Abstract
The hadronic production of the heavy-flavored hadron provides a challenging opportunity to test the validity of pQCD predictions. In the paper, we make a comparative study on the properties of the \(B^{(*)}_{s}\) hadroproduction within either the fixed-flavor-number scheme (FFNS) or the general-mass variable-flavor-number scheme (GM-VFNS). By using FFNS, as is previously adopted in the literature, one only needs to deal with the dominant gluon–gluon fusion mechanism via the subprocess \(g+g\rightarrow B^{(*)}_{s}+b+\bar{s}\). While by using GM-VFNS, one needs to deal with two mechanisms: one is the gluon–gluon fusion mechanism and the other is the extrinsic heavy quark mechanism via the subprocesses \(g+\bar{b}\to B^{(*)}_{s} +\bar{s}\) and \(g+s\to B^{(*)}_{s} +b\). It is found that both mechanisms can provide reasonable contributions to the \(B^{(*)}_{s}\) hadroproduction under the GM-VFNS, and there is double counting for those two mechanisms in specific kinematic regions. At the Tevatron, the differences between the estimations of FFNS and GM-VFNS are small, e.g. after cutting off the small p T events (cf. p T >4 GeV), the \(B^{(*)}_{s}\) p T -distributions are almost coincide with each other. However, these differences are obvious at the LHC. The forthcoming more precise data on LHC shall provide a good chance to check which scheme is more appropriate to deal with the \(B^{(*)}_{s}\)-meson production and to further study the heavy quark components in hadrons.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Such large cancelation is reasonable, since the ‘SUB.’-term as defined by Eq. (2) provides the leading log contribution to the heavy quark PDF. At small p T region, most of the events are small x events, and the differences for the cross sections are further amplified by large values of PDFs at small x region. This conceptually explains why there is large cancelation at high p T but not at small p T regions.
Other uncertainty sources shall give similar behaviors under both GM-VFNS and FFNS, which has been deeply analyzed under FFNS in Ref. [20], and to shorten the paper, we do not present extra discussions on other uncertainties.
Under FFNS, by varying the flavor number with the energy scale, the value of α s shall be decreased, but this is to a large degree compensated by a larger gluon distribution function (i.e. in small x-region that is dominant for the production, \(F^{g}_{H}({\rm CTEQ6L1})>F^{g}_{H}({\rm CTEQ5F3})\)), so as a whole, there is small difference by using CTEQ6L1 and CTEQ5F3.
References
F. Abe et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1451 (1995)
D.E. Acosta et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 66, 052005 (2002)
D. Acosta et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 71, 032001 (2005)
A. Abulencia et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 75, 012010 (2007)
T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 082001 (2008)
T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 79, 092003 (2009)
S. Abachi et al. (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3548 (1995)
B. Abbott et al. (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5478 (2000)
V.M. Abazov et al. (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 042001 (2005)
V.M. Abazov et al. (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 121801 (2007)
N. Brambilla et al. (Quarkonium Working Group), Published as CERN yellow report, CERN-2005-005, arXiv:hep-ph/0412158
N. Brambilla et al. (Quarkonium Working Group), Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1 (2011)
V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 112001 (2011)
S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 252001 (2011)
S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 84, 052008 (2011)
G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. B 864, 341 (2011)
P. Nason, S. Dawson, R.K. Ellis, Nucl. Phys. B 327, 49 (1989)
W. Beenakker, H. Kuijf, W.L. Van Neerven, J. Smith, Phys. Rev. D 40, 54 (1989)
S. Frixione, M.L. Mangano, P. Nason, G. Ridolfi, Adv. Ser. Dir. High Energy Phys. 15, 609 (1998)
J.W. Zhang, Z.Y. Fang, C.H. Chang, X.G. Wu, T. Zhong, Y. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 79, 114012 (2009)
