Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Revisiting constraints on proton PDFs from HERA DIS, Drell-Yan, W/Z Boson production, and projected EIC measurements

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A new global QCD fit to HERA DIS, Drell-Yan, and W/Z data yields NLO and NNLO proton PDFs with reduced uncertainties, a strange-sea ratio of 1.069 ± 0.053, and a strong coupling of 0.1128 ± 0.0014.

desk verdict Competent incremental PDF fit, but the headline strange ratio is internally inconsistent with the paper's own parameterization and alpha_s swings 0.1075–0.1300 across fits; worth refereeing, not citable as-is. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10727 v1 pith:F73NEVXX submitted 2024-12-14 hep-ph

Majid Azizi , Maryam Soleymaninia , Hadi Hashamipour , Maral Salajegheh , Hamzeh Khanpour , Ulf-G. Mei{ss}ner This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords partondistributionfunctionsglobalQCDanalysisHERAdeepinelasticscatteringDrell-YanproductionW/ZbosonstrangeseastrongcouplingconstantElectron-IonCollider
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper attempts to establish that a global QCD fit combining the combined HERA deep-inelastic scattering data with Drell-Yan pair-production data and W/Z boson production data from the LHC and Tevatron yields new NLO and NNLO proton PDFs whose uncertainties are meaningfully reduced. In the nominal NNLO fit, the strange-to-down sea ratio is $r_s = 1.069 \pm 0.053$ at $Q^2 = 1.9$ GeV$^2$ and $x = 0.023$, and the strong coupling is $\alpha_s(M_Z) = 0.1128 \pm 0.0014$. The paper further claims that simulated inclusive DIS data from the future Electron-Ion Collider, especially when supplemented by HERA jet and dijet data, would tighten $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ to $0.1183 \pm 0.0003$ and reduce gluon uncertainties for $x \le 0.2$. If these results hold, the released PDF grids give an independent, Hessian-based set of proton PDFs for precision analyses at the LHC and the EIC.

What carries the argument

The engine of the analysis is the input parameterization of Eq. (6) at the starting scale $Q_0^2 = 1.9$ GeV$^2$, evolved with DGLAP equations and fitted with the Hessian method for uncertainty propagation. The parameterization uses six independent distributions—$xu_v$, $xd_v$, $xg$, $x\bar{u}$, $x\bar{d}$, and $xs = x\bar{s}$—with the simplifying assumptions $A_{\bar{d}}=A_{\bar{u}}$, $B_{\bar{d}}=B_{\bar{u}}$, $s=\bar{s}$, $A_s=A_{\bar{d}}$, $B_s=B_{\bar{d}}$, and a fixed coefficient $C_{g'}=25$; the strange-to-down ratio $r_s$ and the strong coupling $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ are free parameters of the fit. The complementarity of the datasets is the operative mechanism: DIS fixes the overall quark content, Drell-Yan data separate the sea quark flavors, and W/Z rapidity distributions decompose valence and sea contributions, in particular pinning down the strange quark density.

What would settle it

Refit the same data with a more flexible parameterization—freeing $C_{g'}$ and the strange-sea powers, and dropping the equality between $\bar{d}$ and $\bar{u}$ low-$x$ behavior—and check whether $r_s$ moves outside $1.069 \pm 0.053$ and $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ outside $0.1128 \pm 0.0014$; a shift beyond those bands would show that the quoted uncertainties are understated. A simpler check: the nominal $\alpha_s$ must be compared with the world average; if the difference exceeds the quoted error, the fit is biasing the coupling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a set of NLO and NNLO proton PDFs extracted from a global QCD analysis of the combined HERA I+II DIS data together with Drell-Yan pair production and W/Z boson production data from the LHC and Tevatron. The nominal fit yields an unsuppressed strange sea, $r_s = 1.069 \pm 0.053$ at $Q^2 = 1.9$ GeV$^2$ and $x = 0.023$, and $\alpha_s(M_Z) = 0.1128 \pm 0.0014$ at NNLO, with the Hessian method providing the uncertainty sets. The same analysis projects that the EIC will reduce the $\alpha_s$ uncertainty to $\pm 0.0008$, and that adding HERA jet/dijet data on top of EIC data will bring it to $\pm 0.0003$ while shrinking gluon PDF uncertainties for $x \le 0.2$. The resulting PDFs and their eigenvector variations are released in standard grid format so that the improved precision can be used directly in collider predictions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the input functional form for the parton distributions, with fixed $C_{g'}=25$ and with the up, down, and strange sea quarks forced to share the same small-$x$ power behavior, is flexible enough that the extracted $r_s$ and $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ are dictated by the data rather than by the parameterization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The released NLO and NNLO PDF grids, complete with Hessian eigenvector sets, provide an independent input for precision calculations of LHC processes such as W/Z production, Higgs production, and new-physics searches.
  • A strange-sea ratio near unity at low $x$ implies that strange quarks are not suppressed relative to down quarks, which directly affects predictions for processes such as $W+c$ and $Z+c$ production that depend on the strange density.
  • Adding simulated EIC inclusive DIS data to the fit lowers the uncertainty on $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ from $\pm 0.0014$ to $\pm 0.0008$, and adding HERA jet/dijet data on top further reduces it to $\pm 0.0003$, quantifying the future gain in precision.
  • The better fit quality at NNLO than at NLO, especially for the W/Z data, supports the use of NNLO theory for electroweak precision measurements at the LHC.
  • Gluon uncertainties are reduced for $x \le 0.2$ when EIC and jet/dijet data are included, which benefits gluon-fusion Higgs production and searches for high-mass states.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The four fits in Table III produce strongly dataset-dependent values of $\alpha_s(M_Z)$, from $0.13005 \pm 0.001$ (Fit B) to $0.1075 \pm 0.0030$ (Fit C); we infer that the parameterization, or the treatment of dataset-specific systematics, is imprinting on the coupling, and a more flexible functional form could shift the nominal value beyond the quoted $\pm 0.0014$.
  • If $r_s \approx 1.07$ survives a parameterization-free fit, non-perturbative mechanisms that usually suppress strangeness in the nucleon sea would need to be revisited, because the data would no longer require such suppression.
  • The projected $\alpha_s$ precision of $\pm 0.0003$ from EIC-plus-jet pseudodata depends on the assumed smearing, normalization uncertainties, and experimental systematics; real EIC data may not yield the same precision if these assumptions differ.
  • Because the sea symmetry assumptions $A_{\bar{d}}=A_{\bar{u}}$, $A_s=A_{\bar{d}}$, and $B_s=B_{\bar{d}}$ are imposed rather than fitted, freeing these parameters in a future analysis would test whether the central value of $r_s$ is stable or a consequence of the assumed sea flavor symmetry.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes a global QCD analysis at NLO and NNLO using the xFitter framework. It fits combined HERA I+II inclusive DIS data, ATLAS and E866 Drell-Yan data, and W/Z production data from ATLAS, CMS, CDF, and D0 in four configurations (Fit A through Fit D), with Fit D as the nominal set. It reports Hessian PDF uncertainties, a strange-to-down sea ratio r_s, a strong-coupling extraction α_s(M_Z), comparisons with CT18, MSHT20, and NNPDF4.0, and projections based on EIC pseudodata and HERA jet/dijet data.

