70 likes | 161 Views
Compare size of errors on u quark-logx. Q2=10. ZEUS-S 2002. H1 2000. Q2=10000. Errors squeeze down as we evolve- at least for the sea region. d quark comparison-log x. Q2=10. ZEUS-S 2002. H1 2000. Q2=10000. Errors squeeze down as we evolve- at least for the sea region.
E N D
Compare size of errors on u quark-logx Q2=10 ZEUS-S 2002 H1 2000 Q2=10000 Errors squeeze down as we evolve- at least for the sea region
d quark comparison-log x Q2=10 ZEUS-S 2002 H1 2000 Q2=10000 Errors squeeze down as we evolve- at least for the sea region
gluon comparison-log x Different shape- don’t actually have direct data at all – unless use jets Q2=10 Offset vs Hessian errors ZEUS-S 2002 H1 2000 Q2=10000 Errors squeeze down as we evolve-
u-bar comparison-logx Q2=10 H1 look overconstrained at small x- ZEUS-S 2002 H1 2000 Q2=10000 Errors squeeze down as we evolve-
d-bar comparison-log x Q2=10 ZEUS-S 2002 H1 2000 Q2=10000 Errors squeeze down as we evolve-
s-bar comparison Q2=10 H1 constrained at small x- tied to the rest of the d –type sea by a ratio H1 2000 ZEUS-S 2002 Q2=10000 Errors squeeze down as we evolve-
c-bar comparison Q2=10 Charm fraction small because of use of ZMVFN or charm fraction 0.15? H1 constrained at small x- tied to the rest of the u–type sea by a ratio ZEUS-S 2002 H1 2000 Q2=10000