Unpolarized TMDs: extractions and predictive power

Transcription

1 Unpolarized TMDs: extractions and predictive power Andrea Signori INT 18-3 Probing nucleons and nuclei in high-energy collisions Transverse spin and TMDs Oct. 8 th, 018 1

2 Outline of the talk 1) TMDs and their evolution ) first attempt to a global fit 3) predictive power vs relevance of nonperturbative corrections 4) outlook

3 TMDs & their evolution References (intro and reviews) : - The 3D structure of the nucleon EPJ A (016) 5 - J.C. Collins Foundations of perturbative QCD - material from the TMD collaboration summer school - 3

4 Quark TMD PDFs ij(k, P; S, T ) F.T. hpst j(0) U [0, ] i ( ) PSTi LF Quarks U L T i i+ 5 U f 1 h? 1 P k T xp L g 1 h? 1L T f 1T? g 1T h 1, h? 1T LL f 1LL h? 1LL LT f 1LT g 1LT h 1LT, h? 1LT Sivers TMD PDF unpolarized TMD TT f 1TT g 1TT h 1TT, h? PDF 1TT similar table for gluons and for fragmentation extraction of a quark not collinear with the proton encode all the possible spin-spin and spin-momentum correlations between the proton and its constituents bold : also collinear red : time-reversal odd (universality properties) 4

5 Factorization and evolution pp! ` ` X In certain processes the cross section can be factorized in contributions characterized by a specific scaling of the momenta d H f bare 1 f bare 1 S H f 1 f 1 renormalized TMD PDF : IR div. : long-distance physics UV div. and rapidity div. cancelled by UV-renormalization and soft factor S f 1 (x, k T ; µ, ) Evolution with respect to two scales credit picture: M. Buffing 5

6 Evolution of TMDs f1 a (x, b T,µ f, f )=f1 a (x, b T,µ i, i ) Z µf dµ exp µ i two evolution scales µ F K(bT,µ i ) f i apple s (µ), f µ bt, Fourier conjugate of kt evolution in mu µ i! µ f evolution in zeta i! f Input TMD distribution can be expanded at low bt onto a basis of collinear distributions f a 1 (x, b T,µ i, i )= X b C a/b (x, b T,µ i, i ) f b (x, µ i ) A sensible choice is to set the initial and final scale as: i = µ i =4e E /b T µ b f = µ f = Q 6

7 Evolution of TMDs f1 a (x, b T,µ f, f )=f1 a (x, b T,µ i, i ) Z µf dµ exp µ i two evolution scales µ F K(bT,µ i ) f i apple s (µ), f µ g K (b T, { }) bt, Fourier conjugate of kt evolution in mu µ i! µ f evolution in zeta i! f need corrections at large bt Input TMD distribution can be expanded at low bt onto a basis of collinear distributions f a 1 (x, b T,µ i, i )= X b C a/b (x, b T,µ i, i ) f b (x, µ i ) F a NP(x, b T ; { }) A sensible choice is to set the initial and final scale as: i = µ i =4e E /b T µ b f = µ f = Q 7

8 Global analysis References : - Bacchetta, Delcarro, Pisano, Radici, AS: JHEP 1706 (017) 081 8

9 What do we know? (only a selection of results!) KN 006 hep-ph/05065 Pavia 013 (+Amsterdam, Bilbao) arxiv: Torino 014 (+JLab) arxiv: Framework HERMES COMPASS DY Z production N of points LO-NLL 98 No evo (QPM) No evo (QPM) 1538 (separately) (separately) 576 (H) 684 (C) DEMS 014 arxiv: NLO-NNLL 3 EIKV 014 arxiv: LO-NLL 1 (x,q ) bin 1 (x,q ) bin 500 (?) Pavia 017 arxiv: SV 017 arxiv: LO-NLL 8059 NNLO-NNLL 309 ( courtesy A. Bacchetta ) 9

10 Data sets and kinematic coverage Electron-positron annihilation data are still missing (only some azimuthal asymmetries are available) crucial for analyses of TMD FFs

