Upload
raymond-hunt
View
219
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
1
Production and Evolution of High Energy Jets
Outline (both lectures)A look at the data
Theoretical frameworkInclusive Jet Cross sections
Multijet EventsDouble Parton Scattering
Underlying EventClustering algorithmsStructure inside jets
Overall Theme: Interplay of Theory and Measurements
Day 1
Day 2
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
2
Simple view of a proton - antiproton collision
2→2 scattering: • Two partons are produced from the collision of a parton in each of the incoming hadrons• Initial partons have a fraction, x, of proton (antiprotion) longitudinal momentum and small ~0 transverse momentum. • Each outgoing parton forms one jet• Events are characterized by x and Q2, where Q is the total momentum transfer ~ ETjet
pp
jet
jet
detector
z
yx
Pseudo-rapidity:= - ln tan Simple translation (additive) under longitudinal boosts
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
3
• Fermilab Tevatron collides protons and antiprotons at
√s = 1.96 GeV (was 1.8 TeV in Run 1)
• These collisions produce the highest energy jets (ET~500 GeV)
• Probes proton structure to smallest distance scales
= hc/Mc2 = 197MeVfm/500 GeV = 4x10-17cm
Jets at Fermilab Hadron Collider
Jet ET =Sum of towers = 415 GeV
Electromagnetic
p
p
Hadronic
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
4
Regions Covered by Different Measurements
• Tevatron data overlaps and extends reach of DIS (talks by Jose Repond)
• This talk concentrates on jet production at the Tevatron.
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
5
What is a Jet?
• Jets are the clusters of particles produced by the scattered partons• Particles (mostly hadrons) are produced nearly collinear to parent parton• Underlying Event: Remnants of incoming hadrons leave some low energy
particles too. These are randomly distributed, not in clusters• Fundamental concept: Sum up all the daughter particles and you
approximate the properties of the scattered parton
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
6
End view of the two-jet event in CDF
Tracks in magnetic field
Azimuthalangle
Can measure momentum of charged particles in tracking chambers. Neutral particles e.g (π0) are measured only by the calorimeters
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
7
More complicated events: three-jet event
ET = 328 GeV
η = 0.21φ = 2.5o
ET = 173 GeV
η = -0.57φ = 192.4o
ET = 123 GeV
η = 0.23φ = 170.4o
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
8
A five-jet event
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
9
6 - jet events
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
10
From Partons to Jets
Leading Order TheoryUses 2→2 matrix elements
Leading Log Approximation (LLA):sum leading contributions to all orders (from ~collinear radiation of quarks and gluons around original parton)
Only two jets in final state Only one parton/jet
Parton Shower
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
11
From Partons to Jets Cont.• Hadronization: Each
parton in the “shower” is converted into colorless hadrons
• The hadrons are measured in the tracking chambers and calorimeters
• Sum of the momentum and energy of all the particles in a “cluster”
→ “particle level jet” ≈ scattered parton
Clustering (or Jet) algorithms : Rules for combining measured energy into Jets
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
12
Comparisons between Data and Theory• Overall rate of jet production ( cross sections)
– Valid over full ET range (Jet ET 20 GeV – 500 GeV)?
– Match data for different √s ? – Look for something new and unexpected which increases the rate of jet
production over the predicted rates
– rate of multi( 3, 4, 5...) jet events, can QCD predict these higher order processes?
• Details of event structure– Jet shapes
– Structure inside jets
– Multiple parton interactions
• Use Monte Carlo programs (e.g. ISAJET) to generate hadrons from LO predictions, and a detector simulation to derive corrections to data
• Compare corrected data to pQCD parton level predictions– Theory: no dependence on empirical parton shower or hadronization models
– Data: can minimize and quantify dependence of corrections on modeling
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
13
Theoretical predictions at the parton level :
fa/A(xa ,F): Parton Momentum
Distributions (PDF) – probability to find parton of type a in hadron A with momentum fraction xa
F: 4-momentum transfer or
“factorization scale” of interation
: partonic level cross section
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
14
Rapidity and Pseudo-rapidity
antiprotonproton
scattered parton
Rapidity (y):
Pseudorapidity (): high energy limit (m«pT, β → 1)
y
z
x
costanh y where = p/E
Rapidity and Pseudo-rapidity are simply additive under longitudinal boosts
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
15
Parton momentum fractions
x1 = (eη1 + eη2) ET/√s
x2 = (e-η1 + e-η2) ET/√s
x1 and x2 can not exceed unity
η = -ln tan θ/2
xT = 2ET/s and xT2 <x1x2<1
As xT → 1, x1 and x2 are tightly constrained
CM 1
2
1
2
Lab
boost = ½ (1 + 2)
* = ½ (1 - 2)
Lab = * + boost
θ*
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
16
Kinematic Variables• Energy E: E2 = m2 + p2
= ET cosh η
• Transverse Energy ET:
ET= m2 + px2 + py
2 = Esinθ = E2- pz
2• Momentum p:
p2 = px2 + py
2 + pz2
• Longitudinal momentum
pz = E tanh η
= ET sinh η
• Transverse Momentum pT
pT = px2 + py
2 = psinθ
•Invariant Mass for di-jet event:
M122 = (p1 + p2)2
=m12 +m2
2 + 2(E1E2-p1·p2)
•For m1, m2 0
M122 → 2ET1ET2(coshΔη – cosΔφ)
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
17
Phase Space Boundaries for 2 2 Scattering
2
1
s = 2 TeV andJet ET = 100, 200 and 400 GeV
• phase space shrinksas ET increases•for1 ~ -2 , boost → 0•for1 ~ 2 , M12
2~ 4ET2
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
18
Leading Order Two-Jet Cross Section
where,• fi(x,F) (i = g, q, q) is the PDF• |Mij| is lowest order matrix element for ij2 partons summed and averaged over initial and final states• s(R) is the strong coupling constant• F is the factorization scale• R is the renormalization scale
Many processes contribute:
At leading order ET1 =ET2 =ET
Usually assume F= R = ~ ET/2
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
19
Lowest order matrix elements
Matrix elements for
Averaged (summed) over initial (final) state colors and spins:
where s = (p1 + p2)2, t = (p1 - p3)2 and u = ( p2-p3)2
are the Mandelstam variables
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
20
Quark and Gluon contributions to cross section
xT = 2ET/s
Fra
ctio
n o
f tot
al
Solid: s = 2 TeV
Dashed: s = 14 TeV
Lowest ET jets from Tevatron are ~20 GeVor xT ~ 0.02gluon initial states dominate
Highest ET jets are ~500 GeV or xT~ 0.5qq dominates, but qg still ~20% of total
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
21
The single effective subprocess approximation • All the matrix elements have similar shape• Can approximate the parton momentum distributions
fi(x,F) (i = g, q, q) as a single effective subprocess:
And the lowest order cross section can be written as:
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
22
Parton Luminosity
boost
x 1F
(x1,µ
)x2F
(x2,µ
)
•For ET =100 GeV and √s = 2TeV largest luminosity is when x1 and x2 are equally small boost ~ * =0
• As |boost| or |*| increases luminosity decreases rapidly
• In the single effective subprocess approximation the parton-parton luminosity (x1F(x1,µ)x2F(x2,µ) ) can be written as a function of boost and *
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
23
Digression on the scales F and R F and R are artifacts of working at fixed order in perturbation theory.
