550 likes | 659 Views
DIS08: progress in pdfs. why precision pdfs? recent developments* current issues and prospects. James Stirling IPPP, Durham University. * See also SF WG and also PDF4LHC Meeting, CERN, Feb 08. DIS93 March 1993 Durham, UK. pdfs for LHC.
E N D
DIS08: progress in pdfs • why precision pdfs? • recent developments* • current issues and prospects James Stirling IPPP, Durham University * See also SF WG and also PDF4LHC Meeting, CERN, Feb 08
DIS93 March 1993 Durham, UK DIS08
pdfs for LHC • high precision (SM and BSM) cross section predictions require precision pdfs: th = pdf + … • improved signal and background predictions → easier to spot new physics deviations • ‘standard candle’ processes (e.g. Z) to • check formalism (factorisation, DGLAP, …) • measure machine luminosity? • learning more about pdfs from LHC measurements. e.g. • high-ET jets → gluon? • W+,W–,Z0→ quarks? • forward DY → small x? • … DIS08
where X=W, Z, H, high-ET jets, … and known • to some fixed order in pQCD and EW • in some leading logarithm approximation (LL, NLL, …) to all orders via resummation ^ QCD factorization theorem for short-distance inclusive processes full NNLO pQCD, supplemented by NNLL and electroweak corrections where appropriate, is the goal for LHC
M proton proton x1P x2P DGLAP evolution momentum fractions x1 and x2determined by mass and rapidity of X xdependence of f(x,Q2) determined by fit to data, Q2 dependence determined by DGLAP equations: full NNLO DGLAP now known, also with small x, QED etc improvements DIS08
how important is pdf precision? • Example 1: σ(MH=120 GeV) @ LHC σpdf ±3%, σptNNL0 ± 10% σptNNLL ± 8% →σtheory ± 9% • Example 2: σ(Z0) @ LHC σpdf ±3%, σptNNL0 ± 2% →σtheory ± 4% • Example 3: quantitative limits on New Physics depend on pdfs Catani et al, hep-ph/0306211 Campbell, Huston, S (2007)
sensitivity of dijet cross section at LHC to large extra dimensions • LED accelerate the running of αS as the compactification scale Mcis approached • sensitivity attentuated by pdf uncertainties in SM prediction Ferrag (ATLAS), hep-ph/0407303 DIS08
pdf overview… DIS08
Who? Alekhin, CTEQ, MRST/MSTW, H1, ZEUS, GGK, Botje, GRV, BFP, NNPDF, … http://durpdg.dur.ac.uk/hepdata/pdf.html pdfs from global fits Formalism LO, NLO, … DGLAP MSbar factorisation Q02 functional form @ Q02 sea quark (a)symmetry etc. fi (x,Q2) fi (x,Q2) αS(MZ ) Data DIS (SLAC, BCDMS, NMC, E665, CCFR, H1, ZEUS, … ) Drell-Yan (E605, E772, E866, …) High ET jets (CDF, D0) W rapidity asymmetry (CDF, D0) N dimuon (CCFR, NuTeV) etc. LHAPDFv5.3 @ CEDAR HepForge DIS08
summary of DIS data + neutrino FT DIS data Note: must impose cuts on DIS data to ensure validity of leading-twist DGLAP formalism in the global analysis, typically: Q2 > 2 - 4 GeV2 W2 = (1-x)/xQ2 > 10 - 15 GeV2 DIS08
strange earliest pdf fits had SU(3) symmetry: later relaxed to include (constant) strange suppression (cf. fragmentation): with = 0.4 – 0.5 nowadays, dimuon production in N DIS (CCFR, NuTeV) allows ‘direct’ determination: in the range 0.01 < x < 0.4 data seem to prefer DIS08
charm, bottom considered sufficiently massive to allow pQCD treatment: distinguish two regimes: (i) include full mH dependence to get correct threshold behaviour (ii) treat as ~massless partons to resum Snlogn(Q2/mH2) via DGLAP FFNS: OK for (i) only ZM-VFNS: OK for (ii) only consistentGM(=general mass)-VFNSnow available(e.g. ACOT(), RT) definition of these is tricky and non-unique (ambiguity in assignment of O(mH2//Q2) contributions), and the implementation of improved treatment can have big effect on light partons (correction, not uncertainty!) → see talks in SF + HF Working Groups DIS08
pdf uncertainties • most groups produce ‘pdfs with errors’ • typically, 30-40 ‘error’ sets based on a ‘best fit’ set to reflect ±1variation of all the parameters* {Ai,ai,…,αS} inherent in the fit • these reflect the uncertainties on the data used in the global fit (e.g. F2 ±3% →u ±3%) • however, there are also systematic pdf uncertainties reflecting theoretical assumptions/prejudices in the way the global fit is set up and performed * e.g. DIS08
why do ‘best fit’ pdfs and errors differ? • different data sets in fit • different subselection of data • different treatment of exp. sys. errors • different choice of • pQCD order (in DGLAP and cross sections) • factorisation/renormalisation scheme/scale • Q02 • parametric form Axa(1-x)b[..] etc (and implicit extrapolation) • αS • treatment of heavy flavours • theoretical assumptions about x→0,1 behaviour • theoretical assumptions about sea flavour symmetry • tolerance to define fi • evolution, cross section codes, rounding errors (removable differences!) this applies to both CTEQ vs. MRST vs. … and to CTEQ: 6.1 → 6.5 → ... → see talks in SF + HF Working Groups!