11 Features Framework HERMES COMPASS DY Z production N of points Pavia 017 arxiv: LO-NLL 8059 PROs almost a global fit of quark unpolarized TMDs includes TMD evolution replica (bootstrap) fitting methodology kinematic dependence in intrinsic part of TMDs intrinsic momentum: beyond the Gaussian assumption CONs no pure info on TMD FFs accuracy of TMD evolution : not the state of the art only low transverse momentum (no fixed order and Y-term) flavor separation in the transverse plane : problematic 11

12 Intrinsic transverse momentum f a 1NP(x, k?)= 1 (1 + k? ) g 1a + g1a e k? g 1a ˆx =0.1 (1 x) x g 1 (x) =N 1 (1 ˆx) ˆx weighted sum of two Gaussian distributions: same widths for TMD PDFs different widths for TMD FFs There are 11 free parameters in a flavor independent scenario (one for evolution) D a!h 1NP(z,P?)= 1 1 g 3a!h +( F /z )g 4a!h e P? P g 3a!h? + F z e P? g 4a!h Inspired by model calculations: Matevosyan et al. Phys. Rev. D85, (01), Bacchetta et al. Phys. Lett. B659, 34 (008), Bacchetta at al. Phys. Rev. D65, (00), hep-ph/0091 ẑ =0.5 g 3,4 (z) =N 3,4 (z + )(1 z) (ẑ + )(1 ẑ) 1

13 Models - evolution and b T regions g K (b T ; g )= g b T Large bt correction to evolution (other functional forms to be explored) ˆb(bT ; b min,b max )=b max 1 e b 4 T /b4 max b max, b T! +1 avoid Landau pole b min 1/Q, µˆb <Q 1 e b4 T /b4 min ˆbT b b min, b T! 0 recover collinear fact. 1.4 Regularization needed to recover the cross section integrated over qt in collinear factorization Q= GeV b max Crucial from the theory point of view and for the phenomenology of SIDIS (low Q) Q=5 GeV Q=0 GeV b T (GeV -1 ) 13

14 Data sets and selections - SIDIS HERMES HERMES HERMES HERMES p! + p! p! K + p! K Reference [61] Q > 1.4 GeV Cuts 0. <z<0.7 P ht < Min[0. Q, 0.7 Qz]+0.5 GeV Points Max. Q 9. GeV x range 0.06 < x < 0.4 TMD factorization (PhT /z << Q ) avoid target fragmentation [?] (low z) and exclusive contributions [?] (high z) Problem with normalization in the previous release 14

