1 / 35

Designer Showers and Subtracted Matrix Elements

Freiburg, Apr 16 2008. Designer Showers and Subtracted Matrix Elements. Peter Skands CERN & Fermilab. Overview. Calculating collider observables Fixed order perturbation theory and beyond From inclusive to exclusive descriptions of the final state

beryl
Download Presentation

Designer Showers and Subtracted Matrix Elements

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. Freiburg, Apr 16 2008 Designer Showers and Subtracted Matrix Elements Peter Skands CERN & Fermilab

  2. Overview • Calculating collider observables • Fixed order perturbation theory and beyond • From inclusive to exclusive descriptions of the final state • Uncertainties and ambiguities beyond fixed order • The ingredients of a parton shower • A brief history of matching • New creations: Fall 2007 • A New Approach • Time-Like Showers Based on Dipole-Antennae • Some hopefully good news • VINCIA status and plans Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 2

  3. QuantumChromoDynamics • Main Tool: Matrix Elements calculated in fixed-order perturbative quantum field theory • Example: High-transverse momentum interaction Reality is more complicated Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 3

  4. Principal virtues Stochastic error O(N-1/2) independent of dimension Full (perturbative) quantum treatment at each order (KLN theorem: finite answer at each (complete) order) Monte Carlo at Fixed Order “Experimental” distribution of observable O in production of X: Fixed Order (all orders) {p} : momenta k : legs ℓ : loops “Monte Carlo”: N. Metropolis, first Monte Carlo calcultion on ENIAC (1948), basic idea goes back to Enrico Fermi High-dimensional problem (phase space) d≥5  Monte Carlo integration Note 1: For k larger than a few, need to be quite clever in phase space sampling Note 2: For ℓ > 0, need to be careful in arranging for real-virtual cancellations Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 4

  5. Parton Showers High-dimensional problem (phase space) d≥5  Monte Carlo integration + Formulation of fragmentation as a “Markov Chain”: A. A. Markov: Izvestiia Fiz.-Matem. Obsch. Kazan Univ., (2nd Ser.), 15(94):135 (1906) S:Evolution operator. Generates event, starting from {p}X • Hadronization: • iteration of X  X’ + hadron, according to phenomenological models (based on known properties of QCD, on lattice, and on fits to data). • Parton Showers: • iterative application of perturbatively calculable splitting kernels for n  n+1 partons Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 5

  6. Traditional Generators • Generator philosophy: • Improve Born-level perturbation theory, by including the ‘most significant’ corrections  complete events • Parton Showers • Hadronisation • The Underlying Event • Soft/Collinear Logarithms • Power Corrections • All of the above (+ more?) roughly (+ many other ingredients: resonance decays, beam remnants, Bose-Einstein, …) Asking for fully exclusive events is asking for quite a lot … Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 6

  7. Collider Energy Scales Hadron Decays Non-perturbative hadronisation, colour reconnections, beam remnants, non-perturbative fragmentation functions, pion/proton ratio, kaon/pion ratio, ... Soft Jets and Jet Structure Soft/collinear radiation (brems), underlying event (multiple perturbative 22 interactions + … ?), semi-hard brems jets, … Exclusive & Widths Resonance Masses… Hard Jet Tail High-pT jets at large angles Inclusive s • + Un-Physical Scales: • QF , QR : Factorization(s) & Renormalization(s) • QE : Evolution(s) Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 7

  8. Beyond Fixed Order e+e- 3 jets Problem 1: bremsstrahlung corrections are singular for soft/collinear configurations  spoils fixed-order truncation Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 8

  9. Diagrammatical Explanation 1 dσX+2 “DLA” α sab saisib • dσX = … • dσX+1 ~ dσX g2 2 sab /(sa1s1b) dsa1ds1b • dσX+2 ~ dσX+1 g2 2 sab/(sa2s2b) dsa2ds2b • dσX+3 ~ dσX+2 g2 2 sab/(sa3s3b) dsa3ds3b dσX dσX+1 dσX+2 This is an approximation of inifinite-order tree-level cross sections • But it’s not yet an “evolution” • What’s the total cross section we would calculate from this? • σX;tot = int(dσX) + int(dσX+1) + int(dσX+2) + ... Probability not conserved, events “multiply” with nasty singularities! Just an approximation of a sum of trees. But wait, what happened to the virtual corrections? KLN? Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 9

