phenomenology tools for the lhc
DESCRIPTION
introduction and overview HO corrections PDFs LHC benchmarks MC tools more speculative pQCD applications summary. Phenomenology tools for the LHC . apologies for omitting many topics of interest!. James Stirling Cambridge University. 1 introduction and overview. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Phenomenology tools for the LHC James Stirling
Cambridge University
• introduction and overview• HO corrections• PDFs LHC benchmarks• MC tools• more speculative pQCD applications• summary
apologies for omitting many topics of interest!
2
3
1introduction and overview
4
phenomenology at hadron colliders• Our goal is to make accurate predictions for
― event rates (cross sections and distributions)
― event shapes (content and structure)• QCD is at the heart of everything –
electroweak effects are generally under control • In many cases, perturbative QCD can be
used to achieve high precision• But in other contexts our understanding of the
non-perturbative QCD effects is still quite primitive, and we have to resort to models
phenomenology tools
perturbation theory: LO, NLO, NNLO, … supplemented by resummed NnLL improvements, EW corrections, …
parton distribution functions
event simulation (parton showers + tuned UE) MCs, interfaced with LO or NLO hard scattering MEs
all underpinned by the QCD factorization theorem for hard-scattering (short-distance) inclusive processes
jet algorithms
6
2higher-order perturbative QCD corrections
general structure of a QCD perturbation series
• choose a renormalisation scheme (e.g. MSbar)• calculate cross section to some order (e.g. NLO)
• note d/d=0 “to all orders”, but in practice d(N+n)/d= O((N+n)S
N+n+1) as many orders as possible!
• can try to help convergence by using a “physical scale choice”, ~ P , e.g. = MZ or = ET
jet
• what if there is a wide range of P’s in the process, e.g. W + n jets? – see later
physical variable(s)
process dependent coefficientsdepending on P
renormalisationscale
8
how precise?• LO for generic PS Monte Carlos, tree-
level MEs
• NLO for NLO-MCs and many parton-level signal and background processes – in principle, less sensitivity to
unphysical renormalisation and factorisation scales, μR and μF– parton merging to give structure in jets
– more types of incoming partons – more reliable pdfs– better description of final state
kinematics
• NNLO for a limited number of ‘precision observables’ (W, Z, DY, H, …)
+ E/W corrections, resummed HO terms etc…
?
NNLO
NLO
NNLO
NLO
NLO
9
recent developments at NLO• traditional methods based on Feynman diagrams, then reduction to
known (scalar box, triangle, bubble and tadpole) integrals
• … and new methods based on unitarity and on-shell recursion: assemble loop-diagrams from individual tree-level diagrams– basic idea: Bern, Dixon, Kosower 1993– cuts with respect to on-shell complex loop momenta:
Cachazo, Britto, Feng 2004– tensor reduction scheme: Ossola, Pittau, Papadopoulos 2006– integrating the OPP procedure with unitarity: Ellis, Giele, Kunszt 2008– D-dimensional unitarity: Giele, Kunszt, Melnikov 2008– …
• … and the appearance of automated programmes for one-loop, multi-leg amplitudes, either based on – traditional or numerical Feynman approaches (Golem, …)– unitarity/recursion (BlackHat, CutTools, Rocket, …)
10
some recent NLO results…*• pp W+3j [Rocket: Ellis, Melnikov & Zanderighi]
[unitarity]• pp W+3j [BlackHat: Berger et al]
[unitarity]• pp tt bb [Bredenstein et al] [traditional]• pp tt bb [HELAC-NLO: Bevilacqua et al] [unitarity]• pp qq 4b [Golem: Binoth et al] [traditional]• pp tt+2j [HELAC-NLO: Bevilacqua et al] [unitarity]• pp Z+3j [BlackHat: Berger et al]
[unitarity]• pp W+4j [BlackHat: Berger et al, partial]
[unitarity]• …
with earlier results on V,H + 2 jets, VV,tt + 1 jet, VVV, ttH, ttZ, …
In contrast, for NNLO we still only have inclusive *,W,Z,H with rapidity distributions and decays (although much progress on top, single jet, …)*relevant for LHC
11
Top at Tevatron
Bottom at LHC
reason: new processes open up at NLO!
