1. Legacy of HERA A M Cooper-Sarkar INT 10-3 October 18 2010 Combination of ZEUS and H1 data and PDF fits to these data: 1.Inclusive cross-sections HERA-1 (1992-2000):arxiv:0911.0884 -improved constraints at low-x 2.F2(charm) data (preliminary)- constraints on the charm mass parameter, m c (model) 3.Low energy runs – FL- 2007- (preliminary) –tension with low x, Q2 data? 4.Inclusive cross-sections HERA-II (2003-2007)- (preliminary) -improved constraints at high-x Predictions for LHC cross-sections Predictions for Tevatron cross-sections Still to come F2(beauty) Jets and α S (M Z ), perhaps forward jets NOT COVERED: dffractive physics

2. Why combine ZEUS and H1 data? At the LHC we collide protons Protons are full of partons. Our knowledge of partons comes from Deep Inelastic Scattering data. HERA dominates these data and is most relevant for the kinematic region of early LHC data We think we know how to extrapolate in Q 2 using (N)NLO QCD (using the DGLAP equations) but we don’t a priori know the shapes of the parton distributions in x. The HERA data is our best guide DGLAP eqns AT this meeting I am also allowed to say that having the highest precison measurements in the low-x region is interesing in its own right!

3.  Averaging H1 and ZEUS data provides a model independent tool to study consistency of the data and to reduce systematic uncertainties:  Experiments cross calibrate each other JHEP 1001.109 arxiv:0911.0884  The combination method includes accounting for full systematic error correlations.  The resulting combination is much more accurate than expected from the increased statistics of combining two experiments. It’s like having had the best features of both detectors  The post-averaging systematic errors are smaller than the statistical across a large part of the kinematic plane A substantial part of the uncertainty on parton distributions comes from the need to use many different input data sets with large systematic errors and questionable levels of consistency- i ncreased χ2 tolerances are used to account for this

4. 2009 average based on the complete HERA-I inclusive NC and CC DIS data:  Ep=820 (  s=300) and Ep=920 (  s=320) GeV 200 pb -1 of e+p, 30 pb -1 of e-p CC e - p data: H1 98, ZEUS 98 (250 ≤ Q2 ≤ 15000 GeV2) CC e + p data: H1 94-97, H1 99-00, ZEUS 94-97, ZEUS 99-00 (250 ≤ Q 2 ≤ 15000 GeV 2 ) NC e - p data: H1 98, ZEUS 98 (200 ≤ Q 2 ≤ 30000 GeV 2 NC e + p data: ZEUS 96-97, ZEUS 99-00, H1 99-00 “high Q 2 ”,H1 96-00 “bulk”, H1 95-00 “low-Q2”, ZEUSBPC/BPT, SVX95 “low-Q2” (0.045 < Q 2 < 30,000 GeV 2 ) The NCe+p data sets cover 5 decades of the kinematic plane in Q2 and x. The scaling violations of these data give us our best handle on the low-x gluon which is very important for Standard Model LHC physics at the W/Z scale but is also interesting in its own right Data Sets The new combination supercedes all these data sets This gives 110 correlated systematic error sources 3 “procedural uncertainties” related to the averaging procedure But they are all small !

5. 1402 data points are averaged to 741 combined data points χ2/ndf =637/656 Combining the experiments accounting for the systematic uncertainties is like having had a much better detector ZEUS γp background uncertainty is reduced by a factor of 3 H1 LAr hadron calorimeter energy scale uncertainty is halved Resulting total uncertainties are <2% over a large part of the kinematic plane AND the contribution of correlated systematics to this errors is now < statistical error

6. Results of the combination compared to the separate data sets- illustration just for a few of the NCe+ data This page shows NC e+ combined data but NCe- and CCe+ and e- are also combined

7. These data are used for extracting parton distributions: HERAPDF1.0 Some of the debates about the best way of estimating PDF uncertainties concern the use of many different data sets with varying levels of consistency. The combination of the HERA data yields a very accurate and consistent data set for 4 different processes: e+p and e-p Neutral and Charged Current reactions. Whereas the data set does not give information on every possible PDF flavour it does: Give information on the low-x Sea (NCe+ data) Give information on the low-x Gluon via scaling violations (NCe+ data) Give information on high-x u (NCe+/e- and CCe-) and d ( CCe+ data) valence PDFs Give information on u and d-valence shapes down to x~3 10 -2 (from the difference between NCe+ and NCe-) We can set the experimental uncertainties on our PDFs at 68% CL by the conventional χ2 tolerance Δχ2 = 1, because we have a consistent data set NOTE the use of a pure proton target means d-valence is extracted without need for heavy target/deuterium corrections or strong iso-spin assumptions these are the only PDFs for which this is true Furthermore, the kinematic coverage at low-x ensures that these are the most crucial data when extrapolating predictions from W, Z and Higgs cross-sections to the LHC