15 4.83 following.47we detail 0.91the results 0.8 of a fit to the data sets described in Sec. I In the configuration for the transverse momentum dependence of unpolarized TMDs. In T TABLE VI: Number The of points analyzed and values for SIDIS o a proton target. number of degrees of freedom (d.o.f.) is given by the number of data points anal free parameters in the error function. The overallflavor quality of the fit isscenario good, with a independent Uncertainties are computed as the 68% confidence level (C.L.) from the replica metho /points Agreement data-theory target and comparing pion and kaon production at Hermes, we see that the for kaons is in general a!k a! Points Parameters /d.o.f. pions. This is because the theoretical uncertainty for D is larger than the one for D [3, 76], 1 1 Flavor independent configuration 11 parameters 1 perimental uncertainties are in general smaller for kaons ± ± 0.05 ± ompass involves scattering o deuteron only, D! h, and we identify h. The quality of the HERMES HERMES HERMES tween theory and Compass data is better than HERMES in the case of pion production at Hermes. This TABLE V: the Total number data, of points number of free parameters least two factors.p! First: driven by Compass sinceanalyzed, the number of points + thep fit! is essentially p! K+ p! K Hermes P/D intoisπ+: s muchpoints higher than190 in Hermes. Moreover, the observable that we fit for the case of Compass the problems low data z ultiplicity, defined in (38). This automatically eliminates any possible tension between theoryatand ization /points e ects. A. Agreement between data and theory E VI: Number of points analyzed and values for SIDIS o a proton target. HERMES HERMES HERMES HERMES COMPASS COMPASS 17 Points D! + + D! D! K D!K The partition of the global + D! h!h among SIDISDo proton, SIDIS o deuteron, Drell-Y E E88 given [00] 190 E88 [300] E88 in Tab. VI, VII,[400] VIII, IX respectively. omparing pion and 3.46 kaon45 production at Hermes, we see the 1.11 for kaons1.61 is in general /points that Points a!k a! is because the theoretical uncertainty for D1 is larger than the one for D1 [3, 76], /points ncertainties are in generalofsmaller for kaons. Semi-inclusive DIS pions: TABLE VII: Number points analyzed and for SIDIS o a deuteron target. Hermes kaons better than ± [400]values E88 [00] E88 [300] E88 E605 olves scattering o deuteron only, D! h, and we identify h. The quality of the analyzed values for 45 fixed-target Drell-Yan experiments at low largerthe uncertainties Points and 45 is 35 ypoints and Compass data better than in the78 case of pion production at energy. Hermes. labels This in from FFs duced Sec. III C. is essentially For0.84 SIDIS o a proton, events with a kaon in the final state have in ge First: ctors. in drivenat byhermes the Compass /pointsthe fit data, since the number of points ntsthan the agreement theoretical formula inwe (3) and the Hermes multiplicities for production Compass :contribution better agreement due to thethe large for the kaon FFs. The major to the comes fro er in Hermesbetween. Moreover, theuncertainties observable that fit for the case of Compass is the protoninand a This deuteron. Di erent hxi, hzi and hq iagreement bins tension are displayed asexperiment a funciton of the transverse #points and normalization state. In [3, 77] a poor between and theory (which relies on th efined (38). eliminates any possible between theory and data automatically nts analyzed and values for fixed-target Drell-Yan experiments at low energy. The labels in the dected hadron PhT. collinear The grey bands arethe an envelope of the 00 replica of best-fit curves. Forthe every CDF Run I D0 Run I CDF Run II D0 Run II ts. FFs) at level of the collinear multiplicities a ected quality of the fit ed in Sec. III C. we apply a 68% C.L. selection criterion. Points marked with di erent symbols and colors correspond of the collinear FFs (DSEHS [58]), based o Points 31 this work 14 we use a37newer parametrization 8 Let stosee what zi values. There is a strong correlation between hxi and hq i that does not allow explore x and HERMES HERMES HERMES HERMES COMPASS COMPASS collinear pion multiplicities. This significantly improves the agreement at the collinea tends to improve happens with the new data ce of the/points TMDs separetely. We notice that the agreement as we move to higher Q D! K ± D! D! D! K D! h h The poor for production proton at Hermes CDF Run I D0 Run CDF Run IIareD0 Runreliable. IIo Da! the kinematic approximations of Ifactorization more Moreover, for fixed PishTmainly and Qdue, theto a bad agree atz low (see the first blocks from the toppht in/zfig. kaon production 15 kinematic 190 better IX: Number of points analyzed andz values values for Zresembles boson production at Tevatron. n general at higher values, which also the condition. Q1).forFor TMD Points two

16 Average transverse momenta Flavor ind. scenario ( = )[ ] Bacchetta, Delcarro, Pisano, Radici, Signori (JHEP 017) ( = )[ ] Red/orange regions : 68% CL from replica method Inclusion of DY/Z diminishes the correlation Inclusion of Compass increases the and reduces its spread hp?i e+e- data would further reduce the correlation 16

17 Kinematic dependence hk?i(x) = R d k? k? f 1 a (x, k?,q= 1 GeV) R d k? f1 a(x, k?,q= 1 GeV) Average square transverse momentum in TMD PDF Color code : same as previous slide [ ] Flavor-independent scenario: no differences in quark/hadron flavor - - x-independent extractions 17

