POWER CORRECTIONS
FROM MILAN TO LHC
Gavin P . Salam, CERN Giuseppe Marchesini Memorial Meeting GGI, Florence, 19 May 2017
1
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
Gavin P . Salam, CERN Giuseppe Marchesini Memorial Meeting GGI, Florence, 19 May 2017
1
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
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
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).
Power-behaved contributions to hard collision observables are by now widely rec-
* 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
Testing place: event shapes
Thrust: T = max
⃗ nT
pi.⃗ nT|
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
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
+ Bα2
s
+ 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
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
+ Bα2
s
+ 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
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
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
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
= +
1 − T ≃
n
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
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
by averaging over perturbative configurations ⟨NP⟩ ≃
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:
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
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
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
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 + hadronisation0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.08 0.1 0.12
average 1-T MH, MH
2BT 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 FFCF CA
86% CL error ellipsesOverall, many analyses in late ’90s and early ’00s paint a picture of general success
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-jetBanfi, Dokshitzer Marchesini, Zanderighi analysis of 3-jet shapes (D-parameter)
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
NNLO hadron-collider calculations v. time
14
in past 24 months
as of April 2017, let me know of omissions
indirect constraints on Hcc coupling
15
×
2 = 2.3 2 = 5.99 LHC Run II HL-LHC
2 4 6
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
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)
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
Non-perturbative effects in Z pT – (issues hold also for Higgs pT)
17
Non-perturbative effects in Z pT
18
Non-perturbative effects in Z pT
19
A conceptually similar problem is present for the W momentum in top decays
Non-perturbative effects in Z pT
shift of Z pT 0.5 GeV is perhaps conservative(?)
➤ Inclusive Z cross section should have
~Λ
2/M 2 corrections (~10
➤ 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
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
22
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…
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
2χ
]
[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
µ µ Combined Statistical uncertainty Total uncertainty
ATLAS
=8 TeV, 20.3 fb s | < 2.4
ll< 116 GeV, |y
llm ≤ 66 GeV
±1%
24
Experimental results are equally precise.
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
0.1 200 500 100 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%
STANDARD MODEL TODAY
KNOWLEDGE ASSUMPTION
Gauge interactions well tested. Higgs sector mostly an assumption
26
STANDARD MODEL TODAY
KNOWLEDGE ASSUMPTION
Gauge interactions well tested. Higgs sector mostly an assumption
t b τ c s μ u s e
27
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
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]N3LO ggF Higgs N3LO VBF Higgs
Anastasiou et al, 1602.00695 Dreyer & Karlberg, 1606.00840
N3LO NNLO N3LO NNLO
WH at large Q2 with dim-6 BSM effect
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