Significance. If the quantitative claims were sound, the paper would provide a useful independent PDF set and an illustration of the constraining power of W/Z and Drell-Yan data beyond HERA. The fits use a standard, widely validated framework, report reasonable total χ²/dof values (1.149–1.253), and are transparent about dataset selection. The Hessian uncertainty-reduction pattern across Fits A–D is plausible, and the comparison with established PDF sets is a useful sanity check. However, the reported r_s is internally inconsistent with the stated parameterization, the α_s values are strongly dataset-dependent without a stability analysis, and the EIC projections are in-sample forecasts. These issues affect the paper's headline quantitative results, so they need to be fixed before the PDF set can be endorsed as a precision release.

major comments (4)
  1. [Secs. IV A and VIII; Eq. (6); Table VIII] The quoted quantity r_s is not the physical ratio at x=0.023 under the stated parameterization. Equation (6) gives x s(x) = A_\bar{d} r_s x^{B_\bar{d}} (1-x)^{C_s}, and the text states A_\bar{s}=A_\bar{d}, B_\bar{s}=B_\bar{d}. Since x \bar{d}(x)= A_\bar{d} x^{B_\bar{d}} (1-x)^{C_\bar{d}}, the physical ratio defined in Eq. (5) is x s / x \bar{d} = r_s (1-x)^{C_s - C_\bar{d}}. Using the Fit D values C_s=16.4±1.5 and C_\bar{d}=5.68±0.32 from Table III, at x=0.023 the factor is (0.977)^{10.72}≈0.78, so the physical ratio is ≈0.83±0.05, not 1.069±0.053. Either r_s is only a fit-normalization parameter, in which case the abstract, Table VIII, and Fig. 21 mislabel it as the ratio at x=0.023, or the strange-quark normalization is not what Eq. (6) states. Because r_s is a headline result compared with ATLAS, NNPDF3.0, and MMHT14, this inconsistency must be resolved by refitting or by correcting the definition and all reported values.
  2. [Table III; Secs. V A and IX] The strong coupling constant extracted from the same parameterization varies from 0.13005±0.0010 (Fit B) to 0.1075±0.0030 (Fit C), and the nominal Fit D value 0.1128±0.0014 is about 3.7σ below the PDG 2024 world average of 0.1180. The quoted Hessian uncertainties clearly do not cover the dataset-selection spread; adding jet/dijet data changes α_s from 0.1128 to 0.1192 (Table VIII). The manuscript does not discuss these tensions or attempt a stability test, such as leaving one experiment out, varying Q_0^2, or relaxing the fixed C_g'=25. Without such a test, the claimed α_s precision from Fit D cannot be regarded as reliable, and the EIC-improvement statement in Sec. IX compares two uncertain baselines.
  3. [Sec. VI; Tables VI and VIII] The EIC projections are in-sample. The pseudodata are generated from HERAPDF2.0NLO and HERAPDF2.0NNLO (Sec. VI) and are then fitted with the same HERAPDF-like functional form of Eq. (6), so the reported reductions in the gluon uncertainty and in α_s (from 0.0014 to 0.0008, and to 0.0003 with jets) are consequences of the assumed input rather than independent forecasts. No closure tests with alternative generator PDFs or alternative parameterizations are presented. The conclusions in Sec. XI that EIC data 'could play a crucial role in constraining α_s' should be rephrased as an illustrative projection, or substantiated by varying the pseudo-data generator and the fit parameterization.
  4. [Sec. IV C and Sec. V D] The Hessian uncertainty procedure is not fully specified. Equation (13) gives the error-propagation formula, but the manuscript never states the Δχ² or tolerance criterion used to define the eigenvector displacements, nor how the resulting uncertainties are normalized to the '68% CL' claimed in Sec. V D. Without this information, the central quantitative claim that Fit D uncertainties are smaller than those of CT18, MSHT20, and NNPDF4.0 cannot be reproduced or compared on an equal footing. This is a standard but mandatory detail for a Hessian PDF release.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table II] The table contains a duplicated row for 'ATLAS W+ [48]' (two identical 15/11 entries). The text states that Fit D uses 1355 data points, and the totals in the table are consistent with that number, but the printed rows sum to 1366; the duplicate should be removed or corrected.
  2. [Table I] In the W/Z production rows, the ATLAS 7 TeV data are listed with 'L = 4.6 pb−1'; the unit should be fb−1 for the 4.6 fb−1 dataset referenced as [45].
  3. [Availability of proton PDFs sets] The statement that PDF sets are available 'via email upon request' is not a satisfactory release mechanism for a PDF publication; the LHAPDF grids should be deposited with a permanent DOI or URL, and the exact Δχ² tolerance used for the eigenvector sets should accompany them.
  4. [Table VI] Several real-data χ² values worsen substantially when EIC pseudodata are added: ATLAS W/Z changes from 104.8/91 to 111.3/91, D0 W/Z from 67/51 to 77/51, and E866 Drell-Yan from 50/39 to 70/39. This tension is not discussed in Sec. VI and should be addressed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Reported strange-sea ratio rs=1.069 at x=0.023 is the Eq. (6) fit parameter, not the ratio defined by Eq. (14).

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. VIII; Eq. (6) and Eq. (14); Table VIII (Fit D); cf. Table III Fit D parameters C_s=16.4, C_dbar=5.68]
    "xs(x) = A¯s rs x^{B¯s} (1 − x)^{Cs} ... In this analysis, we determine rs at Q2 = 1.9GeV2 and x = 0.023 ... The baseline fit (Fit D) yields rs = 1.069 ± 0.053"

    Under Eqs. (5)-(6), with A_sbar=A_dbar and B_sbar=B_dbar, the physical ratio (s+sbar)/(2 dbar) equals xs/xdbar = rs*(1-x)^(C_s-C_dbar). At x=0.023, Fit D Table III gives C_s=16.4 and C_dbar=5.68, so (1-x)^(C_s-C_dbar) ≈ 0.78, making the ratio ≈0.83, not 1.069. The quoted 'rs at x=0.023' is therefore the fitted normalization parameter from Eq. (6) read off as if it were the ratio defined in Eq. (14). The x-dependence is dropped, so the headline strange-sea result is a fitted input renamed as a prediction, not an evaluated ratio.