8. d 2  (e - p) = G F 2 M 4 W [x (u+c) + (1-y) 2 x (d+s)] d 2  (e + p) = G F 2 M 4 W [x (u+c) + (1-y) 2 x (d+s)] dxdy 2  x(Q 2 +M 2 W ) 2 CC e-pCC e+p We can use the reduced cross-sections to learn about high-x valence PDFs For NC e+ and e- d 2  (e±N) = Y+ [ F 2 (x,Q 2 ) - y 2 F L (x,Q 2 ) ± Y_xF 3 (x,Q 2 )], Y± = 1 ± (1-y) 2 dxdy Y+ F 2 = F 2 γ –v e P Z F 2 γZ + (v e 2 +a e 2 )P Z 2 F 2 Z xF 3 = - a e P Z xF 3 γZ + 2v e a e P Z 2 xF 3 Z Where P Z 2 = Q 2 /(Q 2 + M 2 Z ) 1/sin 2 θ W, and at LO [F 2,, F 2 γZ, F 2 Z ] =  i [e i 2,2e i v i,v i 2 +a i 2 ][xq i (x,Q 2 ) + xq i (x,Q 2 )] [xF 3 γZ, xF 3 Z ] =  i [e i a i,v i a i ] [xq i (x,Q 2 ) - xq i (x,Q 2 )] So that xF 3 γZ = 2x[e u a u u v + e d a d d v ] = x/3 (2u v +d v ) Where xF 3 γZ is the dominant term in xF 3 The difference between NC e+ and e- cross-sections gives the valence structure function xF3 due to γ/Z interference and Z exchange Note this is obtained on a pure proton target so No heavy target corrections No assumptions on strong isospin (Unlike xF3 determined from neutrino scattering on heavy isocalar targets ) Where does the information on parton distributions come from?

9. RESULTS for HERAPDF1.0 –arxiv:0911.0884 And here is a summary plot of the PDF results. We estimate model and parametrisation uncertainties as well as experimental uncertainties To appreciate how much better this is than uncombined HERA data compare the red experimental errors to this plot which shows the experimental errors for a smilar PDf fit to uncombined data

10. Consequences for W and Z production at the LHC Look at predictions for W/Z rapidity distributions: Pre- and Post-HERA Why such an improvement ? It’s due to the improvement in the low-x sea and gluon At the LHC the q-qbar which make the boson are mostly sea-sea partons And at Q 2 ~M Z 2 the sea is driven by the gluon Note difference in scale for fractional errors These illustrations at 14 TeV Just fixed target DIS data ~15% uncertainty Separate HERA data sets~5% uncertainty Combined HERA data set~1.5% uncertainty

11. However PDF fitting should also include consideration of model errors and parametrisation errors HERAPDF1.0 experimental plus model errors plus parametrisation Model errors are the most signficant in the central region: m c, m b, fs, Q 2 min m c =1.35 – 1.65 GeV is the dominant contribution… but this can be improved if F2(charm) data are used…..

12. Comparisons of W+ cross-section as a function of α S (M Z ) MSTW08 CTEQ66 HERAPDF1.0 NNPDF2.0 ABKM09 GJR08 The PDF4LHC group has been considering all these PDFs at NLO Plot from G.Watt -MSTW Recently the PDF4LHC group has been considering the role that the uncertainty in the value of α S (M Z ) plays in the overall uncertainty of predictions- PDFs are provided at a fixed α S (M Z ). This is not a large effect for W/Z production But the value of m c AND the scheme used to account for heavy quark production are.. NOTE many of the PDFs (NNPDF, CTEQ, MSTW,HERAPDF) are now provided for a range of α S (M Z ) values

13. H1 and ZEUS have also combined charm data recently And the HERAPDF1.0 gives a good description of these data –within its error band- The error band spans m c =1.35 (high) to m c =1.65 (low) GeV The data show some preference for higher charm mass than the standard choice m c =1.4 GeV

14. If we input the charm data to the PDF fit it does not change the PDFs significantly BUT After charm is input the χ2 profile vs the charm mass parameter gives m c = 1.57 ± 0.02 GeV Before charm is input the χ2 profile vs the charm mass parameter is shallow..