18 Kinematic dependence hp?i(z) = R d P? P? Da!h 1 (z,p?,q= 1 GeV) R d P? D1 a!h (z,p?,q= 1 GeV) Average square transverse momentum in TMD FF Color code : same as previous slide [ ] Flavor-independent scenario: no differences in quark/hadron flavor z-dependence : important to fit the data GMC trans Anselmino et al. hep-ph/

19 What s next Urgent things we need: - SIDIS: distinction of different fragmentation mechanism - SIDIS: NLO description of low qt and high qt data (separately) - all processes: matching low and high qt (actually we could also start from high qt to describe data) - independent extractions of TMD FFs: formalism but no data - gluon TMDs: we have the (effective) formalism and the data - a faithful Monte Carlo implementation of TMD sensitive processes 19

20 What about TMD FFs? Forthcoming unpolarized data with transverse momentum dependence: 1) Belle- : e+e- to h X (TM dependence with respect to thrust axis) collinear factorization? TMDs? ) Belle- : e+e- to h1 h X - Definitely TMD factorization 3) BES-3? From the theory viewpoint we are working on the formalism, to prepare the ground for forthcoming extractions: - high-qt limit in collinear factorization - low-qt limit in TMD factorization E. Moffat, T. Rogers, AS Comparison with Pythia pseudo data for the moment, 0

21 Gluon TMDs gluon-gluon correlator (x, k T ) F.T. hp F + (0) U [0, ] F + ( ) U 0 [,0] P i + =0 Wilson loop correlator 0(x, k T ) (x) F.T.hP U [+] [0, ] U [ ] [,0] P i + =0 Boer, Cotogno, van Daal, Mulders, AS, Zhou JHEP 16 (016) 013 1

22 ! Gluon TMDs apple ep! e jet jet X pp! J/ X pp! c X EIC! f g 1 gluon TMD ±1 1 ±1 ±1 f g 1 gluon TMD ±1 ±1 ±1 1 ±1 ±1 h? 1 g gluon TMD ±1 h? 1 g gluon TMD 1 f g 1 gluon TMD - factorization properties in effective theories - no extractions beyond parton model yet See dedicated talks during the workshop

23 Predictive power References : - Parisi, Petronzio: Nucl. Phys. B154, 47 (1979) - Collins, Soper, Sterman: Nucl. Phys. B50, 199 (1985) - Qiu, Berger: Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 003 (003) - Grewal, Kang, Qiu, AS: in preparation 3

24 Saddle point approximation Given a generic function f C (a, b) and a positive constant A 0 Given x0, maximum in (a,b) for f : I(x 0,A)= Z b a dx e Af(x) = e Af(x 0) s A( f 00 (x 0 )) 1 1+O A b T 4

25 Saddle point approximation Given a generic function f C (a, b) and a positive constant A 0 Given x0, maximum in (a,b) for f : I(x 0,A)= Z b a dx e Af(x) = e Af(x 0) s A( f 00 (x 0 )) 1 1+O A b T Let s apply this to a TMD PDF evaluated at kt = 0: f a 1 (x, k T ; µ f, f )=F.T. f a 1 (x, b T ; µ f, f ) f a 1 (x, k T = 0; µ f, f )= 1 4 Z +1 1 Saddle point of the TMD PDF : stationary point of the exponent Z µf d(ln b T )exp µ i dµ µ F apple s (µ), f µ K(b T,µ i )ln f apple i X +lnb T +ln C a/b f b b 5

26 Determination of the saddle point d db T Z µf µ i dµ µ F apple s (µ), f µ K(b T,µ i )ln f i Generate the scale-dependence of the saddle point Generates the x-dependence of the saddle point +lnb T apple X +ln b C a/b (x, b T,µ i, i ) f b (x, µ i ) b T =b sp T =0 The lower the saddle point, the more the TMD PDF is perturbatively dominated : strong predictive power The higher the saddle point (bt > bmax), the more the nonperturbative corrections are important b T 6

