1 / 33

PHZ 6358 Fall 2011

PHZ 6358 Fall 2011. The Modeling of the Underlying Event. Rick Field University of Florida. Outline of Talk. Studying the “underlying event” at the Tevatron. The CDF PYTHIA 6.2 tunes. University of Florida November 2011.

zlata
Download Presentation

PHZ 6358 Fall 2011

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. PHZ 6358 Fall 2011 The Modeling of the Underlying Event Rick Field University of Florida Outline of Talk • Studying the “underlying event” at the Tevatron. The CDF PYTHIA 6.2 tunes. University of Florida November 2011 • How well did we do at predicting the behavior of the “underlying event” at 900 GeV and 7 TeV? • The “underlying event” in Z-boson production at the Tevatron and the LHC. • Homework Assignment (optional). www.phys.ufl.edu/~rfield/cdf/UF-SM_RickField_11-7-11.ppt Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  2. “Hard Scattering” Component 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). “Underlying Event” • The “underlying event” consists of the “beam-beam remnants” and from particles arising from soft or semi-soft multiple parton interactions (MPI). The “underlying event” is an unavoidable background to most collider observables and having good understand of it leads to more precise collider measurements! • Of course the outgoing colored partons fragment into hadron “jet” and inevitably “underlying event” observables receive contributions from initial and final-state radiation. Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  3. Proton-Proton Collisions stot = sEL + sSD+sDD+sHC stot = sEL + sIN ND “Inelastic Non-Diffractive Component” The “hard core” component contains both “hard” and “soft” collisions. Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  4. The Inelastic Non-Diffractive Cross-Section Occasionally one of the parton-parton collisions is hard (pT > ≈2 GeV/c) Majority of “min-bias” events! “Semi-hard” parton-parton collision (pT < ≈2 GeV/c) + + + + … Multiple-parton interactions (MPI)! Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  5. The “Underlying Event” Select inelastic non-diffractive events that contain a hard scattering 1/(pT)4→ 1/(pT2+pT02)2 Hard parton-parton collisions is hard (pT > ≈2 GeV/c) “Semi-hard” parton-parton collision (pT < ≈2 GeV/c) The “underlying-event” (UE)! + + + … Given that you have one hard scattering it is more probable to have MPI! Hence, the UE has more activity than “min-bias”. Multiple-parton interactions (MPI)! Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  6. Model of sND Allow leading hard scattering to go to zero pT with same cut-off as the MPI! “Semi-hard” parton-parton collision (pT < ≈2 GeV/c) 1/(pT)4→ 1/(pT2+pT02)2 Model of the inelastic non-diffractive cross section! + + + + … Multiple-parton interactions (MPI)! Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  7. Proton Proton Proton Proton MPI, Pile-Up, and Overlap MPI: Multiple Parton Interactions • MPI: Additional 2-to-2 parton-parton scatterings within a single hadron-hadron collision. Pile-Up Interaction Region Dz • 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. Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  8. Traditional Approach CDF Run 1 Analysis • Look at charged particle correlations in the azimuthal angle Df relative to a leading object (i.e. CaloJet#1, ChgJet#1, PTmax, Z-boson). For CDF PTmin = 0.5 GeV/c hcut = 1. Charged Particle Df Correlations PT > PTmin |h| < hcut Leading Calorimeter Jet or Leading Charged Particle Jet or Leading Charged Particle or Z-Boson “Transverse” region very sensitive to the “underlying event”! • Define |Df| < 60o as “Toward”, 60o < |Df| < 120o as “Transverse”, and |Df| > 120o as “Away”. • All three regions have the same area in h-f space, Dh×Df = 2hcut×120o = 2hcut×2p/3. Construct densities by dividing by the area in h-f space. Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  9. ISAJET 7.32 (without MPI)“Transverse” Density ISAJET uses a naïve leading-log parton shower-model which does not agree with the data! • Plot shows average “transverse” charge particle density (|h|<1, pT>0.5 GeV) versus PT(charged jet#1) compared to the QCD hard scattering predictions of ISAJET 7.32 (default parameters with PT(hard)>3 GeV/c) . • The predictions of ISAJET are divided into two categories: charged particles that arise from the break-up of the beam and target (beam-beam remnants); and charged particles that arise from the outgoing jet plus initial and final-state radiation(hard scattering component). ISAJET “Hard” Component February 25, 2000 Beam-Beam Remnants Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  10. HERWIG 6.4 (without MPI)“Transverse” Density • Plot shows average “transverse” charge particle density (|h|<1, pT>0.5 GeV) versus PT(charged jet#1) compared to the QCD hard scattering predictions of HERWIG 5.9(default parameters with PT(hard)>3 GeV/c without MPI). • The predictions of HERWIG are divided into two categories: charged particles that arise from the break-up of the beam and target (beam-beam remnants); and charged particles that arise from the outgoing jet plus initial and final-state radiation(hard scattering component). HERWIG uses a modified leading-log parton shower-model which does agrees better with the data! HERWIG “Hard” Component Beam-Beam Remnants Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  11. Tuning PYTHIA 6.2:Multiple Parton Interaction Parameters Hard Core Determines the energy dependence of the MPI! Determine by comparing with 630 GeV data! Affects the amount of initial-state radiation! Take E0 = 1.8 TeV Reference point at 1.8 TeV Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  12. PYTHIA 6.206 Defaults MPI constant probability scattering • Plot shows the “Transverse” charged particle density versus PT(chgjet#1) compared to the QCD hard scattering predictions of PYTHIA 6.206 (PT(hard) > 0) using the default parameters for multiple parton interactions and CTEQ3L, CTEQ4L, and CTEQ5L. PYTHIA default parameters Default parameters give very poor description of the “underlying event”! Note Change PARP(67) = 4.0 (< 6.138) PARP(67) = 1.0 (> 6.138) Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  13. Run 1 PYTHIA Tune A CDF Default Feburary 25, 2000! • Plot shows the “transverse” charged particle density versus PT(chgjet#1) compared to the QCD hard scattering predictions of two tuned versions of PYTHIA 6.206 (CTEQ5L, Set B (PARP(67)=1)andSet A(PARP(67)=4)). PYTHIA 6.206 CTEQ5L Run 1 Analysis Old PYTHIA default (more initial-state radiation) Old PYTHIA default (more initial-state radiation) New PYTHIA default (less initial-state radiation) New PYTHIA default (less initial-state radiation) Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  14. “Transverse” Charged DensitiesEnergy Dependence Increasing e produces less energy dependence for the UE resulting in less UE activity at the LHC! Lowering PT0 at 630 GeV (i.e. increasing e) increases UE activity resulting in less energy dependence. • Shows the “transverse” charged PTsum density (|h|<1, PT>0.4 GeV) versus PT(charged jet#1) at 630 GeV predicted by HERWIG 6.4 (PT(hard) > 3 GeV/c, CTEQ5L) and a tuned version of PYTHIA 6.206 (PT(hard) > 0, CTEQ5L, Set A, e = 0, e = 0.16 (default) and e = 0.25 (preferred)). • Also shown are the PTsum densities (0.16 GeV/c and 0.54 GeV/c) determined from the Tano, Kovacs, Huston, and Bhatti “transverse” cone analysis at 630 GeV. Rick Field Fermilab MC Workshop October 4, 2002! Reference point E0 = 1.8 TeV Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  15. PYTHIA 6.2 Tunes All use LO as with L = 192 MeV! UE Parameters Uses CTEQ6L Tune A energy dependence! ISR Parameter Intrinsic KT Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  16. PYTHIA 6.2 Tunes All use LO as with L = 192 MeV! UE Parameters Tune B Tune AW Tune BW Tune A ATLAS energy dependence! ISR Parameter Tune DW Tune D6 Tune D Tune D6T Intrinsic KT Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  17. “Transverse” Charged Density • Shows the charged particle density in the “transverse” region for charged particles (pT > 0.5 GeV/c, |h| < 1) at 7 TeVas defined by PTmax, PT(chgjet#1), and PT(muon-pair) from PYTHIATune DWat the particle level (i.e. generator level). Charged particle jets are constructed using the Anti-KT algorithm with d = 0.5. Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  18. Min-Bias “Associated”Charged Particle Density • Shows the “associated” charged particle density in the “transverse” region as a function of PTmax for charged particles (pT > 0.5 GeV/c, |h| < 1, not including PTmax) for “min-bias” events at 0.2 TeV, 0.9 TeV, 1.96 TeV, 7 TeV, 10 TeV, 14 TeVpredicted by PYTHIA Tune DW at the particle level (i.e. generator level). LHC14 LHC10 LHC7 Tevatron 900 GeV RHIC 0.2 TeV → 1.96 TeV (UE increase ~2.7 times) 1.96 TeV → 14 TeV (UE increase ~1.9 times) RHIC LHC Tevatron Linear scale! Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  19. Min-Bias “Associated”Charged Particle Density • Shows the “associated” charged particle density in the “transverse” region as a function of PTmax for charged particles (pT > 0.5 GeV/c, |h| < 1, not including PTmax) for “min-bias” events at 0.2 TeV, 0.9 TeV, 1.96 TeV, 7 TeV, 10 TeV, 14 TeVpredicted by PYTHIA Tune DW at the particle level (i.e. generator level). LHC14 LHC10 LHC7 Tevatron 900 GeV RHIC 7 TeV → 14 TeV (UE increase ~20%) LHC7 LHC14 Linear on a log plot! Log scale! Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  20. Conclusions November 2009 • We are making good progress in understanding and modeling the “underlying event”. RHIC data at 200 GeV are very important! • The new Pythia pT ordered tunes (py64 S320 and py64 P329) are very similar to Tune A, Tune AW, and Tune DW. At present the new tunes do not fit the data better than Tune AW and Tune DW. However, the new tune are theoretically preferred! • It is clear now that the default value PARP(90) = 0.16 is not correct and the value should be closer to the Tune A value of 0.25. • The new and old PYTHIA tunes are beginning to converge and I believe we are finally in a position to make some legitimate predictions at the LHC! • All tunes with the default value PARP(90) = 0.16 are wrong and are overestimating the activity of min-bias and the underlying event at the LHC! This includes all my “T” tunes and the (old) ATLAS tunes! UE&MB@CMS • Need to measure “Min-Bias” and the “underlying event” at the LHC as soon as possible to see if there is new QCD physics to be learned! Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  21. “Transverse” Charged Particle Density • Fake data (from MC) at 900 GeV on the “transverse” charged particle density, dN/dhdf, as defined by the leading charged particle (PTmax) and the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV/c and |h| < 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). Leading Charged Particle Jet, chgjet#1. Prediction! Leading Charged Particle, PTmax. Rick Field MB&UE@CMS Workshop CERN, November 6, 2009 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  22. “Transverse” Charge Density Rick Field MB&UE@CMS Workshop CERN, November 6, 2009 factor of 2! Prediction! 900 GeV → 7 TeV (UE increase ~ factor of 2) LHC 900 GeV LHC 7 TeV ~0.4 → ~0.8 • Shows the charged particle density in the “transverse” region for charged particles (pT > 0.5 GeV/c, |h| < 2) at 900 GeV and 7 TeVas defined by PTmax from PYTHIATune DW andat the particle level (i.e. generator level). Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  23. “Transverse” Charged Particle Density • Fake data (from MC) at 900 GeV on the “transverse” charged particle density, dN/dhdf, as defined by the leading charged particle (PTmax) and the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV/c and |h| < 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). Monte-Carlo! Real Data! • CMS preliminary data at 900 GeV on the “transverse” charged particle density, dN/dhdf, as defined by the leading charged particle (PTmax) and the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV/c and |h| < 2. The data are uncorrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW after detector simulation (216,215 events in the plot). Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  24. “Transverse” Charged PTsum Density Monte-Carlo! Real Data! • Fake data (from MC) at 900 GeV on the “transverse” charged PTsum density, dPT/dhdf, as defined by the leading charged particle (PTmax) and the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV/c and |h| < 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/dhdf, as defined by the leading charged particle (PTmax) and the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV/c and |h| < 2. The data are uncorrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW after detector simulation (216,215 events in the plot). Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  25. PYTHIA Tune DW CMS ATLAS • ATLAS preliminary data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the “transverse” charged particle density, dN/dhdf, as defined by the leading charged particle (PTmax) for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV/c and |h| < 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/dhdf, as defined by the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV/c and |h| < 2. The data are uncorrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW after detector simulation. Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  26. PYTHIA Tune DW Ratio CMS CMS • Ratio of CMS preliminary data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the “transverse” charged particle density, dN/dhdf, as defined by the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV/c and |h| < 2. The data are uncorrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW after detector simulation. • CMS preliminary data at 900 GeV and 7 TeV on the “transverse” charged particle density, dN/dhdf, as defined by the leading charged particle jet (chgjet#1) for charged particles with pT > 0.5 GeV/c and |h| < 2. The data are uncorrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW after detector simulation. Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  27. PYTHIA Tune DW How well did we do at predicting the “underlying event” at 900 GeV and 7 TeV? Tune DW 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! Tune DW Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  28. PYTHIA Tune DW How well did we do at predicting the “underlying event” at 900 GeV and 7 TeV? Tune DW 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! Tune DW Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  29. PARP(82) PARP(90) Color Diffraction Connections How Universal are the Tunes? • Do we need a separate tune for each center-of-mass energy? 900 GeV, 1.96 TeV, 7 TeV, etc. PYTHIA Tune DW did a nice (although not perfect) job predicting the LHC Jet Production and Drell-Yan UE data. I am still hoping for a single tune that will describe all energies! • Do we need a separate tune for eachhard QCD subprocess? Jet Production, Drell-Yan Production, etc. The same tune can describe both Jet Production and Drell-Yan! • Do we need separate tunes for “Min-Bias” (MB) and the “underlying event” (UE) in a hard scattering process? PHTHIA Tune Z1 does fairly well at both the UE and MB, but you cannot expect such a naïve approach to be perfect! Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  30. “Hard Scattering” Component QCD Monte-Carlo Models:Lepton-Pair Production • Start with the perturbative Drell-Yan muon pair production and add initial-state gluon radiation (in the leading log approximation or modified leading log approximation). “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-state radiation. Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  31. Charged Particle Density New Large increase in the UE in going from 1.96 TeV to 7 TeV as predicted by PYTHIA Tune DW! • CDF data at 1.96 TeV on the density of charged particles, dN/dhdf, with pT > 0.5 GeV/c and |h| < 1 for Drell-Yan production as a function of PT(Z) for the “toward”, “away”, and “transverse” regions compared with PYTHIA Tune DW. CMS CDF: Proton-Antiproton Collisions at 1.96 GeV Lepton Cuts: pT > 20 GeV |h| < 1.0 Mass Cut: 70 < M(lepton-pair) < 110 GeV Charged Particles: pT > 0.5 GeV/c |h| < 1.0 CMS: Proton-Proton Collisions at 7 GeV Lepton Cuts: pT > 20 GeV |h| < 2.4 Mass Cut: 60 < M(lepton-pair) < 120 GeV Charged Particles: pT > 0.5 GeV/c |h| < 2.0 • CMS data at 7 TeV on the density of charged particles, dN/dhdf, with pT > 0.5 GeV/c and |h| < 2 for Drell-Yan production as a function of PT(Z) for the “toward”, “away”, and “transverse” regions compared with PYTHIA Tune DW. Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  32. PYTHIA Tune DW Overall PYTHIA Tune DW is in amazingly good agreement with the Tevatron Jet production and Drell-Yan data and did a very good job in predicting the LHC Jet production and Drell-Yan data! (although not perfect) CMS Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

  33. Optional Homework • Run PYTHIA Z-Boson Production at 7 TeV: MSEL=11, CKIN(1)=70.0, CKIN(2)=110.0 • Run with two values of the MPI cut-off pT0 = PARP(82): 1.5 GeV/c and 3.0 GeV/c. • Look at the overall number of outgoing stable particles and study how this depends on the MPI cut-off pT0. Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS

More Related