K. Ellis
K. Ellis
in complicated processes like W + n jets, there are often many ‘reasonable’ choices of scales:
‘blended’ scales like HT can seamlessly take account of different kinematical configurations:
Berger et al., arXiv:0907.1984
However...
the impact of NNLO: W,Z
Anastasiou, Dixon, Melnikov, Petriello, 2004
• only scale variation uncertainty shown• central values calculated for a fixed set pdfs with a fixed value of S(MZ
2)
14
Harlander,KilgoreAnastasiou, MelnikovRavindran, Smith, van Neerven …
• the NNLO band is about 10%, or 15% if R and F varied independently
the impact of NNLO: Higgs
15
SM Higgs: Tevatron exclusion limits
cross sectiontheory
uncertainty
?
16
3parton distribution functions
17
pdfs @ LHC
*
SUSY,Higgs,W,Z,…
• most SM and new physics sample pdfs in a region of x where they are already well known
• current pdf uncertainties provide the benchmark for whether LHC can add new information
• low-mass forward production (e.g. b quarks, Drell-Yan) might provide new information on small-x partons
proton
x1P
proton
x2PX
DGLAP evolution
18
the pdf industry• many groups now extracting pdfs from ‘global’
data analyses (MSTW, CTEQ, NNPDF, HERAPDF, AKBM, GJR, …)
• broad agreement, but differences due to– choice of data sets (including cuts and corrections)– treatment of data errors– treatment of heavy quarks (s,c,b)– order of perturbation theory– parameterisation at Q0
– theoretical assumptions (if any) about: • flavour symmetries• x→0,1 behaviour• …
– definition of pdf uncertainties
HERA-DISFT-DIS
Drell-YanTevatron jetsTevatron W,Z
other
pdfs authors arXiv
ABKM S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, S. Klein, S. Moch, and others
1101.5261, 1007.3657, 0908.3128, 0908.2766, …
CTEQH.-L. Lai, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, Z. Li, P. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin, C.-P. Yuan, and others
1007.2241, 1004.4624, 0910.4183, 0904.2424, 0802.0007, …
GJR M. Glück, P. Jimenez-Delgado, E. Reya, and others
1006.5890, 0909.1711, 0810.4274, …
HERAPDF H1 and ZEUS collaborations 1006.4471, 0906.1108, …
MSTW A.D. Martin, W.J. Stirling, R.S. Thorne, G. Watt
1006.2753, 0905.3531, 0901.0002, …
NNPDFR. Ball, L. Del Debbio, S. Forte, A. Guffanti, J. Latorre, J. Rojo, M. Ubiali, and others
1103.2369, 1101.1300, 1012.0836, 1005.0397, 1002.4407, 0912.2276, 0906.1958, …
recent global or quasi-global pdf fits
20
MSTW08 CT10 NNPDF2.1 HERAPDF1.0/1.5 ABKM09 GJR08
HERA DIS F-T DIS F-T DY TEV W,Z TEV jets
GM-VFNS NNLO Note:• each set comes with its own unique S(MZ
2) value (and uncertainty), correlated with the pdfs
• CT10, HERAPDF, NNPDF2.1 use recent combined HERA data
• NNPDF2.5(NNLO) soon
21MSTW = Martin, S, Thorne, Watt
22
4LHC benchmark cross sections
the following luminosity and cross section plots are from Graeme Watt: these and many more available at projects.hepforge.org/mstwpdf/pdf4lhc
23
parton luminosity* comparisonsRun 1 vs. Run 2 Tevatron jet data
positivity constraint on input gluon
momentum sum ruleZM-VFNS
No Tevatron jet data or FT-DIS data in fit
*
25
benchmark W,Z cross sections
G. Watt, 2011
New CMS 36pb-1 result (CMS-PAS-EWK-10-005):
R± = 1.421 ± 0.006(stat) ± 0.014(syst) ± 0.030(th)
from extrapolation to full acceptance; better to calculate and compare for experimental acceptance
26
Wl rapidity asymmetry
• very sensitive to pdfs• complex interplay of uV, dV,
Sea, V ± A decay• 7 TeV data! 0 1 2 3 4 5
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
35
W asymmetry lepton asymmetry,
variable pTlep
(min)
02010
30
A+-(y
)
ylep
or yW
LHC 7 TeVMSTW2008 NLO
W
l±
27
28
SM Higgs and top cross sections
G. Watt, 2011
… differences from both pdfs AND S !
