Theory of Proton-Proton

Collisions

James Stirling
IPPP, Durham University
 references
“QCD and Collider Physics”

RK Ellis, WJ Stirling, BR Webber

Cambridge University Press (1996)

also

“Handbook of Perturbative QCD”

G Sterman et al (CTEQ Collaboration)

www.phys.psu.edu/~cteq/

SSI 2006 2
 … and
“Hard Interactions of
Quarks and Gluons: a
Primer for LHC Physics ”

JM Campbell, JW Huston, WJ
Stirling (CSH)

www.pa.msu.edu/~huston/semi
nars/Main.pdf

to appear in Rep. Prog. Phys.

SSI 2006 3
 past, present and future proton/antiproton
colliders…
Tevatron (1987→)
Fermilab
proton-antiproton collisions
√S = 1.8, 1.96 TeV

-
SppS (1981 → 1990)
CERN
proton-antiproton
collisions LHC (2007 → )
√S = 540, 630 GeV CERN
proton-proton and
heavy ion collisions
√S = 14 TeV

SSI 2006 4
 discoveries
c b W,Z t H, SUSY?

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Higgs discovery
at LHC

SUSY discovery
at LHC
 What can we calculate?

Scattering processes at high energy

hadron colliders can be classified as
either HARD or SOFT

Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) is

the underlying theory for all such
processes, but the approach (and the
level of understanding) is very different
for the two cases

For HARD processes, e.g. W or high-

ET jet production, the rates and event
properties can be predicted with some
precision using perturbation theory

For SOFT processes, e.g. the total

cross section or diffractive processes,
the rates and properties are dominated
by non-perturbative QCD effects, which
are much less well understood
SSI 2006 6
 Outline
• Basics: QCD, partons, pdfs
– basic parton model ideas for DIS
– scaling violation & DGLAP
– parton distribution functions
• Application to hadron colliders
– hard scattering & basic kinematics
– the Drell Yan process in the parton model
– order αS corrections to DY, singularities, factorisation
– examples of other hard processes and their phenomenology
– parton luminosity functions
– uncertainties in the calculations
• Beyond fixed-order inclusive cross sections
– Sudakov logs and resummation
– parton showering models (basic concepts only!)
– the role of non-perturbative contributions: intrinsic kT,
– underlying event/minimum bias contributions
– theoretical frontiers: exclusive production of Higgs
 Basics of QCD

gluon gluon αS(μ) non-perturbative

gS Taij gS fabc
1

quark quark gluon gluon perturbative

αS = gS2/4π 0
μ (GeV)
• renormalisation of the coupling

• colour matrix algebra

 Asymptotic Freedom

“What this year's Laureates

discovered was something that, at
first sight, seemed completely
contradictory. The interpretation of
their mathematical result was that the
closer the quarks are to each other,
the weaker is the 'colour charge'.
When the quarks are really close to
each other, the force is so weak that
they behave almost as free particles.
This phenomenon is called
‘asymptotic freedom’. The converse
is true when the quarks move apart:
the force becomes stronger when the
distance increases.”

αS(r)

SSI 2006 1/r 9

 deep inelastic scattering and the
parton model
electron • variables
qμ Q2 = –q2 (resolution)
pμ
X x = Q2 /2p·q (inelasticity)
proton
1.2
2 2
Q (GeV )

• structure functions 1.0

1.5
3.0
5.0
0.8 8.0

dσ/dxdQ2 ∝ α2 Q-4 (x,Q2)

11.0
F2 F2(x,Q )
2
0.6
8.75
24.5

• (Bjorken) scaling 0.4

230
80
800
8000

F2(x,Q2) → F2(x) (SLAC, ~1970) 0.2

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Bjorken 1968 SSI 2006 10

 the parton model (Feynman 1969)
• photon scatters incoherently off massless, infinite
momentum
pointlike, spin-1/2 quarks frame

• probability that a quark carries fraction ξ of parent

proton’s momentum is q(ξ), (0< ξ < 1)
∑ ∫ dξ ∑
1
F2 ( x) = eq2 ξ q(ξ ) δ ( x − ξ ) = eq2 x q ( x)
0
q ,q q ,q