27 Determination of the saddle point d db T Z µf µ i dµ µ F apple s (µ), f µ K(b T,µ i )ln f i Generate the scale-dependence of the saddle point +lnb T apple X +ln b C a/b (x, b T,µ i, i ) f b (x, µ i ) b T =b sp T =0 Parisi and Petronzio (1979) and Collins, Soper, Sterman (198) : the same analysis at the level of the cross section, neglecting the x- dependent part: 7

28 Determination of the saddle point d db T Z µf µ i dµ µ F apple s (µ), f µ K(b T,µ i )ln f i Generate the scale-dependence of the saddle point +lnb T apple X +ln b C a/b (x, b T,µ i, i ) f b (x, µ i ) b T =b sp T =0 Parisi and Petronzio (1979) and Collins, Soper, Sterman (198) : the same analysis at the level of the cross section, neglecting the x- dependent part: Conclusion : the large bt corrections are more relevant at low Q Working at LL the solution is : = µ = Q b sp 0 T = c Q cusp 1 / cusp 1 +8 b 0 8

29 Determination of the saddle point d db T Z µf µ i dµ µ F apple s (µ), f µ K(b T,µ i )ln f i Generate the scale-dependence of the saddle point Generates the x-dependence of the saddle point +lnb T apple X +ln b C a/b (x, b T,µ i, i ) f b (x, µ i ) b T =b sp T =0 Qiu, Zhang (001) introduced the x- dependent term in the analysis at the level of the cross section. We repeat the same at the level of the TMD PDF, using the language of TMD evolution 9

30 Determination of the saddle point d db T Z µf µ i dµ µ F apple s (µ), f µ K(b T,µ i )ln f i Generate the scale-dependence of the saddle point Generates the x-dependence of the saddle point +lnb T apple X +ln b C a/b (x, b T,µ i, i ) f b (x, µ i ) b T =b sp T =0 Working at LL the solution is : b sp T = c X (x, µ) = Q µ? b =e E /b sp T cusp 1 / cusp d d ln µ ln f a(x, µ) 1 +8 b 0 1 X (x,µ? b ) = µ = Q Requires iterative solution Conclusion : the predictive power is governed by both Q and x The sign of the derivative of the collinear PDF determines the behavior 30

31 Large b T corrections f a 1 (x, b T ; Q) = ( f a 1 (x, b T ; Q) f a 1 (x, b max; Q)F NP (x, b T,Q; b max ) b T apple b max b T >b max Calculable in pqcd (modulo PDFs) To be modeled and fit to data! Which one is the most relevant part and in which kinematic region? 31

32 Large b T corrections f a 1 (x, b T ; Q) = ( f a 1 (x, b T ; Q) f a 1 (x, b max; Q)F NP (x, b T,Q; b max ) b T apple b max b T >b max Calculable in pqcd (modulo PDFs) To be modeled and fit to data! Which one is the most relevant part and in which kinematic region? F NP (x, b T,Q; b max )=exp extrapolation term (see also Qiu-Zhang PRD ) low bt behavior extrapolated to large bt region n Q b max ln {g 1 [(b ) (b max) ]} c Q b max ln c {g (b b max)} o ḡ (b b max) g 1, fixed as a function of the other parameters, requiring continuity of the first and second derivatives 3

33 Large b T corrections f a 1 (x, b T ; Q) = ( f a 1 (x, b T ; Q) f a 1 (x, b max; Q)F NP (x, b T,Q; b max ) b T apple b max b T >b max Calculable in pqcd (modulo PDFs) To be modeled and fit to data! Which one is the most relevant part and in which kinematic region? F NP (x, b T,Q; b max )=exp extrapolation term (see also Qiu-Zhang PRD ) Correction to evolution n Q b max ln {g 1 [(b ) (b max) ]} c Q b max ln c {g (b b max)} o ḡ (b b max) g 1, fixed as a function of the other parameters, requiring continuity of the first and second derivatives 33

34 Large b T corrections f a 1 (x, b T ; Q) = ( f a 1 (x, b T ; Q) f a 1 (x, b max; Q)F NP (x, b T,Q; b max ) b T apple b max b T >b max Calculable in pqcd (modulo PDFs) To be modeled and fit to data! Which one is the most relevant part and in which kinematic region? n F NP (x, b T,Q; b max )=exp extrapolation term (see also Qiu-Zhang PRD ) Correction to evolution Q b max ln {g 1 [(b ) (b max) ]} c Q b max ln c {g (b b max)} o ḡ (b b max) Correction to OPE at small bt (intrinsic transverse momentum) g 1, fixed as a function of the other parameters, requiring continuity of the first and second derivatives 34

35 gluon - M H (~15 GeV) x b T sp gluon (x,q=m H 0 )[GeV -1 ] Q = M H 0 LL b T sp 0 LL b T sp NNLL/NNLO E+D - g = 0.4 [GeV ] NNLL/NNLO E+D+I - {g,g }={0.4, 0.} [GeV ] NNLL/NNLO E+D+I - {g,g }={0.6, 0.} [GeV ] X (x, µ) = d d ln µ ln f a(x, µ) positive negative the x dependence determines a change with respect to CSS-like solution Sensitivity to NP effects enhanced at high x CSS solution preliminary

36 gluon - M Υ (~9 GeV) x b T sp gluon (x,q=m Υ)[GeV -1 ] Q = M Υ LL b T sp 0 NNLL/NNLO E+D - g = 0.4 [GeV ] NNLL/NNLO E+D+I - {g,g }={0.4, 0.} [GeV ] NNLL/NNLO E+D+I - {g,g }={0.6, 0.} [GeV ] CSS solution preliminary

37 gluon - M J/ψ (~3 GeV) x b T sp gluon (x,q=m J/Ψ) [GeV -1 ] Q = M J/Ψ LL b T sp 0 NNLL/NNLO E+D - g = 0.4 [GeV ] NNLL/NNLO E+D+I - {g,g }={0.4, 0.} [GeV ] NNLL/NNLO E+D+I - {g,g }={0.6, 0.} [GeV ] CSS solution preliminary

38 up quark - M Z (~91 GeV) x b T sp up (x,q=m Z) [GeV -1 ] Q = M Z LL b T sp 0 LL b T sp NNLL/NNLO E+D - g = 0.4 [GeV ] NNLL/NNLO E+D+I - {g,g }={0.4, 0.} [GeV ] NNLL/NNLO E+D+I - {g,g }={0.6, 0.} [GeV ] CSS solution preliminary X (x, µ) = d d ln µ ln f a(x, µ) positive negative

39 up quark - M W (~80 GeV) x b T sp up (x,q=m W )[GeV -1 ] Q = M W LL b T sp 0 LL b T sp NNLL/NNLO E+D - g = 0.4 [GeV ] NNLL/NNLO E+D+I - {g,g }={0.4, 0.} [GeV ] NNLL/NNLO E+D+I - {g,g }={0.6, 0.} [GeV ] CSS solution preliminary X (x, µ) = d d ln µ ln f a(x, µ) positive negative

40 up quark - M Υ (~9 GeV) x b T sp up (x,q=m Υ) [GeV -1 ] Q = M Υ LL b T sp 0 NNLL/NNLO E+D - g = 0.4 [GeV ] NNLL/NNLO E+D+I - {g,g }={0.4, 0.} [GeV ] NNLL/NNLO E+D+I - {g,g }={0.6, 0.} [GeV ] CSS solution preliminary

41 up quark - M J/ψ (~3 GeV) preliminary (x,q=m J/Ψ) [GeV -1 ] up b T sp CSS solution Q = M J/Ψ LL b0 T sp NNLL/NNLO E+D - g = 0.4 [GeV ] NNLL/NNLO E+D+I - {g,g }={0.4, 0.} [GeV ] 0.5 NNLL/NNLO E+D+I - {g,g }={0.6, 0.} [GeV ] x 41

42 Predictive power in x-q plane high predictive power weak influence of NP low predictive power strong influence of NP Small-x, high-q : strong predictive power Rapidity dependence too 4