MRST: Q02 = 1 GeV2,Qcut2 = 2 GeV2 xg = Axa(1–x)b(1+Cx0.5+Dx) – Exc(1-x)d • CTEQ6.1: Q02 = 1.69 GeV2,Qcut2 = 4 GeV2 xg = Axa(1–x)becx(1+Cx)d DIS08
MRST2001 CTEQ6.1 Alekhin02 % uncertainty in the gluon distribution at Q2 = 5 GeV2 DIS08
extrapolation errors theoretical insight/guess: f ~ A x as x → 0 theoretical insight/guess: f ~ ± A x as x → 0 no theoretical insight: f ~ ??? as x → 0 DIS08
Malik, CDF Hays, D0 impact of jet data on fits • a distinguishing feature of pdf sets is whether they use (MRST/MSTW, CTEQ,…) or do not use (H1, ZEUS, Alekhin, NNPF,…) Tevatron jet data in the fit: the impact is on the high-x gluon • the (still) missing ingredient is the full NNLO pQCD correction to the cross section, but not expected to have much impact in practice • note that large-mass pN Drell-Yan also probes the gluon indirectly via g → q qbar generation of sea antiquarks at high x DIS08
progress from the various pdf groups Nadolsky Pumplin Olness • CTEQ (Michigan State – Hawaii – Washington) • 6.1 → 6.5 (2006) → 6.6 (2008) • LO, NLO • 6.5: first implementation of GM-VFNS “SACOT-” (was ZM-VFNS) significant impact on c,b compensating impact on u,dchanges in(W,Z) • more sophisticated treatment of strange, antistrange, allowed to have (approx.) independent shapes, i.e. no longer • studies of intrinsic charm • MSTW (Durham – UCL) • 2006: MST + Roberts (MRST) → MST + Watts (MSTW) • LO, NLO, NNLO • MRST2006: NNLO update (i) with errors, (ii) with much improved GM-VFNS treatment of charm, bottom • MSTW2008: new data, inc. CHORUS N, NuTeV , HERA DIS+jet; more sophisticated treatment of strange, antistrange, allowed to have (approx.) independent shapes, DY @ NNLO; better treatment of tolerance/errors Watt Thorne DIS08
recent progress… DIS08
progress from the various pdf groups • Alekhin et al • Alekhin (2002)→ Alekhin-Melnikov-Petriello (2006) → Alekhin-Kulagin-Petti (2007) • LO, NLO. NNLO • A = SLAC, BCDMS, NMC, E665, H1, ZEUS • AMP, AKP = + DY E605 p, E866 p/d + CHORUS inclusive N CHORUS + CCFR, NuTeV dimuon N • H1 and ZEUS • use restricted data sets: H12003 = H1 (CC+NC) + BCDMS, ZEUS2005 = ZEUS only, inc JET • no Tevatron jet data, so softer high-x gluons compared to MSTW, CTEQ • different error treatments: ZEUS offset vs. H1 Hessian For detailed H1/ZEUS/CTEQ/MSTW comparison see A M Cooper-Sarkar talk at PDF4LHC, Feb 2008 • Neural Net (NNPDF) collaboration • Ball, Del Debbio, Ubiali (Edinburgh), Forte, Piccione (Milano), Latorre (Barcelona), Rojo-Chacon (LPTHE - Paris) • use NN technology to avoid choice of parametric form at Q02 • so far, fit 5 singlet, non-singlet + gluon combinations to restricted (DIS) data set Alekhin Feltesse Sarkar Rojo-Chacon DIS08
CTEQ 6.1M effect of more independent strange, from 6.1M to 6.6M effect of ZM-VFNS → GM-VFNS on light quarks DIS08
Alekhin et al • reduction in uncertainty on high-x sea antiquarks due to inclusion of fixed target Drell-Yan data in the global fit • note also size of “scale dependence” uncertainties, reduced at NNLO but still significant DIS08
MSTW • s-sbar now non-zero (central value) • overall larger s+sbar suppression compared to light quarks • only in NLO fit (no NNLO correction yet) DIS08
NNPDF • datasets included in the analysis • preliminary results for pdf combinations at Q02 and comparison to MRST, CTEQ, Alekhin DIS08
improved LO pdfs • conventional wisdom is to match pQCD order of pdfs with that of MEs • but, in practice, • LO = PDFs(LO) ME(LO) can be different from NLO = PDFs(NLO) ME(NLO), in both shape and normalisation • LO pdfs have very poor 2 in (LO) global fit (no surprise: NLO corrections at large and small x are significant and preferred by the data) • momentum conservation limits how much additional glue can be added to LO partons to compensate for missing NLO pQCD corrections (e.g. to get correct evolution rate of small-x quarks) • therefore relax momentum conservation and redo LO fit; study the impact of this on 2, partons and cross sections • e.g. Thorne & Shertsnev 2007: LO* partons • 2: 3066/2235 → 2691/2235, mom consv: 100% → 113% DIS08