15. But the HERAPDF uses the Thorne General Mass Variable Flavour Number Scheme for heavy quarks as used by MSTW08 This is not the only GMVFN CTEQ use ACOT- χ NNPDF2.0 use ZMVFN These all have different preferred charm mass parameters, and all fit the data well when used with their own best fit charm mass Model and param. Errors included We have re-analysed the HERAPDF+F2c data using several different heavy quark schemes

16. We then use each of these schemes to predict W and Z cross-sections at the LHC (at 7 TeV) as a function of charm mass parameter If a fixed value of mc is used then the spread is considerable (~7%)- but if each prediction is taken at its own optimal mass value the spread is dramatically reduced (~2%) even when a Zero-Mass (ZMVFN) approximation has been used The PDFs MSTW08, CTEQ6.6, NNPDF2.0 do NOT use charm mass parameters at the optimal values- and this may explain their differing predictions.

17. H1 and ZEUS have also combined the e+p NC inclusive data from the lower proton beam energy runs (P P = 460 and 575) and produced a common FL measurement

18. When the low energy data are input to the HERAPDF fit it becomes evident that the low Q 2 /low-x data are not so well fit – Imposing a harder Q 2 cut Q 2 > 5 improves the situation The resulting PDFs have a somewhat different shape- less valence-like gluon at low Q 2 … steeper gluon at higher Q 2 This is also true if you make an x cut x > 5 10 -4 or a combined cut Q 2 > 0.5 x -0.3

19. Our Regge prejudices led us to think that the sea and gluon would have soft slopes at low x ~ x -0.08 at the starting scale and THEN evolution would make them steeper. However at Q 2 ~2 the sea has a steeper slope x -0.15 and the gluon is valence-like x +0.2 If however we distrust the formalism for low x and Q 2 and we fit only data for Q 2 > 5 the sea has a softer slope x -0.11 But the gluon is less valence-like x +0.08 i.e. they are both closer to the Regge soft Pomeron value of -0.08 So NLO DGLAP maybe showing signs failure at low-x, Q2 But how about NNLO DGLAP?...

20. HERAPDF1.0 is also available at NNLO for two values of α S (M Z ) since many analyses indicate that alphas seems to be smaller at NNLO than at NLO and our own data prefer a lower value NNLO fits to HERA-I data give: First fit αS(MZ) for NLO → 0.1166 ± 0.0044(exp) χ2= 574.8 /592 Then fit αS(MZ) at NNLO→0.1145 ± 0.0042(exp) χ2= 623.5 /592 NNLO is important for precision studies of cross-section uncertainties. There are far fewer NNLO PDFS: MSTW08, ABKM NOTE: NNLO has worse χ2 than NLO and does not fit low-x Q2 data better. The χ2 is also improved if low x, Q2 cuts are imposed. In fact it is the 920 data which are worst fit at NNLO. Tension between the low and high-energy data shows up at low-x,Q2 and is not solved by moving to NNLO.

21. NNLO Q2 > 5 Χ2/ndf 762.4/771 X/N CCEP = 0.93 34 X/N CCEM = 0.56 34 X/N NCEP= 1.10 353 X/N NCEM= 0.76 145 X/N NCEP 460/575 = 0.85 215 NNLO using α s (M Z )=0.1145 NLO Q 2 > 5 Χ2/ndf 698.3/771 X/N CCEP = 0.85 34 X/N CCEM = 0.58 34 X/N NCEP= 1.03 353 X/N NCEM= 0.75 145 X/N NCEP 460/575 = 0.82 215 NLO using α s (M Z )=0.1176 NLO χ2 818.5/806 X/N CCEP = 0.86 34 X/N CCEM = 0.59 34 X/N NCEP= 1.13 379 X/N NCEM= 0.74 145 X/N NCEP 460/575 = 1.04 224 NNLO Χ2/ndf 873.7/806 X/N CCEP = 1.04 34 X/N CCEM = 0.57 34 X/N NCEP= 1.24 379 X/N NCEM= 0.75 145 X/N NCEP 460/575 = 1.07 224

