Non-singlet structure functions: Combining the leading logarithms resummation at small-x with DGLAP

Ermolaev, B. I.; Greco, Mario; Troyan, S. I.

doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.06.081

Cited by 20 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This contradicts to the observation made in Ref. [17]: the small-x asymptotics represent the structure functions reliable at very small x (x < 10 −8 ) only while at x > 10 −8 the structure function is much greater than its asymptotics. The latter leads to the quantitative difference between a and ∆: In order to force Eq.…”

Section: Remark On the Dglap-fits For Structure Functionscontrasting

confidence: 91%

Origin of the Q 2-dependence of the DIS structure functions

Ermolaev

Greco²,

Troyan

2013

Phys. Part. Nuclei

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We consider in detail the Q 2 -dependence of the DIS structure functions, with Q being the virtual photon momentum. Very often this dependence is claimed to be originated by the Q 2 -dependence of the QCD coupling. This leads to the small-x asymptotics of the structure functions with Q 2 -dependent intercepts. We demonstrate that the DGLAP parametrization αs = αs(Q 2 ) is an approximation valid in the region of large x (where 2pq can be approximated by Q 2 ) only, providing the factorization scale is also large. Outside this region, the DGLAP parametrization fails, so αs should be replaced by an effective coupling which is independent of Q 2 at small x. As a consequence, intercepts of the structure functions are independent of Q 2 . Nevertheless, the small-x asymptotics of the structure functions explicitly depend on Q 2 , even when the coupling does not depend on it. We also consider the structure functions at small Q 2 and give a comment on power-Q 2 corrections to the structure functions at large and small Q 2 .

show abstract

Section: Remark On the Dglap-fits For Structure Functionscontrasting

confidence: 91%

Origin of the Q 2-dependence of the DIS structure functions

Ermolaev

Greco²,

Troyan

2013

Phys. Part. Nuclei

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, we note that in Ref. [158] the leading small x logarithms were combined with DGLAP evolution, and some effects of running coupling were addressed in [159].…”

Section: Scaling Violations In Inclusive Dis and Their Impact On ∆G(x)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gluons and the quark sea at high energies: distributions, polarization, tomography

Boer¹,

Diehl²,

Milner³

et al. 2011

198

291

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ForewordThe study of the fundamental structure of nuclear matter is a central thrust of physics research in the United States. As indicated in Frontiers of Nuclear Science, the 2007 Nuclear Science Advisory Committee long range plan, consideration of a future Electron-Ion Collider (EIC) is a priority and will likely be a significant focus of discussion at the next long range plan. We are therefore pleased to have supported the ten week program in fall 2010 at the Institute of Nuclear Theory which examined at length the science case for the EIC. This program was a major effort; it attracted the maximum allowable attendance over ten weeks.This report summarizes the current understanding of the physics and articulates important open questions that can be addressed by an EIC. It converges towards a set of "golden" experiments that illustrate both the science reach and the technical demands on such a facility, and thereby establishes a firm ground from which to launch the next phase in preparation for the upcoming long range plan discussions. We thank all the participants in this productive program. In particular, we would like to acknowledge the leadership and dedication of the five co-organizers of the program who are also the co-editors of this report.David Kaplan, Director, National Institute for Nuclear Theory Hugh Montgomery, Director, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Steven Vigdor, Associate Lab Director, Brookhaven National Laboratory iii Preface This volume is based on a ten-week program on "Gluons and the quark sea at high energies", which took place at the Institute for Nuclear Theory (INT) in Seattle from September 13 to November 19, 2010. The principal aim of the program was to develop and sharpen the science case for an Electron-Ion Collider (EIC), a facility that will be able to collide electrons and positrons with polarized protons and with light to heavy nuclei at high energies, offering unprecedented possibilities for in-depth studies of quantum chromodynamics. Guiding questions were• What are the crucial science issues?• How do they fit within the overall goals for nuclear physics?• Why can't they be addressed adequately at existing facilities?• Will they still be interesting in the 2020's, when a suitable facility might be realized?The program started with a five-day workshop on "Perturbative and Non-Perturbative Aspects of QCD at Collider Energies", which was followed by eight weeks of regular program and a concluding four-day workshop on "The Science Case for an EIC".More than 120 theorists and experimentalists took part in the program over ten weeks. It was only possible to smoothly accommodate such a large number of participants because of the extraordinary efforts of the INT staff, to whom we extend our warm thanks and appreciation. We thank the INT Director, David Kaplan, for his strong support of the program and for covering a significant portion of the costs for printing this volume. We gratefully acknowledge additional financial support provided by BNL and JLab.The program w...

show abstract

“…Indeed, in the singlet case the small x behaviour observed at HERA is not seen in the NMC data and canot be predicted by them [9,16]. Also, on theoretical grounds one would expect the asymptotic small x behaviour to set in around x ≈ 10 −3 [17]. Hence, fitting the small x exponent to the data might lead to an underestimate of the uncertainty on the small x extrapolation, if the exponent b comes out too large.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%