://tmdlib.hepforge.org

Unusual features of the program: None

Contacts: H. Jung (hannes.jung@desy.de), E. Nocera (emanuele.nocera@edu.unige.it), A. Signori (asignori@nikhef.nl)

Citation policy: please cite the current version of the manual and the paper(s) related to the parameterisation(s).

2 Introduction

The Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) interpretation of high-energy particle reactions requires a simultaneous treatment of processes at different energy scales. Factorisation theorems provide the mathematical framework to properly separate the physical regimes. For instance, when two protons collide in a Drell–Yan (DY) event the high-energy partonic cross section is described with a perturbative QCD expansion and the soft physics underlying the structure of the hadrons is treated with parton distribution functions (PDFs), supplemented by QCD evolution. “Evolution”, in this context, refers to the scale dependence of parton distributions (and similar non-perturbative objects) that arises in a detailed treatment of factorisation in QCD perturbation theory. A classic example of a consequence of QCD evolution is the violation of Bjorken-scaling in inclusive deep-inelastic lepton-hadron scattering (DIS), predicted by the Dokshitzer–Gribov–Lipatov–Altarelli–Parisi (DGLAP) evolution equations [1, 2, 3].

The same basic picture applies to other (semi-)inclusive processes, like semi-inclusive DIS (SIDIS), and \(e^+e^-\) annihilation into hadrons. A PDF describes the likelihood for finding a parton of a particular momentum inside an incoming hadron. In processes with observed hadrons in the final state, fragmentation functions (FFs) enter to describe the transition from a partonic state to an observed final-state hadron.

For sufficiently inclusive processes, only the component of parton momentum collinear to the momentum of its parent hadron is relevant at leading power (leading twist) in the hard scale. Factorisation theorems for such processes are traditionally called collinear factorisation theorems. In less inclusive processes, however, sensitivity to the partonic motion transverse to the direction of the parent hadron can become important. In such cases, the PDFs and FFs must carry information about transverse parton momentum in addition to the collinear momentum. One must introduce transverse-momentum-dependent (TMD) PDFs and FFs and use them in the context of new factorisation theorems, called TMD factorisation theorems. TMD factorisation has been formulated for a number of semi-inclusive processes including SIDIS, DY and \(e^+e^-\) annihilation [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16]. For particular processes in hadronic collisions, like heavy flavour or heavy boson (including Higgs) production, TMD factorisation has also been formulated in the high-energy (small-\(x\)) limit [17, 18, 19, 20]. In this context, the functions encoding the hadronic structure are more often referred to as unintegrated parton distribution functions (uPDFs), see e.g. Refs. [21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29].

The presence of a large variety of TMD factorisation and evolution frameworks complicates efforts to compare different TMD PDFs/FFs and uPDFs parameterisations. In some cases, the differences arise because different formalisms employ similar TMD concepts, but are tailored to specific physical applications. An example is the difference between the Collins–Soper–Sterman (CSS) style of TMD factorisation discussed in Sect. 2.1 compared with the high-energy TMD factorisation style discussed in Sect. 2.2. The former is designed for semi-inclusive processes differential in a particular physical transverse momentum and with a finite and non-zero ratio between the hard scale and the overall energy. The latter (high-energy TMD factorisation) is designed for the limit of a fixed hard scale and very high energies. Moreover, within each category there are also competing subcategories of approaches. For instances, the detailed phenomenological methods that employ a CSS-style of approach in Refs. [30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37] are rather different.

In this paper, we describe a new tool for collecting different fits and parameterisations into a single library, TMDlib , and the online plotter tool, TMDplotter. Provided that the user takes into account all the possible differences between formalisms, collecting parameterisations for both the objects in TMDlib and TMDplotter will also make phenomenological comparisons easier.

The paper is organised as follows: In Sect. 2, we briefly introduce the theoretical framework for both TMD and high-energy factorisation and evolution. In Sect. 3, we present a concise documentation of the TMDlib library and TMDplotter tool, discussing the basic procedure to readily use them.

3 Theoretical framework

In this section, we briefly describe two different commonly-used frameworks for factorisation and evolution of parton distributions. Specifically, we discuss TMD and high-energy factorisation theorems and evolution equations.

