4.7 Article

Matching factorization theorems with an inverse-error weighting

期刊

PHYSICS LETTERS B
卷 781, 期 -, 页码 161-168

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.03.075

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program [647981, 3DSPIN]
  2. French CNRS via the LIA FCPPL (Quarkonium4AFTER)
  3. IN2P3 project TMD@NLO
  4. COPIN-IN2P3 agreement
  5. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC05-06OR23177]
  6. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  7. European Community under the Ideas program QWORK [320389]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We propose a new fast method to match factorization theorems applicable in different kinematical regions, such as the transverse-momentum-dependent and the collinear factorization theorems in Quantum Chromodynamics. At variance with well-known approaches relying on their simple addition and subsequent subtraction of double-counted contributions, ours simply builds on their weighting using the theory uncertainties deduced from the factorization theorems themselves. This allows us to estimate the unknown complete matched cross section from an inverse-error-weighted average. The method is simple and provides an evaluation of the theoretical uncertainty of the matched cross section associated with the uncertainties from the power corrections to the factorization theorems (additional uncertainties, such as the nonperturbative ones, should be added for a proper comparison with experimental data). Its usage is illustrated with several basic examples, such as Zboson, Wboson, H-0 boson and Drell-Yan lepton-pair production in hadronic collisions, and compared to the state-of-the-art Collins-Soper-Sterman subtraction scheme. It is also not limited to the transverse-momentum spectrum, and can straightforwardly be extended to match any (un) polarized cross section differential in other variables, including multi-differential measurements. (C) 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据