update on fits for 25/3/08 am cooper-sarkar
DESCRIPTION
Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar. Central fit: choice of parametrization Central fit: choice of error treatment Quality of fit to data PDFs plus experimental errors, compare to older fits Model uncertainties Model Variations. Possible forms of PDF parametrization: H1 style. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Update on fits for 25/3/08
AM Cooper-Sarkar
•Central fit: choice of parametrization
•Central fit: choice of error treatment
•Quality of fit to data
•PDFs plus experimental errors, compare to older fits
•Model uncertainties
•Model Variations
![Page 2: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Possible forms of PDF parametrization: H1 style
Published H1 PDF2000
New H1-style parametrization optimised for combined data set
Optimization means starting without D,E,F parameters and adding parameters until there is no further χ2 advantage
PDFs: gluon, U=u+c, Ubar=ubar+cbar, D=d+s+b, Dbar=dbar+sbar+bbar
Sea flavour break-up at Q0: s = fs*D, c=fc*U AU=(1-fs)/(1-fc)AD
![Page 3: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Possible forms of PDF parametrization: ZEUS style
ZEUS-JETS published
New ZEUS-JETS optimized for combined data set
E
PDFs: gluon, uv, dv, Sea= usea+ubar+dsea+dbar+s+sbar+c+cbar
Sea flavour break-up at Q0: sbar = (dbar+ubar)/4, charm dynamically generated,
dbar-ubar fixed to fit E866 data
![Page 4: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Possible forms of PDF parametrization: ‘inbetween’
Original ‘inbetween’ parametrization
‘inbetween’ parametrization optimized to combined data set
PDFs: gluon, uv, dv, Ubar=ubar+cbar, Dbar=dbar+sbar+bbar
Sea flavour break-up at Q0: s = fs*D, c=fc*U AUbar=(1-fs)/(1-fc)ADbar
Can also dynamically generate charm, but need to keep AUbar to ADbar relationship as here
Lim x→0 u/d →1
Lim x→0 u/d →1
![Page 5: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
We have chosen the new ‘inbetween’ parametrization to be the form of the new h1/zeus combined PDF fit.
For each of the old parametrizations, which have non-zero D parameter for the gluon, there are two minima: ‘straight’ gluon and ‘humpy’ gluon solution.
Which look rather like the published ZEUS and H1 gluons respectively!
For the H1/ZEUS combined data set the χ2 of the straight solution is always lower by about 10 χ2 points. For the H1 data set alone the ‘humpy’ gluon had the lower χ2, whereas for the ZEUS data set alone the ‘straight’ gluon had the lower χ2This χ2 table compares humpy and straight gluon solutions for the old parametrizations and the straight solution for the new parametrizations: using a χ2 definition where all 47 systematic errors of the combined data set are added in quadrature.
433
Table from J.Feltesse excellent agreement on all results in this talk
![Page 6: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Now compare methods of treating systematic errors: Quadratic/Hessian/Offset (using published ZEUS-JETS parametrization)
47 systematic errors added to statistical quadratically
47 systematic errors treated by Hessian method
43 original sources of systematic errors added to statistical quadratically and 4 procedural errors Offset
Central values very similar (not necessarily obvious for full Hessian treatment)
Errors generally largest for OFFSET procedural, but not much difference in treatments since systematic errors not so big now- chose this method.
![Page 7: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Theoretical framework
NLO DGLAP evolution
Facttorisation and renormalisation scales Q2
Zero-mass variable flavour number heavy quark scheme
Model assumptions
Which will be varied to assess model uncertainty
Q02 = 4 GeV2 input scale
Q2min = 3.5 GeV2 minimum Q2 of input data
fs = 0.33D strange sea fraction, means s=0.5d
fc = 0.15U charm sea fraction, means c=0.176u
mc=1.4 mass of charm quark
mb=4.75 mass of beauty quark
αs(Mz) = 0.1176 PDG2006 value
Form of the parametrization: ‘in between’
![Page 8: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
PDF fit RESULTS
![Page 9: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
New H1/ZEUS combined PDF fit vs combined data- see comparison to ZEUS-JETS 2005 in EXTRAS
![Page 10: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
New H1/ZEUS combined PDFs with experimental uncertainty bands from statistical errors plus 43 sources of systematics in quadrature plus 4 procedural systematics OFFSET
First consider experimental uncertainties
![Page 11: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Compare the experimental error bands of the new analysis using combined data to the experimental error bands of the ZEUS-JETS fit –obviously we are winning!
![Page 12: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Compare to published ZEUS-JETS PDFs
Compare to published H1PDF2000 fit
![Page 13: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
New H1/ZEUS combined PDFs with total experimental uncertainty bands plus model uncertainty bands from 6 sources of model variation:
mc, mb, fs, fc, Q0, Q2min.
Now consider model uncertainties: Proposal for MAIN results
![Page 14: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Variation with Q2
![Page 15: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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
![Page 16: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
New H1/ZEUS combined PDFs with total experimental uncertainty bands plus model uncertainty bands from 6 sources of model variation:
AT Q20 = 100 GeV2 . Note how uncertainties are decreasing
![Page 17: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
New H1/ZEUS combined PDFs with total experimental uncertainty bands plus model uncertainty bands from 6 sources of model variation:
AT Q20 = 10000 GeV2 . At scales relevant to LHC physics uncertainties
are impressively small.
