1 / 25

Markus Wobisch Louisiana Tech University All D0 Meeting

Determination of alpha_s from the inclusive jet cross section. Markus Wobisch Louisiana Tech University All D0 Meeting October 23, 2009. Overview. Topic: Determination of alpha_s

zanthe
Download Presentation

Markus Wobisch Louisiana Tech University All D0 Meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Determination of alpha_sfrom the inclusive jet cross section Markus Wobisch Louisiana Tech University All D0 Meeting October 23, 2009

  2. Overview Topic: Determination of alpha_s Basis: D0 Run IIapublished inclusive jet cross section (Mikko’s results) This analysis: - No new experimental work - QCD fit of existing data Status: - preliminary approval for Lepton Photon 2009 - Fermilab Today result of the week  now in review for publication in PRD-RC (no changes w.r.t. preliminary result)

  3. Motivation From: 2008 Review of Particle Physics • Poor entry from “Hadronic Jets” (= CDF Run I result) •  Not competitive with other relevant results • Can (and should) be improved! • We have: • better data • better theory

  4. Outline • alpha_s and the renormalization group equation • data set • basic fit principle • PDFs and alpha_s • PDFs and input data • fit method • results

  5. alpha_s and the RGE • Alpha_s(mu_r) : coupling constant of strong interactiondepends on renormalization scale not predicted in QCD  to be determined in experiment • Renormalization Group Equation (RGE) predicts mu_r dependence if we know value at one scale (mu_0) we know the value at any scale knowledge of alpha_s(mu_1) is equivalent to knowledge of alpha_s(mu_2) • Agreement: for easy comparisons, quote alpha_s(Mz) • In jet production: mu_r = pT

  6. Running of alphas S. Bethke, arXiv:0908.1135 • Running as predicted by • Renormalization Group Equation • has been confirmed for Q  200 GeV • (LEP e+e- data) • But not yet for larger scales

  7. Run IIa Inclusive Jet Data Mikko’s results: 110 incl jet x-sect data points in six |y| regions • Every single data point is sensitive to alphas(pT) • Sensitive to running of alphas(pT) • Combined fit (of selected data points): alphas(Mz) result

  8. Basic priciple (naïve version) • Cross section formula: • c_n: perturbative coefficients ( pQCD matrix elements) • f_1, f_2: PDFs • Determine alpha_s from data: • Vary alpha_s until sigma-theory agrees with sigma-experiment For a single bin 

  9. two additional aspects: • Naïve version of basic principle can not be directly applied • There are two additional aspects to be considered • alpha_s dependence of PDFs • correlation of observable with observables used in PDF fits

  10. (1): alphas dependence of PDFs • PDFs are always determined for a given value of alpha_s(Mz) PDF fit results depend on alpha_s Naïve x-section formula must be modified to take alphas dependence of PDFs into account:  Vary alphas in matrix elements AND in PDFsuntil sigma-theory(alpha_s) = sigma-experiment • need smooth alpha-s dependence of PDFs • Requires: interpolation between cross section for PDFs with different alpha-s(Mz) values

  11. (1): alphas dependence of PDFs Interpolation must cover whole range of possible uncertainties  test interpolation over: 0.105 < alphas(Mz) < 0.130 • MSTW2008 has 21 PDFs sets for alpha_s 0.110-0.130 in 0.001 steps ( 21 “nodes”) use cubic interpolation based on 4 surrounding nodes • CTEQ6.6 has five PDFs sets for alpha_s(Mz)=0.112, 0.114, 0.118, 0.122, 0.125 ( 5 “nodes”) use Lagrangian interpolation based on either - nodes 1,2,3,4,5 (all five) (danger: 4th order – may fluctuate) - nodes 1, 3, 5 (2nd order - may not be accurate around center) - nodes 2, 3, 4 (2nd order – may not be accurate away from center) - nodes 1, 2, 4, 5 (3rd order – may be poor at center)

  12. (1): alphas dependence of PDFs Compare cross section interpolations for MSTW2008 and CTEQ6.6 See: For MSTW2008: nice & smooth interpolation CTEQ6.6: Significant differences between different interpolations. No obvious preference (maybe points 1,3,5 because of monotonic behavior – but can’t be justified) • Can not justify to use CTEQ6.6 • But MSTW2008 is o.k.  provide NNLO