3.1 TMD factorisation and evolution

When one hard scale enters a high-energy process (like the invariant mass of the exchanged virtual photon in DIS) and the relevant transverse momenta are integrated over, one applies collinear factorisation to separate the hard partonic physics from the soft hadronic physics. When sensitivity to intrinsic transverse momentum is important, one must go beyond the collinear framework to factorise perturbative and non-perturbative dynamics. For example, this is the case in processes with observed transverse momenta in the final states, like SIDIS and DY lepton pair production at low transverse momentum. In these cases the low transverse momentum provides greater access to novel QCD dynamics as compared to the collinear case. If the observable transverse momenta are much larger than \(\Lambda _\mathrm{QCD}\), then often the cross section may be expressed entirely in collinear factorisation, though supplemented by transverse momentum resummation.

Feynman rules allow for a decomposition of the cross section into a contraction of hadronic and leptonic tensors. Where applicable, factorisation theorems separate non-perturbative and hard contributions within the hadronic tensor. In the TMD case, distribution and fragmentation functions are introduced, whose properties depend on the polarisations of the target and/or produced hadrons, the partonic polarisations, and the twist order. For example, in fully unpolarised SIDIS at leading twist the hadronic tensor is factorised into a convolution of one unpolarised TMD PDF (for the incoming target hadron) and one unpolarised TMD FF (for the final state hadron):
$$\begin{aligned} W^{\mu \nu } \!&\sim \! \mathcal{H}^{\mu \nu }(Q;\mu ) \sum _a \int d^2 \mathbf{b}_{\perp } e^{-i \mathbf{q}_{\perp } \cdot \mathbf{b}_{\perp }} f^{a,T} (x,\mathbf{b}_{\perp };\zeta _f,\mu )\ \nonumber \\&\quad {} \times D^{a \rightarrow h} (z,\mathbf{b}_{\perp };\zeta _D,\mu )\ + Y_\mathrm{SIDIS}(\mathbf{q}_\perp ,Q) \nonumber \\&\quad {} + \mathcal{O}((\Lambda _\mathrm{QCD}/Q)^{p}), \end{aligned}$$
(1)
where \(\mathcal{H}\) is the hard part, \(a\) is the flavour of the struck parton, \(T\) is the target hadron, \(h\) is the detected hadron, \(x\) and \(z\) are the light-cone momentum fractions, and \(\mathbf{b}_{\perp }\) is the Fourier conjugate of the transverse momentum \(\mathbf{q}_{\perp }\). The function \(f^{a,T} (x,\mathbf{b}_{\perp };\zeta _f,\mu )\) is a TMD PDF while \(D^{a \rightarrow h} (z,\mathbf{b}_{\perp };\zeta _D,\mu )\) is a TMD FF. The scale \(\mu \) is a renormalization group scale, \(\zeta _{f,D}\) are rapidity evolution scales. \(Q\) is the hard scale that enters into the hard vertex. In SIDIS \(Q = \sqrt{-q^2}\), where \(q\) is the four-momentum of the exchanged virtual photon.

The term \(Y_\mathrm{SIDIS}(\mathbf{q}_\perp ,Q)\) is a correction for the region of \(q_\perp \sim Q\) where a separation into TMDs is not valid, and all transverse momentum is generated inside the hard scattering. This so-called \(Y\)-term is calculable in collinear factorisation. With it included, the corrections are suppressed by powers of \(\Lambda _\mathrm{QCD}/Q\), point-by-point in \(\mathbf{q}_\perp \), as indicated by the last term, where \(p > 0\). Taking into account all the possible combinations of polarisation (parton, target and detected hadron), there are eight TMD PDFs and eight TMD FFs at leading-twist, although the number of operator combinations could be larger [38, 39]. The expression of the hadronic tensor is modified accordingly [40, 41, 42].

TMD parton distributions or fragmentation functions depend on two types of auxiliary scales, \(\zeta _{f,D}\) and \(\mu \), and they satisfy evolution equations with respect to both of them. The evolution with respect to \(\zeta _{f}\) and \(\zeta _D\) corresponds to Collins–Soper (CS) evolution and is determined by a process-independent soft factor [9, 15, 31, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49]. The scales \(\zeta _f,\ \zeta _D\) must satisfy the constraint \(\zeta _f \zeta _D = Q^4\). The evolution in \(\mu \), instead, is determined by standard renormalisation group methods.

