Transcript Jet Reconstruction - Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics
QCD at the Tevatron
Current results and future prospects John Womersley Fermilab
Fifth International Symposium on Radiative Corrections (RADCOR 2000) Carmel, CA, September 2000 http://d0server1.fnal.gov/users/womersley/radcor2000.ppt
John Womersley
Outline
•
It is over four years since we completed data taking in Run I, so there are rather few new results
•
This presentation will therefore be more of a review of the current state of knowledge, highlighting unresolved issues and prospects for Run 2:
– jets – vector bosons – photons – heavy flavor •
Since this is a review, what you will hear are generally my personal opinions and not necessarily the party line of the experiments
John Womersley
The Fermilab Tevatron Collider
Booster CDF Tevatron Chicago
DØ 1992-95 Run 1: 100 pb -1 , 1.8TeV Major detector upgrades
now 2001-03 Run 2a: 2 fb -1 , 1.96 TeV Short shutdown to install new silicon 2003-07(?) Run 2b: ~ 15 fb -1
p source Main Injector (new) CDF DØ
John Womersley
Hadron-hadron collisions
Photon, W, Z etc.
parton distribution Hard scattering ISR FSR parton distribution
•
fragmentation Complicated by
– parton distributions — a hadron collider
is really a broad-band quark and gluon collider
– both the initial and final states can be
colored and can radiate gluons
– underlying event from proton remnants
Jet Underlying event
John Womersley
A high-E
T
event at CDF
Title: pb arp .d vi Cre ato r: dv ip sk 5 .5 5a Co py rig ht 19 86 , 1 99 4 Rad ic al Ey e Sof tw are Pre view : Th is EPS pictu re w a s n ot sa ve d w ith a pre view in clud ed in it.
Co mmen t: Th is EPS pictu re w ill print to a Po st Script print er, bu t n ot to ot he r ty pe s o f p rin ters .
John Womersley
Jet cross sections at
s = 1.8 TeV
R = 0.7 cone jets
• •
Cross section falls by seven orders of magnitude from 50 to 450 GeV Pretty good agreement with NLO QCD over the whole range
Ldt
87 pb
1
Ldt
20 pb
1 0.1
jet
0.7
DØ
jet
0.5
John Womersley
What’s happening at high E
T
?
CDF 0.1<|
|<0.7
DØ |
|<0.5
NB Systematic errors not plotted
•
So much has been said about the high-E T behaviour of the cross section that it is hard to know what can usefully be added: Figure 1
:
“The horse is dead” John Womersley
The DØ and CDF data agree
•
DØ analyzed 0.1 <|
|< 0.7 to compare with CDF
Title: DA NA 01$DKB 100:[ PRJ345.QCD_12.HIROSK Y .CS. PA W.JERRY ]C Creator: HIGZ V ersion 1. 23/07 Preview : This EPS picture w as not saved w ith a preview included in it.
Comment: This EPS picture w ill print to a Post Script print er, but not to ot her ty pes of printers .
•
One can (e.g. CTEQ4HJ distributions shown above) boost the gluon distribution at high-x without violating experimental constraints*; results are more compatible with CDF data points *except maybe fixed-target photons, which require big k T corrections before they can be made to agree with QCD (see later)
John Womersley
Jet data with latest CTEQ5 PDF’s
•
CDF data
Title: CDF-CTEQ5.SP -- /us ers /w 2a/h2a/ 0f its/ cteq5/plots Creator: Sc iPlot Preview : This EPS picture w as not saved w ith a preview included in it.
Comment: This EPS picture w ill print to a Post Script print er, but not to ot her ty pes of printers .
•
DØ data
Title: D0-CTEQ5. SP -- / us ers /w 2a/ h2a/0f it s/Round5/plots Creator: Sc iPlot Preview : This EPS picture w as not saved w ith a preview included in it.
Comment: This EPS picture w ill print to a Post Script print er, but not to ot her ty pes of printers .
John Womersley
What have we learned from all this?
• • •
Do the CDF data show a real or just a “visual” excess at high E their correlations as a function of E T T ?
– depends critically on understanding the systematic errors and
Whether nature has actually exploited the “freedom” to enhance gluon distributions at large x will only be clear with the addition of more data
– with 2fb
-1 in Run II, the reach will extend a further 50-100 GeV in E T which should make the asymptotic behavior clearer whatever the Run II data show, this has been a useful lesson:
– parton distributions have uncertainties,
whether made explicit or not
– we should aim for a full understanding
of experimental systematics and their correlations It’s a good thing
John Womersley
Forward Jets
• •
DØ inclusive cross sections up to |
| = 3.0
Comparison with JETRAD using CTEQ3M,
= E T max /2
0.0
0.5
DØ Preliminary
0.5
1.0
DØ Preliminary
1.0
1.5
DØ Preliminary E T (GeV)
John Womersley
DØ Preliminary
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
3.0
E T
(GeV) DØ Preliminary
2.0
3.0
DØ Preliminary E T (GeV)
Triple differential dijet cross section
d
3
dE
1
T d
1
d
2 1
Trigger Jet 0.1<|
|<0.7
Can be used to extract or constrain PDF’s
Beam line 2
Probe Jet E T >10 GeV 0.1<|
|<0.7, 0.7<|
|<1.4, 1.4<|
|<2.1, 2.1<|
|<3.0
John Womersley
At high E T , the same behaviour as the inclusive cross section, presumably because largely the same events
•
DØ: same side (
1 ~ up to |
| = 2.0
2 ) and opposite side (
1 ~ –
2 ) topologies measured
Beam line
SS, 0.0
0.5
OS, 0.0
0.5
SS, 1.0
1.5
OS, 1.0
1.5
SS, 0.5
1.0
OS, 0.5
1.0
SS, 1.5
2.0
OS, 1.5
2.0
John Womersley
Tevatron jet data can constrain PDF’s
Tevatron HERA Fixed Target
John Womersley
Highest E
T
jet event in DØ
John Womersley
E T1 E T2 = 475 GeV,
1 = 472 GeV,
2 = -0.69, x 1 =0.66
= 0.69, x 2 =0.66
M JJ Q 2 = 1.2 TeV = 2.2x10
5 GeV 2
Extracting
s
from the jet cross section
CDF parametrize the NLO cross-section:
d dE T
2
d
2
S
(
R
,
F
)
A
(
E T
)
S
3 (
R
,
F
)
B
(
E T
)
R
F
E T
2
Measured by CDF Obtained from JETRAD
S ( M Z )
0 .
1129
0 .
0001
0 .
0078 0 .
0089 Nice demonstration of the evolution of
s But rather large sensitivity to choice of PDF’s and to input
s : more of a consistency check than a measurement
Title: ROCK07 $DKA 20 0: [SCRA TCH.CHRIS. A LPHA S]INPUT_ OUTPUT_B I Cre at or: HIGZ V e rsion 1 .22 /0 9 Prev ie w : This EPS pict ure w a s no t s av ed w ith a pre view inc lu de d in it.
Co mmen t: This EPS pict ure w ill p rin t to a Pos tSc rip t p rin ter, bu t n ot to o the r ty pe s of p rin te rs.
John Womersley
Jet cross section ratio 630/1800 GeV
•
DØ and CDF both measure the ratio of scale invariant cross sections E T 3 /2
d 2
/dE T d
vs. x T =E T /
s/2 (
1 in pure parton model)
various PDF’s various scales
Not obviously consistent with each other (at low x T ) . . .
John Womersley
or with NLO QCD (at any x T )
Suggested explanations
•
Different renormalization scales at the two energies
– OK, so it’s allowed, but . . . •
Mangano proposes an O(3 GeV) non-perturbative shift in jet energy
– losses out of cone? – underlying event? – intrinsic k
T ?
– could be under or overcorrecting the
data (or even different between the experiments — DØ?)
John Womersley
Ratio of 3-jet/2-jet events at DØ
•
Plot ratio for various third jet thresholds as a function of H T =
E T jets
•
Note how large the ratio is: 70% of high E events have a third jet above 20 GeV, T jet 50% have a third jet above 40 GeV
•
Insensitive to PDF’s DØ
John Womersley
Ratio of 3-jet/2-jet events at DØ
• •
Can this ratio be predicted by QCD?