29
5MC Tools*
*For a recent review, see Peter Richardson, ‘Challenging the Standard Model’ IoP Half-Day meeting, indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?ovw=True&confId=112764
Monte Carlo Event Generators• programs that simulates particle physics events with the same
probability as they occur in nature• widely used for signal and background estimates• examples are PYTHIA, HERWIG, SHERPA , ...• the simulation comprises different phases:
a) start by simulating a hard scattering process (LO, NLO)b) this is followed by the simulation of (soft and collinear) QCD radiation
using a parton shower algorithmc) non-perturbative models are then used to simulate the hadronization of the
quarks and gluons into the observed hadrons and the underlying event• a) and b) well grounded theoretically, c) requires a model to be tuned to
data:– parameters relating to the final-state parton shower and hadronization are
tuned to LEP data– parameters relating to initial-state parton showers and multiple parton-
parton interactions are tuned to data (e.g. UA5, Tevatron) – extrapolation to LHC?!
32
“PYTHIA AMBT1 and HERWIG+JIMMY AUET1 tunes from ATLAS give a good description of ATLAS soft QCD physics without severely compromising Tevatron agreement.”
A. Buckley for ATLAS, Knoxville, November 2010
PYTHIA tunes to ATLAS 7 TeV MinBias data
+
interfacing NnLO and parton showers
Benefits of both:
NnLO correct overall rate, hard scattering kinematics, reduced scale dep.PS complete event picture, correct treatment of collinear logs to all orders
• MC@NLO (Frixione, Webber, et al ): large range of processes available, integrated with Herwig FORTRAN and Herwig++ programs
• POWHEG (Nason): fewer processes, either standalone (Alioli, Nason, Oleari, Re) or integrated with Herwig++ (Hamilton, Richardson, Tully) or SHERPA (Hoeche, Krauss, Schonherr, Siegert)
(hadron collider) processes in MC@NLO
from the MC@NLO 4.0 manual
35
HW++ vs. POWHEG vs. MC@NLO vs. MCFM
Tevatron Z0Z0 LHC W+W-
POWHEG vs. ATLAS jet data
Herwig++ 2.5 Release Note (S. Gieseke et al) arXiv:1102.1672 [hep-ph]
S. Alioli et al, arXiv:1012.3380 [hep-ph]
36
Jet algorithms• Snowmass accord (1990)
a) simple to implement in experimental analyses as well as theory calculationsb) defined at any order in pQCD and yields finite results for rates at any orderc) yields a cross-section relatively insensitive to hadronisation
• two main types– CONES: latest implementation SISCONE (Salam, Soyez, 2007)– SUCCESSIVE RECOMBINATION: Jade ... kT ... anti-kT (Cacciari, Salam,
Soyez 2008)
• anti-kT : hard stuff clusters with nearest neighbour, privilege collinear divergence over soft divergence; gives cone-like jets without using cones!
{phi} {jk} {partons}
Gavin Salam, “Towards Jetography” (2009)
Finally, a straightforward, robust, widely-accepted algorithm for jet studies at LHC that satisfies Snowmass accord ...
38
6finally, there are interesting processeswhere our theoretical understanding
is much less developed...