43 Kinematic coverage W-boson production at RHIC probes TMDs in the high Q - high x region High Q : TMD factorization under control High x : enhanced sensitivity to nonperturbative effects Interesting combination Picture from O. Eyser - CIPANP

44 Z 13 TeV preliminary 1 High-Q / high-s pp ô Z Hôm + m - L s = 13 TeV Forward rapidity d sêdq LHCb < y < 4.5 b max =0.5 GeV -1 - g =g = Extrapolation to large bt without NP corrections Forward rapidity probes significantly large x values and we need NP corrections to describe the very low qt bins q The more precise the observable is, the more relevant the NP corrections can be: see e.g. W mass and flavor dependence of intrinsic transverse momentum (arxiv: ) 44

45 Conclusions and outlook A first attempt to a global fit of TMD PDFs and FFs has been completed We need independent information about TMD FFs to break the anti correlation with TMD PDFs TMDs have predictive power in the small-x / high-q limit. Z 13 TeV in different rapidity ranges can be used to prove the point. Forward rapidity probes large x region, which implies sensitivity to the form of the NP part. Conversely observables are more sensitive to NP corrections in the low-q / large-x limit (JLab). An interesting region to extract the nonperturbative contributions to TMD PDFs could be the region at high Q (to better control the corrections to factorization) and high x (to enhance the sensitivity to the large bt region) RHIC can provide data in this region, e.g. W-boson production to study both polarized and unpolarized TMDs, providing a complementary view on the results available from JLab 45

46 Backup 46

47 Collinear vs TMD PDFs see E. Nocera - POETIC016 Data: kine ] [ GeV / p / M Q 7 NMC SLAC 6 5 T BCDMS CHORUS NTVDMN EMCFC HERACOMB HERAFCHARM FBOTTOM DYE886 DYE605 CDF D0 ATLAS CMS LHCb 5 4 x 3 Q : resolution of the probe 1 1 O(4000) data points after cuts cut =1GeV Wcut =3 1.5 GeV data driven science 47 ] [GeV /p /M Q T 4 3 data sets available: collinear PDFs vs TMD PDFs 1 Q [GeV ] -3 EMC SMC SMClowx E14 E143 E154 E155 COMPASS-D ] [ GeV COMPASS-P 4 COMPASS-P15 / p T HERMES97 / M HERMES 3 JLAB-E Q x : momentum fraction carried by the parton 7 JLAB-EG1-DVCS JLAB-E Polarized Unpolarized PDFs PDFs 7 NMC SLAC COMPASS-OC STAR-W BCDMS ± STAR-jets PHENIX-jets CHORUS NTVDMN EMCFC HERACOMB HERAFCHARM FBOTTOM DYE886 DYE605 CDF D0 ATLAS CMS LHCb x 1 1 O(400) O(4000) data data points points after after cuts cuts Q cut Q =1GeV Wcut =4 6.5 GeV cut =1GeV Wcut =3 1.5 GeV x x

48 (Un)polarized collinear PDFs World data for F p World data for g 1 p World data for h 1 f 1 from fits of thousands data g 1 from fits of hundreds data h 1 from fits of tens data omery - QCD evolution

49 η c production at LHC full transverse momentum spectrum: inverse-error weighting : d /dqt [nb/gev] preliminary LHCb Resummed Fixed-order Average Scale uncertainty NP uncertainty c production NP model bp min and b max s =7TeV R 0 = <y< q T [GeV] Echevarria, Kasemets, Lansberg, AS, Pisano Phys.Lett. B781 (018) blue band: uncertainty from matching grey band: scale uncertainty red band: uncertainty associated to the nonperturbative evolution and intrinsic transverse momenta the formalism is in good shape we need the data at low qt 49

50 W mass ATLAS, arxiv: Need to better control the uncertainties associated to direct determinations of mw Is it possible to reduce the uncertainty to less than MeV? Are we estimating all the uncertainties of hadronic nature in the best way possible? 50