- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Phenomenological study of unintegrated parton distribution functions in the frameworks of the Kimber-Martin-Ryskin and Martin-Ryskin-Watt approaches

M. Modarres1,*, H. Hosseinkhani2, and N. Olanj1

  • 1Physics Department, University of Tehran, 1439955961 Tehran, Iran
  • 2Plasma Physics and Fusion Research School, Nuclear Science and Technology Research Institute, 14395-836 Tehran, Iran

  • *Corresponding author. mmodares@ut.ac.ir
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 89, 034015 – Published 12 February, 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.034015

Abstract

The aim of the present work is to study the phenomenological behavior of unitegrated parton distribution functions (UPDF) by using the Kimber-Martin-Ryskin (KMR) and Martin-Ryskin-Watt (MRW) formalisms. In the first method, the leading order (LO) UPDF of the KMR prescription is extracted, by taking into account the PDF of Martin et al., i.e., MSTW2008-LO and MRST99-NLO and. While in the second scheme, the next-to-leading order (NLO) UPDF of the (MRW) procedure is generated through the set of MSTW2008-NLO PDFas the inputs. The different aspects of the UPDF in the two approaches, as well as the input PDF are discussed. Then, the deep inelastic proton structure functions, F2(x,Q2), are calculated from the above UPDF in the two schemes, and compared with the data, which are extracted from the ZEUS, NMC, and H1+ZEUS experimental measurements. In general, it is shown that the calculated structure functions based on the UPDF of two schemes, are consistent to the experimental data, and by a good approximation, they are independent to the input PDF. But the proton structure functions, which are extracted from the KMR prescription, have better agreement to the data with respect to that of MRW. Although the MRW formalism is in more compliance with the Dokshitzer-Bribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi (DGLAP) evolution equation requisites, but it seems in the KMR case, the angular ordering constraint spreads the UPDF to the whole transverse momentum region, and makes the results to sum up the leading DGLAP and Balitski-Fadin-Kuraev-Lipatov (BFKL) Logarithms. This point is under study by the authors.

View figure in article

Article Text

References (61)