22. RT VFN χ2 818.5/806 X/N CCEP = 0.86 34 X/N CCEM = 0.58 34 X/N NCEP= 1.13 379 X/N NCEM= 0.74 145 X/N NCEP 460/575 = 1.04 224 ACOT VFN χ2 788.6/806 X/N CCEP = 0.89 34 X/N CCEM = 0.59 34 X/N NCEP= 1.09 379 X/N NCEM= 0.74 145 X/N NCEP 460/575 = 0.98 224 ACOT-χ VFN χ2 793.2/806 X/N CCEP = 0.88 34 X/N CCEM = 0.58 34 X/N NCEP= 1.13 379 X/N NCEM= 0.75 145 X/N NCEP 460/575 = 0.92 224 What about changes in the heavy quark scheme? Changes in the Thorne GMVFN make little difference But a change to ACOT does – this has one less power of α S in the definition of FL And so does the use of a Fixed Flavour Number sheme FFN χ2 724.7/738 X/N CCEP = X/N CCEM = X/N NCEP= 1.08 379 X/N NCEM= 0.76 145 X/N NCEP 460/575 = 0.92 224 But all of these are improved further by x or Q2 cuts

23. NOTE there is no improvement from cutting high y. Applying x,Q 2 cuts does NOT have a big effect on the description of FL. Changes of heavy quark scheme to ACOT, FFN or a change from NLO to NNLO have a bigger effect on FL Describing the integrated FL vs Q2 plot and describing the full differential cross-section data for three different proton energies are not achieved in identical ways. A precision measurement of FL(x,Q2) would have been nice.

24. 575 This implies that the ‘true’ gluon could be a little bit steeper than the HERAPDF1.0 gluon- or indeed CTEQ6.6 or MSTW08 gluons However this effect only starts to become important for x < 10 -3 so W/Z cross-sections at the LHC are only marginally affected- 1-1.5% up at 7 TeV Returning to NLO fits: How hard do we need to cut such that DGLAP fits of just Ep=920 data and fits including lower energy data are once more in good agreement? Q 2 > 1.0 x -0.3

25. HERA- I combination only ~250 pb -1 of data HERA-II gives 4 times as much data in total The triggers were such that most of this is at higher x and Q 2 We have made a preliminary HERA-II combination- not all of the separate ZEUS and H1 inclusive data which go into this combination are yet published.

26. H1 and ZEUS have also combined preliminary high Q 2 HERA-II data along with the HERA-I data and HERAPDF1.0 has recently been updated to HERAPDF1.5 by including these data The data on the left has been updated to the data on the right The HERAPDF1.0 fit on the left has been updated to the HERAPDF1.5 fit on the right

27. The data on the left has been updated to the data on the right The HERAPDF1.0 fit on the left has been updated to the HERAPDF1.5 fit on the right. The CCe- data is improved because at HERA-1 there were only 30 pb-1 of e- data, at HERA-II there are ~350pb -1

28. The data on the left has been updated to the data on the right The HERAPDF1.0 fit on the left has been updated to the HERAPDF1.5 fit on the right In this case ~200pb-1 of HERA-I data has been supplemented by ~300pb-1 of HERA- II data. Extra CCe+ helps to determine the d quark at high-x

29. The PDF uncertainties have been reduced at high-x These plots show total uncertainties (model and parametrization included) Improved determination of the d/u ratio at high-x. The only PDF which measures d in a proton rather than an isoscalar target

30. This reduced high-x error results in a reduced error at high rapidity for W/Z production at the LHC

31. How about Tevatron results? We don’t include Tevatron data in the fits but we can describe it – we CAN describe Tevatron jet data despite having a relatively soft gluon (we have harder quarks) AND we have a reasonable description of the D0 electron asymmetry data which is troublesome for some of the PDFs Note some of the trouble comes from tension with NMC and BCDMS fixed target deuteron data- deuterium corrections are one possible explanation- the HERAPDF uses only proton data and is not subject to this uncertainty

32. Things still to come: Inclusion of F2b- more information on gluon/heavy quark schemes Inclusion of HERA jets data- -- decrease in gluon uncertainty using fixed α S (M Z ) -- decrease in gluon uncertainty using free α S (M Z ) and determination of alphas and PDF simultaneously within the fit --decrease in the uncertainty of α S (M Z ) NOTE the HERA-jet data already give very competitive α S (M Z ) determinations (not covered here) Jet illustrations use ZEUS combined HERA not yet ready