4 1 1
= x u ( x) + x d ( x) + x s ( x) + ...
9 9 9

• the functions u(x), d(x), s(x), … are called parton

distribution functions (pdfs) - they encode
information about the proton’s deep structure
SSI 2006 11
 extracting pdfs from experiment
• different beams
(e,μ,ν,…) & targets
(H,D,Fe,…) measure 4 1 1
F2ep = (u + u ) + ( d + d ) + ( s + s) + ...
different combinations of 9 9 9
quark pdfs 1 4 1
F2en = (u + u ) + (d + d ) + ( s + s ) + ...
• thus the individual q(x)
F2νp
9
[
9
= 2 d + s + u + ... ]
9
can be extracted from a
set of structure function F2νn = 2 [u + d + s + ...]

•
measurements
gluon not measured 5 νN
s = s = F2 − 3F2eN
directly, but carries 6
about 1/2 the proton’s
momentum ∑ ∫ dx x (q( x) + q( x)) = 0.55
1

q 0

SSI 2006 12
35 years of Deep Inelastic Scattering
1.2
2 2
Q (GeV )
1.0
1.5
3.0
5.0
0.8 8.0
11.0
8.75
F2(x,Q )
2

0.6 24.5
230
80
0.4
800
8000
0.2

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

SSI 2006 13
(MRST) parton distributions in the proton
1.2
MRST2001 up
1.0 2
Q = 10 GeV
2 down
antiup
antidown
0.8
strange
charm
x f(x,Q )
2

0.6 gluon

0.4

0.2

0.0
-3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10
x Martin, Roberts, S, Thorne
SSI 2006 14
HERA

e+, e− (28 GeV) p (920 GeV)

 a deep inelastic scattering event at HERA

quark

electron proton
35 years of Deep Inelastic Scattering
1.2
2 2
Q (GeV )
1.0
1.5
3.0
5.0
0.8 8.0
11.0
8.75
F2(x,Q )
2

0.6 24.5
230
80
0.4
800
8000
0.2

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

SSI 2006 17
 scaling violations and QCD
The structure function data exhibit systematic violations
of Bjorken scaling:
6

F2 Q2 > Q1

2
Q1
quarks emit gluons!
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

SSI 2006 18
 + + + +…

where the logarithm comes from

(‘collinear singularity’) and

then convolute with a ‘bare’ quark distribution in the proton:

q0(x)

p xp
 next, factorise the collinear divergence into a ‘renormalised’
quark distribution, by introducing the factorisation scale μ2 :

then finite, by construction

note arbitrariness of ‘factorisation scheme dependence’

_
we can choose C such that Cq= 0, the DIS scheme,__ or use dimensional
regularisation and remove the poles at N=4, the MS scheme, with Cq ≠ 0

q(x,μ2) is not calculable in perturbation theory,* but its scale (μ2)

dependence is: Dokshitzer
Gribov
Lipatov
Altarelli
Parisi
*lattice QCD?
note that we are free to choose μ2 = Q2 in which case

coefficient function,
see QCD book

… and thus the scaling violations of the structure function

follow those of q(x,Q2) predicted by the DGLAP equation:
6

4 Q2 > Q1
q
F2

2
Q1
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

the rate of change of F2 is proportional to αS

(DGLAP), hence structure function data can be
used to measure the strong coupling!
however, we must also include
the gluon contribution

coefficient functions
- see QCD book

… and with additional terms in the DGLAP equations

note that at small (large) x, the splitting

functions
gluon (quark) contribution
dominates the evolution of the
quark distributions, and therefore
of F2
DGLAP evolution: physical picture
Altarelli, Parisi (1977)

• a fast-moving quark loses momentum by emitting a gluon:

ξp
p kT

• … with phase space kT2 < O(Q2 ), hence

• similarly for other splittings

• the combination of all such probabilistic splittings correctly

generates the leading-logarithm approximation to the all-
orders in pQCD solution of the DGLAP equations
basis of parton
shower Monte Carlos!
 parton distribution functions
• the bulk of the information on pdfs comes from fitting DIS
structure function data, although hadron-hadron collisions
data also provide important constraints (see later)
• pdfs are useful in two ways:
– they are essential for predicting hadron collider cross sections, e.g.

p H p
– they give us detailed information on the quark flavour content of the
nucleon
• no need to solve the DGLAP equations each time a pdf is
needed; high-precision approximations obtained from
‘global fits’ are available ‘off the shelf”, e.g.

input | output
 how pdfs are obtained
• choose a factorisation scheme (e.g. MSbar), an order in
perturbation theory (see below, e.g. LO, NLO, NNLO)
and a ‘starting scale’ Q0 where pQCD applies (e.g. 1-2
GeV)
• parametrise the quark and gluon distributions at Q0,, e.g.

• solve DGLAP equations to obtain the pdfs at any x and

scale Q > Q0 ; fit data for parameters {Ai,ai, …αS}
• approximate the exact solutions (e.g. interpolation grids,
expansions in polynomials etc) for ease of use

SSI 2006 25
 pdfs from global fits - summary
Formalism
LO, NLO or NNLO DGLAP
MSbar factorisation
Q02 fi (x,Q2) ± δ fi (x,Q2)
functional form @ Q02
sea quark (a)symmetry
αS(MZ )
etc.

Data
DIS (SLAC, BCDMS, NMC, E665, Who?
CCFR, H1, ZEUS, … ) CTEQ, MRST, Alekhin,
Drell-Yan (E605, E772, E866, …) H1, ZEUS, …
High ET jets (CDF, D0)
W rapidity asymmetry (CDF,D0)
νN dimuon (CCFR, NuTeV)
etc. http://durpdg.dur.ac.uk/hepdata/pdf.html

SSI 2006 26
(MRST) parton distributions in the proton
1.2
MRST2001 up
1.0 2
Q = 10 GeV
2 down
antiup
antidown
0.8
strange
charm
x f(x,Q )
2

0.6 gluon

0.4

0.2

0.0
-3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10
x Martin, Roberts, S, Thorne
SSI 2006 27
 where to find parton distributions

HEPDATA pdf website

http://durpdg.dur.ac.uk/
hepdata/pdf.html

• access to code for

MRST, CTEQ etc

• online pdf plotting

SSI 2006 28
SSI 2006 29
 beyond lowest order in pQCD
going to higher orders in
pQCD is straightforward in
principle, since the above
structure for F2 and for
DGLAP generalises in a
straightforward way:

1972-77 1977-80 2004

see above see book see next slide!

The calculation of the complete set of P(2) splitting functions by Moch,

Vermaseren and Vogt (hep-ph/0403192,0404111) completes the calculational
tools for a consistent NNLO pQCD treatment of Tevatron & LHC hard-
scattering cross sections!
 Moch, Vermaseren and Vogt,
hep-ph/0403192, hep-ph/0404111

7 pages
later…

SSI 2006 31
• and for the structure functions…

… where up to and including the O(αS3) coefficient

functions are known

• terminology:
– LO: P(0)
– NLO: P(0,1) and C(1)
– NNLO: P(0,1,2) and C(1,2)

• the more pQCD orders are included, the weaker the

dependence on the (unphysical) factorisation scale, μF2
– and also the (unphysical) renormalisation scale, μR2 ; note above has μR2 = Q2
 What can we calculate?

