POWER CORRECTIONS FROM MILAN TO LHC Gavin P . Salam, CERN Giuseppe - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

power corrections
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

POWER CORRECTIONS FROM MILAN TO LHC Gavin P . Salam, CERN Giuseppe - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

POWER CORRECTIONS FROM MILAN TO LHC Gavin P . Salam, CERN Giuseppe Marchesini Memorial Meeting GGI, Florence, 19 May 2017 1 NUCLEAR A PIVOTAL ARTICLE PHYSICS B ELSEVIER Nuclear Physics B 469 (1996) 93-142 set out systematics of power


slide-1
SLIDE 1

POWER CORRECTIONS

FROM MILAN TO LHC

Gavin P . Salam, CERN Giuseppe Marchesini Memorial Meeting
 GGI, Florence, 19 May 2017

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

A PIVOTAL ARTICLE

set out systematics of power corrections for almost any QCD observable “Wise Dispersive Method”


ELSEVIER Nuclear Physics B 469 (1996) 93-142

NUCLEAR PHYSICS B

Dispersive approach to power-behaved

  • -k

contributions in QCD hard processes

Yu.L. Dokshitzer a,1, G. Marchesini b B.R. Webber c

a Theory Division, CERN, CIt-121! Geneva 23, Switzerland b Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit~ di Milano, and INFN, Sezione di Milano, haly c Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, UK Received 25 January 1996; accepted 18 March 1996

Abstract We consider power-behaved contributions to hard processes in QCD arising from non-pertur- bative effects at low scales which can be described by introducing the notion of an infrared- finite effective coupling. Our method is based on a dispersive treatment which embodies running coupling effects in all orders. The resulting power behaviour is consistent with expectations based

  • n the operator product expansion, but our approach is more widely applicable. The dispersively

generated power contributions to different observables are given by (log-)moment integrals of a universal low-scale effective coupling, with process-dependent powers and coefficients. We analyze a wide variety of quark-dominated processes and observables, and show bow the power contributions are specified in lowest order by the behavioar of one-loop Feynman diagrams containing a gluon of small virtual mass. We discuss both collinearosafe observables (such as the e+e - total cross section and z hadronic width, DIS sum rules, e+e - event shape variables and the Drell-Yan K-factor) and collinear divergent quantities (such as DIS structure functions, e+e - fragmentation functions and the Drell-Yan cross section).

  • 1. Introduction

Power-behaved contributions to hard collision observables are by now widely rec-

  • gnized both as a serious difficulty in improving the precision of tests of perturbative

* Research supported in part by the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council and by the EC Programme "Human Capital and Mobility", Network "Physics at High Energy Colliders", contract CHRX- CT93-0357 (DG 12 COMA). E On leave from St. Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina, St. Petersburg 188350, Russia. Elsevier Science B.V. PH S0550-3213(96)00155- 1

with process-dependent powers and coefficients. We analyse a wide variety of quark-dominated processes and observables, and show how the power contri- butions are specified in lowest order by the behaviour of one-loop Feynman diagrams containing a gluon of small virtual mass. We discuss both collinear safe observables (such as the e+e− total cross section and τ hadronic width, DIS sum rules, e+e− event shape variables and the Drell-Yan K-factor) and collinear divergent quantities (such as DIS structure functions, e+e− fragmen- tation functions and the Drell-Yan cross section).

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Testing place: event shapes

Thrust: T = max

⃗ nT

  • i |⃗

pi.⃗ nT|

  • i |⃗

pi| , 2-jet event: T ≃ 1 3-jet event: T ≃ 2/3 There exist many other measures of aspects of the shape: Thrust-Major, C-parameter, broadening, heavy-jet mass, jet-resolution parameters,. . .

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Power corrections matter for event shapes

4

⟨1 − T⟩ v. e+e− centre of mass energy Q

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100 Q (GeV) 〈1−T 〉 DELPHI ALEPH OPAL L3 SLD TOPAZ TASSO PLUTO CELLO MK II HRS AMY JADE

NLO + 1/Q LO NLO

Schematic picture: ⟨1 − T⟩ ≃ Aαs

  • LO

+ Bα2

s

  • NLO

+ cT α0 Q

several papers, notably Dokshitzer, Marchesini & Webber ’95

◮ α0 is non-perturbative

but should be universal

◮ cT can be predicted

through a calculation using a single massive-gluon emission

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Power corrections matter for event shapes

4

⟨1 − T⟩ v. e+e− centre of mass energy Q

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100 Q (GeV) 〈1−T 〉 DELPHI ALEPH OPAL L3 SLD TOPAZ TASSO PLUTO CELLO MK II HRS AMY JADE

