Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byGavin Lewis Modified over 4 years ago

1
High E T Jet Physics at HERA José Repond Argonne National Laboratory On behalf of the H1 and ZEUS collaborations Small-x Workshop, Fermilab, March 28-30, 2007

2
Introduction: Jets, Algorithms… Definition of a generic hadronic jet: Group of particles which are ‘close’ to each other Many definition of ‘closeness’ Cone algorithmsClustering algorithms use geometrical information (no E) use geometrical information + E ΔR = √Δ 2 η+ Δ 2 φ any E T,k 2 Partons in QCD calculations Final state hadrons in data and MC Theoretical problems with overlapping cones → large uncertainty Not used at HERA since early days R0R0

3
Group particles together if Mass d ij = 2 E i E j (1 – cosθ ij ) < d cut k ┴ d ij = 2 min (E i 2, E j 2 )(1 – cosθ ij )/E 0 2 < d cut E 0 …hard scale Longitudinally invariant k ┴ d ij = min(E T,i 2, E T,j 2 )(Δη 2 +Δφ 2 )/R 0 2 > any E T,k 2 R 0 …radius, chosen =1 The remaining objects are called Jets JADE algorithm used extensively in e + e - problems with ghost jets Durham algorithm allows to vary resolution scale d cut subjets Longitudinally Invariant k ┴ algorithm combines features of cone and durham - Clustering Algorithms

4
Hadronisation corrections Needed to compare data and QCD calculations Hadronisation corrections applied to NLO Obtained from LO+PS Monte Carlos Describe jet production at HERA (apart from normalization) Longitudinally invariant k T algorithm Smallest hadronisation correction (smallest uncertainty?) Preferred algorithm at HERA Durham (exclusive) k T algorithm Allows to vary scale Only used for subjet studies

5
Energy scale of scattered electron (±1%) Uncertainty in detection efficiency for scattered electron (±2%) Uncertainties in trigger efficiencies and event selections Uncertainties in correction for detector acceptances < ± 1% ± 2% < ± 3% Error on Jet cross sections Jet Energy Scale E T (jet) spectrum exponentially falling → Dominant error First ZEUS jet publications ±10% error in cross section Select Jets with high(er) E T Dedicated effort to understand hadronic energy scale Use of fact that p T (scattered electron) = p T (hadronic system) Study events with single jets and small remaining hadronic energy Current Jet Energy Scale Uncertainty ± 1% (for E T (jet) > 10 GeV) ± 3% Major experimental uncertainties

6
PDFs hard scattering Fragmentation cross section function Hadronisation corrections Corrections in general small <10% Uncertainty taken as difference between estimations based on different MCs (unsatisfactory) Proton PDFs Traditionally taken from difference obtained with various sets of PDFs (unsatisfactory) Covariance matrix V p μ,p λ of the fitted parameters {p λ } available correct evaluation of error on cross section In γ P: additional uncertainty due to PDFs of photon Typical uncertainty ± 1% Typical uncertainty ± 1-2% Major theoretical uncertainties

7
Strong coupling α S Enters PDFs value assumed to evolve to different scales in fit to inclusive DIS data Enters dσ a governs strength of interaction Current world average value α S (M Z ) = 0.1176 ± 0.0020 Used consistently in PDFs and dσ a Only free parameter of pQCD: jet cross sections sensitive to it Terms beyond α S 2 Corresponding uncertainty NOT known Estimated through residual dependence on renormalization μ R and factorization μ F scales → Choice of scales: Q, E T,jet or linear combination Customary, but arbitrary to vary scales by factor 2 PDFs hard scattering Fragmentation cross section function Current uncertainty ± 1.7% Uncertainty can be large Dominating theoretical error

8
Jet Production Processes at HERA e γ, Z 0 g e’ e γ, Z 0 g Event classes Photoproduction: Q 2 ~0 (real photons) Deep inelastic scattering: Q 2 > few GeV 2 (virtual photons) Jet production mechanisms (LO in α S ) Boson-Gluon Fusion QCD Compton Scattering αSαS Higher order processes ( α S n, n>1) Multi-parton interactions (→ L. Stanco) Di-jets Multi-jet

9
Inclusive-Jet Cross Sections in DIS Data sample Q 2 > 125 GeV 2 L = 82 pb -1 of e ± p collisions Jet reconstruction With k T algorithm in the longitudinally invariant inclusive mode And in the Breit frame Jet selection E T Jet (Breit) > 8.0 GeV E T Jet (lab) > 2.5 GeV -2 < η Jet (Breit) < 1.5 Results d σ /dE T jet (Breit) in large range of Q 2 Nice description by NLO QCD

10
Ratio to NLO QCD Dominant experimental uncertainty: energy scale Theoretical uncertainty ~ experimental uncertainty With HERA II data statistical uncertainty at high Q 2 will be significantly reduced

11
Determination of strong coupling constant α S (M Z ) Q 2 > 500 GeV 2 Smaller experimental (E scale) uncertainties Smaller theoretical (PDFs and scale) uncertainties Parameterize theoretical cross section as d σ /dQ 2 ( α S (M Z )) = C 1 α S (M Z ) + C 2 α S 2 (M z ) (same value of α s in PDF and calculation) Determine C 1 and C 2 from χ 2 fits Fit parameterized theoretical cross d σ /dQ 2 ( α S (M Z )) to measurement Result α S (M Z ) = 1.207 ± 0.0014 (stat.) (syst.) (theo.) One of world’s most precise… PDG: α S (M Z ) = 1.176 ± 0.002 +0.0035 +0.0022 -0.0033 -0.0023

12
Multi-Jets in DIS Data sample 150 GeV 2 < Q 2 < 15,000 GeV 2 L = 65 pb -1 of e + p collisions Jet reconstruction With k T algorithm in the longitudinally invariant inclusive mode And in the Breit frame Jet selection E T Jet (Breit) > 5.0 GeV -1 < η Jet (lab) < 2.5 Dijets: m 2jet > 25 GeV Trijets: m 3jet > 25 GeV Results d σ /dQ 2 in large range of Q 2 Nice description by NLO QCD To reduce infrared regions (E T 1 ~ E T 2 )

13
Ratio of 3-jet/2-jet Many experimental uncertainties cancel Theoretical uncertainty ~ experimental uncertainty Extraction of α S (M z ) Similar procedure as with incl. jets α S (M z ) = 1.175 ± 0.0017 (stat.) ± 0.005 (syst.) (theo.) +0.0054 -0.0068 Average α S (M Z )

14
Di-Jets in Photoproduction Data sample Q 2 < 1 GeV 2 134 < W < 277 GeV Jet reconstruction With k T algorithm in the longitudinally invariant inclusive mode Jet selection E T Jet > 14.0 and 11.0 GeV -1 < η Jet (lab) < 2.4 d σ /dx γ in bins of E T jet Large discrepancy with theory Photon PDF inadequate? NLO pQCD calculation inadequate?

15
Photon PDFs determined from γγ interactions at low scales At HERA photon PDFs being probed at high scales (jet E T ) Similar study of H1 shows ‘perfect’ agreement with NLO pQCD H1 uses slightly higher E T,2 cut at 15 GeV Study of dependence on E T,2 cut Dependence NOT reproduced by NLO H1 cut more fortunate NNLO calculations needed Until then, no meaningful constraint on photon PDFs

16
Event Shapes Data sample 196 < Q 2 < 40,000 GeV 2 L = 106 pb -1 of e ± p data Event shape of hadronic final state Squared jet mass Thrust wrt to n T max Jet broadening Thrust wrt to boson axis C-parameter

17
Theoretical calculations Available at NLO level including resummed next-to-leading logarithms (NLO+NLL) Hadronisation corrections taken care of by calculable power corrections (~ 1/Q) P v ~ α 0 P V calc where α 0 is a universal parameter (independent of ES variable V) Differential distribution Nicely reproduced by NLO+NLL+PC Mean of ES Variable versus Q Nicely reproduced by NLO+NLL+PC (2 parameter fit: α S and α 0 ) NLO+NLL NLO+NLL+PC

18
Fit to differential distributions → ~Consistent values of α S and α 0 ( α 0 indeed universal within 10%) Combined fit over all ES Variables → α S (M Z ) = 0.1198 ± 0.0013 (exp) (theo) → α 0 = 0.476 ± 0.008 (exp) (theo) +0.0056 - 0.0043 +0.0018 - 0.0059

19
HERA Measurements of α S σ exp « σ theo See C.Glassman hep-ex/0506035

20
Conclusions Precision jet physics at HERA Experimental uncertainties often < 3% Uncertainties dominated by jet energy scale uncertainty Performed large number of measurements Photoproduction (inclusive jets, dijets, multijets…) DIS NC (inclusive, dijets, multijets, subjets…) DIS CC (inclusive…) Results provide Constraints on proton PDF (included in NLO QCD fits of F 2 ) Constraints on photon PDF (needs better calculations) High precision measurements of the strong coupling constant α S (M Z ) α S (M Z ) HERA = 0.1193 ± 0.0005 (exp) ± 0.0025 (theo)

21
Backup Slides

22
Frames for Jet Finding e + e - annihilation Laboratory frame = center-of-mass frame (unless there is significant initial state radiation) pp colliders Events p T balanced Cone algorithm invariant to longitudinal boost Analysis in laboratory frame Deep Inelastic Scattering Hadronic system recoils against scattered electron jets have p T in laboratory frame BREIT FRAME 2x BJ + p = 0 Virtual photon purely space-like q = (0, 0, 0, -2x BJ p) Photon collides head-on with proton High-E T Jet Production in Breit Frame suppression of Born contribution suppression of Beam remnant jet(s)

23
E T – Cuts for Dijet Selection Symmetric cuts For instance E T,1, E T,2 > 5 GeV Reduced phase space for real emission of soft gluons close to cut Complete cancellation of the soft and collinear singularities with the corresponding singularities in the virtual contributions not possible Unphysical behavior of calculated cross section Solutions Additional cut on Sum of E T for instance E T,1 + E T,2 > 13 GeV Asymmetric cuts for instance E T,1 > 8 GeV, E T,2 > 5 GeV H1 ZEUS

24
Jets in Photo-production Momentum fraction x γ Can be reconstructed as Direct x γ = 1 Resolved x γ < 1 Photon has very low virtuality Q 2 ~ 0 GeV 2 Only one inclusive variable W γP … photon – proton center of mass To O (αα S ) 2 types of processes contribute to jet production Direct photo-production Photon interacts as an entity Resolved photo-production A parton with momentum fraction x γ in the photon enters the hard scattering process

Similar presentations

© 2020 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

To make this website work, we log user data and share it with processors. To use this website, you must agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy.

Ads by Google