When the energy range covered by the experimental data is not large (see, e.g., Ref. [50, 51]) fits of TMD PDFs and FFs can be performed without taking into account effects induced by evolution. These fits rely essentialy on a simple parton model approach and are oriented towards investigations of hadron structure at a relatively low-energy scale. Recent examples are Refs. [35, 52]. In order to explore the evolution of hadron structure with the energy scale, these fixed scale fits can be incorporated into a Collins–Soper–Sterman (CSS) style of factorisation theorem like Eq. (1), as described in Refs. [53, 54]. There, fixed scale fits from [55, 56, 57, 58, 59] are combined with traditional CSS style fits from Refs. [30, 31].

3.2 High-energy factorisation and evolution

A form of TMD factorisation holds at high energy [17, 60, 61] and has been applied to several processes in photon-hadron, lepton-hadron and hadron-hadron collisions. For instance, the high-energy factorisation expresses the heavy-quark leptoproduction cross section in terms of the TMD gluon density via well-prescribed, calculable perturbative coefficients [60]. This framework is extended to deep-inelastic structure functions in Refs. [62, 63]. Perturbative applications of the method include the resummation of small-\(x\) logarithmic corrections to DIS to all orders in \(\alpha _s\) at leading and next-to-leading \(\ln x\) level [62, 63, 64, 65]. In hadron-hadron scattering, high-energy factorisation has been applied to processes such as heavy flavour and Higgs boson production [20, 60].

In the framework of high-energy factorisation [17, 60, 61] the DIS cross section can be written as a convolution in both longitudinal and transverse momenta of the unintegrated parton density function \(\mathcal{A}\left( x,k_t,\mu \right) \) with off-shell partonic matrix elements
$$\begin{aligned} \sigma _j ( x, Q^2 ) = \int _x^1 d z \int d^2k_t \ \hat{\sigma }_j( x, Q^2, { z}, k_t ) \ \mathcal{A}\left( { z},k_t, \mu \right) , \nonumber \\ \end{aligned}$$
(2)
where the DIS cross sections \(\sigma _j\), (\(j= 2, L\)) are related to the structure functions \(F_2\) and \(F_L\) by \(\sigma _j = 4 \pi ^2 F_j / Q^2\), and the hard-scattering kernels \({\hat{\sigma }}_j\) of Eq. (2) are \(k_t\)-dependent.

The factorisation formula, Eq. (2), allows for resummation of logarithmically enhanced \(x\rightarrow 0 \) contributions to all orders in perturbation theory, both in the hard-scattering coefficients and in the parton evolution, taking into account the full dependence on the factorisation scale \(\mu \) and on the factorisation scheme [62, 63].

Realistic applications of this approach at collider energies require matching of \(x \rightarrow 0\) contributions with finite-\(x\) contributions. To this end, the evolution of the gluon uPDF \(\mathcal{A} \) is obtained by combining the resummation of small-\(x\) logarithmic contributions [66, 67, 68] with medium- and large-\(x\) contributions to parton splitting [1, 2, 3], according to the CCFM evolution equations [73].

The cross section \(\sigma _j\) (\(j= 2, L\)) is usually computed in a Fixed Flavour Number (FFN) scheme, where the photon-gluon fusion process (\(\gamma ^* g^* \rightarrow q \bar{q}\)) is included. The masses of the quarks are explicitly included with the light and heavy quark masses being free parameters. In addition to \(\gamma ^* g^* \rightarrow q\bar{q}\), the contribution from valence quarks is included via \(\gamma ^* q \rightarrow q\) by using CCFM evolution of valence quarks [73, 74, 75]. A fit of CCFM uPDFs to the combined DIS precision data [76, 77] has been recently presented in Ref. [75] using the evolution given in Ref. [78]. Earlier CCFM fits to DIS were presented in Ref. [79]. In Ref. [80] the unintegrated gluon distribution has been obtained by means of a saturation ansatz.

4 TMDlib documentation

TMDlib is a C++ library which provides a framework and an interface to a collection of different uPDF/TMD parameterisations. The parameterisations of TMDs in TMDlib are explicitly authorised for distribution in TMDlib by the authors. No explicit QCD evolution code is included: the parameterizations are as given in the corresponding references. In the present version of TMDlib no attempt is made to unify grid files and the interpolation procedure; both are those provided by the authors.