NLO + 1/Q LO NLO

Schematic picture: ⟨1 − T⟩ ≃ Aαs

  • LO

+ Bα2

s

  • NLO

+ cT α0 Q

several papers, notably Dokshitzer, Marchesini & Webber ’95

◮ α0 is non-perturbative

but should be universal

◮ cT can be predicted

through a calculation using a single massive-gluon emission

(GeV) s 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

<(1-T)>

0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14

0.0005 ± = 0.1192

s

α Fit with Pythia hadronization: 0.0015 ± = 0.1166

s

α Fit with power corrections: = 0.1189

s

α Pure NNLO prediction:

NNLO NNLO + 1/Q

Gehrmann, Jaquier, & Luisoni 2010

slide-6
SLIDE 6

You could legitimately ask the question: Given the complexity of real hadronic events, could dominant non-perturbative physics truly be determined from just a single-gluon calculation?

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.110 0.120 0.130 α0 αs(MZ) BW BT C T (DW) ρh ρ T (BB) 1-σ contours "Naive" massive gluon approach

The data clearly say something is wrong with this assumption

initially, most clearly pointed out by the JADE collaboration

universality of α0 v. data (ellipses should all coincide…)

5

slide-7
SLIDE 7

A first key result with Pino (+Yuri & A. Lucenti)

Idea of “wise dispersive method”: probe non-perturbative effects by integrating over virtuality of an infrared gluon. But such a “massive” gluon will necessarily decay to two gluons or q¯ q that go in different directions.

issue raised: Nason & Seymour ’95

So: explicitly include the calculation of that splitting. A very simple result: for thrust, non-perturbative correction simply gets rescaled by a numerical “Milan” factor M ≃ 1.49

Matrix elements from Berends and Giele ’88 + Dokshitzer, Marchesini & Oriani ’92 M first calculated for thrust: Dokshitzer, Lucenti, Marchesini & GPS ’97 nf piece for σL: Beneke, Braun & Magnea ’97 calculation fixed: Dasgupta, Magnea & Smye ’99

6

slide-8
SLIDE 8

2nd key observation with Pino et al.

There are two classes of event shape 1) those that are a linear combination of contributions from individual emissions i = 1 . . . n

= +

  • e.g.

1 − T ≃

n

  • i=1

ptie−|ηi| 2) those that are non-linear, e.g. BW, BT, ρh

= +

for the latter, the non-perturbative correction cannot possibly be deduced just from a one-gluon calculation (2-gluon M diverges)

7

slide-9
SLIDE 9

3rd key observation with Pino et al

8

In the presence of perturbative emissions with pt ΛQCD, then all the non-linear event shapes turn out to have an “emergent” linearity for non-perturbative emissions at scales ∼ ΛQCD

= +

➥ non-perturbative (NP) effects can still be deduced from the effect

  • f a single non-perturbative gluon, but its impact must be determined

by averaging over perturbative configurations ⟨NP⟩ ≃

  • [dΦpert.] |M2(pert.)| × NP(pert.)

first such observation, for ρh: Akhoury & Zakharov ’95 universality of “Milan” factor in e+e−: Dokshitzer, Marchesini, Lucenti & GPS ’98 PT and NP effects together in jet broadenings: Dokshitzer, Marchesini & GPS ’98 universality of “Milan” factor in DIS: Dasgupta & Webber ’98 moderate Λ/pt effects: Korchemsky & Tafat ’00 cross-talk between shape functions:

slide-10
SLIDE 10

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.110 0.120 0.130 α0 αs(MZ) BW BT C T (DW) ρh ρ T (BB) 1-σ contours "Naive" massive gluon approach

Original results for fits of αs and the non-perturbative parameter αs. → Including all the “DLMS” improvements

Pino et al ’97-98

→ Taking care not just of gluon masses, but also hadron masses

GPS & Wicke ’01

comparing improvements to data

9

slide-11
SLIDE 11

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.110 0.120 0.130 α0 αs(MZ) BW BT C T ρh ρ Resummed coefficients

Original results for fits of αs and the non-perturbative parameter αs. → Including all the “DLMS” improvements

Pino et al ’97-98

→ Taking care not just of gluon masses, but also hadron masses

GPS & Wicke ’01

comparing improvements to data

10

slide-12
SLIDE 12

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.110 0.120 0.130 α0 αs(MZ) BW BT C T ρh ρ p-scheme

Original results for fits of αs and the non-perturbative parameter αs. → Including all the “DLMS” improvements

Pino et al ’97-98

→ Taking care not just of gluon masses, but also hadron masses

GPS & Wicke ’01

comparing improvements to data

11

slide-13
SLIDE 13

many other investigations

0.1 1 10 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 1/σ dσ/dBT Total Broadening (BT) OPAL 91 GeV NLO + NLL + hadronisation

0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.08 0.1 0.12

average 1-T MH, MH

2

BT BW C

α0 αS(MZ) Distributions

a)

0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.11 0.115 0.12 0.125 0.13 α0 αs τtE ρE CE τzE BzE Q > 30 GeV (a)

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 U(1)3 SU(1) SU(2) SU(4) SU(5)

Combined result SU(3) QCD

ALEPH 4-jet OPAL 4-jet Event Shape OPAL Ngg DELPHI FF

CF CA

86% CL error ellipses

Overall, many analyses in late ’90s and early ’00s paint a picture of general success

  • f the simple physical idea of probing NP

physics with perturbative tools. Even if there are “corners” where it doesn’t work as well as we’d like. . .