Scattering processes at high energy

hadron colliders can be classified as
either HARD or SOFT

Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) is

the underlying theory for all such
processes, but the approach (and the
level of understanding) is very different
for the two cases

For HARD processes, e.g. W or high-

ET jet production, the rates and event
properties can be predicted with some
precision using perturbation theory

For SOFT processes, e.g. the total

cross section or diffractive processes,
the rates and properties are dominated
by non-perturbative QCD effects, which
are much less well understood
SSI 2006 33
 hard scattering in hadron-hadron collisions

p
higher-order pQCD corrections;
accompanying radiation, jets
parton
distribution X = W, Z, top, jets,
functions SUSY, H, …

p underlying event

for inclusive production, the basic calculational framework is provided by

the QCD FACTORISATION THEOREM:
 kinematics

proton proton
M
x1P x2P

• collision energy:

• parton momenta:

• invariant mass:

• rapidity:
 proton proton
M
x1P x2P
Tevatron parton kinematics LHC parton kinematics
9 9
10 10
x1,2 = (M/1.96 TeV) exp(±y) x1,2 = (M/14 TeV) exp(±y)
10
8
Q=M 10
8
Q=M M = 10 TeV

7 7
10 10

6
10 M = 1 TeV 10
6
M = 1 TeV

5 5
10 10
Q (GeV )

Q (GeV )
2

2
4
M = 100 GeV M = 100 GeV
DGLAP evolution
4
10 10
2

2
3 3
10 10
y= 4 2 0 2 4 y= 6 4 2 0 2 4 6
2
10 M = 10 GeV 10
2

M = 10 GeV
fixed fixed
10
1
HERA 10
1
HERA
target target
0 0
10 10
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
x x
 early history: the Drell-Yan process

μ+
quark
γ*
τ = Mμμ2/s
antiquark
μ-

“The full range of processes of the type A + B → (nowadays) … and to study the
μ+μ- + X with incident p,π, K, γ etc affords the scattering of quarks and gluons,
interesting possibility of comparing their parton and how such scattering
and antiparton structures” (Drell and Yan, 1970) creates new particles

SSI 2006 37
 jets! (1981)

jet
e.g. two gluons
antiproton scattering at
wide angle
proton
SSI 2006 jet 38
 factorisation
• the factorisation of ‘hard scattering’ cross sections into products of parton
distributions was experimentally confirmed and theoretically plausible
• however, it was not at all obvious in QCD (i.e. with quark–gluon
interactions included)

μ+
γ* Log singularities
from soft and
collinear gluon
μ- emissions

• in QCD, for any hard, inclusive process, the soft, nonperturbative structure
of the proton can be factored out & confined to universal measurable parton
distribution functions fa(x,μF2) Collins, Soper, Sterman (1982-5)

and evolution of fa(x,μF2) in factorisation scale calculable using the DGLAP

equations, as we have seen earlier

SSI 2006 39
 Drell-Yan in more detail
μ+
quark
γ*
antiquark
μ-

scaling!

also

beyond leading order …

+ + + + + +…
Note:
• collinear divergences, with same coefficients of logs as in DIS: P(x)
• finite correction: fq(x)
• introduce a factorisation scale, as before:

• then fold the parton-level cross section with q0(x1) and q0(x2), and with
the same ‘renormalised’ distributions as before*, we obtain

finite
Altarelli et al
• the standard scale choice is μ=M
Kubar et al
* 1978-80
Note:
• the full calculation at O(αS) also includes +
• which gives rise to αS q * g terms in the cross section (see QCD book)

• the (finite) correction is sometimes called the ‘K-factor’, it is generally

large and positive

• … and is factorisation scheme/scale dependent (to compensate the

scheme dependence of the pdfs)

using high-precision Drell-

Yan data to constrain the
sea-quark pdfs

Note: MRST
Anastasiou, Dixon, Melnikov, Petriello (hep-ph/0306192)

SSI 2006 43
 the asymmetric sea
• the sea presumably The ratio of Drell-Yan cross sections for
arises when ‘primordial‘ pp,pn → μ+μ- + X provides a measure of
the difference between the u and d sea
valence quarks emit gluons quark distributions
which in turn split into quark-
antiquark pairs, with 2.00
MRST2001
suppressed splitting into 1.75
2 2
Q = 10 GeV
heavier quark pairs 1.50

•
antidown / antiup
so we naively expect 1.25

1.00

0.75
• why such a big d-u
0.50
asymmetry? meson cloud,
Pauli exclusion, …? 0.25

• and is ?
0.00
10
-2 -1
10
0
10
x
W, Z cross sections: Tevatron and LHC
parton level
cross sections
(narrow width
approximation)
3.6 + pQCD corrections to NNLO, EW to NLO
3.4 W Tevatron Z(x10)
3.2 (Run 2)
3.0
(nb)