  10. Diagrammatical Explanation 2 dσX+2 “DLA” α sab saisib • dσX = … • dσX+1 ~ dσX g2 2 sab /(sa1s1b) dsa1ds1b • dσX+2 ~ dσX+1 g2 2 sab/(sa2s2b) dsa2ds2b • dσX+3 ~ dσX+2 g22 sab/(sa3s3b) dsa3ds3b +Unitarisation:σtot = int(dσX)  σX;PS= σX - σX+1 - σX+2- … dσX dσX+1 dσX+2 Given a jet definition, an event has either 0, 1, 2, or … jets • Interpretation: the structure evolves! (example: X = 2-jets) • Take a jet algorithm, with resolution measure “Q”, apply it to your events • At a very crude resolution, you find that everything is 2-jets • At finer resolutions  some 2-jets migrate  3-jets =σX+1(Q) = σX;incl– σX;excl(Q) • Later, some 3-jets migrate further, etc  σX+n(Q) = σX;incl– ∑σX+m<n;excl(Q) • This evolution takes place between two scales, Qin and Qfin = QF;ME and Qhad • σX;PS = int(dσX) - int(dσX+1) - int(dσX+2) + ... = int(dσX) EXP[ - int(α 2sab /(sa1s1b) dsa1 ds1b ) ] Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 10

  11. Beyond Fixed Order Fixed Order (all orders) • Evolution Operator, S (as a function of “time” t=1/Q) • “Evolves” phase space point: X  … • Can include entire (interleaved) evolution, here focus on showers • Observable is evaluated on final configuration • S unitary (as long as you never throw away an event) •  normalization of total (inclusive)σ unchanged (σLO,σNLO, σNNLO, σexp, …) • Only shapes are predicted (i.e., also σ after shape-dependent cuts) wX : |MX|2 S : Evolution operator {p} : momenta Pure Shower (all orders) Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 11

  12. Perturbative Evolution “X + nothing” “X+something” wX : |MX|2 S : Evolution operator {p} : momenta Pure Shower (all orders) • Evolution Operator, S (as a function of “time” t=1/Q) • Defined in terms of Δ(t1,t2) – The integrated probability the system does not change state between t1 and t2(Sudakov) A: splitting function Analogous to nuclear decay: Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 12

  13. Constructing LL Showers • The final answer will depend on: • The choice of evolution variable • The splitting functions (finite terms not fixed) • The phase space map ( dΦn+1/dΦn ) • The renormalization scheme (argument of αs) • The infrared cutoff contour (hadronization cutoff) • They are all “unphysical”, in the same sense as QFactorizaton, etc. • At strict LL, any choice is equally good • However, 20 years of parton showers have taught us: many NLL effects can be (approximately) absorbed by judicious choices • Effectively, precision is much better than strict LL, but still not formally NLL • E.g., (E,p) cons., “angular ordering”, using pT as scale in αs, with ΛMSΛMC, …  Clever choices good for process-independent things, but what about the process-dependent bits? … + matching Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 13

  14. Matching • Traditional Approach: take the showers you have, expand them to 1st order, and fix them up • Sjöstrand (1987): Introducere-weightingfactor on first emission  1st order tree-level matrix element (ME) (+ further showering) • Seymour (1995): + where shower is “dead”, add separate events from 1st order tree-level ME, re-weighted by “Sudakov-like factor” (+ further showering) • Frixione & Webber (2002):Subtract1st order expansion from 1st order tree and 1-loop ME  add remainder ME correction events (+ further showering) • Multi-leg Approaches (Tree level only): • Catani, Krauss, Kuhn, Webber (2001): Substantial generalization of Seymour’s approach, to multiple emissions, slicingphase space into “hard”  M.E. ; “soft”  P.S. • Mangano (?): pragmatic approach to slicing: after showering, match jets to partons, reject events that look “double counted” A brief history of conceptual breakthroughs in widespread use today: Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 14