full rationale

The central PDF extraction is self-contained and data-driven: Fits A-D minimize a chi-square against external HERA, Drell-Yan, and W/Z measurements, and the Hessian uncertainty propagation is standard. I found no load-bearing self-citation; the cited HERAPDF, MSHT, NNPDF, CT18, and EIC projection works are independent groups. The EIC section is an explicitly labeled projection: pseudo-data are generated from HERAPDF2.0 with assumed uncertainties, so the projected reductions in PDF/alpha_s uncertainties are inherited from those assumptions rather than from data; because the paper calls them simulated/projected, this is not a hidden circular derivation. The one concrete circular/mislabeled step is the strange-sea ratio. Equation (6) introduces rs as a multiplicative normalization in xs(x) while Eq. (14) defines rs as the physical ratio (s+sbar)/(2 dbar). With A_sbar=A_dbar and B_sbar=B_dbar, the physical ratio equals rs (1-x)^(C_s-C_dbar). Using Fit D's C_s=16.4 and C_dbar=5.68, at x=0.023 the factor is ~0.78, so the physical ratio is ~0.83, not 1.069. Table VIII quotes the fitted parameter as if it were the ratio at x=0.023, dropping the x-dependent factor. This is a fitted input renamed as a result, though it does not invalidate the independent PDF determination. Overall score reflects one secondary 'prediction' reducing by construction while the main global fit remains externally anchored.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central extraction rests on a standard factorization framework and a chosen functional form with seventeen fitted parameters plus one fixed parameter C_g'=25. No new physical entities are proposed. The main assumptions that could invalidate the results are the flexibility of the parameterization, the sea symmetry constraints, and the EIC pseudo-data model.

free parameters (6)
  • PDF valence shape parameters: Auv, Buv, Cuv, Euv, Adv, Bdv, Cdv = Table III (Fit D)
    Fitted to HERA+DY+W/Z data; they set the valence quark distributions and enter every cross-section prediction.
  • PDF sea parameters: A_dbar, B_dbar, C_dbar, C_ubar, C_s = Table III (Fit D)
    Fitted to data with HERAPDF-like sea assumptions; they control the sea quark shapes.
  • Gluon parameters: Ag, Bg, Cg, Ag', Bg' = Table III (Fit D)
    Fitted to data; the second gluon component is introduced to stabilize small-x behavior.
  • C_g' = 25 (fixed)
    Chosen by hand following HERAPDF and MSTW2008; the paper states fits are insensitive to it when C_g' >> C_g.
  • alpha_s(MZ) = 0.1128 +/- 0.0014 (Fit D)
    Treated as a free parameter in every fit; extracted values vary from 0.1075 to 0.13005 across fits.
  • r_s = (s+sbar)/(2 dbar) = 1.069 +/- 0.053 (Fit D)
    Ratio of strange to down sea quarks, fitted as a free parameter and central to the strange-quark section.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math QCD factorization and DGLAP evolution at NLO and NNLO are valid for the fitted processes.
    Invoked throughout Section II; it underlies the convolution formulas for DIS, Drell-Yan, W/Z, and jets.
  • ad hoc to paper The HERAPDF-like parameterization of Eq. (6) is sufficiently flexible and unbiased.
    Section IV.A; the claim that additional data improve PDF precision assumes the chosen functional form does not miss true shapes.
  • ad hoc to paper The sea-quark symmetry assumptions (A_dbar=A_ubar, B_dbar=B_ubar, s=sbar, A_s=A_dbar, B_s=B_dbar) are valid.
    Stated after Eq. (6); they reduce parameter count and directly affect the strange-sea result.
  • domain assumption The Q^2 > 10 GeV^2 cut removes higher-twist contributions.
    Section III.A, following Ref. [45]; used to define the fitted HERA dataset.
  • ad hoc to paper EIC pseudo-data generated from HERAPDF2.0 with assumed uncertainties represent future EIC measurements.
    Section VI; the projection conclusions inherit this assumption.
  • domain assumption The Hessian quadratic approximation gives reliable uncertainty propagation.
    Section IV.C; standard for PDF fits but assumes linearity near the minimum.
  • domain assumption The Thorne-Roberts variable flavor number scheme is adequate for heavy quarks.
    Section II.F; heavy quark treatment affects DIS and collider cross-sections.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting constraints on proton PDFs from HERA DIS, Drell-Yan, W/Z Boson production, and projected EIC measurements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F73NEVXX

@misc{pith2026241210727,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting constraints on proton PDFs from HERA DIS, Drell-Yan, W/Z Boson production, and projected EIC measurements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F73NEVXX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10727}
}
abstract

We present new parton distribution functions (PDFs) at next-to-leading order (NLO) and next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) in perturbative QCD, derived from a comprehensive global QCD analysis of high-precision data sets from combined HERA deep-inelastic scattering (DIS), the Tevatron, and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). To improve constraints on quark flavor separation, we incorporate Drell-Yan pair production data, which provides critical sensitivity to the quark distributions. In addition, we include the latest W and Z boson production data from the CDF, D0, ATLAS, and CMS collaborations, further refining both quark and gluon distributions. Our nominal global QCD fit integrates these datasets and examines the resulting impact on the PDFs and their associated uncertainties. Uncertainties in the PDFs are quantified using the Hessian method, ensuring robust error estimates. Furthermore, we explore the sensitivity of the strong coupling constant, $\alpha_s(M_Z^2)$, and proton PDFs in light of the projected measurements from the Electron-Ion Collider (EIC), where improvements in precision are expected. The analysis also investigates the effects of inclusive jet and dijet production data, which provide enhanced constraints on the gluon PDF and $\alpha_s(M_Z^2)$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10727 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The parton distribution of xuv, xdv, xu¯, xd¯, xs and xg for Fit A, Fit B, Fit C and Fit D as a function of x and at the input scale Q 2 0 =1.9 GeV2 . in more significant constraints on the PDFs, which in turn leads to noticeably smaller uncertainty bands for all parton species, as illustrated in the ratio plots of Figs. 4 and 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The ratios of parton distribution (xf(x, Q2 )/xf(x, Q2 )ref ) for xuv, xdv, xu¯, xd¯, xs and xg as a function of x and at the input scale Q 2 0 =1.9 GeV2 . The comparisons are displayed as ratios xf(x, Q2 )/xf(x, Q2 )ref relative to our baseline QCD analysis, Fit A . C. Impact of higher-order QCD corrections In this section, we discuss the effects of higher-order QCD corrections on the extracted PDFs and their asso￾… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (20 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The parton distribution of xuv, xdv, xΣ, and xg for our NLO and NNLO QCD fits as a function of x and at Q 2 =1.9, 10 and 100 GeV2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The ratio of parton distribution xf(x, Q2 )/xf(x, Q2 )ref as a function of x and at Q 2 =1.9, 10 and 100 GeV2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of our nominal fit (Fit D) at NNLO with other very recent determinations of PDFs, including NNPDF4.0 [14], CT18 [12] and MSHT20 [16] for xuv, xdv, xΣ, and xg distribution as a function of x and at Q 2 = 1.9 GeV2 . The relative uncertainties δxq(x, Q2 )/xq(x,…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison between experimental data points and the theory prediction based on our NNLO best-fit results for a selection of fitted data points from H1/ZEUS combined DIS data sets (see text). The experimental uncertainty shown in the plots is the sum in quadrature of a…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison between experimental data points and the theory prediction based on our NNLO best-fit results for a selection of fitted data points for Drell-Yan datasets (see text). capable of significantly constraining the proton PDFs, particularly in the region of x whe…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison between experimental data points and the theory prediction based on our NNLO best-fit results for a selection of fitted data points for W/Z boson production (see text). 1130/1016 in Fit D + EIC. This suggests that the EIC data are consistent with the HERA m…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The kinematic coverage in the (x, Q2 ) plane for the HERA DIS data and the EIC simulated NC and CC inclusive DIS pseudodata used in this analysis. The same kinematic cuts applied to the HERA DIS datasets have also been used for the EIC pseudodata [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Impact of EIC pseudo data on xuv, xdv and xg distribution functions at Q 2 = 1.9, 10, 100 GeV2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Comparison of our nominal fit (Fit D) at NNLO accuracy with the extended fit (Fit D + jet/dijet) that includes the HERA jet and dijet production data. The comparisons are shown for the relative uncertainties of the gluon PDFs, δxg(x, Q2 )/xg(x, Q2 ). As observed in Fi…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Comparison of our nominal fit (Fit D) at NNLO accuracy with (Fit D + EIC) in which include the simulated EIC data, and (Fit D + EIC+ jet/dijet) which include the HERA jet data. The comparisons are shown for xuv, xdv, and xg distribution as a function of x and at Q 2 =…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Same as Fig, 19 but this time the comparisons are shown for the relative uncertainties δxf(x, Q2 )/xf(x, Q2 ). agreement with the ATLAS-epWZ16 analysis, as both analyses use the same data set. IX. STRONG COUPLING CONSTANT The precise determination of the strong coupli…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Determination of the relative strange-to-down sea quark fraction rs calculated at the initial scale Q 2 0 = 1.9 GeV2 and at x = 0.023, which corresponds to the point of greatest sensitivity at central rapidity in the ATLAS data. The results are also compared with othe…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Values of αs(MZ ) resulting from different measurements, including H1, ZEUS, ATLAS and CMS. [66, 81–94]. Our analyses performed at NNLO are also indicated separately for comparisons. explore the impact of EIC data on αs determinations in global QCD fits that integrate…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: The curves of ∆χ 2 as a function of the strong coupling constant αs(M2 Z ) obtained from Fit D + EIC + jet/dijet for all types of datasets. The ∆χ 2 TOTAL curve represents the sensitivity when all experimental data are considered simultaneously. under study, αs(M2 Z )…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Toward Precision Helicity PDFs from Global DIS and SIDIS Fits with Projected EIC Measurements