2.8
NNLO
2.6 NLO
2.4 CDF(e, μ) D0(e, μ)
σ . Bl

2.2 CDF(e, μ) D0(e, μ) NNLO QCD

2.0
LO
1.8
partons: MRST2004
1.6
24
23 W LHC Z(x10)
22
21
NLO
20 NNLO
σ . Bl (nb)

19
18
17 LO
16
15
partons: MRST2004
14
 Anastasiou, Dixon,
Melnikov, Petriello

Z rapidity distribution
at the Tevatron

SSI 2006 46
 Drell-Yan as a probe of new physics
Large Extra Dimension
models have new
resonances which could
contribute to Drell-Yan

μ+
G

μ-

⇒ need to understand the SM

contribution to high precision!

SSI 2006 47
Summary: the QCD factorization theorem for hard-
scattering (short-distance) inclusive processes

where X=W, Z, H, high-ET jets, SUSY sparticles, black hole, …, and Q

is the ‘hard scale’ (e.g. = MX), usually μF = μR = Q, and ^σ is known …

• to some fixed order in pQCD, e.g. high-ET jets

^σ
• or in some leading logarithm approximation
(LL, NLL, …) to all orders via resummation
SSI 2006 48
High-ET jet production
CDF

see QCD book

• where ab→cd represents all quark &
gluon 2→2 scattering processes

jet

jet

• NLO pQCD corrections also known

 jets at NNLO
The NNLO coefficient C is not
yet known, the curves show
guesses C=0 (solid), C=±B2/A
(dashed) → the scale
dependence and hence δ σth
is significantly reduced
Tevatron jet inclusive cross section at ET = 100 GeV

Other advantages of NNLO:

• better matching of partons

⇔hadrons
• reduced power corrections
• better description of final
state kinematics (e.g.
Glover
transverse momentum)

SSI 2006 50
 jets at NNLO contd.
• 2 loop, 2 parton final state

• | 1 loop |2, 2 parton final state

• 1 loop, 3 parton final states

or 2 +1 final state
soft, collinear
• tree, 4 parton final states
or 3 + 1 parton final states
or 2 + 2 parton final state

⇒ rapid progress in recent years [many authors]

• many 2→2 scattering processes with up to one off-shell leg now calculated
at two loops
• … to be combined with the tree-level 2→4, the one-loop 2→3 and the self-
interference of the one-loop 2→2 to yield physical NNLO cross sections
• complete results expected ‘soon’
SSI 2006 51
 g
Higgs production t H

• the HO pQCD corrections

to σ(gg→H) are large (more
diagrams, more colour)

Djouadi & Ferrag

SSI 2006 52
 top quark production

NLO known, but awaits full NNLO

pQCD calculation; NNLO & NnLL
“soft+virtual” approximations exist

SSI 2006 53
 parton luminosity functions
• a quick and easy way to assess the mass and collider
energy dependence of production cross sections

a
s M
b

• i.e. all the mass and energy dependence is contained

in the X-independent parton luminosity function in [ ]
• useful combinations are
• and also useful for assessing the uncertainty on cross
sections due to uncertainties in the pdfs (see later)
SSI 2006 54
 LHC / Tevatron

LHC

Tevatron

see CHS for more

SSI 2006 55
future hadron colliders: energy vs luminosity?
recall parton-parton luminosity:
8
10
parton luminosity: gg → X

[pb]
7
10

10
6 40 TeV

gluon-gluon luminosity
5
10 14 TeV
so that
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
with τ = MX2/s 0
10
-1
10
2 3 4
for MX > O(1 TeV), energy × 3 is 10 10 10
better than luminosity × 10 MX [GeV]
(everything else assumed equal!)