  15. New Creations: Fall 2007 • Showers designed specifically for matching • Nagy, Soper (2006):Catani-Seymour showers • Dinsdale, Ternick, Weinzierl (Sep 2007) & Schumann, Krauss (Sep 2007): implementations • Giele, Kosower, PS (Jul 2007): Antenna showers • (incl. implementations) • Other new showers: partially designed for matching • Sjöstrand (Oct 2007): New interleaved evolution of FSR/ISR/UE • Official release of Pythia8 last week • Webber et al (HERWIG++): Improved angular ordered showers • Winter, Krauss (Dec 2007) : Dipole-antenna showers • (incl. implementation in SHERPA.) Similar to ARIADNE, but more antenna-like for ISR • Nagy, Soper (Jun 2007 + Jan 2008):Quantum showers •  subleading color, polarization (so far no implementation) • New matching proposals • Nason (2004): Positive-weight variant of MC@NLO • Frixione, Nason, Oleari (Sep 2007): Implementation: POWHEG • Giele, Kosower, PS (Jul 2007):Antenna subtraction • VINCIA + an extension of that I will present here for the first time Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 15

  16. Some Holy Grails • Matching to first order + (N)LL ~ done • 1st order : MC@NLO, POWHEG, PYTHIA, HERWIG • Multi-leg tree-level: CKKW, MLM, … (but still large uncertainties) • Simultaneous 1-loop and multi-leg matching • 1st order : NLO (Born) + LO (Born + m) + (N)LL (Born + ∞) • 2nd order : NLO (Born+1) + LO (Born + m) + (N)LL (Born + ∞) • Showers that systematically resum higher logs • (N)LL  NLL  NNLL  … ? • (N)LC  NLC  … ? • Solving any of these would be highly desirable • Solve all of them ? • NNLO (Born) + LO (Born + m) + (N)NLL + string-fragmentation • + reliable uncertainty bands Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 16

  17. Parton Showers • The final answer depends on: • The choice of evolution variable • The splitting functions (finite/subleading terms not fixed) • The phase space map ( dΦn+1/dΦn ) • The renormalization scheme (argument of αs) • The infrared cutoff contour (hadronization cutoff) • Step 1, Quantify uncertainty: vary all of these (within reasonable limits) • Step 2, Systematically improve: Understand the importance of each and how it is canceled by • Matching to fixed order matrix elements, at LO, NLO, NNLO, … • Higher logarithms, subleading color, etc, are included • Step 3, Write a generator: Make the above explicit (while still tractable) in a Markov Chain context  matched parton shower MC algorithm Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 17

  18. Based on Dipole-Antennae Shower off color-connected pairs of partons Plug-in to PYTHIA 8.1 (C++) So far: 3 different shower evolution variables: pT-ordering (= ARIADNE ~ PYTHIA 8) Dipole-mass-ordering (~ but not = PYTHIA 6, SHERPA) Thrust-ordering (3-parton Thrust) For each: an infinite family of antenna functions Laurent series in branching invariants with arbitrary finite terms Shower cutoff contour: independent of evolution variable IR factorization “universal” Several different choices for αs (evolution scale, pT, mother antenna mass, 2-loop, …) Phase space mappings: 2 different choices implemented Antenna-like (ARIADNE angle) or Parton-shower-like: Emitter + longitudinal Recoiler VINCIA VIRTUAL NUMERICAL COLLIDER WITH INTERLEAVED ANTENNAE Gustafson, PLB175(1986)453; Lönnblad (ARIADNE), CPC71(1992)15. Azimov, Dokshitzer, Khoze, Troyan, PLB165B(1985)147 Kosower PRD57(1998)5410; Campbell,Cullen,Glover EPJC9(1999)245 Dipoles (=Antennae, not CS) – a dual description of QCD a Giele, Kosower, PS : hep-ph/0707.3652 + Les Houches 2007 r b Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 18