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Projected EIC pion and kaon SIDIS measurements would substantially reduce the uncertainties on the proton's sea-quark and gluon helicity distributions, most strongly at small momentum fractions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Review of Searches for Rare Processes and Physics Beyond the Stan- dard Model at HERA,

    D. M. South and M. Turcato, “Review of Searches for Rare Processes and Physics Beyond the Stan- dard Model at HERA,” Eur. Phys. J. C 76, no.6, 336 (2016) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4152-3 [arXiv:1605.03459 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    50 Years of Quan- tum Chromodynamics,

    F. Gross, E. Klempt, S. J. Brodsky, A. J. Buras, V. D. Burkert, G. Heinrich, K. Jakobs, C. A. Meyer, K. Orginos and M. Strickland,et al. “50 Years of Quan- tum Chromodynamics,” Eur. Phys. J. C83, 1125 (2023), [arXiv:2212.11107 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Deep-inelastic scattering: What do we know?,

    J. Blümlein, “Deep-inelastic scattering: What do we know?,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 39, no.09n10, 2441004 (2024), [arXiv:2306.01362 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    The Theory of Deeply Inelastic Scat- tering,

    J. Blumlein, “The Theory of Deeply Inelastic Scat- tering,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 69, 28-84 (2013), [arXiv:1208.6087 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    The Structure of the Proton in the LHC Precision Era,

    J. Gao, L. Harland-Lang and J. Rojo, “The Structure of the Proton in the LHC Precision Era,” Phys. Rept.742, 1-121 (2018), [arXiv:1709.04922 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Science Requirements and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report,

    R. Abdul Khalek, A. Accardi, J. Adam, D. Adamiak, W. Akers, M. Albaladejo, A. Al-bataineh, M. G. Alexeev, F. Ameli and P. Antonioli,et al. “Science Requirements and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report,” Nucl. Phys. A1026, 122447 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2022.122447 [arXiv:2103.05419 [physics.ins-det]]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Snowmass 2021 White Paper: Electron Ion Collider for High Energy Physics,

    R. Abdul Khalek, U. D’Alesio, M. Arratia, A. Bacchetta, M. Battaglieri, M. Begel, M. Boglione, R. Boughezal, R. Boussarie and G. Bozzi,et al. “Snowmass 2021 White Paper: Electron Ion Collider for High Energy Physics,” [arXiv:2203.13199 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    The Large Hadron–Electron Collider at the HL-LHC,

    P. Agostini et al. [LHeC and FCC-he Study Group], “The Large Hadron–Electron Collider at the HL-LHC,” J. Phys. G48, no.11, 110501 (2021) doi:10.1088/1361- 6471/abf3ba [arXiv:2007.14491 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    FCC Physics Opportuni- ties: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Re- port Volume 1,

    A. Abada et al. [FCC], “FCC Physics Opportuni- ties: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Re- port Volume 1,” Eur. Phys. J. C79, no.6, 474 (2019) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6904-3

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    FCC-hh: The Hadron Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Vol- ume 3,

    A. Abada et al. [FCC], “FCC-hh: The Hadron Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Vol- ume 3,” Eur. Phys. J. ST 228, no.4, 755-1107 (2019) doi:10.1140/epjst/e2019-900087-0

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    HE-LHC: The High-Energy Large Hadron Collider: Future Circular Collider Con- ceptual Design Report Volume 4,

    A. Abada et al. [FCC], “HE-LHC: The High-Energy Large Hadron Collider: Future Circular Collider Con- ceptual Design Report Volume 4,” Eur. Phys. J. ST228, no.5, 1109-1382 (2019) doi:10.1140/epjst/e2019-900088-6

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high-precision data from the LHC,

    T. J. Hou, J. Gao, T. J. Hobbs, K. Xie, S. Du- lat, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, P. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin and C. Schmidt, et al. “New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high-precision data from the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D 103, no.1, 014013 (2021), [arXiv:1912.10053 [hep-ph]]. 39

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    New results in the CTEQ-TEA global analysis ofpartondistributionsinthenucleon,

    A. Ablat, A. Courtoy, S. Dulat, M. Guzzi, T. J. Hobbs, T. J. Hou, J. Huston, K. Mohan, H. W. Lin and P. Nadol- sky, et al. “New results in the CTEQ-TEA global analysis ofpartondistributionsinthenucleon,” [arXiv:2408.04020 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    The path to proton structure at 1% accuracy,