SSI 2006 56
what limits the precision of the predictions?
3.6
3.4 W Tevatron Z(x10)
(Run 2)

• the order of the

3.2
3.0

(nb)
2.8

perturbative expansion
NNLO
2.6 NLO

• the uncertainty in the

2.4

σ . Bl
CDF D0(e) D0(μ)
2.2 CDF D0(e) D0(μ)
2.0
LO

input parton distribution 1.8

1.6
±2% total error
(MRST 2002)
functions 24
W Z(x10)
• example: σ(Z) @ LHC
23 LHC
22
21
NLO

δσpdf ≈ ±3%, δσpt ≈ ± 2% 20

σ . Bl (nb)
NNLO
19

δσtheory ≈ ± 4%
18

→ 17
16
LO

whereas for gg→H : 15

14
±4% total error
(MRST 2002)

δσpdf << δσpt partons: MRST2002

NNLO evolution: van Neerven, Vogt approximation to Vermaseren et al. moments
NNLO W,Z corrections: van Neerven et al. with Harlander, Kilgore corrections

SSI 2006 57
 pdf uncertainties
• MRST, CTEQ, Alekhin, … also produce ‘pdfs
with errors’
• typically, 30-40 ‘error’ sets based on a ‘best fit’
set to reflect ±1σ variation of all the parameters
{Ai,ai,…,αS} inherent in the fit
• these reflect the uncertainties on the data used
in the global fit (e.g. δF2 ≈ ±3% → δu ≈ ±3%)
• however, there are also systematic pdf
uncertainties reflecting theoretical
assumptions/prejudices in the way the global fit
is set up and performed

SSI 2006 58
uncertainty in gluon distribution (CTEQ)

CTEQ6.1E: 1 + 40 error sets

MRST2001E: 1 + 30 error sets
SSI 2006 59
 high-x gluon from high ET jets data

• both MRST and

CTEQ use Tevatron
jets data to determine
the gluon pdf at large x

• the errors on the

gluon therefore reflect
the measured cross
section uncertainties

SSI 2006 60
 why do ‘best fit’ pdfs and errors differ?
• different data sets in fit
– different subselection of data LHC σNLO(W) (nb)
– different treatment of exp. sys. errors
MRST2002 204 ± 4 (expt)
CTEQ6 205 ± 8 (expt)
• different choice of Alekhin02 215 ± 6 (tot)
– tolerance to define ± δ fi
(MRST: Δχ2=50, CTEQ: Δχ2=100, Alekhin: Δχ2=1)
– factorisation/renormalisation scheme/scale similar partons different Δχ2
– Q02 different partons
– parametric form Axa(1-x)b[..] etc
– αS
– treatment of heavy flavours
– theoretical assumptions about x→0,1 behaviour
– theoretical assumptions about sea flavour symmetry
– evolution and cross section codes (removable differences!)

SSI 2006 61
 Djouadi & Ferrag, hep-ph/0310209

SSI 2006 62
 Note: CTEQ gluon ‘more
or less’ consistent with
MRST gluon

SSI 2006 63
• MRST: Q02 = 1 GeV2, Qcut2 =
2 GeV2

xg = Axa(1–x)b(1+Cx0.5+Dx)
– Exc(1-x)d

• CTEQ6: Q02 = 1.69 GeV2,

Qcut2 = 4 GeV2

xg = Axa(1–x)becx(1+Cx)d

SSI 2006 64
 extrapolation errors
8
7
6
5
4
3
f(x) 2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
0.01 0.1 1
x

theoretical insight/guess: f ~ A x as x → 0
theoretical insight/guess: f ~ ± A x–0.5 as x → 0

SSI 2006 65
 tensions within the global fit
2.00

1.75
systematic error
1.50

1.25 2
systematic error χ
1.00
θ
Experiment A
0.75

0.50

0.25 Experiment B
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

measurement # θ

• with dataset A in fit, Δχ2=1 ; with A and B in fit, Δχ2=?