The source code of TMDlib is available from http://tmdlib.hepforge.org/  and can be installed using the standardautotools sequence configure, make, make install, with options to specify the installation path and the location of the LHAPDF PDF library [81, 82] and the ROOT data analysis framework library [83, 84] (which is used optionally for plotting). If ROOT is not found via root-config, the plotting option is disabled. After installation, TMDlib-config gives access to necessary environment variables.

The up-to-date list of all the available functions can be found at http://tmdlib.hepforge.org/namespaceTMDlib.html, and is also summarized in Tables 2, 3 and 4. The TMDlib calling sequence is: Initialisation (selecting the desired uPDFs/TMDs), see Table 2; Call (producing the uPDF/TMD for partons at \(x\), \(\mu \) and \(k_\perp \)), see Table 3; Information (displaying details about the initialised uPDFs/TMDs), see Table 4. Note that function overloading is used to create different methods for the functions devoted to uPDF/TMD initialisation (TMDinit) and call (TMDpdf).
  • Initialisation. The first step consists in initialising the desired uPDF/TMD set. Initialisation assigns the chosen uPDF/TMD set, specified by its name, an identifying number proper to that set.1 This number is stored into memory and called each time the identification of the uPDF/TMD set is needed by any TMDlib internal function. The complete list of uPDF/TMD sets available in is given in Table 1 with the corresponding name, identifier, kinematic coverage, and reference. This list will be constantly updated at http://tmdlib.hepforge.org/pdfsets.html as soon as new uPDF/TMD sets will become available. The TMD fit of Ref. [52] is provided as a Monte Carlo ensemble of \(N_{\mathrm {rep}}=200\) equally probable replicas, as both a grid with polynomial interpolation and the analytic form with the best-fit parameters for each replica. The user should specify the replica to be initialised and whether he would like to use the grid or the parameterisation via the input variables irep and imode respectively. Through imode it is also possible to select the Fourier transform of the TMD PDF, namely the distribution in transverse coordinate space (\(b_T\)-distribution). For other uPDF/TMD sets, these options are not available and, if specified, they will be ignored.

  • Call to the distribution. The second step consists in calling the desired function. Specifically, the light-cone momentum fractions \(x^+\) and \(x^-\) (often set \(x^-=0\)) carried by the parton, the parton transverse momentum \(k_t\) (in GeV), the energy scale \(\mu \) (in GeV) and the flavour code identifying the target2 are the input variables. Returned is the momentum weighted parton distribution.

Additional methods, utility routines and examples available in TMDlib are:
  • TMDutils: collection of methods used in TMDlib , including functions to get details about the initialised uPDF/TMD set (like \(\alpha _s\), \(\Lambda _{\mathrm {QCD}}\), number of flavours), see Table 4;

  • TMD_test: example program to handle uPDF/TMD distributions;

  • TMDplotter: ROOT-based script to plot uPDF/TMD distributions as obtained from TMDlib .

The TMDlib library is released together with the online plotter platform TMDplotter, available at http://tmdplotter.desy.de/. Two snapshots from a typical usage of TMDplotter are shown in Fig. 1: the gluon from the ccfm-JH-2013-set1 set is compared to the GBW as a function of \(k_t\) and \(x\).
Fig. 1

Two snapshots from the online portal TMDplotter for plotting uPDF/TMD distributions: the gluon from the ccfm-JH-2013-set1 set compared to the GBW as a function of \(k_t\) (left) and \(x\) (right)

Table 1

Available uPDF/TMD parton sets in TMDlib

Parton

uPDF/TMD set

Identifier

\(\Lambda ^{(4)}_{qcd}\)

\(k_t^{cut}\) (GeV)

\(Q_0\) (GeV)

Refs.

Gluon

ccfm-JS-2001

101000

0.25

0.25

1.4

[79]

ccfm-setA0

101010

0.25

1.3

1.3

[79]

ccfm-setA0+

101011

0.25

1.3

1.3

[79]

ccfm-setA0\(-\)

101012

0.25

1.3

1.3

[79]

ccfm-setA1

101013

0.25

1.3

1.3

[79]

ccfm-setB0

101020

0.25

0.25

1.3

[79]

ccfm-setB0+

101021

0.25

0.25

1.3

[79]

ccfm-setB0\(-\)

101022

0.25

0.25

1.3

[79]

ccfm-setB1

101023

0.25

0.25

1.3

[79]

ccfm-JH-set 1

101001

0.25

1.33

1.33

[85]

ccfm-JH-set 2

101002

0.25

1.18

1.18

[85]

ccfm-JH-set 3

101003

0.25

1.35

1.35

[85]

ccfm-JH-2013-set1

101201

0.2

2.2

2.2

[75]

ccfm-JH-2013-set2

101301

0.2

2.2

2.2

[75]