transverse momentum distribution in H → production at LHC comparison of gluons at high Q2 DIS08 Thorne, Shertsnev
looking ahead… DIS08
Thorne Kollar Antunovic Chekelian FL • an independent measurement of the small-x gluon • a test of the assumptions in the DGLAP LT pQCD analysis of small-x F2 • visible instability in MSTW analysis (impact of negative gluon and large NNLO coefficient function) • higher–order ln(1/x) and higher-twist contributions could be important MSTW
pQCD FL predictions DIS08
impact of LHC measurements on pdfs • the standard candles: central (W,Z,tt,jets) as a probe and test of pdfs in the x ~ 10 -2±1, Q2 ~ 104-6 GeV2range where most New Physics is expected (H, SUSY, ….) → ongoing studies of uncertainties and correlations • forward production of (relatively) low-mass states (e.g. *,W,Z,dijets) to access partons at x<<1 (and x~1) DIS08
(W,Z) @ LHC • in understanding differences between (W,Z) predictions from different pdf sets (due to the pdfs, not choice of pQCD order, e/w parameters, etc) a number of factors are important, particularly • the rate of evolution from the Q2 of the fitted DIS data, to Q2 ~ 104 GeV2 (driven by S, gluon) • the mix of quark flavours: F2and (W,Z) probe different combinations of u,d,s,c,b • precise measurement of cross section ratios at LHC (e.g. (W+)/(W-),(W±)/(Z)) will allow these subtle effects to be explored further DIS08
LHC Tevatron DIS08
impact on (W,Z) @ LHC • CTEQ: 6.6 ~ 6.5 > 6.1 due to changes in treatment of s,c,b • reasonable agreement between all sets (that fit HERA data) • care needed in comparing results from NLO/NNLO/NNLL-NLO calculations CTEQ DIS08
impact on (W,Z) @ LHC (Tevatron) • MRST/MSTW NNLO: 2008 ~ 2006 > 2004 mainly due to changes in treatment of charm • NLO: CTEQ6.6 2% higher than MSTW 2008, because of slight differences in quark (u,d,s,c) pdfs, difference within quoted uncertainty MSTW DIS08
LHCb → detect forward, low pT muons from DIS08
Impact of 1 fb-1 LHCb data for forward Z and * (M = 14 GeV) production on the gluon distribution uncertainty McNulty Thorne DIS08
summary and issues… • pdf sets continue to converge; main difference now is inclusion of Tevatron jet data → high-x gluon • GM-VFNS accepted as standard for c,b; nice agreement with HERA F2c,b… but must not forget possible contributions from intrinsic heavy flavour • urgently need NNLO pp→jet+Xfor a full NNLO pdf global fit - but impact on current pseudo-NNLO analysis not expected to be large • focus now on predictions and uncertainties for standard candle LHC cross sections DIS08
summary and issues…contd. • strange pdf: no direct measurement for x < 10-2 but ~20% of (W±,Z) is due to strange in this region • intrinsic heavy flavours? • Note: Brodsky, Goldhaber, Kopeliovich, Schmidt [arXiv:0707.4658] forward Higgs production at LHC from intrinsic bb→ H • LHCb can access a new small-x domain • is fixed–order DGLAP adequate to describe new FL data from HERA? If not, what else is needed and what (if any) are implications for LHC phenomenology? DIS08
high-x gluon from high ET jets data • both MSTW and CTEQ use Tevatron jets data to determine the gluon pdf at large x • the errors on the gluon therefore reflect the measured cross section uncertainties DIS08
pdfs with errors…. CTEQ gluon distribution uncertainty using Hessian Method output = best fit set + 2Np error sets Hessian Matrix “best fit” parameters DIS08