What does the CCFR measurement of the Gross--Llewelyn Smith sum rule tell us?

Abstract

Recently the CCFR Collaboration reported the measurement of the Gross--Llewellyn Smith sum rule %at $Q^2=3\; \mr{GeV}^2$: $\int^{1}_{0}\mr{d}F_{3}^{νp+\bareνp}(x,Q^2=3\;\mr{GeV}^2)= 2.50\pm 0.018(\mr{stat})$. Subsequently Kataev and Sidorov analyzed the $Q^2$--dependence of this sum rule and pointed out a discrepancy between the results obtained via integration of the NLO fits to $x{F}_3(x,Q^2)$ and the purely perturbative prediction. We suggest an explanation of this disagreement and show that the result of the CCFR measurement of the GLS sum rule integral can be determined from the knowledge of the value of $Λ_{\bbare{MS}}$ only.

PRA-HEP/94-09, Latex, 9 pages and 5 uuencoded figures. Raw PS files replaced with uuencoded ones

References in corpus (2)

• Next-to-next-to-leading order QCD analysis of the Gross-Llewellyn Smith sum rule and the higher twist effects
• The Jacobi Polinomials QCD Analysis of the CCFR Data for xF_3 and the Q^2-Dependence of the Gross-Llewllyn Smith Sum Rule

Cited by in corpus (4)

• Higher twists and ${\alpha }_s(M_Z)$ extractions from the NNLO QCD analysis of the CCFR data for $x{F}_3$ structure function
• Next-to-next-to-leading order QCD analysis of the CCFR data for xF_3 and F_2 structure functions of the deep-inelastic neutrino-nucleon scattering
• Parton model sum rules
• Achieving renormalization-scale- and scheme-independence in Pade-related resummation in QCD