GBWlight

200001

[80]

GBWcharm

200002

[80]

Quark

ccfm-setA0

0.25

1.3

1.3

 

ccfm-JH-2013-set1

0.2

2.2

2.2

[75]

ccfm-JH-2013-set2

0.2

2.2

2.2

[75]

SBRS-2013-TMDPDFs

300001

1.55

[52]

Table 2

The function overload for TMDinit used to initialise uPDF/TMD parton sets

Method

Usage

TMDinit(name)

To initialise the uPDF/TMD set specified by its name name. A complete list of uPDF/TMD sets available in the current version of TMDlib with the corresponding name is provided in Table 1

TMDinit(name,irep)

To initialise a given irep replica in a Monte Carlo uPDF/TMD set specified by its name name

TMDinit(name,irep,imode)

To initialise the uncertainty sets with irep or to initialise a given irep replica in a Monte Carlo uPDF/TMD set specified by its name name and imode:

   \(\bullet \)imode=0: the value obtained from the analytic form of the distribution is returned

   \(\bullet \)imode=1: the value obtained as a polynomial interpolation on a numerical grid is returned

   \(\bullet \)imode=2: the value obtained from the analytic form of the Fourier transform (b-space distribution)

Table 3

The function overload for TMDpdf used to call uPDF/TMD parton sets

Method

Usage

TMDpdf(x,xbar,kt,mu, uval,dval,s,c,b,glu)

Void-type function filling the variables uval, dval, s, c, b, glu with the values of \(xF(x,\bar{x},k_t,\mu )\) (\(F\) is the initialised uPDF/TMD) for valence u-quarks uval, valence d-quarks dval, light sea-quarks s, charm-quarks c, bottom-quarks b, and gluons glu respectively for a proton target. The input variables x and xbar are the light-come momentum fractions \(x^+\) and \(x^-\) (in some parameterisations the latter is set to zero), kt is the parton transverse momentum \(k_t\), and mu is the energy scale \(\mu \) (in GeV)

TMDpdf(kf,x,xbar,kt,mu, uval,dval,s,c,b,glu)

As the function above, but for hadron with flavour code kf (kf = 2212 for proton and kf = \(-\)2212 for antiproton)

TMDpdf(x,xbar,kt,mu)

Vector double-type function returning an array of \(13\) variables with the values of \(xF(x,{\bar{x}},k_t,\mu )\) (\(F\) is the initialised uPDF/TMD): at index \(0,\dots ,6\) is \(\bar{t},\dots ,\bar{d}\), at index \(7\) is the gluon, and at index \(8,\dots ,13\) is \(d,\dots ,t\) densities for a proton target

TMDpdf(kf,x,xbar,kt,mu)

As the function above, but for hadron with flavour code kf (kf = 2212 for proton and kf = \(-\)2212 for antiproton)

TMDpdf(x,xbar,kt,mu,xpq)

Void-type function filling an array of \(13\) variables, xpq, with the values of \(xF(x,{\bar{x}},k_t,\mu )\) (\(F\) is the initialised uPDF/TMD): at index \(0,\dots ,6\) is \(\bar{t},\dots ,\bar{d}\), at index \(7\) is the gluon, and at index \(8,\dots ,13\) is \(d,\dots ,t\) densities for a proton target

TMDpdf(kf,x,xbar,kt,mu, xpq)

As the function above, but for hadron with flavour code kf (kf = 2212 for proton and kf = \(-\)2212 for antiproton)

Table 4

The list of methods included in the TMDutils.cc file

Method

Usage

TMDalphas(mu)

Returns \(\alpha _\mathrm {s}\) used in the set initialised by TMDinit(name)

TMDgetLam4( )

Returns the value of \(\Lambda _{QCD}\) at \(N_f=4\)

TMDgetNf( )

Returns the number of flavours, \(N_f\), used for the computation of \(\Lambda _{QCD}\)

TMDgetOrderAlphaS( )

Returns the perturbative order of \(\alpha _\mathrm {s}\) used in the evolution of the TMD/uPDF set initialised by TMDinit(name)

TMDgetOrderPDF( )

