1. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 1 Early LHC Physics Rick Field University of Florida Outline of Talk University of Florida November 2010 UE&MB@CMS QCD at the LHC: Findings & Surprises  How well did we do at predicting the behavior of the “underlying event” at 900 GeV and 7 TeV? A careful look.  How well did we do at predicting the behavior of “min-bias” collisions at 900 GeV and 7 TeV? A careful look.  PYTHIA 6.4 Tune Z1: New CMS 6.4 tune (pT- ordered parton showers and new MPI).  New Physics in Min-Bias?? Observation of long-range same-side correlations at 7 TeV.

2. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 2 QCD Monte-Carlo Models: High Transverse Momentum Jets  Start with the perturbative 2-to-2 (or sometimes 2-to-3) parton-parton scattering and add initial and final- state gluon radiation (in the leading log approximation or modified leading log approximation). “Hard Scattering” Component “Underlying Event”  The “underlying event” consists of the “beam-beam remnants” and from particles arising from soft or semi-soft multiple parton interactions (MPI).  Of course the outgoing colored partons fragment into hadron “jet” and inevitably “underlying event” observables receive contributions from initial and final-state radiation. The “underlying event” is an unavoidable background to most collider observables and having good understand of it leads to more precise collider measurements!

3. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 3 MPI, Pile-Up, and Overlap  MPI: Additional 2-to-2 parton-parton scatterings within a single hadron-hadron collision. MPI: Multiple Parton Interactions Pile-Up Proton Interaction Region  z Proton  Pile-Up: More than one hadron-hadron collision in the beam crossing. Overlap  Overlap: An experimental timing issue where a hadron-hadron collision from the next beam crossing gets included in the hadron- hadron collision from the current beam crossing because the next crossing happened before the event could be read out.

4. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 4 Traditional Approach  Look at charged particle correlations in the azimuthal angle  relative to a leading object (i.e. CaloJet#1, ChgJet#1, PTmax, Z-boson). For CDF PTmin = 0.5 GeV/c  cut = 1. Charged Particle  Correlations P T > PT min |  | <  cut  Define |  | 120 o as “Away”. Leading Calorimeter Jet or Leading Charged Particle Jet or Leading Charged Particle or Z-Boson  All three regions have the same area in  -  space,  ×  = 2  cut ×120 o = 2  cut ×2  /3. Construct densities by dividing by the area in  -  space. “Transverse” region very sensitive to the “underlying event”! CDF Run 1 Analysis

5. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 5 CMS UE Analyses  Uncorrected data on the “transverse” region as defined by the leading track, PTmax, and the leading charged particle jet, PT(chgjet#1) at 900 GeV (p T > 0.5 GeV/c, |  | < 2.0) compared with several QCD Monte-Carlo models after detector simulation. UE&MB@CMS  Uncorrected data on the “transverse” region as defined by the leading charged particle jet, PT(chgjet#1) at 7 TeV and 900 GeV (p T > 0.5 GeV/c, |  | < 2.0) compared with several QCD Monte-Carlo models after detector simulation. Now published in EPJC! Traditional Approach

6. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 6 CMS UE Analyses New Approach Method proposed by Gavin Salam et. al.

7. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 7 ATLAS UE Analysis  Corrected data on the “towards”, “away”, and “transverse” regions as defined by the leading track, PTmax, at 7 TeV and 900 GeV (p T > 0.5 GeV/c, |  | < 2.5) compared with several QCD Monte-Carlo models at the generator level. Traditional Approach

8. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 8 “Transverse” Charged Particle Density  Fake data (from MC) at 900 GeV on the “transverse” charged particle density, dN/d  d , as defined by the leading charged particle (PTmax) and the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2. The fake data (from PYTHIA Tune DW) are generated at the particle level (i.e. generator level) assuming 0.5 M min-bias events at 900 GeV (361,595 events in the plot). Rick Field MB&UE@CMS Workshop CERN, November 6, 2009 Leading Charged Particle Jet, chgjet#1. Leading Charged Particle, PTmax. Prediction!

9. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 9 “Transverse” Charged Particle Density  Fake data (from MC) at 900 GeV on the “transverse” charged particle density, dN/d  d , as defined by the leading charged particle (PTmax) and the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2. The fake data (from PYTHIA Tune DW) are generated at the particle level (i.e. generator level) assuming 0.5 M min-bias events at 900 GeV (361,595 events in the plot).  CMS preliminary data at 900 GeV on the “transverse” charged particle density, dN/d  d , as defined by the leading charged particle (PTmax) and the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2. The data are uncorrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW after detector simulation (216,215 events in the plot).

10. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 10 “Transverse” Charged PTsum Density  Fake data (from MC) at 900 GeV on the “transverse” charged PTsum density, dPT/d  d , as defined by the leading charged particle (PTmax) and the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2. The fake data (from PYTHIA Tune DW) are generated at the particle level (i.e. generator level) assuming 0.5 M min-bias events at 900 GeV (361,595 events in the plot).  CMS preliminary data at 900 GeV on the “transverse” charged PTsum density, dPT/d  d , as defined by the leading charged particle (PTmax) and the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2. The data are uncorrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW after detector simulation (216,215 events in the plot).

11. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 11 PYTHIA Tune DW  CMS preliminary data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the “transverse” charged particle density, dN/d  d , as defined by the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2. The data are uncorrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW after detector simulation.

12. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 12 PYTHIA Tune DW  ATLAS preliminary data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the “transverse” charged particle density, dN/d  d , as defined by the leading charged particle (PTmax) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2.5. The data are corrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW at the generator level.

13. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 13 PYTHIA Tune DW  ATLAS preliminary data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the “transverse” charged particle density, dN/d  d , as defined by the leading charged particle (PTmax) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2.5. The data are corrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW at the generator level.  CMS preliminary data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the “transverse” charged particle density, dN/d  d , as defined by the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2. The data are uncorrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW after detector simulation. CMS ATLAS

14. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 14 PYTHIA Tune DW  CMS preliminary data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the “transverse” charged PTsum density, dPT/d  d , as defined by the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2. The data are uncorrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW after detector simulation.  ATLAS preliminary data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the “transverse” charged PTsum density, dPT/d  d , as defined by the leading charged particle (PTmax) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2.5. The data are corrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW at the generator level. CMS ATLAS

15. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 15 “Transverse” Charge Density LHC 900 GeV LHC 7 TeV 900 GeV → 7 TeV (UE increase ~ factor of 2)  Shows the charged particle density in the “transverse” region for charged particles (p T > 0.5 GeV/c, |  | < 2) at 900 GeV and 7 TeV as defined by PTmax from PYTHIA Tune DW and at the particle level (i.e. generator level). factor of 2! ~0.4 → ~0.8 Rick Field MB&UE@CMS Workshop CERN, November 6, 2009 Prediction!

16. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 16 PYTHIA Tune DW  Ratio of CMS preliminary data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the “transverse” charged particle density, dN/d  d , as defined by the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2. The data are uncorrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW after detector simulation. CMS  CMS preliminary data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the “transverse” charged particle density, dN/d  d , as defined by the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2. The data are uncorrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW after detector simulation. CMS Ratio

17. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 17 PYTHIA Tune DW  Ratio of CMS preliminary data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the “transverse” charged particle density, dN/d  d , as defined by the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2. The data are uncorrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW after detector simulation.  Ratio of the ATLAS preliminary data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the “transverse” charged particle density, dN/d  d , as defined by the leading charged particle (PTmax) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2.5. The data are corrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW at the generator level. CMS ATLAS

18. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 18 PYTHIA Tune DW  Ratio of the CMS preliminary data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the “transverse” charged PTsum density, dPT/d  d , as defined by the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2. The data are uncorrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW after detector simulation.  Ratio of the ATLAS preliminary data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the “transverse” charged PTsum density, dPT/d  d , as defined by the leading charged particle (PTmax) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2.5. The data are corrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW at the generator level. CMS ATLAS

19. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 19 “Transverse” Multiplicity Distribution  CMS uncorrected data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the charged particle multiplicity distribution in the “transverse” region for charged particles (p T > 0.5 GeV/c, |  | 3 GeV/c compared with PYTHIA Tune DW at the detector level (i.e. Theory + SIM). Same hard scale at two different center- of-mass energies! Shows the growth of the “underlying event” as the center-of-mass energy increases. CMS

20. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 20 “Transverse” Multiplicity Distribution  CMS uncorrected data at 7 TeV on the charged particle multiplicity distribution in the “transverse” region for charged particles (p T > 0.5 GeV/c, |  | 3 GeV/c and PT(chgjet#1) > 20 GeV/c compared with PYTHIA Tune DW at the detector level (i.e. Theory + SIM). Same center-of-mass energy at two different hard scales! Shows the growth of the “underlying event” as the hard scale increases. CMS

21. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 21 PYTHIA Tune DW  I am surprised that the Tunes did not do a better job of predicting the behavior of the “underlying event” at 900 GeV and 7 TeV! How well did we do at predicting the “underlying event” at 900 GeV and 7 TeV? Tune DW

22. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 22 PYTHIA Tune DW  I am surprised that the Tunes did as well as they did at predicting the behavior of the “underlying event” at 900 GeV and 7 TeV! How well did we do at predicting the “underlying event” at 900 GeV and 7 TeV? Tune DW

23. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 23 UE Summary  The “underlying event” at 7 TeV and 900 GeV is almost what we expected! With a little tuning we should be able to describe the data very well (see Tune Z1 later in this talk).  “Min-Bias” is a whole different story! Much more complicated due to very soft particles and diffraction! PARP(90) Color Connections PARP(82) Diffraction  I am surprised that the Tunes did as well as they did at predicting the behavior of the “underlying event” at 900 GeV and 7 TeV! Remember this is “soft” QCD! Warning! All the UE studies look at charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c. We do not know if the models correctly describe the UE at lower p T values!

24. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 24  Shows the data on the tower ETsum density, dET sum /d  d , in the “transMAX” and “transMIN” region (E T > 100 MeV, |  | < 1) versus P T (jet#1) for “Leading Jet” and “Back-to-Back” events.  Compares the (corrected) data with PYTHIA Tune A (with MPI) and HERWIG (without MPI) at the particle level (all particles, |  | < 1). “Leading Jet” “Back-to-Back” Rick Field University of Chicago July 11, 2006 Neither PY Tune A or HERWIG fits the ETsum density in the “transferse” region! HERWIG does slightly better than Tune A!

25. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 25 Rick Field University of Chicago July 11, 2006  PYTHIA Tune A fits the charged particle PTsum density for p T > 0.5 GeV/c, but it does not produce enough ETsum for towers with E T > 0.1 GeV.  It is possible that there is a sharp rise in the number of particles in the “underlying event” at low p T (i.e. p T < 0.5 GeV/c).  Perhaps there are two components, a vary “soft” beam-beam remnant component (Gaussian or exponential) and a “hard” multiple interaction component. Possible Scenario??

26. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 26 Proton-Proton Collisions  tot =  EL  SD   DD   HC The “hard core” component contains both “hard” and “soft” collisions. “Inelastic Non-Diffractive Component” ND  tot =  EL  IN

27. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 27 The Inelastic Non-Diffractive Cross-Section + + + + … “Semi-hard” parton- parton collision (p T < ≈2 GeV/c) Occasionally one of the parton-parton collisions is hard (p T > ≈2 GeV/c) Majority of “min- bias” events! Multiple-parton interactions (MPI)!

28. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 28 The “Underlying Event” Select inelastic non-diffractive events that contain a hard scattering + + + … “Semi-hard” parton- parton collision (p T < ≈2 GeV/c) Hard parton-parton collisions is hard (p T > ≈2 GeV/c) The “underlying-event” (UE)! Multiple-parton interactions (MPI)! Given that you have one hard scattering it is more probable to have MPI! Hence, the UE has more activity than “min-bias”. 1/(p T ) 4 → 1/(p T 2 +p T0 2 ) 2

29. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 29 Model of  ND + + + + … “Semi-hard” parton- parton collision (p T < ≈2 GeV/c) Allow leading hard scattering to go to zero p T with same cut-off as the MPI! Model of the inelastic non- diffractive cross section! Multiple-parton interactions (MPI)! 1/(p T ) 4 → 1/(p T 2 +p T0 2 ) 2

30. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 30 UE Tunes + + + + … “Underlying Event” “Min-Bias” (ND) Fit the “underlying event” in a hard scattering process. Predict MB (ND)! 1/(p T ) 4 → 1/(p T 2 +p T0 2 ) 2 Allow primary hard-scattering to go to p T = 0 with same cut-off! “Min-Bias” (add single & double diffraction) Predict MB (IN)! All of Rick’s tunes (except X2): A, AW, AWT,DW, DWT, D6, D6T, CW, X1, and Tune Z1, are UE tunes!

31. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 31 Charged Particle Multiplicity  Data at 1.96 TeV on the charged particle multiplicity (p T > 0.4 GeV/c, |  | < 1) for “min-bias” collisions at CDF Run 2 (non-diffractive cross-section).  The data are compared with PYTHIA Tune A and Tune A without multiple parton interactions (pyAnoMPI). No MPI! Tune A!

32. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 32 PYTHIA Tune A Min-Bias “Soft” + ”Hard”  Comparison of PYTHIA Tune A with the p T distribution of charged particles for “min-bias” collisions at CDF Run 1 (non-diffractive cross-section). 12% of “Min-Bias” events have P T (hard) > 5 GeV/c! 1% of “Min-Bias” events have P T (hard) > 10 GeV/c!  PYTHIA Tune A predicts that 12% of all “Min-Bias” events are a result of a hard 2-to-2 parton-parton scattering with P T (hard) > 5 GeV/c (1% with P T (hard) > 10 GeV/c)! Lots of “hard” scattering in “Min-Bias” at the Tevatron! Ten decades! p T = 50 GeV/c!

33. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 33 CDF: Charged p T Distribution  Published CDF data on the p T distribution of charged particles in Min-Bias collisions (ND) at 1.96 TeV compared with PYTHIA Tune A. Excess events at large p T ! CDF inconsistent with CMS and UA1! No excess at large p T ! CDF consistent with CMS and UA1! 50 GeV/c! Erratum November 18, 2010

34. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 34 MB Tunes + + + + … “Underlying Event” “Min-Bias” (ND) Predict the “underlying event” in a hard scattering process! Fit MB (ND). Most of Peter Skand’s tunes: S320 Perugia 0, S325 Perugia X, S326 Perugia 6 are MB tunes!

35. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 35 MB+UE Tunes + + + + … “Underlying Event” “Min-Bias” (ND) Fit the “underlying event” in a hard scattering process! Fit MB (ND). Most of Hendrik’s “Professor” tunes: ProQ20, P329 are MB+UE! The ATLAS AMBT1 Tune is an MB+UE tune, but because they include in the fit the ATLAS UE data with PTmax > 10 GeV/c (big errors) the LHC UE data does not have much pull (hence mostly an MB tune!). Simultaneous fit to both MB & UE

36. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 36 LHC MB Predictions: 900 GeV  Compares the 900 GeV ALICE data with PYTHIA Tune DW and Tune S320 Perugia 0. Tune DW uses the old Q 2 -ordered parton shower and the old MPI model. Tune S320 uses the new p T -ordered parton shower and the new MPI model. The numbers in parentheses are the average value of dN/d  for the region |  | < 0.6. Off by 11%!

37. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 37 ATLAS INEL dN/d  Soft particles!  None of the tunes fit the ATLAS INEL dN/d  data with PT > 100 MeV! They all predict too few particles.  The ATLAS Tune AMBT1 was designed to fit the inelastic data for Nchg ≥ 6 with p T > 0.5 GeV/c! Off by 20-50%!

38. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 38 PYTHIA Tune DW  ALICE inelastic data at 900 GeV on the dN/d  distribution for charged particles (p T > PTmin) for events with at least one charged particle with p T > PTmin and |  | < 0.8 for PTmin = 0.15 GeV/c, 0.5 GeV/c, and 1.0 GeV/c compared with PYTHIA Tune DW at the generator level. If one increases the p T the agreement improves! Tune DW The same thing occurs at 7 TeV! ALICE, ATLAS, and CMS data coming soon.

39. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 39 PYTHIA Tune DW  ALICE inelastic data at 900 GeV on the dN/d  distribution for charged particles (p T > PTmin) for events with at least one charged particle with p T > PTmin and |  | < 0.8 for PTmin = 0.15 GeV/c, 0.5 GeV/c, and 1.0 GeV/c compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1 at the generator level (dashed = ND, solid = INEL). Diffraction contributes less at harder scales! Tune DW Cannot trust PYTHIA 6.2 modeling of diffraction!

40. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 40 CMS dN/d   Generator level dN/d  (all pT). Shows the NSD = HC + DD and the HC = ND contributions for Tune DW. Also shows the CMS NSD data. CMS Tune DW All p T Soft particles! Off by 50%! Okay if the Monte-Carlo does not fit the data what do we do? We tune the Monte-Carlo to fit the data! Be careful not to tune away new physics!

41. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 41 PYTHIA Tune Z1  I believe that it is time to move to PYTHIA 6.4 (p T -ordered parton showers and new MPI model)!  Tune Z1: I started with the parameters of ATLAS Tune AMBT1, but I changed LO* to CTEQ5L and I varied PARP(82) and PARP(90) to get a very good fit of the CMS UE data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV. UE&MB@CMS  All my previous tunes (A, DW, DWT, D6, D6T, CW, X1, and X2) were PYTHIA 6.4 tunes using the old Q 2 -ordered parton showers and the old MPI model (really 6.2 tunes)! PARP(90) Color Connections PARP(82) Diffraction  The ATLAS Tune AMBT1 was designed to fit the inelastic data for Nchg ≥ 6 and to fit the PTmax UE data with PTmax > 10 GeV/c. Tune AMBT1 is primarily a min-bias tune, while Tune Z1 is a UE tune!

42. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 42 PYTHIA Tune Z1 Parameter Tune Z1 (R. Field CMS) Tune AMBT1 (ATLAS) Parton Distribution FunctionCTEQ5LLO* PARP(82) – MPI Cut-off1.9322.292 PARP(89) – Reference energy, E01800.0 PARP(90) – MPI Energy Extrapolation0.2750.25 PARP(77) – CR Suppression1.016 PARP(78) – CR Strength0.538 PARP(80) – Probability colored parton from BBR0.1 PARP(83) – Matter fraction in core0.356 PARP(84) – Core of matter overlap0.651 PARP(62) – ISR Cut-off1.025 PARP(93) – primordial kT-max10.0 MSTP(81) – MPI, ISR, FSR, BBR model21 MSTP(82) – Double gaussion matter distribution44 MSTP(91) – Gaussian primordial kT11 MSTP(95) – strategy for color reconnection66 Parameters not shown are the PYTHIA 6.4 defaults!

43. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 43 PYTHIA Tune Z1  CMS preliminary data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the “transverse” charged particle density, dN/d  d , as defined by the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2.0. The data are uncorrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1 after detector simulation (SIM).  CMS preliminary data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the “transverse” charged particle density, dN/d  d , as defined by the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2.0. The data are uncorrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW and D6T after detector simulation (SIM). Tune Z1 (CTEQ5L) PARP(82) = 1.932 PARP(90) = 0.275 PARP(77) = 1.016 PARP(78) = 0.538 Tune Z1 is a PYTHIA 6.4 using p T -ordered parton showers and the new MPI model! Color reconnection suppression. Color reconnection strength. CMS Tune Z1

44. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 44 PYTHIA Tune Z1  CMS preliminary data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the “transverse” charged PTsum density, dPT/d  d , as defined by the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2.0. The data are uncorrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1 after detector simulation (SIM).  CMS preliminary data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the “transverse” charged PTsum density, dPT/d  d , as defined by the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2.0. The data are uncorrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW and D6T after detector simulation (SIM). Tune Z1 (CTEQ5L) PARP(82) = 1.932 PARP(90) = 0.275 PARP(77) = 1.016 PARP(78) = 0.538 Tune Z1 is a PYTHIA 6.4 using p T -ordered parton showers and the new MPI model! Color reconnection suppression. Color reconnection strength. CMS Tune Z1

45. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 45 PYTHIA Tune Z1  ATLAS preliminary data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the “transverse” charged PTsum density, dPT/d  d , as defined by the leading charged particle (PTmax) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2.5. The data are corrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1 at the generrator level.  ATLAS preliminary data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the “transverse” charged particle density, dN/d  d , as defined by the leading charged particle (PTmax) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2.5. The data are corrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1 at the generator level. Tune Z1 (CTEQ5L) PARP(82) = 1.932 PARP(90) = 0.275 PARP(77) = 1.016 PARP(78) = 0.538 Tune Z1 is a PYTHIA 6.4 using p T -ordered parton showers and the new MPI model! Color reconnection suppression. Color reconnection strength. ATLAS Tune Z1

46. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 46 PYTHIA Tune Z1  Ratio of CMS preliminary data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV (7 TeV divided by 900 GeV) on the “transverse” charged particle density as defined by the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2.0. The data are uncorrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW, D6T, CW, and P0 after detector simulation (SIM).  Ratio of CMS preliminary data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV (7 TeV divided by 900 GeV) on the “transverse” charged particle density as defined by the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2.0. The data are uncorrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1 after detector simulation (SIM). CMS Tune Z1

47. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 47 PYTHIA Tune Z1  Ratio of CMS preliminary data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV (7 TeV divided by 900 GeV) on the “transverse” charged PTsum density as defined by the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2.0. The data are uncorrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW, D6T, CW, and P0 after detector simulation (SIM).  Ratio of CMS preliminary data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV (7 TeV divided by 900 GeV) on the “transverse” charged PTsum density as defined by the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with p T > 0.5 GeV/c and |  | < 2.0. The data are uncorrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1 after detector simulation (SIM). CMS Tune Z1

48. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 48 PYTHIA Tune Z1  Ratio of the ATLAS preliminary data on the charged PTsum density in the “transverse” region for charged particles (p T > 0.5 GeV/c, |  | < 2.5) at 900 GeV and 7 TeV as defined by PTmax compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1 at the generator level.  Ratio of the ATLAS preliminary data on the charged particle density in the “transverse” region for charged particles (p T > 0.5 GeV/c, |  | < 2.5) at 900 GeV and 7 TeV as defined by PTmax compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1 at the generator level. ATLAS Tune Z1

49. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 49 “Transverse” Multiplicity Distribution  CMS uncorrected data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the charged particle multiplicity distribution in the “transverse” region for charged particles (p T > 0.5 GeV/c, |  | 3 GeV/c compared with PYTHIA Tune DW and Tune D6T at the detector level (i.e. Theory + SIM). Tune Z1  CMS uncorrected data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the charged particle multiplicity distribution in the “transverse” region for charged particles (p T > 0.5 GeV/c, |  | 3 GeV/c compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1 at the detector level (i.e. Theory + SIM). CMS Same hard scale at two different center- of-mass energies! Difficult to produce enough events with large “transverse” multiplicity at low hard scale!

50. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 50 “Transverse” PTsum Distribution  CMS uncorrected data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the charged scalar PTsum distribution in the “transverse” region for charged particles (p T > 0.5 GeV/c, |  | 3 GeV/c compared with PYTHIA Tune DW, and Tune D6T at the detector level (i.e. Theory + SIM).  CMS uncorrected data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the charged scalar PTsum distribution in the “transverse” region for charged particles (p T > 0.5 GeV/c, |  | 3 GeV/c compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1, at the detector level (i.e. Theory + SIM). Tune Z1 CMS Same hard scale at two different center- of-mass energies! Difficult to produce enough events with large “transverse” PTsum at low hard scale!

51. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 51 “Transverse” Multiplicity Distribution  CMS uncorrected data at 7 TeV on the charged particle multiplicity distribution in the “transverse” region for charged particles (p T > 0.5 GeV/c, |  | 3 GeV/c and PT(chgjet#1) > 20 GeV/c compared with PYTHIA Tune DW and Tune D6T at the detector level (i.e. Theory + SIM).  CMS uncorrected data at 7 TeV on the charged particle multiplicity distribution in the “transverse” region for charged particles (p T > 0.5 GeV/c, |  | 3 GeV/c and PT(chgjet#1) > 20 GeV/c compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1 at the detector level (i.e. Theory + SIM). Tune Z1 CMS Same center-of-mass energy at two different hard scales! Difficult to produce enough events with large “transverse” multiplicity at low hard scale!

52. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 52 “Transverse” PTsum Distribution  CMS uncorrected data at 7 TeV on the charged PTsum distribution in the “transverse” region for charged particles (p T > 0.5 GeV/c, |  | 3 GeV/c and PT(chgjet#1) > 20 GeV/c compared with PYTHIA Tune DW and Tune D6T at the detector level (i.e. Theory + SIM). Tune Z1  CMS uncorrected data at 7 TeV on the charged PTsum distribution in the “transverse” region for charged particles (p T > 0.5 GeV/c, |  | 3 GeV/c and PT(chgjet#1) > 20 GeV/c compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1 at the detector level (i.e. Theory + SIM). CMS Same center-of-mass energy at two different hard scales! Difficult to produce enough events with large “transverse” PTsum at low hard scale!

53. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 53 CMS dN/d   Generator level dN/d  (all pT). Shows the NSD = HC + DD and the HC = ND contributions for Tune Z1. Also shows the CMS NSD data.  Generator level dN/d  (all pT). Shows the NSD = HC + DD prediction for Tune Z1 and Tune X2. Also shows the CMS NSD data. CMS Tune Z1 Okay not perfect, but remember we do not know if the DD is correct!

54. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 54 PYTHIA Tune Z1  ALICE inelastic data at 900 GeV on the dN/d  distribution for charged particles (p T > PTmin) for events with at least one charged particle with p T > PTmin and |  | < 0.8 for PTmin = 0.15 GeV/c, 0.5 GeV/c, and 1.0 GeV/c compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1 at the generator level. Okay not perfect, but remember we do not know if the SD & DD are correct!

55. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 55 NSD Multiplicity Distribution  Generator level charged multiplicity distribution (all pT, |  | < 2) at 900 GeV and 7 TeV. Shows the NSD = HC + DD prediction for Tune Z1. Also shows the CMS NSD data. CMS Tune Z1 Difficult to produce enough events with large multiplicity! Okay not perfect! But not that bad!

56. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 56 MB & UE  Generator level charged multiplicity distribution (all pT, |  | < 2) at 900 GeV and 7 TeV. Shows the NSD = HC + DD prediction for Tune Z1. Also shows the CMS NSD data.  CMS uncorrected data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the charged particle multiplicity distribution in the “transverse” region for charged particles (p T > 0.5 GeV/c, |  | 3 GeV/c compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1 at the detector level (i.e. Theory + SIM). CMS Tune Z1 “Min-Bias” “Underlying Event” Difficult to produce enough events with large multiplicity! Difficult to produce enough events with large “transverse” multiplicity at low hard scale!

57. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 57 MB & UE  CMS uncorrected data at 7 TeV on the charged particle multiplicity distribution in the “transverse” region for charged particles (p T > 0.5 GeV/c, |  | 20 GeV/c compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1 at the detector level (i.e. Theory + SIM). Also shows the CMS corrected NSD multiplicity distribution (all pT, |  | < 2) compared with Tune Z1 at the generator. CMS Tune Z1 Amazing what we are asking the Monte-Carlo models to fit!

58. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 58 Two Particle Angular Correlations  Correlation, R, is ~(S-B)/B.  Signal, S, is two particles in the same event.  Background, B, is two particles in two different events.

59. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 59 Two Particle Angular Correlations Bose-Einstein CMS “min-bias” 7 TeV

60. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 60 High Multiplicity at 7 TeV Select Events with High Multiplicity

61. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 61 Two Particle Angular Correlations Average “Min-Bias” High Multiplicity “Min-Bias”  Lots of jets at high multiplicity!

62. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 62 Two Particle Angular Correlations Average “Min-Bias” High Multiplicity “Min-Bias”

63. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 63 Long-Range Same-Side Correlations Not there in PYTHIA8! High Multiplicity “Min-Bias” Also not there in PYTHIA 6 and HERWIG++!

64. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 64 Correlation in Heavy Ion Collisions  Long range correlations expected in “collective flow” in heavy ion collisions.

65. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 65 Correlation in Heavy Ion Collisions  Long-range “Ridge”-like structure in  at  ≈ 0!

66. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 66 Proton-Proton vs Au-Au  I am not ready to jump on the quark-gluon plasma bandwagon quite yet! Proton-Proton Collisions 7 TeV Gold-Gold Collisions 200 GeV QGP

67. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 67 Jet-Jet Correlations  Are the “leading-log” or “modified leading-log” QCD Monte-Carlo Models missing an important QCD correlation?  The leading jet and the incident protons form a plane (yz-plane in the figure). This is the plane of the hard scattering.  Initial & final-state radiation prefers to lie in this plane. This is a higher order effect that you can see in the 2→3 or 2→4 matrix elements, but it is not there if you do 2→2 matrix elements and then add radiation using a naïve leading log approximation (i.e. independent emission).  I do not know to what extent this higher order jet-jet correlation is incorporated in the QCD Monte-Carlo models.  I would think that this jet-jet correlation would produce a long range (in  ) correlation with  ≈ 0 from two particles with one in the leading jet and one in the radiated jet. Why don’t we see this in the Monte-Carlo models?

68. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 68 Jet-Jet Correlations  Initial & Final-State Radiation: There should be more particles “in-the-plane” of the hard scattering (yz-plane in the figure) than “out-of –the-plane”.  I do not understand why this does not result in a long-range same-side correlation? ??

69. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 69 Min-Bias Summary  We need a better understanding and modeling of diffraction!  We are a long way from having a Monte-Carlo model that will fit all the features of the LHC min-bias data! There are more soft particles that expected! PARP(90) Color Connections PARP(82) Diffraction  It is difficult for the Monte-Carlo models to produce a soft event (i.e. no large hard scale) with a large multiplicity. There seems to be more “min- bias” high multiplicity soft events at 7 TeV than predicted by the models!  The models do not produce enough strange particles! I have no idea what is going on here! The Monte-Carlo models are constrained by LEP data.

70. UF-IFT Seminar Gainesville, FL, November 19, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 70 The LHC in 2011  Beam back around 21st February.  2 weeks re-commissioning with beam (at least).  4 day technical stop every 6 weeks.  4 weeks ion run.  End of run – December 12 th.  Approximately 200 days proton physics!  Maybe 8 TeV (4 TeV/beam). Peak luminosity6.4 x 10 32 Integrated per day11 pb -1 200 days2.2 fb -1 Stored energy72 MJ  Beam back around on February 21 st ! This is fun!