– Yes, reasonably well even by
JETRAD (a leading order prediction of R 32 ) Can any information be extracted on the best renormalization scale for the emission of the third jet?
or
’
– Same scale as the first two
jets seems better than a scale tied to E T3
–
= 0.6 E T max is pretty good
–
= 0.3 H T is best as E T3
John Womersley
DØ
Quark jets and gluon jets
• • •
Probability to radiate proportional to color factors:
q g q
2
~ C
F
= 4/3 g g g
2
~ C
A
= 3
We might then naively expect
r
n
g
n
q
gluon jet multiplici ty quark jet multiplici ty
~ C
A
C
F
9 4
Instead of counting tracks, look at energy flow: use k T algorithm to find subjets inside jets
– subjets separated by y = 0.001 •
Compare jets of same (E on
s T ,
) produced at different
s
– assume relative q/g content is as given by MC (= 33% g at 630
GeV, 59% g at 1800 GeV) and q/g jet multiplicities do not depend
John Womersley
•
Quark and Gluon Subjet Multiplicities
measure M 630 M 1800 = f g 630 M g = f g 1800 M g + (1 – + (1 – f g 630 ) M q f g 1800 ) M q Dominant uncertainties come from g jet fraction and jet E T scale
1
dM N jets dN jets
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
DØ Preliminary k T algorithm D=0.5, y cut = 10 -3 55 < E T (jet) < 100 GeV |
jet | < 0.5
Gluon Jets Quark Jets DØ Data
R
M
g
M
q
1 1
1 .
91
HERWIG 5.9
R
1 .
86
0 .
04
0 .
04
•
1 2 3 4 5 Subjet Multiplicity Have we glimpsed the holy grail (quark/gluon jet separation)?
– The real test will be to use subjet multiplicity in (for example) the
top
all jets analysis, but unfortunately this will probably have to wait for Run II
John Womersley
Weak Boson Production
Title: (temp. eps) Creat or: Adobe Illus trator(TM) 7.0
Prev iew : This EPS pict ure w as not s av ed w ith a preview inc luded in it.
Comment: This EPS pict ure w ill print to a Pos tSc ript printer, but not to other ty pes of printers.
• •
O(
– –
2
) QCD predictions for W/Z production (
( pp pp
W + X) B(W Z + X) B(Z
)
) QCD in excellent agreement with data
– so much so that it has
been seriously suggested to use
W in future as the absolute luminosity normalization
John Womersley
Note: CDF luminosity normalization is 6.2% higher than DØ (divide CDF cross sections by 1.062 to compare with DØ)
•
DØ p
T Z
measurement
Phys. Rev. D61, 032004 (2000) Low p resum large logarithms of m
Title: data_t o_res umm.eps
Creat or: HIGZ Version 1.23/09 Prev iew : This EPS pict ure w as not s av ed
W T 2 (< 10 GeV) /p T 2 and include nonperturbative parameters extracted from the data
w ith a preview inc luded in it.
Comment: This EPS pict ure w ill print to a Pos tSc ript printer, but not to other ty pes of printers.
Data–Theory/Theory Fixed Order NLO QCD Data–Theory/Theory Resummed Ladinsky & Yuan Ellis & Veseli and Davies, Webber & Stirling (Resummed) not quite as good a description of the data Large p T (> 30 GeV) perturbative calculation
John Womersley
W + jet measurements
• •
DØ used to show a W+1jet/W+0jet ratio badly in disagreement with QCD. This is no longer shown (the data were basically correct, but there was a bug in the DØ version of the DYRAD theory program).
CDF measurements of W+jets cross sections agree well with QCD:
Title: DISK$F0:[CDF.TEMP.HENNESSY. 3077]XSYS_4JET. PS; 2 (Port rait A 4) Creator: HIGZ Version 1. 22/09 Preview : This EPS picture w as not saved w ith a preview included in it.
Comment: This EPS picture w ill print to a Post Script print er, but not to ot her ty pes of printers .
W+
1 jet/W vs. NLO QCD W+n jets vs. LO QCD (various scales)
•
alas, no sensitivity to
s
John Womersley
•
Isolated photon cross sections
New DØ PRL 84 (2000) 2786
Title: (c ros s_log2.eps) Creat or: A dobe Illus trator(TM) 7.0
Prev iew : This EPS pict ure w as not s av ed w ith a preview inc luded in it.