Returns the perturbative order of the evolution of the TMD/uPDF set initialised by TMDinit(name)

TMDgetXmin()

Returns the minimum value of the momentum fraction \(x\) for which the TMD/uPDF set initialised by TMDinit(name) was determined

TMDgetXmax()

Returns the maximum value of the momentum fraction \(x\) for which the TMD/uPDF set initialised by TMDinit(name) was determined

TMDgetQ2min()

Returns the minimum value of the energy scale \(\mu \) (in GeV) for which the TMD/uPDF set initialised by TMDinit(name) was determined

TMDgetQ2max()

Returns the maximum value of the energy scale \(\mu \) (in GeV) for which the TMD/uPDF set initialised by TMDinit(name) was determined

TMDnumberPDF(name)

Returns the identifier associated with the TMD/uPDF set initialised by TMDinit(name)

5 Conclusions and feedback

The authors of this manual set up a collaboration to develop and maintain TMDlib and TMDplotter, respectively a C++ library for handling different parameterisations of uPDFs/TMDs and a corresponding online plotting tool. The redistribution of the fits has been agreed with the corresponding authors. The aim is to update these tools with more uPDF/TMD parton sets and new features, as they become available and are developed.

Footnotes

  1. 1.

    Note that only one set of uPDF/TMD at a time can be called so far.

  2. 2.

    uPDF/TMD parameterisations have been determined for proton or antiproton only so far.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work of A.S. is part of the program of the Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM), which is financially supported by the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO). E.R.N. acknowledges the kind hospitality of the theory group at the Nationaal instituut voor subatomaire fysica (Nikhef) as part of the research activities within the ERC Advanced Grant program QWORK (Contract No. 320389). T.R. is supported by the US National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY-0969739.