C.F. Qiao, J. Phys. G 29, 1075 (2003)
C.H. Chang, C.F. Qiao, J.X. Wang, X.G. Wu, Phys. Rev. D 72, 114009 (2005)
C.H. Chang, C.F. Qiao, J.X. Wang, X.G. Wu, Phys. Rev. D 73, 094022 (2006)
C.H. Chang, J.P. Ma, C.F. Qiao, X.G. Wu, J. Phys. G 34, 845 (2007)
J. Collins, F. Wilczek, A. Zee, Phys. Rev. D 18, 242 (1978)
J. Amundson, C. Schmidt, W.K. Tung, X.N. Wang, J. High Energy Phys. 10, 031 (2000)
B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, I. Schienbein, H. Spiesberger, Phys. Rev. D 71, 014018 (2005)
B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, I. Schienbein, H. Spiesberger, Eur. Phys. J. C 41, 199 (2005)
B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, I. Schienbein, H. Spiesberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 012001 (2006)
B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, I. Schienbein, H. Spiesberger, Phys. Rev. D 77, 014011 (2008)
S.J. Brodsky, C. Peterson, N. Sakai, Phys. Rev. D 23, 2745 (1981)
S.J. Brodsky, P. Hoyer, C. Peterson, N. Sakai, Phys. Lett. B 93, 451 (1980)
R. Vogt, S.J. Brodsky, Nucl. Phys. B 478, 311 (1996)
T. Gutierrez, R. Vogt, Nucl. Phys. B 539, 189 (1996)
G. Ingelman, M. Thunman, Z. Phys. C 73, 505 (1997)
J. Pumplin, Phys. Rev. D 73, 1140015 (2006)
M. Franz, M.V. Polyakov, K. Goeke, Phys. Rev. D 62, 074024 (2000)
G. Zweig, CERN reports Th. 401 and 412 (1964), and in Proc. Int. School of Phys. “ettore Majorana”, Erice, Italy (1964), A. Zichichi (Ed.), p. 192 (Academic, New York)
S.J. Brodsky, H.C. Pauli, S.S. Pinsky, Phys. Rep. 301, 299 (1998)
C.H. Chang, C. Driouich, P. Eerola, X.G. Wu, Comput. Phys. Commun. 159, 192 (2004)
R. Kleiss, W.J. Stirling, Comput. Phys. Commun. 40, 359 (1986)
G.P. Lepage, J. Comput. Phys. 27, 192 (1978)
C.H. Chang, J.X. Wang, X.G. Wu, Comput. Phys. Commun. 174, 241 (2006)
C.H. Chang, J.X. Wang, X.G. Wu, Comput. Phys. Commun. 175, 624 (2006)
X.Y. Wang, X.G. Wu, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 442 (2012)
C.H. Chang, J.X. Wang, X.G. Wu, Comput. Phys. Commun. 177, 467 (2007)
C.H. Chang, J.X. Wang, X.G. Wu, Comput. Phys. Commun. 181, 1144 (2010)
X.Y. Wang, X.G. Wu, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1070 (2013)
M.A.G. Aivazis, J.C. Collins, F.I. Olness, W.K. Tung, Phys. Rev. D 50, 3102 (1994)
M.A.G. Aivazis, F.I. Olness, W.K. Tung, Phys. Rev. D 50, 3085 (1994)
F.I. Olness, R.J. Scalise, W.K. Tung, Phys. Rev. D 59, 014506 (1998)
P. Dimopoulos et al. (ETM Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 01, 046 (2012)
E.J. Eichten, C. Quigg, Phys. Rev. D 49, 5845 (1994)
Y.Q. Chen, Y.P. Kuang, Phys. Rev. D 46, 1165 (1992)
S. Kretzer, H.L. Lai, F.I. Olness, W.K. Tung, Phys. Rev. D 69, 114005 (2004)
J. Pumplin, D.R. Stump, J. Huston, H.L. Lai, P. Nadolsky, W.K. Tung, J. High Energy Phys. 0207, 012 (2002)
H.L. Lai et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 12, 375 (2000)
C.H. Chang, X.G. Wu, Eur. Phys. J. C 38, 267 (2004)
C.H. Chang, C.F. Qiao, J.X. Wang, X.G. Wu, Phys. Rev. D 72, 114009 (2005)
W.C. Chang, J.C. Peng, Phys. Lett. B 704, 197 (2011)
S.J. Brodsky, G. de Teramond, M. Karliner, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 62, 1 (2012)
S.J. Brodsky, F. Fleuret, C. Hadjidakis, J.P. Lansberg, Phys. Rep. 522, 239 (2013)
M. Cacciari, M. Greco, P. Nason, J. High Energy Phys. 9805, 007 (1998)
M. Cacciari, P. Nason, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 122003 (2002)
Acknowledgements
This work was supported in part by Research Foundation of Chongqing University of Science & Technology under Grant No. CK2011B34, by Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 11075225 and No. 11275280, by the Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University under Grant No. NCET-10-0882, and by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under Grant No. WLYJSBJRCGR201106 and No. CQDXWL-2012-Z002.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, JW., Chen, XW., Jiang, J. et al. Revisiting the \(B^{(*)}_{s}\)-meson production at the hadronic colliders. Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2464 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2464-0
Received:
Revised:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2464-0