SciPost logo

SciPost Submission Page

A model for $F_L$ structure function at low values of $Q^2$ and $x$ - revisited

by Barbara Badelek, Anna Stasto

This is not the latest submitted version.

This Submission thread is now published as

Submission summary

Authors (as registered SciPost users): Anna Stasto
Submission information
Preprint Link: scipost_202107_00101v1  (pdf)
Date submitted: 2021-07-31 12:50
Submitted by: Stasto, Anna
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:
  • High-Energy Physics - Phenomenology
Approach: Phenomenological

Abstract

A reanalysis of the model for the longitudinal structure function $F_L (x,Q^2)$ at low $x$ and low $Q^2$ was undertaken, in view of the advent of the EIC. The model includes the kinematic constraint $F_L\sim Q^4$ as $Q^2\rightarrow$ 0. It is based on the photon-gluon fusion mechanism suitably extrapolated to the region of low $Q^2$. Revised model was critically updated, extended to the EIC kinematic region, and e.g. contains new parameterisations of the parton distribution functions.

Current status:
Has been resubmitted

Reports on this Submission

Anonymous Report 1 on 2021-8-9 (Invited Report)

  • Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:scipost_202107_00101v1, delivered 2021-08-09, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.3361

Strengths

Update of a commonly used model for DIS data correction at low x,Q^2

Weaknesses

As with any model, it has its limitations

Report

This is a short report on the updating of the original Badelek, Kwiecinski and Stasto model for FL from 1996. It is timely in the advent of the EIC. The model makes various assumptions, which result in a decent fit to HERA data but a less convincing fit to SLAC and JLAB data. It is interesting to see the update and to note that the low scale predictions are not much dependent on the PDF input. It would be good to see the further work promised, but this report is adequate for a conference proceedings, provided the inconsistency in Fig2, which I point out in 'requested changes', is addressed.

Requested changes

Fig 2 does not illustrate what it says in the caption. It shows the prediction from CT14LO broken into various contributions. It does not compare this with GRV98LO. Please resolve this.

  • validity: good
  • significance: good
  • originality: high
  • clarity: good
  • formatting: good
  • grammar: reasonable

Login to report or comment