4.7 Review

Implications of CTEQ global analysis for collider observables

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
Volume 78, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.013004

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. U. S. National Science Foundation [PHY-0354838, PHY-0555545, PHY-0551164]
  2. U. S. Department of Energy [DE-FG03-94ER40837]
  3. National Science Council of Taiwan [NSC-95-2112-M-133-001]
  4. Argonne National Laboratory
  5. U. S. Department of Energy, Division of High Energy Physics [DE-AC02-06CH11357]
  6. Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California in Santa Barbara
  7. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  8. Division Of Physics [705682] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The latest CTEQ6.6 parton distributions, obtained by global analysis of hard-scattering data in the framework of general-mass perturbative QCD, are employed to study theoretical predictions and their uncertainties for significant processes at the Fermilab Tevatron and CERN Large Hadron Collider. The previously observed increase in predicted cross sections for the standard-candle W and Z boson production processes in the general-mass scheme (compared to those in the zero-mass scheme) is further investigated and quantified. A novel method to constrain parton distribution function (PDF) uncertainties in LHC observables, by effectively exploiting PDF-induced correlations with benchmark standard model cross sections, is presented. Using this method, we show that the t (t) over bar cross section can potentially serve as a standard-candle observable for the LHC processes dominated by initial-state gluon scattering. Among other benefits, precise measurements of t (t) over bar cross sections would reduce PDF uncertainties in predictions for single top-quark and Higgs boson production in the standard model and minimal supersymmetric standard model.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available