    R. D. Ballet al. [NNPDF], “The path to proton structure at 1% accuracy,” Eur. Phys. J. C82, no.5, 428 (2022), [arXiv:2109.02653 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    LO, NLO, and NNLO parton distributions for LHC event generators,

    J. Cruz-Martinez, S. Forte, N. Laurenti, T. R. Rabe- mananjara and J. Rojo, “LO, NLO, and NNLO parton distributions for LHC event generators,” JHEP09, 088 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2024)088 [arXiv:2406.12961 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Parton distributions from LHC, HERA, Tevatron and fixed target data: MSHT20 PDFs,

    S. Bailey, T. Cridge, L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Mar- tin and R. S. Thorne, “Parton distributions from LHC, HERA, Tevatron and fixed target data: MSHT20 PDFs,” Eur. Phys. J. C81, no.4, 341 (2021), [arXiv:2012.04684 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Impact of jet-production data on the next-to-next-to-leading-order determination of HERAPDF2.0 parton distributions,

    I. Abt et al. [H1 and ZEUS], “Impact of jet-production data on the next-to-next-to-leading-order determination of HERAPDF2.0 parton distributions,” Eur. Phys. J. C 82, no.3, 243 (2022) [arXiv:2112.01120 [hep-ex]]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Determination of the parton distribution functions of the proton using diverse ATLAS data from pp collisions at √s = 7, 8 and 13 TeV,

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], “Determination of the parton distribution functions of the proton using diverse ATLAS data from pp collisions at √s = 7, 8 and 13 TeV,” Eur. Phys. J. C82, no.5, 438 (2022) [arXiv:2112.11266 [hep- ex]]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    NNLO PDFs driven by top-quark data,

    S. Alekhin, M. V. Garzelli, S. O. Moch and O. Zenaiev, “NNLO PDFs driven by top-quark data,” [arXiv:2407.00545 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Parton distributions from high-precision collider data,

    R. D. Ball et al. [NNPDF], “Parton distributions from high-precision collider data,” Eur. Phys. J. C77, no.10, 663 (2017), [arXiv:1706.00428 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Parton distributions in the LHC era: MMHT 2014 PDFs,

    L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, P. Motylin- ski and R. S. Thorne, “Parton distributions in the LHC era: MMHT 2014 PDFs,” Eur. Phys. J. C 75, no.5, 204 (2015) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3397-6 [arXiv:1412.3989 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [22]

    A Stress Test of Global PDF Fits: Closure Testing the MSHT PDFs and a First Direct Comparison to the Neu- ral Net Approach,

    L. A. Harland-Lang, T. Cridge and R. S. Thorne, “A Stress Test of Global PDF Fits: Closure Testing the MSHT PDFs and a First Direct Comparison to the Neu- ral Net Approach,” [arXiv:2407.07944 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    QCD analysis of the ATLAS and CMS W ± and Z cross-section measurements and implications for the strange sea density,

    A. M. Cooper-Sarkar and K. Wichmann, “QCD analysis of the ATLAS and CMS W ± and Z cross-section measurements and implications for the strange sea density,” Phys. Rev. D 98, no.1, 014027 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.014027 [arXiv:1803.00968 [hep-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Strange quark suppression from a simultaneous Monte Carlo analysis of parton distribu- tions and fragmentation functions,

    N. Sato et al. [JAM], “Strange quark suppression from a simultaneous Monte Carlo analysis of parton distribu- tions and fragmentation functions,” Phys. Rev. D101, no.7, 074020 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.074020 [arXiv:1905.03788 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Impact of inclusive electron ion collider data on collinear parton distributions,

    N. Armesto, T. Cridge, F. Giuli, L. Harland-Lang, P. Newman, B. Schmookler, R. Thorne and K. Wich- mann, “Impact of inclusive electron ion collider data on collinear parton distributions,” Phys. Rev. D 109, no.5, 5 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.054019 [arXiv:2309.11269 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Extraction of the strong coupling with HERA and EIC inclusive data,

    S. Cerci, Z. S. Demiroglu, A. Deshpande, P. R. New- man, B. Schmookler, D. Sunar Cerci and K. Wichmann, “Extraction of the strong coupling with HERA and EIC inclusive data,” Eur. Phys. J. C83, no.11, 1011 (2023) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12176-5 [arXiv:2307.01183 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Factorization of Hard Processes in QCD,

    J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper and G. F. Ster- man, “Factorization of Hard Processes in QCD,” Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 5, 1-91 (1989) doi:10.1142/9789814503266_0001 [arXiv:hep- ph/0409313 [hep-ph]]

    1989

  20. [28]

    Parton distributions for the LHC,

    A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne and G. Watt, “Parton distributions for the LHC,” Eur. Phys. J. C 63, 189-285 (2009) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-009-1072-5 [arXiv:0901.0002 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Parton Distribution Functions and Benchmark Cross Sec- tions at NNLO,

    S. Alekhin, J. Blumlein and S. Moch, “Parton Distribution Functions and Benchmark Cross Sec- tions at NNLO,” Phys. Rev. D 86, 054009 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.054009 [arXiv:1202.2281 [hep- ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Improved measurement of the anti-d / anti-u asymmetry in the nucleon sea,

    R. S. Towellet al. [NuSea], “Improved measurement of the anti-d / anti-u asymmetry in the nucleon sea,” Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001), 052002 [arXiv:hep-ex/0103030 [hep- ex]]

    2001 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A complete calculation of the order α − s2 correction to the Drell-Yan K factor,

    R. Hamberg, W. L. van Neerven and T. Matsuura, “A complete calculation of the order α − s2 correction to the Drell-Yan K factor,” Nucl. Phys. B 359, 343-405 (1991) [erratum: Nucl. Phys. B 644, 403-404 (2002)] doi:10.1016/0550-3213(91)90064-5

    1991 doi

  24. [32]

    Theory of W and Z boson pro- duction,

    P. M. Nadolsky, “Theory of W and Z boson pro- duction,” AIP Conf. Proc. 753, no.1, 158-170 (2005) doi:10.1063/1.1896698 [arXiv:hep-ph/0412146 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  25. [33]

    QCD and Jets at Hadron Collid- ers,

    S. Sapeta, “QCD and Jets at Hadron Collid- ers,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 89, 1-55 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2016.02.002 [arXiv:1511.09336 [hep- ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    A General algorithm for calculating jet cross-sections in NLO QCD,

    S. Catani and M. H. Seymour, “A General algorithm for calculating jet cross-sections in NLO QCD,” Nucl. Phys. B 485, 291-419 (1997) [erratum: Nucl. Phys. B 510, 503-504 (1998)] doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(96)00589- 5 [arXiv:hep-ph/9605323 [hep-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Next-to- next-to-leading order Higgs production at hadron colliders,

    R. V. Harlander and W. B. Kilgore, “Next-to- next-to-leading order Higgs production at hadron colliders,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 201801 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.201801 [arXiv:hep- ph/0201206 [hep-ph]]