![Page 18: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Examine model uncertainties
![Page 19: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Include only variation of charm mass and beauty mass
mc:1.35→1.5 GeV and mb: 4.3 →5.0 GeV
This model dependence is invisible
![Page 20: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Include only variation of strange fraction fs: 0.25 →0.40
Makes very little difference in the total Sea, but affects sea flavour break-up
![Page 21: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Include only variation of charm fraction fc: 0.10 →0.20
A smaller effect than fs: makes very little difference in the total Sea, but affects sea flavour break-up
![Page 22: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Include only variation of starting scale Q02: 2 → 6 GeV2
Has a small asymmetric effect on PDF ucertainties
![Page 23: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Include only variation of minimum Q2 of fitted data Qmin2: 2.5 → 5 GeV2
Has an even smaller asymmetric effect on PDF ucertainties
![Page 24: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Other possible model uncertainties
![Page 25: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
And we could have added in Include only variation of αs (Mz): 0.1156 → 0.1196 (PDG2006)
Looking at this uncertainty alone it affects only the gluon PDF
![Page 26: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
And if we add in the variation of αs (Mz) to the other 6 model uncertainties.
I chose not to add this in since MRST(MSTW) and CTEQ both use fixed alphas and I want the public to compare ‘like with like’.
![Page 27: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
There is another model uncertainty that we could add in- the variation if one uses different forms of parametrization: H1 style newly optimized paremetrization and ZEUS-JETs style newly optimized parametrization.
Looking at this uncertainty alone there is a small asymmetric effect, most visible in valence distributions.
![Page 28: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Illustration of the difference between using 6 or 7 sources of model uncertainty: On the right the 7th uncertainty from form of parametrization: h1 vs zeus-jet is added in. There is excellent agreement with J Feltesse.
I chose not to add this in because its not the same kind of variation as the others- varying our new parametrization to two others is not an ‘up and down’ variation!
![Page 29: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
We could illustrate some of these other choices as
variations rather than adding them into model uncertainty.
![Page 30: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Comparison of central fit plus total experimental errors to variations with αs(Mz)=0.1156 (left) and 0.1196 (right)
Confirms what we’ve already seen-variation is outside the gluon error bands even when other model dependence is accounted.
![Page 31: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Comparison of central fit plus total experimental errors to parametrization variation using: New H1 optimised parametrization
Marginally outside normal error bands for valence even when other model dependence is accounted (but note this is at low x where valence isn’t very significant)
![Page 32: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Comparison of central fit plus total experimental errors to parametrization variation using: New ZEUS-JETS optimised parametrization
Inside error bands if other model dependence is accounted
![Page 33: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Comparison of central fit plus total experimental errors to parametrization variation using: the ‘humpy’solution for the h1/zeus parametrization.
At Q2=10 (left) and Q2=4 (right)GeV2 where the humpy structure is more visible.
Marginally outside normal error bands for valence more than for gluon even when other model dependence is accounted (but note this is at low x where valence isn’t very significant)
![Page 34: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Finally we may be criticized for the use of a zero-mass scheme.
Comparison of central fit plus total experimental errors to variation of heavy quark scheme: using massive variable flavour number scheme of Thorne.
This cannot yet be checked by both H1 and ZEUS
![Page 35: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Time to decide what we want to show the world
![Page 36: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
EXTRAS
![Page 37: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Here’s how the new H1Z PDF fit fits the data e-CC (left) e+CC (right) but with ZJ2005 also superimposed H1Z fit is slightly lower.
![Page 38: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Here’s how H1Z fits the data e-NC (left) e+NC (right) with ZJ2005 also superimposed – no I cant see it either!
![Page 39: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
ZEUS-Jets Parametrization in between H1 parametrization
xubar
xdbar
xcbar
xsbar
Now in terms of ubar, dbar, sbar, cbar
The similarity of these is perhaps even more remarkable given the different treatment of charm- clearly the fixed fraction fc=0.15 is about right compared to dynamical turn on at Q2=mc2
![Page 40: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Model dependence: just fs and fc variations together
![Page 41: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Model dependence: mc.mb,fs.fc.Q0
![Page 42: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Illustration of the difference between using 6 or 7 sources of model uncertainty:
mc,mb, fs, fc, Q0, Q2min (and parametrization form h1 vs zeus-jets).
Excellent agreement with J Feltesse.
![Page 43: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Comparison of central fit plus total experimental errors to variations with alphas=0.1156 (left) and 0.1196 (right)
![Page 44: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Comparison of central fit plus total experimental errors to parametrization variation using: the ‘humpy’solution for the h1/zeus parametrization
![Page 45: Update on fits for 25/3/08 AM Cooper-Sarkar](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033107/568151c8550346895dbffe2b/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
FeltesseCooper-Sarkar
Chi2 old = 437.9
Chi2 new = 428.0
Look at parameters, agree that gluon distribution must be flatter at low-x
Bg= -0.03 ± 0.02
Cg= 7.8 ± 0.7
Buv= 0.69 ± 0.07
Cuv= 5.1 ± 0.2
Duv= 12.1 ± 2.3
Euv= -0.66 ±0.91
Cdv= 3.8 ± 0.4
BUbar = -0.206 ± 0.005
CUbar = 5.1 ± 0.9
ADbar = 0.159 ± 0.006
CDbar = 4.0 ± 1.1
Chi2 are for all 47 systematic sources added in quadrature