SciPost Submission Page
Towards EPPS21 nuclear PDFs
by Kari J. Eskola, Petja Paakkinen, Hannu Paukkunen, Carlos A. Salgado
This is not the latest submitted version.
|As Contributors:||Petja Paakkinen|
|Arxiv Link:||https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.13661v1 (pdf)|
|Date submitted:||2021-06-29 12:18|
|Submitted by:||Paakkinen, Petja|
|Submitted to:||SciPost Physics Proceedings|
We report on the progress in updating our global analysis of nuclear PDFs. In particular, we will discuss the inclusion of double differential 5.02 TeV dijet and D-meson measurements, as well as 8.16 TeV W-production data from p-Pb collisions at the LHC. The new EPPS21 analysis will also involve recent JLab data for deep-inelastic scattering. As a novel aspect within our approach, we now also quantify the impact of free-proton PDF uncertainties on our extraction of nuclear PDFs.
Submission & Refereeing History
You are currently on this page
Reports on this Submission
Anonymous Report 2 on 2021-7-20 (Invited Report)
These proceedings provide a nice summary of recent work by the EPPS collaboration. It is certainly suitable for publication. I have only one minor suggestion, which is that the meaning of the green lines in Fig. 4 is not I believe made clear at the moment, and would be better clarified.
Anonymous Report 1 on 2021-7-19 (Invited Report)
1. Brief report on nuclear modification fators on PDFs of interest in this subfield
2. Accounts for the proton PDF uncertainty within a nuclear PDF
1. Does not specify all inputs of interest, e.g. order of the fit.
This is a short conference report on ongoing work that will be published fully. It is suitabe for SciPost.
Inevitably it assumes that the reader knows exactly what the authors are talking about. I think a general reader would like to know the order of the resulting PDFs, I expect it is NLO. I also think that the x dependence and A dependence of the nuclear modification factors could be specified in this short paper, rather than left fo the reader to research. Some explanation on the Q^2 dependence of these factors could also be welcome for those used to only proton PDFs.
The work on including the proton PDF uncertainties is very welcome. It appears small, do the authors have any idea if this would remain the case if they had used MSHT20 central PDFs rather than CT18A error PDFs to make this estimate
1. Specify order of the PDFs
2.Specify functional form of x and A dependence of nuclear modification factors.