  13. (2): PDFs and input data • Conceptual problem: • Tevatron jet data have already been used in PDF fits •  only source of high-x gluon information • alpha_s extraction would be circular argument • PDFs uncertainties are correlated to experimental uncertainties(but correlation is not documented) • Restrict the data set used in the fit to x-values whereTevatron jets are not the dominant source of information • Somewhere up to x = 0.2-0.3 (see next slide)

  14. (2): PDFs and input data MSTW2008 paper (see also Figs. 51, 53)  Tevatron jet data don’t affect gluon for x < 0.2 – 0.3

  15. x-sensitivity? Jet cross section has access to x-values of: (in LO kinematics) • What is the x-value for a given incl. jet data point @(pT, |y|) ? • Not completely constrained (unknown kinematics since we integrate over other jet) • Construct “test-variable” (treat as if other jet was at y=0): • Apply cut on this test-variable to restrict accessible x-range • Find: requirement x-test < 0.15 removes most of the contributions with x > 0.2 - 0.3

  16. x-min / x-max distributions • Fig. 3 in analysis note • Every analysis bin  one plot • Each plot: x-min/x-max distributions • Cut on test-variable x-test < 0.15 22 data points remain • These have small contributions from • x>0.2-0.3 • Only data points above green line are used • central result: stable • very minor increase in uncertainties

  17. Theory Use two alternative theory predictions: • pQCD: • NLO + 2-loop threshold corrections (“NLO + 2-loop”) (threshold corrections from Kidonakis/Owens) • NLO • Uncertainties: scale dependence mu=pT (x0.5 , x2.0) • PDFs: • MSTW2008NNLO (for “NLO+2-loop”) • MSTW2008NLO (for NLO) • Uncertainties: from 20 PDF eigenvectors (68%CL) • Non perturbative corrections: (hadronization / UE) • from PYTHIA (as published with data) • Uncertainties: half the size of the correction(separately for hadronization and UE)

  18. Fit Method • Minimize chi2 (as used in dijet angular distributions) •  23 experimental correlated sources of uncertainty non-perturbative corrections uncertainties PDF uncertainties • Separate treatment for renormalization and factorization scales (convention from LEP, HERA): • perform fits for fixed scale • repeat for scale factors 2.0, 0.5 • quote differences as “scale uncertainty” •  does not assume Gaussian distributed scale uncertainties

  19. Single alpha_s results • Every pT data point gives one alpha_s(pT) and/or alpha_s(Mz) theory: NLO + 2-loop threshold corrections

  20. x-cut dependence • Now combine all data points up to some maximum x-test (=x-cut)and extract combined alpha_s(Mz) value •  Study x-cut dependence of result •  result are stable within 1% in 0.1 < x-cut < 0.17 • Decide: use x-cut=0.15 • Consistent with assumption • that for x-test<0.15 the • Tevatron jet data are not the • dominant source of PDF information theory: NLO + 2-loop threshold corrections

  21. Running of alpha_s(pT) • combine points in different |y| regions at same pT •  Produce 9 alphas(pT) points from selected 22 data points • Compare to HERA results • from H1 and ZEUS • consistency •  our results extend pT reach of HERA results theory: NLO + 2-loop threshold corrections

  22. Combined alpha_s(Mz) Based on 22 inclusive jet data points with x-test<0.15 Combined alpha_s(MZ):

  23. Summary New alpha_s result from Tevatron jets Run I CDF result (still quoted in alpha_s summaries): Our new result (strong improvement / same precision as HERA jets)alpha_s(Mz) = 0.1173 +0.0041 -0.0049

  24. Backup

  25. CDF Run I result CDF Collaboration, T. Affolder et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 042001 (2002) • Claim:“Test running over 40 < ET < 440 GeV” • Not really!!because analysis uses PDFsfor which DGLAP evolutionis already done under assumption of running according to RGE • RGE was already assumed • No independent test •  Avoid this mistake in the present D0 analysis

More Related