    2002

  28. [36]

    Benchmark of deep- inelastic-scattering structure functions at O α3 s ,

    V. Bertone and A. Karlberg, “Benchmark of deep- inelastic-scattering structure functions at O α3 s ,” Eur. Phys. J. C84, no.8, 774 (2024) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 024-13133-6 [arXiv:2404.15711 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    A Variable-flavor number scheme for NNLO,

    R. S. Thorne, “A Variable-flavor number scheme for NNLO,” Phys. Rev. D 73, 054019 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.054019 [arXiv:hep- ph/0601245 [hep-ph]]

    2006

  30. [38]

    Neural network parametrization of deep inelastic struc- ture functions,

    S. Forte, L. Garrido, J. I. Latorre and A. Piccione, “Neural network parametrization of deep inelastic struc- ture functions,” JHEP05, 062 (2002) doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2002/05/062 [arXiv:hep-ph/0204232 [hep-ph]]

    2002 arXiv

  31. [39]

    An FONLL prescription with coexisting flavor number PDFs,

    A. Barontini, A. Candido, F. Hekhorn, G. Magni and R. Stegeman, “An FONLL prescription with coexisting flavor number PDFs,” [arXiv:2408.07383 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Leptoproduction of heavy quarks. 1. General formal- ism and kinematics of charged current and neutral cur- rent production processes,

    M. A. G. Aivazis, F. I. Olness and W. K. Tung, “Leptoproduction of heavy quarks. 1. General formal- ism and kinematics of charged current and neutral cur- rent production processes,” Phys. Rev. D 50, 3085- 3101 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.50.3085 [arXiv:hep- ph/9312318 [hep-ph]]

    1994

  33. [41]

    Hard scattering factorization with heavy quarks: A General treatment,

    J. C. Collins, “Hard scattering factorization with heavy quarks: A General treatment,” Phys. Rev. 40 D 58, 094002 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.094002 [arXiv:hep-ph/9806259 [hep-ph]]

    1998 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Charm electroproduction viewed in the vari- able flavor number scheme versus fixed order pertur- bation theory,

    M. Buza, Y. Matiounine, J. Smith and W. L. van Neerven, “Charm electroproduction viewed in the vari- able flavor number scheme versus fixed order pertur- bation theory,” Eur. Phys. J. C 1, 301-320 (1998) doi:10.1007/BF01245820 [arXiv:hep-ph/9612398 [hep- ph]]

    1998 arXiv

  35. [43]

    An Ordered analysis of heavy flavor production in deep inelas- tic scattering,

    R. S. Thorne and R. G. Roberts, “An Ordered analysis of heavy flavor production in deep inelas- tic scattering,” Phys. Rev. D 57, 6871-6898 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.57.6871 [arXiv:hep-ph/9709442 [hep-ph]]

    1998 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Precision measurement and interpretation of inclusive W + , W − and Z/γ ∗ produc- tion cross sections with the ATLAS detector,

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS], “Precision measurement and interpretation of inclusive W + , W − and Z/γ ∗ produc- tion cross sections with the ATLAS detector,” Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) no.6, 367 [arXiv:1612.03016 [hep-ex]]

    2017 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Measurement of the low- mass Drell-Yan differential cross section at √s = 7 TeV using the ATLAS detector,

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], “Measurement of the low- mass Drell-Yan differential cross section at √s = 7 TeV using the ATLAS detector,” JHEP06 (2014), 112 [arXiv:1404.1212 [hep-ex]]

    2014 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Measurement of the high-mass Drell–Yan differential cross-section in pp collisions at sqrt(s)=7 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], “Measurement of the high-mass Drell–Yan differential cross-section in pp collisions at sqrt(s)=7 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” Phys. Lett. B 725 (2013), 223-242 [arXiv:1305.4192 [hep-ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Determination of the strange quark density of the proton from ATLAS measurements of the W → ℓν and Z → ℓℓ cross sections,

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], “Determination of the strange quark density of the proton from ATLAS measurements of the W → ℓν and Z → ℓℓ cross sections,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012), 012001 [arXiv:1203.4051 [hep-ex]]

    2012 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Measurement of the Elec- tron Charge Asymmetry in InclusiveW Production inpp Collisions at √s = 7 TeV,

    S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS], “Measurement of the Elec- tron Charge Asymmetry in InclusiveW Production inpp Collisions at √s = 7 TeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett.109 (2012), 111806 [arXiv:1206.2598 [hep-ex]]

    2012 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Measurement of the Muon Charge Asymmetry in Inclusivepp → W + X Production at √s = 7 TeV and an Improved Determination of Light Parton Distribution Functions,

    S. Chatrchyanet al. [CMS], “Measurement of the Muon Charge Asymmetry in Inclusivepp → W + X Production at √s = 7 TeV and an Improved Determination of Light Parton Distribution Functions,” Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) no.3, 032004 [arXiv:1312.6283 [hep-ex]]

    2014 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Measurement of the differ- ential cross section and charge asymmetry for inclusive pp → W± + X production at √s = 8 TeV,

    V. Khachatryanet al. [CMS], “Measurement of the differ- ential cross section and charge asymmetry for inclusive pp → W± + X production at √s = 8 TeV,” Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) no.8, 469 [arXiv:1603.01803 [hep-ex]]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Measurement of the Rapid- ity and Transverse Momentum Distributions ofZ Bosons in pp Collisions at√s = 7 TeV,

    S. Chatrchyanet al. [CMS], “Measurement of the Rapid- ity and Transverse Momentum Distributions ofZ Bosons in pp Collisions at√s = 7 TeV,” Phys. Rev. D85, 032002 (2012), [arXiv:1110.4973 [hep-ex]]

    2012 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Direct Measurement of the W Production Charge Asymmetry in p¯p Collisions at√s = 1 .96 TeV,

    T. Aaltonen et al. [CDF], “Direct Measurement of the W Production Charge Asymmetry in p¯p Collisions at√s = 1 .96 TeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 181801 (2009) [arXiv:0901.2169 [hep-ex]]

    2009 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Measurement ofdσ/dy of Drell-Yan e+e− pairs in theZ Mass Region fromp¯p Col- lisions at √s = 1 .96 TeV,

    T. A. Aaltonenet al. [CDF], “Measurement ofdσ/dy of Drell-Yan e+e− pairs in theZ Mass Region fromp¯p Col- lisions at √s = 1 .96 TeV,” Phys. Lett. B692, 232-239 (2010), [arXiv:0908.3914 [hep-ex]]

    2010 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Measurement of the electron charge asymmetry inp ¯p → W + X → eν + X decays in p ¯p collisions at √s = 1.96 TeV,

    V. M. Abazovet al. [D0], “Measurement of the electron charge asymmetry inp ¯p → W + X → eν + X decays in p ¯p collisions at √s = 1.96 TeV,” Phys. Rev. D91, no.3, 032007 (2015) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 91, no.7, 079901 (2015)] [arXiv:1412.2862 [hep-ex]]