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 0.095 0.1 0.105 0.11 0.115 0.12 0.125 0.13 α0(2GeV) αs(Mz) 1-T MH BT BW C D ycut = 0.1 ycut = 0.05 ALEPH 2-jet

Banfi, Dokshitzer
 Marchesini, Zanderighi 
 analysis of 3-jet shapes 
 (D-parameter)

slide-14
SLIDE 14

NOW MOVE FORWARDS 
 15-20 YEARS

many NNLO calculations have become available 
 (for e

+e –, DIS and pp)

LHC physics is reaching high precision, 
 not just for QCD physics, but also
 e.g. today for “dark-matter” searches, 
 & in the future for Higgs physics

slide-15
SLIDE 15

NNLO hadron-collider calculations v. time

14

  • explosion of calculations


in past 24 months

as of April 2017, let me know of omissions

slide-16
SLIDE 16

indirect constraints on Hcc coupling

15

×

2 = 2.3 2 = 5.99 LHC Run II HL-LHC

  • 6
  • 4
  • 2

2 4 6

  • 1

1 2 c b

20 40 60 80 100 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 pT,h [GeV] (1/ d/dpT,h)/(1/ d/dpT,h)SM

c = -10 c = -5 c = 0 c = 5

impact of modified Hcc coupling on Higgs+jet pT

joint limits on κc & κb 
 @ HL-LHC Fady Bishara, Ulrich Haisch, Pier Francesco Monni and Emanuele Re, arXiv:1606.09253
 see also Y. Soreq, H. X. Zhu, and J. Zupan, JHEP 12, 045 (2016), 1606.09621

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Extracting αs from e+e- event shapes and jet rates

T wo “best” determinations are from same group 


(Hoang et al, 1006.3080,1501.04111)


αs(MZ) = 0.1135 ± 0.0010 (0.9%) [thrust]
 αs(MZ) = 0.1123 ± 0.0015 (1.3%) [C-parameter]

Similar result from Gehrmann, Luisoni & Monni (1210.6945)
 αs(MZ) = 0.1131 ± 0.0028 (2.5%) [thrust]

lattice:
 αs(MZ) = 0.1183 ± 0.0007 (0.6%) [HPQCD]
 αs(MZ) = 0.1186 ± 0.0008 (0.7%) [ALPHA prelim.]

tions e+e– jets & shapes

Dissertori (3j) JADE (3j) DW (T) Abbate (T)

  • Gehrm. (T)

Hoang

(C)

JADE(j&s) OPAL(j&s) ALEPH (jets&shapes)

thrust & “best” lattice are 4-σ apart

Comments:

➤ thrust & C-parameter are highly correlated observables ➤ Analysis valid far from 3-jet region, but not too deep into

2-jet region — at LEP , not clear how much of distribution satisfies this requirement

➤ thrust fit shows noticeable sensitivity to fit region

(C-parameter doesn't)

!"### !"##$ !"##% !"##& !"##' !"##(

!"&! !"'! !"(! !")! !"*! !

"

+*H9/

PLQ PD[ 8 Q 0 25 0 " VWULFW 8 Q 0 33 0 " VWULFW vary 0 33 5 Q 0 38 0 " 5 Q 0 33 6 Q 0 38 0 " 6 Q 0 25 VWULFW 6 Q 0 33 VWULFW 0 33 0 " 0 09 " 8 Q 0 33 :ELQV &*) &%% %<$ '&' '#( ')& &$) %%' &&$ %<& " " " " "

39% CL 68% CL

τ τ

dependence on fit range

16

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Non-perturbative effects in Z pT – (issues hold also for Higgs pT)

17

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Non-perturbative effects in Z pT

18

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Non-perturbative effects in Z pT

19

slide-21
SLIDE 21

A conceptually similar problem is present for the W momentum 
 in top decays

Non-perturbative effects in Z pT

  • impact of 0.5 GeV 


shift of Z pT 0.5 GeV is perhaps conservative(?)

➤ Inclusive Z cross section should have 


2/M 2 corrections (~10

  • 4 ?)

➤ Z pT is not inclusive so corrections

can be ~Λ/M.

➤ Size of effect can’t be probed by

turning MC hadronisation on/off
 [maybe by modifying underlying MC parameters?]

➤ Shifting Z pT by a finite amount

illustrates what could happen

20

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Closing remarks

This is just one of several fun physics topics that were pushed forwards in the late ’90s with Pino in Milan.

small x, resummations were others

Pino wrote ∼ 15 articles with the students and postdocs then (including Banfi, Dasgupta, GPS, Smye, Zanderighi) Many of the collaborations that formed between them then have continued to this day, easily having produced another ∼ 15 articles.

Gavin Salam (CERN/Princeton/CNRS) Pino and Power Corrections Pino2012 May 29 2012 15 / 15

X 24

21

slide-23
SLIDE 23

EXTRAS

22

slide-24
SLIDE 24

LHC PRECISION: PERTURBATION THEORY

Lindert, Pozzorini et al, 1705.04664

±2%

Z(`+`−)+ jet 10 x W−(`− ¯ ν)+ jet 100 x W+(`+ν)+ jet Z(`+`−)+ jet 1000 x γ+ jet NLO QCD ⊗ nNLO EW NNLO QCD ⊗ nNLO EW PDF Uncertanties (LUXqed) 10−10 10−9 10−8 10−7 10−6 10−5 10−4 10−3 10−2 10−1 1 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 V+jet @ 13 TeV dσ/dpT,V [pb/GeV] 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1.0 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 dσ/dσNLO QCD 100 200 500 1000 3000 pT,V [GeV] 23

Z+jet process is main background for LHC dark-matter searches. And powerful input for PDF fits. Perturbative results are very precise…

slide-25
SLIDE 25

LHC PRECISION: EXPERIMENT

[GeV]

ll T

p 1 10

2

10 ] σ Pull [

2 − 2

Combined Channel 0.99 1 1.01

/NDF=43/43

2

χ

]

  • 1

[GeV

ll T

/dp σ d σ 1/

8 −

10

7 −

10

6 −

10

5 −

10

4 −

10

3 −

10

2 −

10

1 −

10

1

ee-channel

  • channel

µ µ Combined Statistical uncertainty Total uncertainty

ATLAS

  • 1

=8 TeV, 20.3 fb s | < 2.4

ll

< 116 GeV, |y

ll

m ≤ 66 GeV

±1%

24

Experimental results are equally precise.

slide-26
SLIDE 26

REMARKS

➤ Non-pert. effects are always relevant at

accuracies we’re interested in

➤ Watch out for cancellation between

“hadronisation” and MPI/UE (separate physical effects)

➤ Definition of perturbative / non-

perturbative is ambiguous

➤ Alternative to MC: analytical

estimates.
 MC’s have strong pT dependence, missing in analytical estimates


  • 0.6
  • 0.5
  • 0.4
  • 0.3
  • 0.2
  • 0.1

0.1 200 500 100 1000 pp, 7 T eV, no UE Δpthadr × R CF/C [GeV] pt (parton) [GeV] hadronisation pt shift (scaled by R CF/C) Herwig 6 (AUET2) Pythia 8 (Monash 13) R=0.2, quarks R=0.4, quarks R=0.2, gluons R=0.4, gluons Monte Carlo tune jet radius, flavour simple analytical estimate

25

Analytic v. MC hadronisation
 non-perturbative effects may become a key limitation at 1%

slide-27
SLIDE 27

STANDARD MODEL TODAY

KNOWLEDGE ASSUMPTION

Gauge interactions
 well tested. Higgs sector mostly 
 an assumption

26

slide-28
SLIDE 28

STANDARD MODEL TODAY

KNOWLEDGE ASSUMPTION

Gauge interactions
 well tested. Higgs sector mostly 
 an assumption

t b τ c s μ u s e

27

slide-29
SLIDE 29

STANDARD MODEL BY END OF LHC (~2035)

KNOWLEDGE ASSUMPTION

Gauge interactions
 well tested. Higgs sector mostly 
 an assumption

t b τ c s μ u s e

28

slide-30
SLIDE 30

N3LO

29

1 10 100 PDF4LHC15_nnlo_mc Q/2 < µR , µF < 2 Q

[pb]

LO NLO NNLO N3LO 0.99 1 1.01 1.02 7 13 20 30 50 10 100 ratio to N3LO s [TeV]
  • 1
1

N3LO ggF Higgs N3LO VBF Higgs

Anastasiou et al, 1602.00695 Dreyer & Karlberg, 1606.00840

N3LO NNLO N3LO NNLO

slide-31
SLIDE 31

WH at large Q2 with dim-6 BSM effect

  • 3000 fb-1

schemati

new physics isn’t just a single number that’s wrong (think g-2) but rather a distinct scaling pattern of deviation (~ pT2) moderate and high pT’s have similar statistical significance — so it’s useful to understand whole pT range

GPS 2016-10 30