A combination is presented of all inclusive deep inelastic cross sections previously published by the H1 and ZEUS collaborations at HERA for neutral and charged current $e^{\pm}p$ scattering for zero beam polarisation. The data were taken at proton beam energies of 920, 820, 575 and 460 GeV and an electron beam energy of 27.5 GeV. The data correspond to an integrated luminosity of about 1 fb$^{-1}$ and span six orders of magnitude in negative four-momentum-transfer squared, $Q^2$, and Bjorken $x$. The correlations of the systematic uncertainties were evaluated and taken into account for the combination. The combined cross sections were input to QCD analyses at leading order, next-to-leading order and at next-to-next-to-leading order, providing a new set of parton distribution functions, called HERAPDF2.0. In addition to the experimental uncertainties, model and parameterisation uncertainties were assessed for these parton distribution functions. Variants of HERAPDF2.0 with an alternative gluon parameterisation, HERAPDF2.0AG, and using fixed-flavour-number schemes, HERAPDF2.0FF, are presented. The analysis was extended by including HERA data on charm and jet production, resulting in the variant HERAPDF2.0Jets. The inclusion of jet-production cross sections made a simultaneous determination of these parton distributions and the strong coupling constant possible, resulting in $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.1183 \pm 0.0009 {\rm(exp)} \pm 0.0005{\rm (model/parameterisation)} \pm 0.0012{\rm (hadronisation)} ^{+0.0037}_{-0.0030}{\rm (scale)}$. An extraction of $xF_3^{\gamma Z}$ and results on electroweak unification and scaling violations are also presented.
All of the experimental data points presented in the original paper are correct and unchanged (including statistical and systematic uncertainties). However, herein we correct a comparison between the experimental data and a theoretical picture, because we discovered a mistake in the code used. All of the most probable sigma_breakup values differ by less than 0.4 mb from those originally presented. However, the one standard deviation uncertainties (that include contributions from both the statistical and systematic uncertainties on the experimental data points) are approximately 30-60% larger than originally reported. We give a table of the new comparison results and corrected versions of Figs. 8-11 of the original paper and we note that no correction is needed for results from the data-driven method in Fig. 13.
Breakup cross section of c-c_bar pairs inside cold nuclear matter for different ranges of rapidity.The breakup cross section is calculated with two models of shadowing for nuclear PDFs ; the EKS model and the NDSG model. The uncertainties given, containing statistical and systematical error, are corresponding to one standard deviation.
Forum