  1. V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov, Yad. Fiz. 15, 781 (1972).
  2. L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 20, 94 (1975).
  3. G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. B126, 298 (1977).
  4. Y. L. Dokshitzer, Sov. Phys. JETP 46, 641 (1977).
  5. M. Ciafaloni, Nucl. Phys. B296, 49 (1988).
  6. S. Catani, F. Fiorani, and G. Marchesini, Phys. Lett. B 234, 339 (1990).
  7. S. Catani, F. Fiorani, and G. Marchesini, Nucl. Phys. B336, 18 (1990).
  8. G. Marchesini, Proceedings of the Workshop QCD at 200 TeV, Erice, Italy, edited by L. Cifarelli and Yu. L. Dokshitzer (Plenum, New York, 1992), p. 183.
  9. G. Marchesini, Nucl. Phys. B445 49 (1995).
  10. H. Kharraziha and L. Lönnblad, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (1998) 006.
  11. G. Marchesini and B. Webber, Nucl. Phys. B349, 617 (1991).
  12. G. Marchesini and B. Webber, Nucl. Phys. B386, 215 (1992).
  13. H. Jung, Nucl. Phys. B79, 429 (1999).
  14. H. Jung and G. P. Salam, Eur. Phys. J. C, 19, 351 (2001).
  15. H. Jung, J. Phys. G 28, 971 (2002).
  16. H. Jung et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 70, 1237 (2010).
  17. H. Jung, M. Kraemer, A. V. Lipatov, and N. P. Zotov, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2011) 085.
  18. M. A. Kimber, A. D. Martin, and M. G. Ryskin, Phys. Rev. D 63, 114027 (2001).
  19. A. D. Martin, M. G. Ryskin, and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C 66, 163 (2010).
  20. M. Modarres, H. Hosseinkhani, and N. Olanj, Nucl. Phys. A902, 21 (2013).
  21. M. Modarres and H. Hosseinkhani, Few-Body Syst., 47, 237 (2010).
  22. M. Modarres and H. Hosseinkhani, Nucl. Phys. A815, 40 (2009).
  23. H. Hosseinkhani and M. Modarres, Phys. Lett. B 694, 355 (2011).
  24. H. Hosseinkhani and M. Modarres, Phys. Lett. B 708 75 (2012).
  25. NMC: Arneodo et al., Nucl. Phys. B483, 3 (1997).
  26. ZEUS: Derrick et al., Z. Phys. C 72, 399 (1996).
  27. H1 and ZEUS Collaborations, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2010) 109.
  28. A. D. Martin, R. G. Roberts, W. J. Stirling, and R. S. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. C 14, 133 (2000).
  29. A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C 63, 189 (2009).
  30. G. Marchesini and B. R. Webber, Nucl. Phys. B310, 461 (1988).
  31. Yu. L. Dokshitzer, V. A. Khoze, S. I. Troyan, and A. H. Mueller, Rev. Mod. Phys. 60, 373 (1988).
  32. M. A. Kimber, Ph. D. Thesis, University of Durham, United Kingdom, 2001.
  33. V. S. Fadin, E. A. Kuraev, and L. N. Lipatov, Phys. Lett. 60B, 50 (1975).
  34. L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 23, 642 (1976).
  35. E. A. Kuraev, L. N. Lipatov and V. S. Fadin, Sov. Phys. JETP 44, 45 (1976).
  36. E. A. Kuraev, L. N. Lipatov, and V. S. Fadin, Sov. Phys. JETP 45, 199 (1977).
  37. Ya.Ya. Balitsky and L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 28, 822 (1978).
  38. V. A. Saleev, Phys. Rev. D, 80, 114016 (2009).
  39. A. V. Lipatov and N. P. Zotov, Phys. Rev. D 81, 094027 (2010).
  40. S. P. Baranov, A. V. Lipatov, and N. P. Zotov, Phys. Rev. D 81, 094034 (2010).
  41. B. A. Kniehl, V. A. Saleev, and A. V. Shipilova, Phys. Rev. D 81, 094010 (2010).
  42. H. Jung, M. Kraemer, A. V. Lipatov, and N. P. Zotov, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2011) 085.
  43. S. P. Baranov, A. V. Lipatov, and N. P. Zotov, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1631 (2011).
  44. A. V. Lipatov, M. A. Malyshev, and N. P. Zotov, Phys. Lett. B 699, 93 (2011).
  45. H. Jung, M. Kraemer, A. V. Lipatov, and N. P. Zotov, arXiv:1105.5071.
  46. H. Jung, M. Kraemer, A. V. Lipatov, and N. P. Zotov, Phys. Rev. D 85, 034035 (2012).
  47. A. V. Lipatov and N. P. Zotov, Phys. Lett. B 704, 189 (2011).
  48. B. A. Kniehl, V. A. Saleev, A. V. Shipilova, and E. V. Yatsenko, Phys. Rev. D 84, 074017 (2011).
  49. H. Jung, M. Kraemer, A. V. Lipatov, and N. P. Zotov, Phys. Rev. D 85, 034035 (2012).
  50. W. Furmanski and R. Petronzio, Phys. Lett. 97B, 437 (1980).
  51. G. Watt, A. D. Martin, and M. G. Ryskin, Phys. Rev. D 70 014012 (2004).
  52. M. A. Kimber, J. Kwiecinski, A. D. Martin, and A. M. Stasto, Phys. Rev. D 62, 094006 (2000).
  53. J. Kwiecinski, A. D. Martin, and A. M. Stasto, Phys. Rev. D, 56 3991 (1997).
  54. A. J. Askew, J. Kwiecinski, A. D. Martin, and P. J. Sutton, Phys. Rev. D 47, 3775 (1993).
  55. K. Golec-Biernat and A. M. Stasto, Phys. Rev. D 80, 014006 (2009).
  56. G. Watt, A. D. Martin, and M. G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C 31, 73 (2003).
  57. S. Catani, M. Ciafaloni, and F. Hautmann, Phys. Lett. B 242, 97 (1990).
  58. S. Catani, M. Ciafaloni, and F. Hautmann, Nucl. Phys. B366, 135 (1991).
  59. J. C. Collins and R. K. Ellis, Nucl. Phys. B360 3 (1991).
  60. E. M. Levin, M. G. Ryskin, Yu. M. Shabelski, and A. G. Shuvaev, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 54, 867 (1991).
  61. J. Kwiecinski, A. D. Martin, and A. M. Stasto, Acta Phys. Pol. B 28, 2577 (1997).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 89, 034015– Published 12 February, 2014
  • Received 6 November 2013

© 2014 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation