Impact of lepton <i>p</i><sub><i>T</i></sub> threshold on charge asymmetry predictions for inclusive <i>W</i> boson production in <i>pp</i> collisions at 13 TeV -

\begin{document}$p^{l}_{T}$\end{document} threshold on the

\begin{document}$W$\end{document}

boson charge asymmetry predictions in perturbative QCD for the inclusive

\begin{document}$W^{\pm}+X \rightarrow l^{\pm} \nu +X$\end{document}

production in proton-proton (

\begin{document}$pp$\end{document}

) collisions. The predictions are obtained at various low-

\begin{document}$p^{l}_{T}$\end{document}

thresholds

\begin{document}$p^{l}_{T} >$\end{document}

20, 25, 30, and 40 GeV in a fiducial region encompassing both the central and forward detector acceptances in terms of the lepton pseudorapidity

\begin{document}$0 \leq \eta_{l} \leq 4.5$\end{document}

. The predicted distributions for the lepton charge asymmetry, which is defined by

\begin{document}$\eta_{l}$\end{document}

(

\begin{document}$A_{\eta_{l}}$\end{document}

), at the next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) accuracy are compared with the CMS and LHCb data at 8 TeV center-of-mass collision energy. The 8 TeV predictions reproduce the data fairly well within the quoted uncertainties. The predictions from the CT14 parton distribution function (PDF) model are in a slightly better agreement with the data over the other PDF sets that are tested. The 13 TeV predictions using various

\begin{document}$p^{l}_{T}$\end{document}

thresholds are reported for

\begin{document}$A_{\eta_{l}}$\end{document}

and the charge asymmetries that are defined in terms of the differential cross sections in bins of the

\begin{document}$W$\end{document}

boson rapidity

\begin{document}$y_{W}$\end{document}

(

\begin{document}$A_{y_{W}}$\end{document}

) and transverse momentum

\begin{document}$p^{W}_{T}$\end{document}

(

\begin{document}$A_{p^{W}_{T}}$\end{document}

). The NNLO predictions for the

\begin{document}$A_{\eta_{l}}$\end{document}

,

\begin{document}$A_{y_{W}}$\end{document}

, and

\begin{document}$A_{p^{W}_{T}}$\end{document}

distributions are assessed to be in close correlation with the

\begin{document}$p^{l}_{T}$\end{document}

value. The

\begin{document}$A_{\eta_{l}}$\end{document}

and

\begin{document}$A_{y_{W}}$\end{document}

distributions are particularly shown to be more correlated at a higher

\begin{document}$p^{l}_{T}$\end{document}

threshold. The

\begin{document}$A_{p^{W}_{T}}$\end{document}

distributions are also reported from the merged predictions with improved accuracy by the inclusion of the next-to-next-to-next-to-leading logarithm (N³LL) corrections, i.e., at NNLO+N³LL. The predicted distributions from various

\begin{document}$p^{l}_{T}$\end{document}

thresholds represent a finer probe in terms of the capability to provide more constraints on the ratio of

\begin{document}$u$\end{document}

and

\begin{document}$d$\end{document}

quark distribution functions in the parton momentum fraction range

\begin{document}$10^{-4} < x < 1$\end{document}

."> Impact of lepton <i>p</i><sub><i>T</i></sub> threshold on charge asymmetry predictions for inclusive <i>W</i> boson production in <i>pp</i> collisions at 13 TeV -

[1]
F. Abeet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 5754-5759 (1998)
[2]
V. M. Abazovet al., Phys. Rev. D77, 011106 (2008)
[3]
V. M. Abazovet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 211801 (2008)
[4]
T. Aaltonenet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 181801 (2009)
[5]
V. M. Abazovet al., Phys. Rev. D88, 091102 (2013)
[6]
V. M. Abazovet al., Phys. Rev. D91, 032007 (2015)
[7]
V. M. Abazovet al., Erratum: Phys. Rev. D91, 079901 (2015)
[8]
G. Aadet al., Phys. Rev. D85, 072004 (2012)
[9]
S. Chatrchyanet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 111806 (2012)
[10]
S. Chatrchyanet al., Phys. Rev. D90, 032004 (2014)
[11]
V. Khachatryanet al., Eur. Phys. J. C76, 469 (2016)
[12]
M. Aaboudet al., Eur. Phys. J. C77, 367 (2017)
[13]
G. Aadet al., Eur. Phys. J. C79, 901 (2019)
[14]
M. Aaboudet al., Eur. Phys. J. C79, 128 (2019)
[15]
G. Aadet al., Eur. Phys. J. C79, 760 (2019)
[16]
R. Aaijet al., JHEP06, 058 (2012)
[17]
R. Aaijet al., JHEP12, 079 (2014)
[18]
R. Aaijet al., JHEP01, 155 (2016)
[19]
R. Aaijet al., JHEP10, 030 (2016)
[20]
M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, and M. Wiesemann, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 537 (2018)
[21]
S. Catani, L. Cieri, G. Ferreraet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 082001 (2009)
[22]
W. Bizonet al., JHEP02, 108 (2018)
[23]
P. F. Monni, E. Re, and P. Torrielli, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 242001 (2016)
[24]
S. Kallweit, E. Re, L. Rottoli, and M. Wiesemann, JHEP12, 147 (2020)
[25]
S. Catani and M. Grazzini, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 222002 (2007)
[26]
S. Catani, L. Cieri, D. de Florianet al., Eur. Phys. J. C72, 2195 (2012)
[27]
F. Cascioli, P. Maierhofer, and S. Pozzorini, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 111601 (2012)
[28]
A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, and L. Hofer, Comput. Phys. Commun.212, 220-238 (2017)
[29]
A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloydet al., Eur. Phys. J. C75, 132 (2015)
[30]
L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, P. Motylinskiet al., Eur. Phys. J. C75, 204 (2015)
[31]
S. Dulat, T. Hou, J. Gaoet al., Phys. Rev. D93, 033006 (2016)
[32]
R. D. Ballet al., JHEP04, 040 (2015)
[33]
J. Butterworthet al., J. Phys. G43, 023001 (2016)
[34]
Y. Li and F. Petriello, Phys. Rev. D86, 094034 (2012)
[35]
K. Ocalan, Chinese Phys. C45, 063106 (2021)
[36]
A. M. Sirunyanet al., Phys. Rev. D102, 092012 (2020)
[37]
V. Khachatryanet al., JHEP02, 096 (2017)