• ‘tensions’ between data sets arise, for example,

– between DIS data sets (e.g. μH and νN data)
– when jet and Drell-Yan data are combined with DIS data
SSI 2006 66
CTEQ αS(MZ) values from global analysis with Δχ2 = 1, 100

SSI 2006 67
 beyond perturbation theory
non-perturbative effects arise in many different ways
• emission of gluons with kT < Q0 off ‘active’ partons
• soft exchanges between partons of the same or different beam
particles
manifestations include…
• hard scattering occurs at net non-zero transverse momentum
• ‘underlying event’ additional hadronic energy

precision phenomenology requires a

quantitative understanding of these effects!
 ‘intrinsic’ transverse momentum
simple parton model assumes partons
have zero transverse momentum

… but data shows that the DY lepton

pair is produced with non-zero <pT>

+
the perturbative tail is even more
apparent in W, Z production at
the Tevatron, and can be well
accounted for by the 2→2
scattering processes:

… with known NLO pQCD corrections. Note that the pT distribution

diverges as pT→0 due to soft gluon emission:

the O(αS) virtual gluon correction contributes at pT=0, in such a way as

to make the integrated distribution finite

intrinsic kT can also be included, by convoluting with the pQCD contribution

 resummation
• when pT << M , the pQCD series contains large logarithms ln(M2/pT2)
at each order:

which spoils the convergence of the series when

• fortunately, these logarithms can be resummed to all orders in

pQCD, to generate a Sudakov form factor:

… which regulates the LO singularity at pT = 0

• the effect of the form factor is (just about) visible in the

(Tevatron) data
SSI 2006 71
resummation contd. Z

Kulesza
Sterman

• theoretical refinements
Vogelsang

include the addition of sub-

leading logarithms (e.g. NNLL)
and nonperturbative qT (GeV)

contributions, and merging the

resummed contributions with
the fixed order (e.g. NLO)
contributions appropriate for
large pT

• the resummation formalism

is also valid for Higgs
production at LHC via gg→H

SSI 2006 72
• comparison of
resummed / fixed-order
calculations for Higgs (MH
= 125 GeV) pT distribution
at LHC

Balazs et al, hep-ph/0403052

• differences due mainly

to different NnLO and
NnLL contributions
included

• Tevatron dσ(Z)/dpT
provides good test of
calculations

SSI 2006 73
full event simulation at hadron colliders
• it is important (designing detectors,
interpreting events, etc.) to have a good
understanding of all features of the collisions
– not just the ‘hard scattering’ part
• this is very difficult because our
understanding of the non-perturbative part of
QCD is still quite primitive
• at present, therefore, we have to resort to
models (PYTHIA, HERWIG, …) …

SSI 2006 74
 Monte Carlo Event Generators
• programs that simulates particle physics events with the
same probability as they occur in nature
• widely used for signal and background estimates
• the main programs in current use are PYTHIA and HERWIG
• the simulation comprises different phases:
– start by simulating a hard scattering process – the fundamental
interaction (usually a 2→2 process but could be more complicated
for particular signal/background processes)
– this is followed by the simulation of (soft and collinear) QCD
radiation using a parton shower algorithm
– non-perturbative models are then used to simulate the hadronization
of the quarks and gluons into the observed hadrons and the
underlying event

SSI 2006 75
 a Monte Carlo event
Hadrons
p, p̄
Hard Perturbative scattering:

ns o
dr
Ha
Usually calculated at leading order
in QCD, electroweakWtheory
− or
some BSM model.
Modelling of the

Hadrons
soft underlying
event q̄ t̄ b̄
Multiple perturbative
Hadrons

Hadrons

Hadrons
scattering.
q t

Hadrons
b
W+
Perturbativeron
s Decays
Had
calculated
Initial andinFinal
QCD,State
EW orparton showers resum the
Finally the unstable hadrons are
some
largeBSM
Non-perturbative QCD theory.
logs. of the
modelling
p, p̄
decayed. ν
hadronization process. +

from Peter Richardson (HERWIG)