Comment: This EPS pict ure w ill print to a Pos tSc ript printer, but not to other ty pes of printers.
•
New CDF preliminary
Title: (c ros s_lin2.eps) Creat or: A dobe Illus trator(TM) 7.0
Prev iew : This EPS pict ure w as not s av ed w ith a preview inc luded in it.
Comment: This EPS pict ure w ill print to a Pos tSc ript printer, but not to other ty pes of printers.
±14% normalization statistical errors only QCD prediction is NLO by Owens et al.
John Womersley
•
What’s happening at low E
T
?
Gaussian smearing of the transverse momenta by a few GeV can model the rise of cross section at low E T (hep-ph/9808467)
Title:
“k T
(e706_photon_pi0+kt .eps) Creator: (ImageMagic k)
” from soft gluon emission
Comment: This EPS picture w ill print to a Post Script print er, but not to ot her ty pes of printers .
k T = 3.5 GeV PYTHIA 3.5 GeV
John Womersley
Even larger deviations from QCD observed in fixed target (E706) Again, Gaussian smearing (~1.2 GeV here) can account for the data
Resummation
• •
Predictive power of Gaussian smearing is small
– e.g. what happens at LHC? At forward rapidities?
The “right way” to do this should be resummation of soft gluons
– as we have seen, this works nicely for W/Z p
T Catani et al. hep-ph/9903436 Laenen, Sterman, Vogelsang, hep-ph/0002078 Threshold resummation Fixed Order Threshold + recoil resummation: looks promising
John Womersley
Threshold resummation: does not model E706 data very well
Contrary viewpoints
•
Aurenche et al., hep-ph/9811382: NLO QCD (sans k T ) can fit all the data with the sole exception of E706 “It does not appear very instructive to hide this problem by introducing an extra parameter fitted to the data at each energy” Ouch!
E706 Aurenche et al.
vs.
E706
John Womersley
New
Is it just the PDF?
•
New PDF’s from Walter Giele can describe the observed photon cross section at the Tevatron without any k T :
John Womersley
CDF (central) Blue = Giele/Keller set Green = MRS99 set Orange = CTEQ5M and L DØ (forward)
•
Photons: final remarks
For many years it was hoped that direct photon production could be used to pin down the gluon distribution through the dominant process:
•
Theorist’s viewpoint (Giele):
– “... discrepancies between data and theory for a wide range of
experiments have cast a dark spell on this once promising cross section … now drowning in a swamp of non-perturbative fixes”
•
Experimenter’s viewpoint: an interesting puzzle
– k
T remains a controversial topic
– experiments may not all be consistent – resummation has proved disappointing so far
(though the latest results look better)
– new results only increase the mystery • is it all just the PDF’s?
John Womersley
b production at the Tevatron
•
b cross section at CDF and at DØ
Title: USR$ROOT2:[FEIN.DATA]ET3_BIG11.EPS; 1 Creat or: HIGZ Version 1.20/11 Prev iew : This EPS pict ure w as not s av ed w ith a preview inc luded in it.
Comment: This EPS pict ure w ill print to a Pos tSc ript printer, but not to other ty pes of printers.
central
Title: DISK7:[JESIK.SAMUS]BMU_XS. EPS;17 Creat or: HIGZ Version 1.20/11 Prev iew : This EPS pict ure w as not s av ed w ith a preview inc luded in it.
Comment: This EPS pict ure w ill print to a Pos tSc ript printer, but not to other ty pes of printers.
forward b
Title: DISK7:[JESIK.SAMUS]BMU_DSDY.EPS;80 Creat or: HIGZ Version 1.20/11 Prev iew : This EPS pict ure w as not s av ed w ith a preview inc luded in it.
Comment: This EPS pict ure w ill print to a Pos tSc ript printer, but not to other ty pes of printers.
B Cross section vs. |y| p T > 5 GeV/c
•
Data continue to lie ~ 2
central band of theory
John Womersley
p T > 8 GeV/c
•
CDF rapidity correlations
Title: CDF Creat or: Prev iew : This EPS pict ure w as not s av ed w ith a preview inc luded in it.
