OLD- just experimental NEW- just experimental
OLD- just experimental NEW- just experimental
PDF set σ W+ B W →lν (nb) σ W- B W →lν (nb) σ z B z →ll (nb) HERA-I12.13± ± ± ± ± ±0.025 fs= fs= fc=0.10/fc= fc=0.20/fc= Q 2 min = Q 2 min = Q 2 0 = Q 2 0 = α s = α s = Humpy param Zeus param Model dependences The blue values are NEW with fc=0.15 again Broad picture of model dependence is not quite the same.. No one overwhelming source, but a build up of lots of changes of ½ to 1 sigma. Mc matters now~same as fc Mb is ½ sigma Different parametrizations are outside one sigma Alpha_s is about one sigma
OLD plus 6 model errors NEW plus 6 model errors-quite a bit smaller..the charm did make a big difference
OLD plus 6 model errors NEW plus 6 model errors-quite a bit smaller..the charm did make a big difference
NEW Q20=2 its really this isnt it-there is nothing like the size of effect OLD Q20=2
NEW Q20=2 its really this isnt it-there is nothing like the size of effect
OLD Q20=6 NEW Q20=6 – this is also smaller but not so strikingly so
NEW Q20=6- this is also smaller but not so strikingly so OLD Q20=6
OLD humpy NEW humpy- doesn’t look the same and it should?- trouble?
OLD humpy NEW humpy doesn’t look the same and it should?- trouble? Humpy doesn’t look as different as it did.
NEW ZJ- again its different could the k- factors explain it? OLD ZJ
NEW ZJ -again its different could the k- factors explain it? But was never that large
OLD alphas=0.1156NEW alphas= different
OLD alphas= NEW alphas=0.1156
NEW alphas= different OLD alphas= Is within error bars..but always was within other model errors
NEW alphas= OLD alphas= Fact is alphas was never large and still isnt