    2015 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Measurement of the Muon Charge Asymmetry in p¯p → W+X → µν + X Events at √s=1.96 TeV,

    V. M. Abazov et al. [D0], “Measurement of the Muon Charge Asymmetry in p¯p → W+X → µν + X Events at √s=1.96 TeV,” Phys. Rev. D 88, 091102 (2013) [arXiv:1309.2591 [hep-ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Measurement of the Shape of the Boson Rapidity Distribution for p¯p → Z/γ ∗ → e+e− + X Events Produced at √s of 1.96-TeV,

    V. M. Abazov et al. [D0], “Measurement of the Shape of the Boson Rapidity Distribution for p¯p → Z/γ ∗ → e+e− + X Events Produced at √s of 1.96-TeV,” Phys. Rev. D76, 012003 (2007), [arXiv:hep-ex/0702025 [hep- ex]]

    2007 arXiv

  49. [58]

    xFitter: AnOpenSource QCD Analysis Framework. A resource and reference doc- ument for the Snowmass study,

    H.Abdolmaleki et al. [xFitter], “xFitter: AnOpenSource QCD Analysis Framework. A resource and reference doc- ument for the Snowmass study,” [arXiv:2206.12465 [hep- ph]]

    arXiv

  50. [59]

    HERAFitter,

    S. Alekhin, O. Behnke, P. Belov, S. Borroni, M. Botje, D. Britzger, S. Camarda, A. M. Cooper-Sarkar, K. Daum and C. Diaconu, et al. “HERAFitter,” Eur. Phys. J. C 75, no.7, 304 (2015) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3480-z [arXiv:1410.4412 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Asymptotic Freedom in Parton Language,

    G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, “Asymptotic Freedom in Parton Language,” Nucl. Phys. B 126, 298-318 (1977) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(77)90384-4

    1977 doi

  52. [61]

    Deep inelastic e p scat- tering in perturbation theory,

    V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov, “Deep inelastic e p scat- tering in perturbation theory,” Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.15, 438-450 (1972) IPTI-381-71

    1972

  53. [62]

    Calculation of the Structure Func- tions for Deep Inelastic Scattering and e+ e- Annihilation by Perturbation Theory in Quantum Chromodynamics.,

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, “Calculation of the Structure Func- tions for Deep Inelastic Scattering and e+ e- Annihilation by Perturbation Theory in Quantum Chromodynamics.,” Sov. Phys. JETP46, 641-653 (1977)

    1977

  54. [63]

    Minuit: A System for Func- tion Minimization and Analysis of the Parameter Errors and Correlations,

    F. James and M. Roos, “Minuit: A System for Func- tion Minimization and Analysis of the Parameter Errors and Correlations,” Comput. Phys. Commun.10, 343-367 (1975)

    1975

  55. [64]

    MINUIT Function Minimization and Error Analysis: Reference Manual Version 94.1,

    F. James, “MINUIT Function Minimization and Error Analysis: Reference Manual Version 94.1,” CERN-D-506

  56. [65]

    Effect of changes of variable flavor num- ber scheme on parton distribution functions and pre- dicted cross sections,

    R. S. Thorne, “Effect of changes of variable flavor num- ber scheme on parton distribution functions and pre- dicted cross sections,” Phys. Rev. D86, 074017 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.074017 [arXiv:1201.6180 [hep- ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Combination of measurements of inclusive deep inelastice±p scattering cross sections and QCD analysis of HERA data,

    H. Abramowicz et al. [H1 and ZEUS], “Combination of measurements of inclusive deep inelastice±p scattering cross sections and QCD analysis of HERA data,” Eur. Phys. J. C75 (2015) no.12, 580 [arXiv:1506.06042 [hep- ex]]

    2015 arXiv

  58. [67]

    MRST2001: Partons and αs from pre- cise deep inelastic scattering and Tevatron jet data,

    A. D. Martin, R. G. Roberts, W. J. Stirling and R. S. Thorne, “MRST2001: Partons and αs from pre- cise deep inelastic scattering and Tevatron jet data,” Eur. Phys. J. C23, 73-87 (2002) doi:10.1007/s100520100842 [arXiv:hep-ph/0110215 [hep-ph]]

    2002 arXiv

  59. [68]

    LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era,

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordström, B. Page, M. Rüfenacht, M. Schönherr and G. Watt, “LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era,” Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 132 (2015) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3318-8 [arXiv:1412.7420 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Un- certainties of predictions from parton distribution functions. 2. The Hessian method,

    J. Pumplin, D. Stump, R. Brock, D. Casey, J. Hus- ton, J. Kalk, H. L. Lai and W. K. Tung, “Un- certainties of predictions from parton distribution functions. 2. The Hessian method,” Phys. Rev. D 65, 014013 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.014013 [arXiv:hep-ph/0101032 [hep-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Par- ton Distribution Function Uncertainties,

    W. T. Giele, S. A. Keller and D. A. Kosower, “Par- ton Distribution Function Uncertainties,” [arXiv:hep- ph/0104052 [hep-ph]]. 41

  62. [71]

    Precision studies of QCD in the low energy domain of the EIC,

    V. D. Burkert, L. Elouadrhiri, A. Afanasev, J. Ar- rington, M. Contalbrigo, W. Cosyn, A. Deshpande, D. I. Glazier, X. Ji and S. Liuti, et al. “Precision studies of QCD in the low energy domain of the EIC,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 131, 104032 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.1040...

    2023

  63. [72]

    Electron Ion Col- lider: The Next QCD Frontier: Understanding the glue that binds us all,

    A. Accardi, J. L. Albacete, M. Anselmino, N. Armesto, E. C. Aschenauer, A. Bacchetta, D. Boer, W. K. Brooks, T. Burton and N. B. Chang, et al. “Electron Ion Col- lider: The Next QCD Frontier: Understanding the glue that binds us all,” Eur. Phys. J. A52, no.9, 268 (2016) doi:10...

    2016 arXiv

  64. [73]

    ATHENA detector pro- posal — a totally hermetic electron nucleus appara- tus proposed for IP6 at the Electron-Ion Collider,

    J. Adam et al. [ATHENA], “ATHENA detector pro- posal — a totally hermetic electron nucleus appara- tus proposed for IP6 at the Electron-Ion Collider,” JINST 17, no.10, P10019 (2022) doi:10.1088/1748- 0221/17/10/P10019 [arXiv:2210.09048 [physics.ins-det]]

    2022

  65. [74]

    Measurement of inclusive jet pro- duction in deep-inelastic scattering at high Q**2 and de- termination of the strong coupling,

    A. Aktas et al. [H1], “Measurement of inclusive jet pro- duction in deep-inelastic scattering at high Q**2 and de- termination of the strong coupling,” Phys. Lett. B653, 134-144 (2007) [arXiv:0706.3722 [hep-ex]]

    2007 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Jet Production in ep Collisions at Low Q**2 and Determination of alpha(s),