(hadron collider) processes in HERWIG

from Peter Richardson

 however …
• the tuning of the nonperturbative parts of the models is
performed a single collider energy (or limited range of
energies) – can we trust the extrapolation to LHC?!
• in general the event generators only use leading order
matrix elements and therefore the normalisation is
uncertain
• this can be overcome by renormalising to known NLO
etc results or by incorporating next-to-leading order
matrix elements (real + virtual emissions) – see below
• only soft and collinear emission is accounted for in the
parton shower, therefore the emission of additional hard,
high ET jets is generally significantly underestimated
• for this reason, it is possible that many of the previous
LHC studies of new physics signals have significantly
underestimated the Standard Model backgrounds

SSI 2006 78
p, p̄

t̄

p, p̄
 interfacing NnLO and parton showers

+
Benefits of both:

NnLO correct overall rate, hard scattering kinematics, reduced scale dep.
PS complete event picture, correct treatment of collinear logs to all orders

Example: MC@NLO
Frixione, Webber, Nason,
www.hep.phy.cam.ac.uk/theory/webber/MCatNLO/

processes included so far …

pp → WW,WZ,ZZ,bb,tt,H0,W,Z/γ

pT distribution of tt at Tevatron
and finally …

SSI 2006 81
central exclusive diffractive physics
compare …

μ μ
• p+p →H+X
– the rate (σparton, pdfs, αS)
– the kinematic distribtns. (dσ/dydpT)
μ μ
– the environment (jets, underlying
event, backgrounds, …)
with …
b • p+p →p+H+p
– a real challenge for theory (pQCD
b + npQCD) and experiment
(tagging forward protons,
triggering, …)

SSI 2006 82
‘rapidity gap’ collision events
EM E

ICD/MG E

FH E
typical jet event
CH E

hard single diffraction

hard double pomeron

hard color
singlet exchange
SSI 2006 83
forward proton tagging
p+p→p ⊕ X ⊕ p
at LHC: the physics case
• all objects produced this way must be in a 0++ state → spin-parity
filter/analyser
• with a mass resolution of ~O(1 GeV) from the proton tagging, the
Standard Model H → bb decay mode opens up, with S/B > 1
• H → WW(*) also looks very promising
e.g.
e.g. SM 130 GeV,
mA =Higgs → bb tan β = 50
ΔM -1
ΔM = =1
1 GeV,
GeV, LL== 30
30 fb
fb-1
• in certain regions of MSSM parameter S B
S B
space, S/B > 20, and double proton m = 124.4
mhh = 120 GeVGeV 71
11 3
4
mH = 135.5 GeV 124 2
tagging is THE discovery channel
mA = 130 GeV 1 2

• in other regions of MSSM parameter space, explicit CP violation in

the Higgs sector shows up as an azimuthal asymmetry in the tagged
protons → direct probe of CP structure of Higgs sector at LHC
• any exotic 0++ state, which couples strongly to glue, is a real
possibility: radions, gluinoballs, …
Khoze Martin Ryskin
 Khoze
the challenges … Martin
theory Ryskin
Kaidalov
WJS
de Roeck
need to calculate production Cox
amplitude and gap Survival Factor: Forshaw
Monk
X mix of pQCD and npQCD ⇒ Pilkington
significant uncertainties Helsinki

gap survival
group

Saclay group

…
experiment many! (forward proton/antiproton tagging,
pile-up, low event rate, triggering, …)

important checks from Tevatron

for X= dijets, γγ, quarkonia, …

SSI 2006 85
 summary
• thanks to > 30 years theoretical studies, supported by
experimental measurements, we now know how to calculate
(an important class of) proton-proton collider event rates
reliably and with a high precision

• the key ingredients are the factorisation theorem and the

universal parton distribution functions

• such calculations underpin searches (at the Tevatron and the

LHC) for Higgs, SUSY, etc

• …but much work still needs to be done, in particular

– calculating more and more NNLO pQCD corrections (and some
missing NLO ones too) – see Lance Dixon’s lectures
– further refining the pdfs, and understanding their uncertainties
– understanding the detailed event structure, which is outside the
domain of pQCD and is currently simply modelled
– extending the calculations to new types of New Physics
production processes, e.g. exclusive/diffractive production

SSI 2006 86