33. Comparison to conventional LO and NLO calculations- NLO below data, especially at small x Bj What about Forward Jets?- combined data are still to come Look at the hadron final states..lack of pt ordering has its consequences. Forward jets with x j » x and k tj 2 ~ Q 2 are suppressed for DGLAP evolution but not for k t disordered BFKL evolution

34. But there are some things that HERA did not do (apart from fail to fully exploit the low-x region!): flavour separation in the sea Strangeness has been assigned a large model error at Q 2 0 =2 sbar = (0.45± 0.15) dbar Could HERA measure strangeness? W + +s → c Charm production in CCe+.. There is still some work going on, but statistics will be poor There is also some HERMES data which suggests that strange is not the same shape as dbar….

35. Then there is dbar-ubar We know this is not zero at high-x from E866 Drell-Yan measurements The HERAPDFs are NOT in disagreement with this but could do better! Along with most other PDFs it assumed that dbar=ubar at small-x What if we relax this assumption… This Toy PDF is called the HERAPDF1.u ‘unconstrained’ or ‘dissident’ PDF It comes in two varieties: 1.dbar≠ubar at small x 2.dbar≠ubar at small x plus strangeness fixed to the HERMES shape

36. The dissident fit has dbar very much smaller than ubar at small-x (although slightly larger at high-x so not in disagreement with Drell-Yan data).

37. As Q 2 increases the difference between dbar and ubar remains constant but the size of ubar and dbar increase rapidly at low-x so that by Q 2 ~M W,Z 2 this difference is not very significant. However for the LHC it is still visible…. Strangeness evolves to become almost the same size as dbar, ubar and the difference in the Standard and the HERMES strangeness is not significant

38. For the Tevatron x values are higher and W,Z are q-q dominated so such a ‘dissident’ PDF is not excluded For the LHC there should be obvious differences – we may even be able to exclude this with data taken this year

39. SUMMARY Combination of ZEUS and H1 data and PDF fits to these data: 1.Inclusive cross-sections HERA-1 (1992-2000):arxiv:0911.0884 -improved constraints at low-x 2.F2(charm) data (preliminary)- constraints on the charm mass parameter, m c (model) 3.Low energy runs – FL- 2007- (preliminary) –extends the kinematic reach in the same direction as EIC-- tension with low x, Q2 data? 4.Inclusive cross-sections HERA-II (2003-2007)- (preliminary) -improved constraints at high-x ----using only proton target Still to come: 1.F2(beauty) 2.HERA jet data What HERA could not do: u,d,s flavour separation in the Sea What HERA did not do: fully exploit the low-x region, precision measurement of FL

40. extras

41. LHeC PDF improvement 100 GeV e on 7 TeV

42. LHeC Low-x Expansion of the kinematic regime so that low-x, x~10 -4 now has Q2 up to 100 rather than 10 Can measure F2 and FL and hope to distinguish models with/without saturation etc

43. Swim all points to a common x-Q 2 grid Moved 820 GeV data to 920 GeV p-beam energy Calculate average values and uncertainties This is done by making a χ2 fit to the data points of both experiments which simply assumes that for each process (NC or CC, e+ or e-) and each x, Q 2 point (i) there is only one ‘true’ value of the cross-section- these are the predictions m i – whereas there can be several measurements of this value, from ZEUS and H1 and from different years of running- these are the measurements µ i The chisq accounts for the correlated systematics of the data points- each data point can have several such uncertainties Γ, hence sum over j for each data point i, but these uncertainties are common to all data points for large sub-sets of data. The fit determines the value of the cross-sections m i and the systematic shift parameters b j Evaluate further uncertainties due to choices in combination procedure,e.g. Correlations between ZEUS and H1 Averaging procedure

44. 1402 data points are averaged to 741 combined data points χ2/ndf =637/656 Systematic shift parameters b, shift most systematics < 1 std deviation But the fit also determines uncertainties on the shift parameters Δb, some of these are much reduced e.g ZEUS γp background uncertainty is reduced by a factor of 3 H1 LAr hadron calorimeter energy scale uncertainty is halved Resulting total uncertainties are <2% over a large part of the kinematic plane AND the contribution of correlated systematics to this errors is now < statistical error

