SciPost Submission Page
Towards EPPS21 nuclear PDFs
by Kari J. Eskola, Petja Paakkinen, Hannu Paukkunen, Carlos A. Salgado
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Petja Paakkinen · Hannu Paukkunen |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.13661v2 (pdf) |
| Date accepted: | 2021-10-22 |
| Date submitted: | 2021-10-05 12:22 |
| Submitted by: | Paakkinen, Petja |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics Proceedings |
| Proceedings issue: | 28th Annual Workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scattering (DIS) and Related Subjects (DIS2021) |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
Abstract
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.
Author comments upon resubmission
We thank the Referees for their comments and suggestions for improving the manuscript.
*********
Response to Anonymous Report 1:
The information on the perturbative order of the fit was unintentionally left out from the original manuscript and is now indicated in the text. The functional forms were left unspecified in the original version due to space restrictions and for their preliminary nature. These are now included, with the hope that the Editor will find the increased length of the paper acceptable.
To the Referee's question on whether using MSHT20 instead of CT18A PDFs as a free-proton baseline we can comment that the CT18 uncertainty estimates are moderately conservative and are based on a somewhat smaller data set compared to other contemporary analyses from major fitting groups. It is therefore plausible that using MSHT20 would have resulted in somewhat smaller baseline uncertainty in our fit, but the difference is not likely very large.
*********
Response to Anonymous Report 2:
The Figure 4 caption has been updated with the information that was missing from the original version.
*********
With these modifications, we hope that the revised manuscript can now be published in the SciPost Physics Proceedings
Sincerely yours,
Kari J. Eskola, Petja Paakkinen, Hannu Paukkunen, Carlos A. Salgado
*********
Response to Anonymous Report 1:
The information on the perturbative order of the fit was unintentionally left out from the original manuscript and is now indicated in the text. The functional forms were left unspecified in the original version due to space restrictions and for their preliminary nature. These are now included, with the hope that the Editor will find the increased length of the paper acceptable.
To the Referee's question on whether using MSHT20 instead of CT18A PDFs as a free-proton baseline we can comment that the CT18 uncertainty estimates are moderately conservative and are based on a somewhat smaller data set compared to other contemporary analyses from major fitting groups. It is therefore plausible that using MSHT20 would have resulted in somewhat smaller baseline uncertainty in our fit, but the difference is not likely very large.
*********
Response to Anonymous Report 2:
The Figure 4 caption has been updated with the information that was missing from the original version.
*********
With these modifications, we hope that the revised manuscript can now be published in the SciPost Physics Proceedings
Sincerely yours,
Kari J. Eskola, Petja Paakkinen, Hannu Paukkunen, Carlos A. Salgado
Published as SciPost Phys. Proc. 8, 033 (2022)