• The predictions should not depend on the choice of scales (Data doesn’t!)
• The renormalization scale R shows up in the strong coupling constant
because it is introduced when the bare fields are redefined in terms of the physical fields
• The factorization scale F is introduced when absorbing the divergence
from collinear radiation into the PDFs
• Can choose any value for F and R
• Typical choice F = R ~ ET/2 of the jets
• Dependence of predictions on scale indicates potential size of higher order contributions
• Dependence on scale should get smaller as higher order terms are included
• Usually study predictions with range = ET/4 to 2ET
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
24
Digression on the scales F and R cont.
αs2 for different R
compared to R = ET
Rat
io
for different F compared
to F = ET at η1 = η2 =0
Dependence of LO on choice of scales flat at ~ 10% level for =ET/2but normalization uncertain at ~±50% level
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
25
Inclusive Jet Cross Section Measurements
• Fundamental and “simple” test of QCD predictions• Include all jets in the event within a given η range• Can search for signs of composite quarks
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
26
Inclusive Jet Cross Section and Compositeness• Hypothesis: Quarks are
bound states of preons which interact via new strong interaction
The composite interactions are represented by a contact term:
• Compositeness Scale: c
c = pointlike quarks
c = finite → substructure
at mass scale of c
Compositeness: • enhances the jet cross section• has different ang. dist. from QCD
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
27
Measurements of Inclusive Jet Cross Section
• In the 80’s, only Leading Order 2→2 predictions were available• High energy Jet data was just becoming available • AFS √s = 63 GeV – initial hints of 2-jet structures
• UA1 and UA2: √s = 546 and 630 GeV , (ET ~20-150 GeV)
• CDF 1987 √s = 1800 (ET ~30-250 GeV)
• Obviously in the data there were events with more than 2 jets!• Try to make data and theory look more alike:
– Parton shower Monte Carlo program ISAJET – FF fragmentation, LLA
– Tune parameters of parton shower and hadronization to give agreement with data – minimizes dependence of corrections on details of the model.
– Defined clustering algorithms which could make data look like 2→2 process
• Summed energy in a large cones R = 1 – 1.2 (cone algorithm)• Summed neighboring towers (nearest-neighbor algorithm)
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
28
Uncertainties• LO Theory:
– PDFs – derived from global fits to data (See talk by Walter Giele)
– Choice of scale for evaluation of αs and PDFs
– higher order corrections– Total uncertainty ranged from a factor of 2 to a factor of 10
depending on ET
• Experimental: Measurement uncertainties– energy scale (could be a whole talk by itself)– luminosity– corrections to go from measured jets to partons (e.g. energy that
escaped the cone or jet cluster)– underlying event (extra energy that leaked into cluster)
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
29
Inclusive Jet Cross Sections from the 80’s
UA1 Unc. ~ 70%± 50% jet corr.± 40% jet calib± 10% aging± 15% lumΛc >400 GeV
UA2 Unc. ~32%± 25% Frag. model± 15% jet id± 11% calib± 5% lumΛc >825 GeV
While data and theory agreed qualitativly, large uncertainties existed in both theoretical predictions and in experimental measurements
Theory uncertainties mainly on normalization – compositeness limitsset based on shape at high ET
CDF 1987 dataExp. Unc. 70% @ 30 GeV34% @ 250 GeVΛc >700 GeV
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
30
NLO 2→2 Theory predictionsLate 80’s NLO parton level predictions became availableAversa et al PLB 210,225 (1988), S.Ellis, Kuntz, Soper, PRL 62,2188(1989) ( EKS)
1 loop, 2 parton final statesame kinematics as LO1 parton = jet
tree level, 3 parton final stateor 2+1 parton final state
Now have possibility of combining partons to form a jet.Predictions sensitive to size of jet and way in which partons are combined
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
31
NLO 2→2 Theory predictions
• Dependence on the choice of scale reduced from factor of 2 to ±~ 30%, more precise comparison to data possible
• Ushered in a new era of Jet identification• Could use the same algorithm to cluster partons
into jets as is used to cluster towers of energy in the detector
• Should minimize difference between data and theory predictions due to technical differences
• Led to SNOWMASS accord – cone algorithm to be used by CDF, D0 and Theory – detailed rules for combining towers (partons) into jets– No out-of-cone energy correction! (part of NLO prediction)– still have to estimate and subtract UE energy
• Other algorithms also exist – will be described later
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
32
SNOWMASS Algorithm• Choose a seed tower from a list of high ET towers (partons)• Define a cone of radius R around the seed tower
Towers (partons) within the cone are associated with the jet.Calculate new cluster centroid:
loop over towers again until stable set of towersis reached. Finally:
Snowmass studies (1992) found that for a cone size of 0.7 out-of-cone energy ~ underlying event
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
33
Inclusive cross section compared to NLO
• CDF collected data in 1989:– 4pb-1 √s = 1800 GeV– 8nb-1 √s = 546 GeV
• Compared to NLO predictions – still uncertain due to scale and PDFs, but better than LO
• Statistical uncertainty dominated above about 200 GeV ET
• Set new limit on Λc>1.4 TeV• CDF also measured jet cross
section for different cone sizes and looked at Jet shapes for 100 GeV Jets
• Interplay between data and theory!
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
34
Jet cross section dep. on cone size
• Jet ET = 100 GeV • Best agreement with
very small scale ET/4
• Introduce ad-hoc parameter Rsep which scales radius for parton merging:
ΔRparton = Rsep Reffectively reduces parton cone size
• Snowmass: Rsep = 2
Rsep = 1.3
µ = ET/2 solidµ= ET short dashµ=ET/4 long dash
• Jet cross section for cone sizes 0.4, 0.7, 1.0. PRL 68 1104 (1992))
Theory: PRL 69, 3615 (1992)
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
35
Jet Shape Measurement
µ = ET/2 solidµ= ET short dashµ=ET/4 long dash
Rsep = 1.3
Measure energy
inside subcones around jet axis
F(r) = ET(r)/ET(R)
ET/4 give worst agreementRsep = 1.3 gives best agreement with data
Data:PRL 70, 713 (1993)Thy: PRL 69, 3615 (1992)
Jet ET = 100 GeV
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
36
Snowmass didn’t specify how to separate close jets (not an issue with partons)
• CDF merged close jets if 75% of smaller jet energy overlapped
• otherwise separated based on distance from centroids
• At parton level jets are
separated if ΔR>2Rcone
ET = 123 GeV
η = 0.23
φ = 170.4o
ET = 173 GeV
η = -0.57
φ = 192.4o
ΔR = 0.88
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
37
Separation between jets in CDF data
• In data look at separation between leading 3 jets
• Plot the minimum separation between the two closest clusters
• 50% separated at 1.3 R
• 100% separated at 1.6R
(divided by R)
Rsep of 1.3 makes sense! Explains better match betweendata and theory
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
38
Effect of Rsep on NLO 2→2 Inclusive Jet Cross Section Predictions
• Cross section for Rsep =2 is larger than for Rsep = 1.3 by ~ flat 5%
Lessons:•Inc. cross section is not very sensitive to Rsep, but more detailed comparisons pointed out difference between analysis of data and theory
•Details of clustering algorithms are important for precise comparisons between data an theory
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
39
More implications of NLO: Phase space• The Parton momentum fractions at NLO are:
where ET1 > ET2>ET3 etc.
• Since ET2 can now be < ET1, |η2| can increase compared to LO
• Adding more partons (e.g.NNLO)further increases allowed range
• Still have sharp cutoff on η1
• η2 can be bigger than η1
η1
η2
ET= 50 GeV√s = 1.8 TeV
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
40
Compare LO and NLO predictions
η
K factor = NLO/LO
~10% for |η|<1.5, away from PS boundaries
Large corrections for large | η2|
→stay away from there, theory not reliable at LO or NLO
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
41
Scale dependence
where L = log(µR/ET) and bi
are the beta functionsd/
dET
at E
T =
10
0 G
eV
µR /ET
NNLO coefficient C is unknown.Curves show guessesC=0 (solid)C=±B2/A (dashed)
Dependence on choiceof scale is reducedas higher orders are included
LO
NLO
NNLO
Usual range
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
42
Another digression on the scale• Addition of NLO terms reduced dependence of prediction on scale
when choice ranged from ET/4 to 2ET • But, since ET1 and ET2 are no longer required to be equal we now have
to think about which ET should be used for the scale
– µ ET of each jet in the event
• Many scales per event
• Cross section is proportional to αs(ET)n, can extract αs from inc. xsec.
– µ ET1 = Maximum Jet ET in the event
• one scale per event• can implement in event generator (JETRAD does this)
• Can write the theory both ways: Two programs used by CDF and D0– EKS – analytic NLO program uses µ ET
– JETRAD – event generator uses µ ETMAX
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
43
Effect of Scale on NLO 2→2 Inclusive Jet Cross Section Predictions
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
44
• Excess observed above 200GeV
• In 1996 all PDFs gave roughly same shape
• Motivated discussions of new physics as well and PDF uncertainties
CDF Run 1A Inclusive Cross Section (1996)
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
45
PDF uncertainties 2000
• Turns out PDFs are very flexible, even at high ET
• ~30% changes in shape are OK
• Pretty much squelched discussions of new physics
• Ended ~15 year history of using Inc. cross section for compositeness search.
• Need more constraints on PDFs!!
Ratio of inclusive jet cross section for different PDFs compared to CTEQ4M
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
46
Alternate Variables: Mass and Angle• can write cross section in terms of dijet mass M12 and the
center of mass scattering angle θ* :
M122 = 4ET
2cosh2η*cos θ* = tanh η*t = - (1-cos θ* )s/2
Typically measure • dijet mass spectrum: d/dMJJ
by integrating over a fixed angular range• angular distibution : d/dcosθ* for intervals of dijet mass
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
47
Angular Distribution – Not sensitive to PDFS
• Dominant subprocesses have similar shape for angular distribution d/dcosθ* with different weights
Can use to test for compositeness with smaller theoretical uncertainties• Measure angular distribution directly • Measure dijet mass in different angular regions and take ratios to cancel PDF uncertainties
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
48
Angular Distribution and quark substructure
Change to a better angular variable:
d/d
χ
QCD is dominated by ~ 1/(1-cos θ*)2
Contact terms by ~ ~ 1/(1+cos θ*)2
Difference in forward η region is hard to measure
Much more sensitive to contact term
large difference from QCDin central region
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
49
Limits on Quark SubstructureD0 Run IB results
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
50
Limits on Quark Substructure
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
51
Inclusive Jet Cross Section Run Ib
CDF Results
0.1<|η|<0.7
Data and Predictions span 7 orders of magnitude!
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
52
Inclusive cross section in detail (linear scale)
• Good agreement with data over most of ET range for CTEQ4HJ predictions
• But note CTEQ4HJ was fit to CDF Run 1a data!
• Still need more constraints!
• See Talk by Walter Giele next week!
CDF Run 1B data
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
53
η dependence of inclusive cross section
• D0 result• Solid = CTEQ4HJ• Open = CTEQ4M• NLO QCD
predictions (JETRAD) provide good description of data.
• Agreement gets a little worse as go
to higher η
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
54
CDF and D0 Comparison
CDF and D0 see fantastic agreement in 0.1<|η|<0.7 range
Note, this is corrected for the different luminosity cross sections used at the time of the measurements
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
55
Inclusive cross section and αs
• Use inclusive jet cross section data and NLO theory to extract αs
(only possible if use µR ∝ETjet)
• Clearly observe running of αs over a wide range of Jet ET
s(Mz) = 0.1178 ± .0001(stat.) +.0081 -.0095 (exp. sys), Thy unc. 5% PDFs, 5% scale
d/dET = s(µR )2A
+ s(µR )3(B + 2b0LA) + s(µR )4(C + 3b0LB + (3b0
2L2+ 2b1L)A)
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
56
END Day 1
• Basic theoretical and experimental ingredients for high ET Jet studies at hadron colliders
• A little history of high ET jet measurements • Interplay of data and theory• Sample of the highest ET results from CDF and D0
• Tomorrow – More detailed look at Jets and Jet events– A few more high ET jet measurements– Multi- jet events– Double parton scattering– Underlying event– KT clustering algorithm– Structure within jets
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
57
Production and Evolution of High ET Jets: Day 2
• Yesterday we looked at events and discussed comparing data to LO and NLO predictions for 2→ 2 scattering (even though we saw events with many jets!)
• Data and Theory are in pretty good agreement over large ET range (20-500 GeV) where cross section falls by 7 orders of magnitude!
NLO 2→2 scattering: • 2 or 3 partons are produced from the collision of one parton in each of the incoming hadrons• Initial partons have a fraction of proton longitudinal momentum and small pT ~0• Each outgoing parton forms a jet or 2 partonscombine into one jet
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
58
Production and Evolution of High ET Jets: Day 2
• Today will describe a more complex (realistic?) model for the data• Cover some of the details that were glossed over on Day 1
• Inclusive cross sections at different CM energies• Multi jet measurements• Double parton scattering• Underlying Event• Clustering algorithms • Structure within jets
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
59
Inclusive Cross sections at different CM
XT=2ET/√s
ET
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
60
Scaled Cross Section• Can rewrite inclusive jet cross section in terms of dimensionless
quantity xT
• Scaling means predictions are independent of √s
• QCD does not “scale” due to dependence of strong coupling constant and parton momentum distributions on the factorization
and renormalization scales R and F
• In ratio of cross sections many uncertainties, both theoretical and experimental will cancel
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
61
Ratio of scaled cross sections:s = 630 GeV / s = 1800 GeV
xT = 2ET/s
Rat
io
Shape of CDF and D0 Data and Theory agree above xT ~ 0.15,
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
62
Ratio of cross sections √s = 630/√s=1800
• Uncertainty from PDFs cancels in ratio!
• Normalization of NLO predictions do not match data
• Open issue – no good explanation
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
63
Reality (closer) of proton- antiproton collision
• Initial state radiation (ISR): incoming parton emits a gluon – extra jets, PT≠ 0• Final state radiation (FSR): outgoing parton emits a gluon - extra jets• Remnants of proton and antiproton interact producing low ET particles (Underlying Event)• Can have collisions between more than one proton-antiproton pair →Multiple interactions,
can see multiple verticies in the detector• Can have collisions between more than one parton within each incoming proton or antiproton → double parton interactions
Proton AntiProton
PT(hard)
Outgoing Parton
Outgoing Parton
Underlying Event Underlying Event
Initial-State Radiation
Final-State Radiation
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
64
Event Generators • Monte Carlo programs such as HERWIG, ISAJET, and PYTHIA are
used today to reproduce all aspects of the events– All based on LO matrix elements + Leading Log Approximation. – Include the effects of Initial and Final State radiation– Different parton shower models are used by the different programs
• primary goal is to generate the shower of partons near the scattered parton direction.
• also includes some wide angle radiation which could produce additional jets.
– Hadronization model to covert colored partons to colorless hadrons– Parton shower and hadronization parameters can be (are) adjusted to
give good agreement with data.– Underlying event
• assumed to be similar to Minimum Bias events in number of particles produced and their PT spectrum
• empirical and parameters can be tuned to give agreement with the data
• Output of these programs is a list of particles (mostly hadrons) which can be fed into a detector simulation
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
65
Fragmentation models
• Independent Fragmentation (Feynman-Field): Used in ISAJET and others– each parton fragments independently
• scattered partons shower independently• resulting partons are converted into hadrons independently• can trace every particle back to original scattered parton• can tune every aspect to give agreement with data.
• String Fragmentation: Used in PTHYIA and others– separate partons are connected by color strings with uniform
energy/unit length
• Cluster Fragmentation: Used by HERWIG and others– Pairs of color color connected neighboring partons are
combined into color signlets.
• Cluster and String models have more physics and less tunable parameters (see talk by Mrenna)
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
66
Correcting the data• Generators are essential for correcting the measured data
– energy radiated outside the cluster or cone– underlying event energy that sneaks into the cluster or cone– feed detector simulations to study detector response
• Try minimize dependence of corrections on MC model by tuning parameters to data and by using data where ever possible.– to minimize parton shower/hadronization differences we usually correct back
to “particle level”– cluster algorithm is run on generated particles (hadrons) – derive corrections from difference between energy measured in the detector
and the “particle cluster”• Then we compare corrected data to LO or NLO parton level predictions → Corrections depend on what you are comparing to!!
– for comparisons to LO an out-of-cone correction is needed– for NLO no need for out-of-cone, NLO predictions can throw energy out of
the cones.• Can also compare raw data to fully simulated predictions
– disadvantage is that for any new prediction you need to resurrect and run the full simulation (generator + detector simulation)
• These MC models also used in other measurements (e.g. top mass, Higgs search, etc) to derive corrections and uncertainties.
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
67
Multijet events: High ET radiation
• CDF and D0 have studied event topologies up to 8 Jets
• Many kinematic variables: examples
– θ3 = scattering angle of 3rd jet– Ψ3= angle between 3-jet plane
and plane containing lead jet and the beam
• Compare to QCD Generator + Detector simulation
– HERWIG - 2→2 matrix elements + parton shower
– NJETs leading order 2 → N matrix elements, N = 2,...5, N=6 uses approximation, ΔR partons > 0.9
– Phase space – match mNj and mj/mNj to HERWIG
6-Jet events
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
68
Multijet events (≥3 jets)• Angular distributions for 3-jet events (CDF)
– Phase space is ~ uniform → most different from data at edges!– NJETs and HERWIG both pretty close to Data
θ3 = scattering angle of 3rd jet angle between 3-jet plane and plane containing lead jetand the beam.
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
69
Angular Distributions for 6-Jet events• Successively combine lowest mass jet pairs to form 3-jet-like event• plot the same angular variables • Phase space is ~ uniform → divergences at edges are even more pronounced than in 3-jet case• NJETs and HERWIG both pretty close to Data • NJETS is closer to data at edges• Amazing that HERWIG can reproduce 6-jet events at all!
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
70
Double Parton Scattering
Two partons in each incoming hadron have a “hard” collision
m=2 (1) if A and B are (in) distinguishable
eff process independent
contains information onspatial distribution of partons inside the proton
Uniform = large eff
Lumpy = small eff
Uniform hard sphere: eff = 11 mb
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
71
Double Parton Scattering History
• Search in 4-jet samples for pairs of uncorrelated dijet events (m=1)
– AFS eff ~ 5mb [Z.Phys. C34, 163 (1987)]
– UA2 eff > 8.3 mb [PLB268, 145(1991)]
– CDF eff = 12.1 +10.2 -5.4 mb [PRD68, 4857 (1993)]
• “hard sphere” prediction: protons are spherical and have uniform parton density eff =11mb
• CDF measurement with Run 1a photon + 3 jet data (16 pb-1)– PRD 56, 3811 (1997), PRL 79, 584 (1997)
– Isolated sample of events with 53% with double parton scattering events
– Used low ET jets to maximize cross sections
– Extracted result without relying on MC predictions
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
72
Double Parton Scattering: Photon + 3 jets• Look for events with a photon + jet
event plus an uncorrelated dijet event
• sensitive variable is angle between photon-jet and jet-jet pair • Photon ET > 16 GeV• Jet ET>5 GeV• ET2 , ET3 < 7 GeV• ΔR between photon and jets > 0.8• 16853 events with one vertex• 5983 events with two pp
interactions (2 vertex)• generated uncorrelated DP models
from data:– used 2-vertex data sample– photon + 1 jet + 2-jet event (MIXDP)
SP
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
73
Double Parton Scattering
Find pairing that minimizes PT imbalance
Measure angle between the pairs: ΔS
Single parton (SP) scattering peaks at π
Double parton (DP) scattering is ~ flat (uncorrelated to photon)
Fit Data to mixture of SP and DP
SP
DP
Data
Data is 52.6 ±2.5 ±0.9% DP!No evidence for correlationsbetween the two scatters
eff = 14.5 ±1.7 + 1.7 – 2.3 mb
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
74
Look for correlations in x
• Enrich sample:
ΔS > 1.2 → 90% DP• Compare data to
model (no correlations)
Data and model agree →
No observable correlations!
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
75
Reality (closer) of proton- antiproton collision
• Talked about – production of extra jets (Initial and Final state radiation)– Double parton interactions – shown that they definately exist and rate is consistant with
hard uniform sphere– Multiple proton-antiproton collisions are identified in trackign chambers by two or more
verticies. • Now : the Underlying Event or remnants of proton and antiproton collision
Proton AntiProton
PT(hard)
Outgoing Parton
Outgoing Parton
Underlying Event Underlying Event
Initial-State Radiation
Final-State Radiation
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
76
Underlying Event: data
• Typically jet data is corrected for underlying event based on estimates from the data
• Jet Data:– Measure energy in cones
located at Δ =±90o from leading jet.
– plot energy of Min. and Max. energy separately.
• Observe (and expected) energy
in higher ET cone is affected by radiation from other jets – jets are rarely exactly 180 o apart
Pretty good agreement with HERWIG for min. Cone
Data is higher from Max cone. Min. Cone
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
77
Underlying Event: Minimum Bias data• Minimum Bias Data:
– triggered on hits in forward and backward scintillators
– events usually have one vertex and low ET particles
– no obviously discernable jet structure • Min. Bias Data is result of soft collision between proton and antiproton• Should be similar to interactions of remnants from a hard collision• Note – no sharp cut offs: Jets don’t suddenly appear at some threshold.
• We can’t see very low ET jets because particles spread out.
• CDF measured energy in cones placed randomly in minimum bias data
→ found ~ same energy as in minimum cone analysis of Jet data
~ (2.2 GeV)
Note – must be careful to correct for additional interactions – MB data had an average of 1.05 int., Jet data had an average of 2.1
Take a large uncertainty (30% ) on Underlying event energy corrections because it is not well defined theoretically
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
78
Underlying Event Models
Min-Bias?• The underlying event in a hard scattering process has a “hard” component (particles that arise from initial & final-state radiation and from the outgoing hard scattered partons) and a “soft” component (beam-beam remnants).
• However the “soft” component is color connected to the “hard” component so this separation is (at best) an approximation.
Proton AntiProton
“Hard” Collision
initial-state radiation
final-state radiation outgoing parton
outgoing parton
color string
color string
+
“Soft” Component “Hard” Component
initial-state radiation
final-state radiation outgoing jet
Beam-Beam Remnants
For ISAJET (no color flow) the “soft” and “hard” components are completely independent and the model for the beam-beam remnant component is the same as for min-bias but with a larger <PT>.
HERWIG breaks the color connection with a soft q-qbar pair and then models the beam-beam remnant component the same as HERWIG min-bias (cluster decay).
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
79
Underlying Event: Multiple Parton Interactions
PYTHIA models the “soft” component of the underlying event with color string fragmentation, but in addition includes a contribution arising from multiple parton interactions (MPI) in which one interaction is hard and the other is “semi-hard”.
color string
color string
The probability that a hard scattering events also contains a semi-hard multiple parton interaction can be varied but adjusting the cut-off for the MPI.
One can also adjust whether the probability of a MPI depends on the PT of the hard scattering, PT(hard) (constant cross section or varying with impact parameter).
One can adjust the color connections and flavor of the MPI (singlet or nearest neighbor, q-qbar or glue-glue).
Also, one can adjust how the probability of a MPI depends on PT(hard) (single or double Gaussian matter distribution).
+
“Semi-Hard” MPI “Hard” Component
initial-state radiation
final-state radiation outgoing jet Beam-Beam Remnants
or
“Soft” Component
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
80
Charged particle distributions in data
• Define || < 60o as “Toward”, 60o < || < 120o as “Transverse”,
• and || > 120o as “Away”.
• All three regions have the same size in - space, x = 2x120o = 4/3
• Plot the average number of charged particles (PT > 0.5 GeV, || < 1, including jet#1) vs Jet1 PT
• The solid (open) points are the Min-Bias (JET20) data. Smooth connection!
Charged Jet #1Direction
“Toward”
“Transverse” “Transverse”
“Away”
Underlying Event“plateau”
Nchg versus PT(charged jet#1)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
PT(charged jet#1) (GeV/c)
<N
ch
g>
in
1 G
eV
/c b
in1.8 TeV ||<1.0 PT>0.5 GeV
"Toward"
"Away"
"Transverse"
CDF Preliminarydata uncorrected
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
81
Transverse PT distributions
• Plot the PT distribution of the “Transverse” <Nchg>, dNchg/dPT.
for different jet PT
• The integral of dNchg/dPT is the “Transverse” <Nchg>.
• The triangle and circle (square) points are the Min-Bias (JET20) data.
Charged Jet #1Direction
“Toward”
“Transverse” “Transverse”
“Away”
"Transverse" PT Distribution (charged)
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
PT(charged) (GeV/c)
dN
ch
g/d
PT
(1
/Ge
V/c
)
CDF Preliminarydata uncorrected
1.8 TeV ||<1 PT>0.5 GeV/c
PT(chgjet1) > 2 GeV/c
PT(chgjet1) > 5 GeV/c
PT(chgjet1) > 30 GeV/c
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
82
Transverse <Nchg> vs PTJet1
• Compare data to the the QCD hard scattering predictions of HERWIG 5.9, ISAJET 7.32, and PYTHIA 6.115 (default parameters with PT(hard)>3 GeV/c).
• Tracking eff. has been included in MC predictions
Pythia 6.115
Herwig 5.9
Isajet 7.32Charged Jet #1
Direction
“Toward”
“Transverse” “Transverse”
“Away”
"Transverse" Nchg versus PT(charged jet#1)
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
PT(charged jet#1) (GeV/c)
"Tra
ns
ve
rse
" <
Nc
hg
> in
1 G
eV
/c b
in
Herwig Isajet Pythia 6.115 CDF Min-Bias CDF JET20
1.8 TeV ||<1.0 PT>0.5 GeV
CDF Preliminarydata uncorrectedtheory corrected
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
83
ISAJET: “Transverse” Nchg versus PT(jet#1)
• ISAJET 7.32 (default parameters with PT(hard)>3 GeV/c) .• ISAJET has two categories that contribute to transverse region:
– charged particles that arise from the break-up of the beam and target (beam-beam remnants)
– charged particles that arise from the outgoing jet plus initial and final-state radiation (hard scattering component).
Beam-BeamRemnants
Outgoing jets +Initial and Final State Radiation
ISAJET total "Transverse" Nchg versus PT(charged jet#1)
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
PT(charged jet#1) (GeV/c)
"Tra
ns
ve
rse
" <
Nc
hg
> i
n 1
Ge
V/c
bin
1.8 TeV ||<1.0 PT>0.5 GeV
CDF Preliminarydata uncorrectedtheory corrected
Beam-Beam Remnants
Isajet Total
Hard Component
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
84
HERWIG: “Transverse” Nchg versus PT1
• HERWIG 5.9 (default parameters with PT(hard)>3 GeV/c).• HERWIG has two categories:
– charged particles that arise from the break-up of the beam and target (beam-beam remnants)
– charged particles that arise from the outgoing jet plus initial and final-state radiation (hard scattering component).
Beam-BeamRemnants
Outgoing Jetsplus
Initial & Final-StateRadiation
HERWIG"Transverse" Nchg versus PT(charged jet#1)
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
PT (charged jet#1) (GeV/c)
"Tra
ns
ve
rse
" <
Nc
hg
> i
n 1
Ge
V/c
bin
1.8 TeV ||<1.0 PT>0.5 GeV Beam-Beam Remnants
Hard Component
CDF Preliminarydata uncorrectedtheory corrected
Herwig Total
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
85
PYTHIA: “Transverse” Nchg versus PT1
• PYTHIA 6.115 (default parameters with PT(hard)>3 GeV/c).• PYTHIA particles are divided into two categories
– charged particles that arise from the break-up of the beam target (beam-beam remnants including multiple parton interactions)
– charged particles that arise from the outgoing jet plus initial and final-state radiation (hard scattering component).
Beam-Beam Remnants
plusMultiple Parton
Interactions
Outgoing Jetsplus
Initial & Final-StateRadiation
PYTHIA"Transverse" Nchg versus PT(charged jet#1)
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
PT(charged jet#1) (GeV/c)
"Tra
ns
ve
rse
" <
Nc
hg
> i
n 1
Ge
V/c
bin
1.8 TeV ||<1.0 PT>0.5 GeV
CDF Preliminarydata uncorrectedtheory corrected
Beam-Beam Remnants
Pythia 6.115 Total
Hard Component
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
86
Compare Hard Scattering Components
• HERWIG and PYTHIA modify the leading-log picture to include “color coherence effects”
• leads to “angle ordering” within the parton shower
• Angle ordering produces less high PT radiation within a parton shower. (See talk by S. Mrenna)
HERWIG
PYTHIA
ISAJET"Transverse" Nchg versus PT(charged jet#1)
0
1
2
3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
PT(charged jet#1) (GeV/c)
"Tra
ns
ve
rse
" <
Nc
hg
> i
n 1
Ge
V/c
bin
1.8 TeV ||<1.0 PT>0.5 GeV
theory corrected
Hard Scattering ComponentIsajet
Pythia 6.115
Herwig
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
87
ISAJET: “Transverse”PT Distribution
• Look at PT distribution for jets with ET> 5 and 30 GeV
PT(charged jet#1) > 5 GeV/c“Transverse” <Nchg> = 2.0
PT(charged jet#1) > 30 GeV/c“Transverse” <Nchg> = 3.7
"Transverse" PT Distribution (charged)
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
PT(charged) (GeV/c)d
Nc
hg
/dP
T (
1/G
eV
/c)
CDF Preliminarydata uncorrectedtheory corrected
1.8 TeV ||<1
PT(chgjet1) > 2 GeV/c
PT(chgjet1) > 5 GeV/c
PT(chgjet1) > 30 GeV/c
Isajet 7.32
"Transverse" Nchg versus PT(charged jet#1)
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
PT(charged jet#1) (GeV/c)
"Tra
ns
ve
rse
" <
Nc
hg
> i
n 1
Ge
V/c
bin
1.8 TeV ||<1.0 PT>0.5 GeV
CDF Preliminarydata uncorrectedtheory corrected
Beam-Beam Remnants
Isajet Total
Hard Component
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
88
ISAJET: “Transverse” PT Distribution
• Dashed curve is the beam-beam remnant component and the solid curve is the total (beam-beam remnants plus hard component).
"Transverse" PT Distribution (charged)
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
PT(charged) GeV/cd
Nc
hg
/dP
T (
1/G
eV
/c)
CDF Preliminarydata uncorrectedtheory corrected
PT(charged jet#1) > 30 GeV/c
1.8 TeV |eta|<1Isajet Total
Beam-Beam Remnants
"Transverse" PT Distribution (charged)
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PT(charged) GeV/c
dN
ch
g/d
PT
(1
/Ge
V/c
)
CDF Preliminarydata uncorrectedtheory corrected
PT(charged jet#1) > 5 GeV/c
1.8 TeV ||<1
Isajet Total
Beam-Beam Remnants
exp(-2pT)
same
PT1>5GeV PT1>30GeV
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
89
HERWIG: “Transverse” PT Distribution
PT(charged jet#1) > 5 GeV/c“Transverse” <Nchg> = 1.7
PT(charged jet#1) > 30 GeV/c“Transverse” <Nchg> = 2.2
"Transverse" Nchg versus PT(charged jet#1)
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
PT (charged jet#1) (GeV/c)
"Tra
ns
ve
rse
" <
Nc
hg
> i
n 1
Ge
V/c
bin
1.8 TeV ||<1.0 PT>0.5 GeV Beam-Beam Remnants
Hard Component
CDF Preliminarydata uncorrectedtheory corrected
Herwig Total
"Transverse" PT Distribution (charged)
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
PT(charged) (GeV/c)d
Nc
hg
/dP
T (
1/G
eV
/c)
CDF Preliminarydata uncorrectedtheory corrected
1.8 TeV ||<1
PT(chgjet1) > 2 GeV/c
PT(chgjet1) > 5 GeV/c
PT(chgjet1) > 30 GeV/c
Herwig 5.9
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
90
HERWIG: “Transverse”PT Distribution
• The dashed curve is the beam-beam remnant component and the solid curve is the total (beam-beam remnants plus hard component).
"Transverse" PT Distribution (charged)
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PT(charged) GeV/c
dN
ch
g/d
PT
(1
/Ge
V/c
)
PT(charged jet#1) > 5 GeV/c
CDF Preliminarydata uncorrectedtheory corrected
1.8 TeV ||<1
Beam-Beam Remnants
Herwig Total
"Transverse" PT Distribution (charged)
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
PT(charged) GeV/c
dN
ch
g/d
PT
(1
/Ge
V/c
)
CDF Preliminarydata uncorrectedtheory corrected
PT(charged jet#1) > 30 GeV/c
1.8 TeV ||<1
Herwig Total
Beam-Beam Remnants
exp(-2pT)
same
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
91
IncludesMultipleParton
Interactions
PYTHIA: “Transverse” PT Distribution
PT(charged jet#1) > 5 GeV/c“Transverse” <Nchg> = 2.3
PT(charged jet#1) > 30 GeV/c“Transverse” <Nchg> = 2.9
"Transverse" Nchg versus PT(charged jet#1)
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
PT(charged jet#1) (GeV/c)
"Tra
ns
ve
rse
" <
Nc
hg
> i
n 1
Ge
V/c
bin
1.8 TeV ||<1.0 PT>0.5 GeV
CDF Preliminarydata uncorrectedtheory corrected
Beam-Beam Remnants
Pythia 6.115 Total
Hard Component
"Transverse" PT Distribution (charged)
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
PT(charged) (GeV/c)d
Nc
hg
/dP
T (
1/G
eV
/c)
CDF Preliminarydata uncorrectedtheory corrected
1.8 TeV ||<1
PT(chgjet1) > 2 GeV/c
PT(chgjet1) > 5 GeV/c
PT(chgjet1) > 30 GeV/c
Pythia 6.115
Can vary the parameters for Multiple interactions assumes a varying impact parameter and a hadronic matter overlap consistent with a single or double Gaussian matter distribution, with a smooth turn-off PT0=PARP(82)
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
92
Note: Multiple parton interactions depend on the PDF’s!
PYTHIA Multiple Parton Interactions
"Transverse" Nchg versus PT(charged jet#1)
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
PT(charged jet#1) (GeV/c)
"Tra
ns
vers
e" <
Nc
hg
> in
1 G
eV/c
bin
1.8 TeV ||<1.0 PT>0.5 GeV
CDF Preliminarydata uncorrectedtheory corrected CTEQ3L MSTP(82)=3
PARP(82) = 1.35 GeV/c
CTEQ3L MSTP(82)=3PARP(82) = 1.55 GeV/c
GRV94L MSTP(82)=3PARP(82) = 1.55 GeV/c
CTEQ4L MSTP(82)=3PARP(82) = 1.8 GeV/c
Vary impact parameter: Tune to data
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
93
IncludesMultipleParton
Interactions
Tuned PYTHIA: “Transverse” PT Distribution
• Tuned PYTHIA: CTEQ4L, MSTP(82)=4 (hard core), PT0=PARP(82)=2.4 GeV/c.
PT(charged jet#1) > 5 GeV/c“Transverse” <Nchg> = 2.3
PT(charged jet#1) > 30 GeV/c“Transverse” <Nchg> = 2.7
"Transverse" Nchg versus PT(charged jet#1)
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
PT(charged jet#1) (GeV/c)
"Tra
ns
ve
rse
" <
Nc
hg
> i
n 1
Ge
V/c
bin
1.8 TeV ||<1.0 PT>0.5 GeV Beam-Beam Remnants
Pythia CTEQ4L (4, 2.4 GeV/c)
Hard Component
CDF Preliminarydata uncorrectedtheory corrected
"Transverse" PT Distribution (charged)
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
PT(charged) (GeV/c)d
Nc
hg
/dP
T (
1/G
eV
/c)
PT(chgjet1) > 2 GeV/c
PT(chgjet1) > 5 GeV/c
PT(chgjet1) > 30 GeV/c
CDF Preliminarydata uncorrectedtheory corrected
1.8 TeV ||<1
Pythia CTEQ4L (4, 2.4 GeV/c)
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
94
IncludesMultipleParton
Interactions
Tuned PYTHIA: “Transverse” PT Distribution
• PYTHIA 6.115 with PT(hard) > 0, CTEQ4L, MSTP(82)=4, PT0=PARP(82)=2.4 GeV/c. • The dashed curve is the beam-beam remnant component and the solid curve is the
total (beam-beam remnants plus hard component).
"Transverse" PT Distribution (charged)
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
PT(charged) GeV/c
dN
ch
g/d
PT
(1
/Ge
V/c
)
CDF Preliminarydata uncorrectedtheory corrected
PT(charged jet#1) > 30 GeV/c
1.8 TeV ||<1
Pythia CTEQ4L (4, 2.4 GeV/c)
Beam-Beam Remnants
"Transverse" PT Distribution (charged)
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PT(charged) GeV/c
dN
ch
g/d
PT
(1
/Ge
V/c
)
PT(charged jet#1) > 5 GeV/c
CDF Preliminarydata uncorrectedtheory corrected
1.8 TeV ||<1
Beam-Beam Remnants
Pythia CTEQ4L (4, 2.4 GeV/c)
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
95
The Underlying Event: Summary & Conclusions
• ISAJET (FF) produces too many (soft) particles and the wrong dependence on PT1.
• HERWIG and PYTHIA (modified LLA) do a better job describing the underlying event.
• ISAJET and HERWIG do not have enough beam-beam remnants with PT > 0.5 GeV/c.
• PYTHIA (with multiple parton interactions) has best description of the underlying event.
• Recently an underlying event that depends on multiple parton interactions was included in HERWIG.
• Multiple parton interactions gives a natural way of explaining the underlying event in a hard scattering, and have been observed in photon – jet data
• Warning to Top-mass type studies:– Multiple parton interactions are very sensitive to the parton structure functions. You
must first decide on a particular PDF and then tune the multiple parton interactions to fit the data
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
96
Fragmentation models and Clustering• Independent Fragmentation (ISAJET)
– each parton fragments independently– simple to trace parentage of hadrons– doesn’t describe data very well
• Cluster Fragmentation (HERWIG)– Pairs of color color connected neighboring partons are
combined into color singlets.– Can’t trace parentage of hadrons back to original partons – Gives generally good agreement with data
• Clustering– imposing a cone algorithm conceptually implies independent
fragmentation– Cluster fragmentation suggests imposing a cone will be
artificially cutting color lines – Successive recombination algorithms (e.g. KT) maybe more
natural – Difficulty with KT algorithms is derivation of corrections for
variable size jets → Recent D0 result
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
97
Jet Algorithms – NLO, NNLO considerations• Jet algorithm should be insensitive to
– infrared and collinear divergences– hadronization– logitudinal boosts
Infrared problem: adding an infinately soft parton should not change the number of jets
Collinear problem: replacing any parton with a collinear pair of partons should not change the number of jets
Note – The calorimeter towers + the preclustering (grouping) of towers in a detector integrate over these effects in the data
Cone Algorithm is Not IR safeat NNLOKT is safe at all orders
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
98
KT algorithm at Hadron CollidersSuccessively associate pairs of particles:
dij = min(PTi2,PTj
2) ΔRij2/D2
where ΔRij2 = (ηi – ηj)2 + (φi + φj)2
and for each particle define di = PTi2
Find minimum of di and dij → dmin
If dmin = dij → merge particles
If dmin = di → remove i from particle list and add to jet list
Keep going until all particles are assigned to a jet.
Result: list of jets with separation between them ≥ DNote – all particles in a cone of radius R around the centroid are not necessarily included in the KT jet and particles far from the centroid can be included.
Uses one parameter: D → minimum separation between final jets
For D=1 and Rij<<1dij = relative pT (=KT)
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
99
KT Algorithm
• soft and collinear particles are merged first
• Final jets separation > D• D is the only parameter (cone
algo has Cone Radius and Rsep)
• KT algo is IR safe to all orders • At LO KT = cone (1parton/jet)• At NLO D = 1 gives same
result as R=0.7, Rsep=1.3 (Ellis-Soper PRD 48, 3160)
At higher orders this relationship might not hold
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
100
Inclusive Jet Cross Section with KT Algo.
D0 KT papers: hep-ex/0108054 (PRD)and hep-ex/0109041 (PRL)
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
101
KT Algorithm ≠ Cone in DATA
• Cross sections are different at low PT• Match leading two jets in η-φ (ΔR<0.2)
• plot PTKT – ET
cone vs PT
KT jets are more energetic7% ( ~4GeV) at 60 GeV3% (~6 GeV) at 200 GeV
If shift the cone cross section by this measured difference then the cross sections agree
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
102
Compare KT and Cone jets with HERWIG• Generate Jet events with HERWIG down to particles• Run KT and Cone algos on particles• match the two leading clusters in η-φ (ΔR<0.2) and plot
the differenceHERWIG shows KT algo picks up more energy than cone
Level is smaller than in data2% (1%) at 60(200)GeV
HERWIG ~ flat 2 GeVData: 4 - 6 GeV
Overall uncertainty is 2% on energy scale so these agree at ~2
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
103
KT and Cone Jets: look inside HERWIG Jets
• Look at distance to furthest particle from jet centroid
• KT jets have more particles far from centroid
• Cone also has particles outside radius due to merged jets but at a lower level than KT jets
Number of particles in jet is 30% larger for KT jets
KT and cone jets are different!
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
104
Quantify effect of hadronization• Generate HERWIG jets• Compare KT and Cone algos at
“parton level” and after hadronization “particle level” for two leading jets
• KT jets pick up more energy than in parton level by including partons far from the original parton.
• cone jets lose energy outside the cone
Add the HERWIG hadronization effect to the NLO predictions→ Difference between data and theory at low pT is reduced→ Remaining difference is large→ More interplay between data and theory is needed!
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
105
Quark and Gluon Jets with the KT algorithm
Quarks and gluons radiate proportional to their color factors
• Expect gluon jets to be broader than quark jets
• Gluon jets should have softer fragmentation,(more low energy particles)
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
106
Separation of quark and gluon jets
• LEP: extensive studies of quark-gluon separation (Bill Gary’s talk)
• At Fermilab we can compare the samples from different CM energies
For the ET range of 50-60 GeV, HERWIG predicts a gluon jet fraction of ~66% √s = 1800 GeV and~47% √s = 630 GeV
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
107
Quark – Gluon separation (D0 analysis)
use the KT algorithm to look for subjet structures
inside the jets:
dij = min(pTi2,pTj
2) ΔRij2/D2 > ycutpTjet
2
For ycut = 1, Nsubjet = 1
For ycut → 0 Nsubjet → ∞
Count the number of subjets and compare to predictions
Chose fixed ycut = 0.001
This corresponds to minimum of 3% of total jet pT in a subjet
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
108
Quark – Gluon separation and subjets
• Plot the number of jets of multiplicity M normalized by the total number of jets for different subjet multiplicities at CM 1800 and 630 GeV
• The subjet multiplicity M in a sample is a combination of the multiplicities of quark ( Mq) and gluon (Mg) jets:
M = fMg + (1-f)Mq
where f is the fraction of gluon jets and (1-f) is the fraction of quark jets
For two samples with different fractions:
Mq = f1800M630 – f630M1800/(f1800-f630)
Mg = (1-f630)M1800- (1-f1800)M630 /(f1800-f630)
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
109
Quark Gluon separation
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
110
Compare Subjet Multiplicity to Predictions
• HERWIG is in great agreement with data.
→ ask Steve Mrenna
to explain how HERWIG can do so well!
• Analytic resummed calculation predicts higher multiplicies in gluon jets
• Smaller effect in quark jets
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
111
QCD in Run II
• Run I
~20 events with ET> 400 GeV• Run II
~1K events ET> 400 GeV
~100 Events ET> 490 GeV
• Great reach in high x and Q2
• search for new physics • test QCD predictions in new
regions
Jet ET
Brenna Flaugher CTEQ Summer School 2002
112
Summary• Covered a wide variety of topics related to production and evolution
of high energy jets:– Inclusive jet cross sections– Multijet production– Double parton scattering– Underlying event
– Cone and KT clustering algorithms
– Separation of quark and gluon jets
• Set stage for upcoming talks – What is in the theory and the event generators and how well they agree with data – More details on generators from Steve Mrenna– Walter Giele will talk about how to derive new PDFs – Keep in mind some of these issues when you hear talks on searches for new
physics, the HIGGS, precision top mass etc.
• Main message – Experimental and Theoretical understanding progress together
• Run II has new CM energy (1.96 TeV) and lots of new data!