39
central exclusive production
• p + p H + X– the rate (parton, pdfs, αS)– the kinematic distribtns. (d/dydpT)– the environment (jets, underlying
event, backgrounds, …)
• p + p p + H + p– a real challenge for theory (pQCD
+ npQCD) and experiment (tagging forward protons, triggering, …)
compare …
with …
b
b
• colliding protons interact via a colour singlet exchange and remain intact: can be triggered by adding proton detectors far down the beam-pipe or by using large rapidity gaps
• a system of mass MX is produced at the collision point, and only its decay products are present in the central detector region.
• the generic process pp → p + X + p is modeled perturbatively by the exchange of two t-channel gluons (‘Durham Model’ – Khoze Martin Ryskin)
• the possibility of additional soft rescatterings filling the rapidity gaps is encoded in ‘eikonal’ and ‘enhanced’ survival factors
p + p → p X p
Xga
p su
rviv
al
central exclusive production – theory
CEP at LHC?
• in the limit that the outgoing protons scatter at zero angle, the centrally produced state X must have JZ
P = 0+ quantum numbers → spin-parity filter/analyser
• in certain regions of MSSM parameter space, couplings of Higgs to bb is enhanced, and CEP could be the discovery channel
• or any exotic 0++ state, which couples strongly to glue, is a real possibility: radions, gluinoballs, …
• in the meantime, many ‘standard candle’ processes at RHIC, Tevatron, LHC: X= jj, , c, b, …
• example:
p + p → p X p
X
CDF(arXiv:0902.1271):
KHRYSTHAL (Khoze, Ryskin, S, Harland-Lang, arXiv:1005.0695 ):
Durham/St Petersburg /Cambridge (Khoze, Martin, Ryskin, S, Harland-Lang,....)
Manchester (Cox, Forshaw, Monk, Pilkington, Coughlin, ...)
Helsinki (Orava, ...)
Saclay (Royon, ...)
Cracow (Szczurek, ...)…
42
single and double hard parton scattering
• folklore
• studies of +3j production by CDF and D0 suggest eff ≈ 15 mb• use shape variables as a discriminator for DPS • however, simple factorisation hypothesis
now being called into question much recent theoretical activity, see
X,Y distinct: m=2X,Y same: m=1
DPS + SPS SPS
MPI@LHC 2010: 2nd International Workshop on Multiple Partonic Interactions at the LHC, Glasgow, November 2010, www.mpi2010.physics.gla.ac.uk
e.g. X,Y = jj,bb,W,Z,J/,..
43
summary
• relentless advance in improving phenomenology tools for precision hadron collider physics in recent years
– the NLO revolution (but still ‘scale choice/variation’ issues), with NNLO the next frontier (but no “+jet” processes yet)
– PDFs: convergence among groups and first precision tests at LHC
– Monte Carlo: improved modelling, new tunes to LHC and increasing number of NLO processes included (e.g. MC@NLO, POWHEG, ... )
• … and don’t forget other more novel applications of pQCD (hard diffraction, multiple parton interactions, etc.) where more theoretical work and experimental data are needed
extra slides
45
pdfs and S(MZ2)
• MSTW08, ABKM09 and GJR08: S(MZ
2) values and uncertainty determined by global fit
• NNLO value about 0.003 0.004 lower than NLO value, e.g. for MSTW08
• CTEQ, NNPDF, HERAPDF choose standard values and uncertainties
• world average (PDG 2009)
• note that the pdfs and S are correlated!
• e.g. gluon – S anticorrelation at small x and quark – S anticorrelation at large x
46
parton luminosity functions• a quick and easy way to assess the mass, collider
energy and pdf dependence of production cross sections
• i.e. all the mass and energy dependence is contained in the X-independent parton luminosity function in [ ]
• useful combinations are • and also useful for assessing the uncertainty on cross
sections due to uncertainties in the pdfs (see later)
s Xa
b
Trest 2007 47
CEP hMSSMbb at LHC
Heinemeyer, Khoze, Ryskin, S, Tasevsky, Weiglein: arXiv:0708.3052
3 statistical significance contours, Mh
max scenario