  19. Dipole-Antenna Showers • Dipole branching and phase space ( Most of this talk, including matching by antenna subtraction, should be applicable to ARIADNE and the SHERPA dipole-shower as well) Giele, Kosower, PS : hep-ph/0707.3652 Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 19

  20. Dipole-Antenna Functions • Starting point: “GGG” antenna functions, e.g., ggggg: • Generalize to arbitrary double Laurent series:  Can make shower systematically “softer” or “harder” • Will see later how this variation is explicitly canceled by matching •  quantification of uncertainty •  quantification of improvement by matching Gehrmann-De Ridder, Gehrmann, Glover, JHEP 09 (2005) 056 yar = sar / si si = invariant mass of i’th dipole-antenna Frederix, Giele, Kosower, PS : Les Houches NLM, arxiv:0803.0494 Singular parts fixed, finite terms arbitrary Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 20

  21. Comparison Frederix, Giele, Kosower, PS : Les Houches ‘NLM’, arxiv:0803.0494 Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 21

  22. Quantifying Matching • The unknown finite terms are a major source of uncertainty • DGLAP has some, GGG have others, ARIADNE has yet others, etc… • They are arbitrary (and in general process-dependent  don’t tune!) Varying finite terms only with αs(MZ)=0.137, μPS=pT, pThad = 0.5 GeV (huge variation with μPS from pureLL point of view, but NLL tells you using pT at LL  (N)LL. Formalize that.) Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 22

  23. Tree-level matching to X+1 • Expand parton shower to 1st order (real radiation term) • Matrix Element (Tree-level X+1 ; above thad)  Matching Term (= correction events to be added) •  variations in finite terms (or dead regions) in Aicanceled (at this order) • (If A too hard, correction can become negative  negative weights) Inverse phase space map ~ clustering Giele, Kosower, PS : hep-ph/0707.3652 Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 23

  24. Matching by Reweighted Showers wX : |MX|2 S : Evolution operator {p} : momenta • Go back to original shower definition • Possible to modify S to expand to the “correct” matrix elements ? Pure Shower (all orders) 1st order: yes Generate an over-estimating (trial) branching Reweight it by vetoing it with the probability Sjöstrand, Bengtsson : Nucl.Phys.B289(1987)810; Phys.Lett.B185(1987)435 Norrbin, Sjöstrand : Nucl.Phys.B603(2001)297 w>0 as long as |M|2 > 0 But2nd and beyond difficult due to lack of clean PS expansion Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 24

  25. Towards NNLO + NLL • Basic idea: extend reweigthing to 2nd order • 23 tree-level antennae  NLO • 23 one-loop + 24 tree-level antennae  NNLO • And exponentiate it • Exponentiating 23 (dipole-antenna showers)  (N)LL • Complete NNLO captures the singularity structure up to (N)NLL • So a shower incorporating all these pieces exactly should be able to reach NLL resummation, with a good approximation to NNLL; + exact matching up to NNLO should be possible • Start small, do it for leading-color first, included the qqbar 24 antennae, A04 , B04 . • Gives exact matching of Z4 since these happen to be the exact matrix elements for that process. • Still missing the remaining 24 functions, matching to the running coupling in one-loop 23, and inclusion of next-to-leading color • Full one-loop 23 matching (i.e., the finite terms for Z decay) Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 25

  26. 24 Matching by reweighting • Starting point: • LL shower w/ large coupling and large finite terms to generate “trial” branchings (“sufficiently” large to over-estimate the full ME). • Accept branching [i] with a probability • Each point in 4-parton phase space then receives a contribution • Also need to take into account ordering cancellation of dependence 1st order matching term (à la Sjöstrand-Bengtsson) 2nd order matching term (with 1st order subtracted) (If you think this looks deceptively easy, you are right) Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 26