45. The data combination results in a data set which not only has improved statistical uncertainty, but also improved systematic uncertainty. Even though there are 113 sources of correlated systematic uncertainty on the data points these uncertainties are small. The total systematic uncertainty is significantly smaller than the statistical uncertainty across the the kinematic region used in the QCD fits This means that the method of treatment of correlated systematic uncertainties in our PDF fits is not crucial. We obtain similar results treating all systematic errors as correlated or as uncorrelated. For our PDF fits we combine 110 sources of systematic uncertainty from the separate experiments in quadrature and OFFSET the 3 procedural systematics which derive from the method of data combination. We set the experimental uncertainties on our PDFs at 68% CL by the conventional χ2 tolerance Δχ2 = 1 Correlated systematic uncertainties, χ2 and Δχ2

46. We chose to fit the PDFs for: gluon, u-valence, d-valence and the Sea u and d-type flavours: Ubar = ubar, Dbar = dbar+sbar (below the charm threshold ) To the functional form The normalisations of the gluon and valence PDFs are fixed by the momentum and number sum-rules resp. Further constraints are: B(d-valence) = B(u-valence), B(Dbar) = B(Ubar), low-x shape of Sea same for u-type+d-type A(Ubar) = A(Dbar) (1-fs), where sbar = fs Dbar, so that ubar → dbar as x→ 0 (fs=0.31) Theoretical framework Fits are made at NLO in the DGLAP formalism -using QCDNUM 17.00 The Thorne-Roberts massive variable flavour number scheme is used (2008 version) and compared with ACOT The staring scale Q 2 0 (= 1.9 GeV 2 ) is below the charm mass 2 (mc=1.4 GeV) and charm and beauty (mb=4.75) are generated dynamically A minimum Q 2 cut Q 2 > 3.5 GeV 2 is applied to stay within the supposed region of validity of leading twist pQCD (no data are at low W 2 ) Parametrisation and model assumptions

47. Uncertainties due to model assumptions are evaluated by varying input values Variation of heavy quark masses: Mc=1.35 to1.65 GeV (the pole-mass) Mb= 4.3 to 5.0 GeV Variaion of the sea fraction Fs=s/(d+s) = 0.23 to 0.38 Variation of the minimum Q 2 cut on data entering the fit Q 2 min = 2.5 to5.0 GeV 2 We also vary the value of the starting scale Q 2 0 from1.5 to 2.5 GeV 2 : this is considered as a parametrisation uncertainty rather than a model uncertainty…

48. Parametrisation uncertainties- indicative, not exhaustive The central fit is chosen as follows: start with a 9 parameter fit with all D and E parameters = 0 and then add D and E parameters one at a time noting the χ2 improvement. Chose the fit with the lowest χ2. This has E(u-valence) ≠ 0 and χ2/ndf = 574/582. This is the central fit We then start with this 10 parameter fit and add all the other D and E parameters one at a time noting the χ2 improvement. It turns out that there is no significant further improvement in χ2 for 11 parameter fits. An envelope of the shapes of these 11 parameter fits is formed and used as a parametrization error. This gives the parametrization uncertainty at high-x. Low-x parametrisation uncertainty is accounted for by the following additional variations: 1.Bdv free –this results in Bdv ≈ Buv 2. A negative gluon term: - A x B (1-x) C is added to the usual gluon term, when the starting scale of the fit is lowered to Q 2 0 =1.5 GeV 2 – this results in a small –ve gluon term but the gluon itself does not become negative in the kinematic range of the data

50. And compared to alternative theoretical predictions: White and Thorne (WT) which has NLL ln1/x resummation included Dipole Models which can accommodate non-linear effects/ saturation eg IIM colour glass condensate So do we have a smoking gun? Maybe not- but the circumstantial evidence is building up…. Compared to various NLO DGLAP fits

51. HERAPDF1.0 has a rather high q- qbar luminosity at high scale. This is reduced in HERAPDF1.5 The PDF4LHC group has been comparing PDFs at the level of parton-parton lumiosities Plot from G.Watt -MSTW

52. Let’s look at the modern PDFsets MSTW08 CTEQ66 HERAPDF1.0 NNPDF2.0 ABKM09 GJR08 Overall disagreement ~8% in W, Z cross-sections The PDF4LHC recommendation is to take the envelope of the NNPDF, MSTW, CTEQ predictions --even this may not be enough! Plots from G.Watt -MSTW

55. Spread in Higgs production cross- sections is now > 15% Dependence on alphas is also increased Plots from G.Watt -MSTW