    F. D. Aaronet al. [H1], “Jet Production in ep Collisions at Low Q**2 and Determination of alpha(s),” Eur. Phys. J. C67, 1-24 (2010) [arXiv:0911.5678 [hep-ex]]

    2010 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Inclusive jet cross-sections in the Breit frame in neutral current deep inelastic scatter- ing at HERA and determination of alpha(s),

    S. Chekanovet al. [ZEUS], “Inclusive jet cross-sections in the Breit frame in neutral current deep inelastic scatter- ing at HERA and determination of alpha(s),” Phys. Lett. B 547, 164-180 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ex/0208037 [hep-ex]]

    2002 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Inclusive-jet and dijet cross- sections in deep inelastic scattering at HERA,

    S. Chekanovet al. [ZEUS], “Inclusive-jet and dijet cross- sections in deep inelastic scattering at HERA,” Nucl. Phys. B 765, 1-30 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ex/0608048 [hep- ex]]

    2007 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Inclusive dijet cross sections in neutral current deep inelastic scattering at HERA,

    H. Abramowicz et al. [ZEUS], “Inclusive dijet cross sections in neutral current deep inelastic scattering at HERA,” Eur. Phys. J. C 70, 965-982 (2010) [arXiv:1010.6167 [hep-ex]]

    2010 arXiv

  70. [79]

    FastNLO: Fast pQCD calculations for PDF fits,

    T. Kluge, K. Rabbertz and M. Wobisch, “FastNLO: Fast pQCD calculations for PDF fits,” doi:10.1142/9789812706706_0110 [arXiv:hep- ph/0609285 [hep-ph]]

  71. [80]

    Parton distributions for the LHC Run II,

    R. D. Ball et al. [NNPDF], “Parton distributions for the LHC Run II,” JHEP 04, 040 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040 [arXiv:1410.8849 [hep- ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Measurement of jet production in deep inelastic scattering and NNLO determination of the strong coupling at ZEUS,

    I. Abt et al. [ZEUS], “Measurement of jet production in deep inelastic scattering and NNLO determination of the strong coupling at ZEUS,” Eur. Phys. J. C83, no.11, 1082 (2023) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12180-9 [arXiv:2309.02889 [hep-ex]]

    2023 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Determination of the strong coupling constant from transverse energy−energy cor- relations in multijet events at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], “Determination of the strong coupling constant from transverse energy−energy cor- relations in multijet events at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” JHEP 07, 085 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2023)085 [arXiv:2301.09351 [hep- ex]]

    2023 arXiv

  74. [83]

    Aprecisedeterminationofthestrong-coupling constant from the recoil of Z bosons with the ATLAS experiment at √s = 8 TeV,

    [ATLAS],“Aprecisedeterminationofthestrong-coupling constant from the recoil of Z bosons with the ATLAS experiment at √s = 8 TeV,” ATLAS-CONF-2023-015

    2023

  75. [84]

    Measurement and QCD anal- ysis of double-differential inclusive jet cross sections in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV,

    A. Tumasyanet al. [CMS], “Measurement and QCD anal- ysis of double-differential inclusive jet cross sections in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV,” JHEP02, 142 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2022)142 [arXiv:2111.10431 [hep-ex]]

    2022 arXiv

  76. [85]

    Determination of the strong cou- pling constant αs(mZ ) in next-to-next-to-leading order QCD using H1 jet cross section measurements,

    V. Andreevet al. [H1], “Determination of the strong cou- pling constant αs(mZ ) in next-to-next-to-leading order QCD using H1 jet cross section measurements,” Eur. Phys. J. C77, no.11, 791 (2017) [erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C81, 738 (2021)] doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5314-7 [arXi...

    2017 arXiv

  77. [86]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], “Measurement of trans- verse energy-energy correlations in multi-jet events in pp collisions at √s = 7 TeV using the ATLAS detector and determination of the strong coupling constant αs(mZ ),” Phys. Lett. B 750, 427-447 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015....

    2015 arXiv

  78. [87]

    Determination of the strong coupling constant αs from transverse energy–energy correlations in multijet events at √s = 8 TeV using the ATLAS detector,

    M. Aaboudet al. [ATLAS], “Determination of the strong coupling constant αs from transverse energy–energy correlations in multijet events at √s = 8 TeV using the ATLAS detector,” Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no.12, 872 (2017) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5442-0 [arXiv:1707.02562 [hep-ex]]

    2017 arXiv

  79. [88]

    Measurement of dijet azimuthal decorrelations in pp collisions at √s = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector and determina- tion of the strong coupling,

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS], “Measurement of dijet azimuthal decorrelations in pp collisions at √s = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector and determina- tion of the strong coupling,” Phys. Rev. D 98, no.9, 092004 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.092004 [arXiv:1805.04691 [hep-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  80. [89]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS], “Measurement of the in- clusive 3-jet production differential cross section in pro- ton–proton collisions at 7 TeV and determination of the strong coupling constant in the TeV range,” Eur. Phys. J. C 75, no.5, 186 (2015) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015...

    2015 arXiv

  81. [90]

    Constraints on par- ton distribution functions and extraction of the strong coupling constant from the inclusive jet cross section in pp collisions at √s = 7 TeV,

    V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS], “Constraints on par- ton distribution functions and extraction of the strong coupling constant from the inclusive jet cross section in pp collisions at √s = 7 TeV,” Eur. Phys. J. C 75, no.6, 288 (2015) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3499-1 [arXiv:1410...

    2015 arXiv

  82. [91]

    Measurement and QCD analysis of double-differential inclusive jet cross sec- tions in pp collisions at √s = 8 TeV and cross sec- tion ratios to 2.76 and 7 TeV,

    V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS], “Measurement and QCD analysis of double-differential inclusive jet cross sec- tions in pp collisions at √s = 8 TeV and cross sec- tion ratios to 2.76 and 7 TeV,” JHEP 03, 156 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2017)156 [arXiv:1609.05331 [hep- ex]]

    2017 arXiv

  83. [92]

    Determination of the strong coupling constant from the measurement of inclusive multijet event cross sections in pp collisions at √s = 8 TeV ,

    [CMS], “Determination of the strong coupling constant from the measurement of inclusive multijet event cross sections in pp collisions at √s = 8 TeV ,” CMS-PAS- SMP-16-008

  84. [93]

    Measurement of the tt production cross section, the top quark mass, and the strong coupling constant using dilepton events in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV,

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS], “Measurement of the tt production cross section, the top quark mass, and the strong coupling constant using dilepton events in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV,” Eur. Phys. J. C 79, no.5, 368 (2019) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6863-8 [arXiv:1812.10505 ...

    2019 arXiv

  85. [94]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS], “Measurement of t¯t nor- malised multi-differential cross sections in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV, and simultaneous determination of the strong coupling strength, top quark pole mass, and parton distribution functions,” Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.7, 6...

    2020 arXiv

  86. [95]

    Review of particle physics,

    S. Navaset al. [Particle Data Group], “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Rev. D110, no.3, 030001 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.