Paschos-Wolfenstein relationship for nuclei and the NuTeV sin 2θW measurement

Physical Review D

Volumn 67, Issue 9, 2003, Pages

  Kulagin, S A ^a  

^a INSTITUTE FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH   (Russian Federation)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ELECTROCHEMICAL ANALYSIS; ERROR; EXPERIMENT; EXTRACTION; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; NEUTRON; PHENOMENOLOGY; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY;

EID: 3543126974     PISSN: 05562821     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.67.091301     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. G.P. Zeller et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 091802 (2002).
2. LEP Collaborations, D. Abbaneo et al., "A Combination of Preliminary Electroweak Measurements and Constraints on the Standard Model," hep-ex/0112021.
3. S. Davidson et al., J. High Energy Phys. 02, 037 (2002).
4. E.A. Paschos and L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D 7, 91 (1973).
5. -, but rather measures "ratios of experimental candidates within kinematic criteria and compares this to a Monte Carlo simulation" [12].
6. G.A. Miller and A.W. Thomas, hep-ex/0204007.
7. S. Kovalenko, I. Schmidt, and J.-J. Yang, Phys. Lett. B 546, 68 (2002).
8. S. Kumano, Phys. Rev. D 66, 111301 (R) (2002).
9. Particle Data Group, K. Hagiwara et al., Phys. Rev. D 66, 010001 (2002).
10. 2.
11. 2, which has to be chosen according to the specific experimental conditions.
12. G.P. Zeller et al., Phys. Rev. D 65, 111103(R) (2002).
13. K.S. McFarland et al., in NuInt01 Proceedings, http:// neutrino.kek.jp/nuint01/
14. G.P. Zeller and K.S. McFarland (personal communications).
15. H.L. Lai et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 12, 375 (2000).
16. It is also asserted that Eq. (7) of Ref. [12] was not used in the NuTeV analysis [14].
17. The NuTeV Collaboration uses its own parton distributions obtained in the leading order fit to their CC data. We comment in this respect that, since the NuTeV Collaboration aims at a precise determination of the weak mixing angle, the inclusion of the NLO corrections to the parton distributions appears as a necessary improvement of the analysis.
18. A.D. Martin et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 23, 73 (2002).
19. S.I. Alekhin, hep-ph/0211096.
20. S.V. Akulinichev, S.A. Kulagin, and G.M. Vagradov, Phys. Lett. 158B, 485 (1985);
21. S.A. Kulagin, Nucl. Phys. A500, 653 (1989);
22. S.A. Kulagin, G. Piller, and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. C 50, 1154 (1994).
23. However, it must be emphasized that this cancellation applies to the total cross sections. For the ratio of the differential cross sections (or for the quark distributions) this effect remains finite even in the approximation in which the distribution functions of bound protons and neutrons are identical.
24. It is interesting to note that this effect may mask the effects of isospin violation in the quark distribution functions. It must be also commented that the possible difference between nuclear modifications of the u- and d-quark distributions was discussed in Ref. [8] in the context of the NuTeV deviation in terms of a phenomenological approach.
25. S. A. Kulagin (in preparation).
26. S.A. Kulagin, hep-ph/9812532.
27. M.L. Mangano et al., hep-ph/0105155.