References

  1. 1.
    V.N. Gribov, L.N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15, 438 (1972)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Altarelli, G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. B 126, 298 (1977)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Y.L. Dokshitzer, Sov. Phys. JETP 46, 641 (1977)ADSGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.C. Collins, D.E. Soper, Nucl. Phys. B 193, 381 (1981)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.C. Collins, D.E. Soper, Nucl. Phys. B 194, 445 (1982)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.C. Collins, D.E. Soper, G.F. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B 223, 381 (1983)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J.C. Collins, D.E. Soper, G.F. Sterman, Phys. Lett. B 109, 388 (1982)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.C. Collins, D.E. Soper, G.F. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B 250, 199 (1985)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Collins, J.C.: Foundations of Perturbative QCD. Cambridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology, vol. 32, 2011Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Meng, F.I. Olness, D.E. Soper, Phys. Rev. D 54, 1919 (1996). hep-ph/9511311 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    P.M. Nadolsky, D. Stump, C. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 61, 014003 (2000). hep-ph/9906280 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    P.M. Nadolsky, D. Stump, C. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 64, 114011 (2001). hep-ph/0012261 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    X. Ji, J. Ma, F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 71, 034005 (2005). hep-ph/0404183
  14. 14.
    X. Ji, J. Ma, F. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B 597, 299 (2004). hep-ph/0405085
  15. 15.
    M.G. Echevarria, A. Idilbi, I. Scimemi, JHEP 1207, 002 (2012). arXiv:1111.4996
  16. 16.
    J.-Y. Chiu, A. Jain, D. Neill, I.Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 151601 (2012). arXiv:1104.0881
  17. 17.
    S. Catani, M. Ciafaloni, F. Hautmann, Phys. Lett. B 242, 97 (1990)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    E. Levin, M. Ryskin, Y. Shabelski, A. Shuvaev, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 53, 657 (1991)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J.C. Collins, R.K. Ellis, Nucl. Phys. B 360, 3 (1991)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    F. Hautmann, Phys. Lett. B 535, 159 (2002). hep-ph/0203140 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    E. Avsar (2012). arXiv:1203.1916
  22. 22.
    E. Avsar, Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. 04, 74 (2011). arXiv:1108.1181
  23. 23.
    S. Jadach, M. Skrzypek, Acta Phys. Pol. B 40, 2071 (2009). arXiv:0905.1399
  24. 24.
    F. Dominguez, 10022/AC:P:11293 (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    F. Dominguez, J.-W. Qiu, B.-W. Xiao, F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 85, 045003 (2012). arXiv:1109.6293
  26. 26.
    F. Dominguez, A. Mueller, S. Munier, B.-W. Xiao, Phys. Lett. B 705, 106 (2011). arXiv:1108.1752
  27. 27.
    F. Hautmann, Acta Phys. Pol. B 40, 2139 (2009)ADSGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    F. Hautmann, M. Hentschinski, H. Jung (2012). arXiv:1205.6358
  29. 29.
    F. Hautmann, H. Jung, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 184, 64 (2008). arXiv:0712.0568
  30. 30.
    F. Landry, R. Brock, P.M. Nadolsky, C.P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 67, 073016 (2003). hep-ph/0212159 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    A.V. Konychev, P.M. Nadolsky, Phys. Lett. B 633, 710 (2006). hep-ph/0506225 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    G. Bozzi, S. Catani, D. de Florian, M. Grazzini, Nucl. Phys. B 737, 73 (2006). hep-ph/0508068 ADSCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    M.G. Echevarria, A. Idilbi, A. Schaefer, I. Scimemi, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2636 (2013). arXiv:1208.1281
  34. 34.
    M. Guzzi, P.M. Nadolsky, B. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 90, 014030 (2014). arXiv:1309.1393
  35. 35.
    M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, J. Gonzalez H., S. Melis, A. Prokudin, JHEP 1404, 005 (2014). arXiv:1312.6261
  36. 36.
    C. Aidala, B. Field, L. Gamberg, T. Rogers, Phys. Rev. D 89, 094002 (2014). arXiv:1401.2654
  37. 37.
    P. Sun, J. Isaacson, C.P. Yuan, F. Yuan (2014). arXiv:1406.3073
  38. 38.
    M. Buffing, A. Mukherjee, P.J. Mulders, Phys. Rev. D 86, 074030 (2012). arXiv:1207.3221
  39. 39.
    M. Buffing, P.J. Mulders, A. Mukherjee, Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. 25, 1460003 (2014). arXiv:1309.2472
  40. 40.
    P.J. Mulders, R. Tangerman, Nucl. Phys. B 461, 197 (1996). hep-ph/9510301
  41. 41.
    D. Boer, P.J. Mulders, Phys. Rev. D 57, 5780 (1998). hep-ph/9711485
  42. 42.
    A. Bacchetta, M. Diehl, K. Goeke, A. Metz, P.J. Mulders et al., JHEP 0702, 093 (2007). hep-ph/0611265
  43. 43.
    J.C. Collins, F. Hautmann, Phys. Lett. B 472, 129 (2000). hep-ph/9908467
  44. 44.
    J.C. Collins, A. Metz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 252001 (2004). hep-ph/0408249
  45. 45.
    F. Hautmann, Phys. Lett. B 655, 26 (2007). hep-ph/0702196 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    I. Cherednikov, N. Stefanis, Nucl. Phys. B 802, 146 (2008). arXiv:0802.2821