Comment: This EPS pict ure w ill print to a Pos tSc ript printer, but not to other ty pes of printers.
bb correlations
Title: Creat or: Prev iew : Comment:
DØ angular correlations
USR$ROOT2:[FEIN.DATA]NEWDPHI.EPS; 1 HIGZ Version 1.20/11 This EPS pict ure w as not s av ed w ith a preview inc luded in it.
This EPS pict ure w ill print to a Pos tSc ript printer, but not to other ty pes of printers.
•
NLO QCD does a good job of predicting the shapes of inclusive distributions and correlations, hence it’s unlikely that any exotic new production mechanism is responsible for the higher than expected cross section
John Womersley
DØ b-jet cross section at higher p
T Differential cross section Integrated p T > p Tmin New
John Womersley
varying the scale from 2μ O to μ O /2, where μ O = (p T 2 + m b 2 ) 1/2
b-jet and photon production compared
1.5
DØ b-jets 1.0
0.5
0 - 0.5
DØ b-jets (using highest QCD prediction) CDF photons
1.33
DØ photons Photon or b-jet p T (GeV/c)
John Womersley
b production summary
•
Experimental measurements at Tevatron are all consistent and are all several times higher than the QCD prediction
– factor of ~ 2 at low rapidity – factor of ~ 4 at high rapidity •
Note that the same magnitude of excess is now seen in b-production at HERA and in
collisions at LEP2
•
Modifications to theory improve agreement but do not fix
•
New measurement at higher p T : jets from DØ
– better agreement above about 50 GeV – shape of data–theory/theory is similar to photons •
The same story? (whatever that is)
John Womersley
t production at the Tevatron
• •
CDF 1999 result:
(175 GeV) = 6.5 +1.7 –1.4 pb DØ PRD 60 (1999) 012001:
(172 GeV) = 5.9 ± 1.7 pb
• •
Excellent agreement between data and theory
– let no one say that we can’t calculate heavy quark production
(provided the quark is heavy enough!) In Run II, top could become a nice laboratory for QCD
John Womersley
Things we can look forward to
•
More data — the next decade belongs to the hadron colliders
•
Improved calculations (NNLO calculations, resummations...)
•
PDF’s with uncertainties (or a technique for the propagation of PDF uncertainties) as implemented by Giele, Keller, and Kosower
– see pdf.fnal.gov and Walter’s presentation – we won’t get excited unnecessarily by things like the high E
T excess (if there is one) jet
– but imposes significant work on the experiments • understand and publish all the errors and their correlations •
Better jet algorithms
– CDF and DØ accord for Run II from recent workshop – k
T will be used from the start
John Womersley
Jet Algorithms
• • • •
Experimental desires
– high efficiency, low biases – minimize sensitivity to noise, pileup,
negative energies
– computationally efficient
(may be an issue for k T ) Theoretical desires
– “infrared safety is not a joke!” – avoid ad hoc parameters like R
sep Can the cone algorithm be made acceptable?
– e.g. by modification of seed choices – or with a seedless algorithm?
Many variations of k T exist — choose one and fully define it k T Effect of pileup on Thrust algorithm jets, E T > 30 GeV DØ MC Additional seed “Midpoint cone”
John Womersley
Some other things I would like
•
Theoretical and experimental effort to understand the underlying event
– don’t subtract it out from jet energies • it’s an inconsistent treatment of the event • the 1800/630 GeV jet data may indicate problems with our
usual assumption that the underlying event is ~ a minbias event
– would also allow a consistent treatment of double parton
scattering (where more than one pair of partons in the same two colliding nucleons undergoes a hard interaction)
– There are very nice new results from CDF on the underlying event •
A consistent approach to hard diffraction
– a high E
T jet production process: should be amenable to perturbative calculation
– we need to break down the walls of the “pomeron ghetto”
John Womersley
Conclusions
• • •
Tevatron QCD measurements have become precision measurements
– no longer testing QCD, now testing
our ability to make precise predictions within the framework of QCD
– the state of the art is NNLO calculations,
NLL resummations … but this level of precision demands considerable care both from the experimentalists and the phenomenologists, in understanding —
– jet algorithms – jet calibrations – all the experimental errors and their correlations – the level of uncertainty in PDF’s
In general our calculational tools are working very well; the open issues generally relate to
– pushing calculations closer to the few GeV scale (b’s? low-E
T photons?)
– PDF uncertainties (high E
T jets, photons?)
John Womersley