  27. 23 one-loop Matching by reweighting • Unitarity of the shower  effective 2nd order 3-parton term contains • An integral over A04 over the 34 phase space below the 3-parton evolution scale (all the way from QE3 to 0) • An integral over the 23 antenna function above the 3-parton evolution scale (from MZ to QE3) • (These two combine to give the an evolution-dependence, canceled by matching to the actual 3-parton 1-loop ME) • A term coming from the expansion of the 23 αs(μPS) • Combine with 34 evolution to cancel scale dependence • A term coming from a tree-level branching off the one-loop 2-parton correction. • It then becomes a matter of collecting these pieces and subtracting them off, e.g., A13 . • After cancellation of divergences, an integral over the shower-subtracted A04 remains  Numerical? No need to exponentiate  must be evaluated once per event. The other pieces (except αs) are already in the code. Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 27

  28. Tree-level 23 + 24 in Action • The unknown finite terms are a major source of uncertainty • DGLAP has some, GGG have others, ARIADNE has yet others, etc… • They are arbitrary (and in general process-dependent) Varying finite terms only with αs(MZ)=0.137, μR=pT, pThad = 0.5 GeV Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 28

  29. LEP Comparisons Still with αs(MZ)=0.137 : THE big thing remaining … Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 29

  30. What to do next? • Further shower studies • Include the remaining 4-parton antenna functions • Measuring, rather than tuning, hadronization? • Go further with one-loop matching • Include exact running coupling from 3-parton one-loop • + Exponentiate • Include full 3-parton one-loop (i.e., including finite terms) •  Shower Monte Carlo at NNLO + NLL • Extend to the initial state • The Krauss-Winter shower looks close; we would concentrate on the uncertainties and matching. • Extend to massive particles • Massive antenna functions, phase space, and evolution (+matching?) Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 30

  31. Extra Material Frederix, Giele, Kosower, PS : Les Houches Proc., in preparation • Number of partons and number of quarks • Nq shows interesting dependence on ordering variable Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 31

  32. The Bottom Line HQET FO DGLAP • The S matrix is expressible as a series in gi, gin/Qm, gin/xm, gin/mm, gin/fπm, … • To do precision physics: • Solve more of QCD • Combine approximations which work in different regions: matching • Control it • Good to have comprehensive understanding of uncertainties • Even better to have a way to systematically improve • Non-perturbative effects • don’t care whether we know how to calculate them BFKL χPT Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 32

  33. Matching “X + nothing” “X+something” wX : |MX|2 S : Evolution operator {p} : momenta Pure Shower (all orders) A: splitting function Matched shower (including simultaneous tree- and 1-loop matching for any number of legs) Loop-level “virtual+unresolved” matching term for X+k Tree-level “real” matching term for X+k Giele, Kosower, PS : hep-ph/0707.3652 Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 33

  34. Example: Z decays • VINCIA and PYTHIA8 (using identical settings to the max extent possible) αs(pT), pThad = 0.5 GeV αs(mZ) = 0.137 Nf = 2 Note: the default Vincia antenna functions reproduce the Z3 parton matrix element; Pythia8 includes matching to Z3 Frederix, Giele, Kosower, PS : Les Houches NLM, arxiv:0803.0494 Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 34

  35. Example: Z decays • Why is the dependence on the evolution variable so small? • Conventional wisdom: evolution variable has huge effect • Cf. coherent vs non-coherent parton showers, mass-ordered vs pT-ordered, etc. • Dipole-Antenna showers resum radiation off pairs of partons •  interference between 2 partons included in radiation function • If radiation function = dipole formula  intrinsically coherent • Remaining dependence on evolution variable much milder than for conventional showers • The main uncertainty in this case lies in the choice of radiation function away from the collinear and soft regions •  dipole-antenna showers under the hood … Gustafson, PLB175(1986)453 Time-Like Showers and Matching with Antennae - 35

More Related