1 / 45

Phenomenology tools for the LHC

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.

norah
Download Presentation

Phenomenology tools for the LHC

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. 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

  2. 1 introduction and overview

  3. 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-perturbativeQCD effects is still quite primitive, and we have to resort to models

  4. ^  phenomenologytools event simulation (parton showers + tuned UE) MCs, interfaced with LO or NLO hard scattering MEs jet algorithms perturbation theory: LO, NLO, NNLO, … supplemented by resummedNnLL improvements, EW corrections, … parton distribution functions all underpinned by the QCD factorization theorem for hard-scattering (short-distance) inclusive processes

  5. 2 higher-order perturbative QCD corrections

  6. physical variable(s) process dependent coefficients depending on P general structure of a QCD perturbation series • choose a renormalisation scheme (e.g. MSbar) • calculate cross section to some order (e.g. NLO) • noted/d=0“to all orders”, but in practice d(N+n)/d= O((N+n)SN+n+1)  as many orders as possible! • can try to help convergence by using a “physical scale choice”, ~ P, e.g. = MZor = ETjet • what if there is a wide range of P’s in the process, e.g. W + n jets? – see later renormalisation scale

  7. 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… NLO NLO NNLO NLO NNLO

  8. 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, …)

  9. 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 onV,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

  10. Top at Tevatron Bottom at LHC K. Ellis K. Ellis reason: new processes open up at NLO!

  11. However... 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

  12. 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(MZ2)

  13. the impact of NNLO: Higgs Harlander,Kilgore Anastasiou, Melnikov Ravindran, Smith, van Neerven … • the NNLO band is about 10%, or 15% if R and F varied independently

  14. SM Higgs: Tevatron exclusion limits ? cross section theory uncertainty

  15. 3 parton distribution functions

  16. X x1P x2P proton proton SUSY, Higgs, W,Z, … DGLAP evolution * pdfs @ LHC • 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

  17. 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

  18. recent global or quasi-global pdf fits

  19. Note: • each set comes with its own unique S(MZ2) value (and uncertainty), correlated with the pdfs • CT10, HERAPDF, NNPDF2.1 use recent combined HERA data • NNPDF2.5(NNLO) soon

  20. MSTW = Martin, S, Thorne, Watt

  21. 4 LHC 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

  22. parton luminosity* comparisons positivity constraint on input gluon Run 1 vs. Run 2 Tevatron jet data No Tevatron jet data or FT-DIS data in fit ZM-VFNS momentum sum rule *

  23. benchmark W,Z cross sections 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 G. Watt, 2011

  24. Wl rapidity asymmetry • very sensitive to pdfs • complex interplay of uV, dV, Sea, V ± A decay • 7 TeV data! l± W

  25. SM Higgs and top cross sections … differences from both pdfsANDS ! G. Watt, 2011

  26. 5 MC 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

  27. 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: • start by simulating a hard scattering process (LO, NLO) • this is followed by the simulation of (soft and collinear) QCD radiation using a parton shower algorithm • 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?!

  28. PYTHIA tunes to ATLAS 7 TeV MinBias data “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

  29. interfacing NnLO and parton showers + Benefits of both: NnLOcorrect overall rate, hard scattering kinematics, reduced scale dep. PScomplete event picture, correct treatment of collinear logs to all orders • MC@NLO(Frixione, Webber, et al ): large range of processes available, integrated withHerwig 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)

  30. (hadron collider) processes in MC@NLO from the MC@NLO 4.0 manual

  31. HW++ vs. POWHEG vs. MC@NLO vs. MCFM Herwig++ 2.5 Release Note (S. Gieseke et al) arXiv:1102.1672 [hep-ph] Tevatron Z0Z0 LHC W+W- POWHEG vs. ATLAS jet data • S. Alioli et al, arXiv:1012.3380 [hep-ph]

  32. Jet algorithms {phi}  {jk}  {partons} • Snowmass accord (1990) • simple to implement in experimental analyses as well as theory calculations • defined at any order in pQCD and yields finite results for rates at any order • 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! Gavin Salam, “Towards Jetography” (2009)

  33. Finally, a straightforward, robust, widely-accepted algorithm for jet studies at LHC that satisfies Snowmass accord ...

  34. 6 finally, there are interesting processes where our theoretical understanding is much less developed...

  35.    central exclusive production compare … • p + p  H + X • the rate (parton,pdfs, αS) • the kinematic distribtns. (d/dydpT) • the environment (jets, underlying event, backgrounds, …) with … • p + p  p + H + p • a real challenge for theory (pQCD + npQCD) and experiment (tagging forward protons, triggering, …) b b

  36. gap survival central exclusive production – theory p + p → p  X  p • 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 MXis 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 X

  37. CEP at LHC? p + p → p  X  p • in the limit that the outgoing protons scatter at zero angle, the centrally produced state X must have JZP = 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 anyexotic 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: X Durham/St Petersburg /Cambridge (Khoze, Martin, Ryskin, S, Harland-Lang,....) Manchester (Cox, Forshaw, Monk, Pilkington, Coughlin, ...) Helsinki (Orava, ...) Saclay (Royon, ...) Cracow (Szczurek, ...) … CDF(arXiv:0902.1271): KHRYSTHAL (Khoze, Ryskin, S, Harland-Lang, arXiv:1005.0695 ):

  38. DPS + SPS SPS single and double hard parton scattering e.g. X,Y = jj,bb,W,Z,J/,.. • 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=2 X,Y same: m=1 MPI@LHC 2010: 2nd International Workshop on Multiple Partonic Interactions at the LHC, Glasgow, November 2010, www.mpi2010.physics.gla.ac.uk

  39. summary • relentless advance in improving phenomenology tools for precision hadron collider physics in recent years • the NLOrevolution (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

  40. extra slides

  41. pdfs and S(MZ2) • MSTW08, ABKM09 and GJR08: S(MZ2) 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

  42. a b parton luminosity functions • a quick and easy way to assess the mass, collider energy and pdf dependence of production cross sections s X • 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)

  43. CEP hMSSMbbat LHC 3 statistical significance contours, Mhmax scenario Heinemeyer, Khoze, Ryskin, S, Tasevsky, Weiglein: arXiv:0708.3052 Trest 2007

More Related