  47. 47.
    I. Cherednikov and N. Stefanis, Phys. Rev. D80, 054008 (2009). arXiv:0904.2727
  48. 48.
    J.-Y. Chiu, A. Jain, D. Neill, I.Z. Rothstein, JHEP 1205, 084 (2012). arXiv:1202.0814
  49. 49.
    M.G. Echevarria, A. Idilbi, I. Scimemi, Phys. Rev. D 90, 014003 (2014). arXiv:1402.0869
  50. 50.
    HERMES Collaboration, A. Airapetian et al., Phys. Rev. D 87, 074029 (2013). arXiv:1212.5407
  51. 51.
    COMPASS Collaboration, C. Adolph et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2531 (2013). arXiv:1305.7317
  52. 52.
    A. Signori, A. Bacchetta, M. Radici, G. Schnell, JHEP 1311, 194 (2013). arXiv:1309.3507
  53. 53.
    S.M. Aybat, T.C. Rogers, Phys. Rev. D 83, 114042 (2011). arXiv:1101.5057
  54. 54.
    S.M. Aybat, J.C. Collins, J.-W. Qiu, T.C. Rogers, Phys. Rev. D 85, 034043 (2012). arXiv:1110.6428
  55. 55.
    P. Schweitzer, T. Teckentrup, A. Metz, Phys. Rev. D 81, 094019 (2010). arXiv:1003.2190
  56. 56.
    M. Anselmino et al. (2005). hep-ph/0511017
  57. 57.
    M. Anselmino et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 39, 89 (2009). arXiv:0805.2677
  58. 58.
    J.C. Collins et al., Phys. Rev. D 73, 014021 (2006). hep-ph/0509076 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    J.C. Collins et al., Phys. Rev. D 73, 094023 (2006). hep-ph/0511272 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    S. Catani, M. Ciafaloni, F. Hautmann, Nucl. Phys. B 366, 135 (1991)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    S. Catani, M. Ciafaloni, F. Hautmann, Phys. Lett. B 307, 147 (1993)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    S. Catani, F. Hautmann, Nucl. Phys. B 427, 475 (1994). hep-ph/9405388
  63. 63.
    S. Catani, F. Hautmann, Phys. Lett. B 315, 157 (1993)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    M. Ciafaloni, G. Camici, Phys. Lett. B 430, 349 (1998). hep-ph/9803389
  65. 65.
    V.S. Fadin, L. Lipatov, Phys. Lett. B 429, 127 (1998). hep-ph/9802290
  66. 66.
    L. Lipatov, Phys. Rep. 286, 131 (1997). hep-ph/9610276 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    V.S. Fadin, E. Kuraev, L. Lipatov, Phys. Lett. B 60, 50 (1975)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    I.I. Balitsky, L.N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 28, 822 (1978)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    M. Ciafaloni, Nucl. Phys. B 296, 49 (1988)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    S. Catani, F. Fiorani, G. Marchesini, Phys. Lett. B 234, 339 (1990)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    S. Catani, F. Fiorani, G. Marchesini, Nucl. Phys. B 336, 18 (1990)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    G. Marchesini, Nucl. Phys. B 445, 49 (1995)ADSCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    M. Deak, F. Hautmann, H. Jung, K. Kutak, Forward-Central Jet Correlations at the Large Hadron Collider, 2010. arXiv:1012.6037
  74. 74.
    M. Deak, F. Hautmann, H. Jung, K. Kutak, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1982 (2012). arXiv:1112.6354
  75. 75.
    F. Hautmann, H. Jung, Nucl. Phys. B 883, 1 (2014). arXiv:1312.7875
  76. 76.
    H1 and ZEU Collaboration, F. Aaron et al., JHEP 1001, 109 (2010). 61 pages, 21 figures. arXiv:0911.0884
  77. 77.
    H1 and ZEUS Collaboration, H. Abramowicz et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2311 (2013). arXiv:1211.1182
  78. 78.
    F. Hautmann, H. Jung, S. Taheri Monfared, The CCFM uPDF Evolution uPDFevolv, 2014. arXiv:1407.5935
  79. 79.
    H. Jung, Unintegrated Parton Density Functions in CCFM, April 2004. DIS 2004, Strbské Pleso, Slovakia. hep-ph/0411287
  80. 80.
    K. Golec-Biernat, M. Wusthoff, Phys. Rev. D 60, 114023 (1999). hep-ph/9903358
  81. 81.
    A. Buckley, New access to PDF data via LHAPDF6, in Les Houches 2013: physics at TeV Colliders: Standard Model Working Group Report, 2014. Also in preprint. arXiv:1405.1067
  82. 82.
    http://lhapdf.hepforge.org/. Accessed 1 Aug 2014
  83. 83.
    R. Brun, F. Rademakers, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 389, 81 (1997)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    http://root.cern.ch/. Accessed 1 Aug 2014
  85. 85.
    M. Hansson, H. Jung, The status of CCFM unintegrated gluon densities, 2003. DIS 2003, St. Petersburg, Russia. hep-ph/0309009

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Funded by SCOAP3 / License Version CC BY 4.0.

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Hautmann
    • 1
    • 2
  • H. Jung
    • 3
    • 4
  • M. Krämer
    • 3
  • P. J. Mulders
    • 5
    • 6
  • E. R. Nocera
    • 7
  • T. C. Rogers
    • 8
    • 9
  • A. Signori
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Rutherford Appleton LaboratoryOxfordUK
  2. 2.Department of Theoretical PhysicsUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  3. 3.DESYHamburgGermany
  4. 4.University of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium
  5. 5.Department of Physics and AstronomyVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  6. 6.NikhefAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  7. 7.Università degli Studi di Genova, INFNGenoaItaly
  8. 8.C.N. Yang Institute for Theoretical PhysicsStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA
  9. 9.Department of PhysicsSouthern Methodist UniversityDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations