Pino and Power Corrections: from LEP to LHC

Pino and Power Corrections: from LEP to LHC Gavin Salam CERN, Princeton University & LPTHE/CNRS (Paris) Pino 2012 A special meeting in honour of Giuseppe Marchesini, on the occasion of his 70th birthday. Palazzone della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Cortona, Italy, 29 May 2012

Gavin Salam (CERN/Princeton/CNRS) Pino and Power Corrections Pino2012 May 29 2012 2 / 15 Yuri told you briefly about the Wise Dispersive Method (WDM): trying to quantify non-perturbative effects in QCD, using IR properties of perturbation theory. This talk: some of the research done when I was postdoc with Pino from 1996 1999, to figure out if the idea worked.

Best place to check: event shapes First discussion goes back to 1964. Serious work got going in late 70s. Various proposals to measure shape of events. Most famous example is Thrust: T = max n T i p i. n T i p, i 2-jet event: T 1 3-jet event: T 2/3 There exist many other measures of aspects of the shape: Thrust-Major, C-parameter, broadening, heavy-jet mass, jet-resolution parameters,... Gavin Salam (CERN/Princeton/CNRS) Pino and Power Corrections Pino2012 May 29 2012 3 / 15

Clear need for contributions beyond perturbation theory Gavin Salam (CERN/Princeton/CNRS) Pino and Power Corrections Pino2012 May 29 2012 4 / 15 1 T 1 T v. e + e centre of mass energy Q 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 NLO + 1/Q NLO LO 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100 DELPHI ALEPH OPAL L3 SLD TOPAZ TASSO PLUTO CELLO MK II HRS AMY JADE Q (GeV) Schematic picture: 1 T Aα s }{{} LO + Bα 2 s }{{} + c T α 0 Q NLO several papers, notably Dokshitzer, Marchesini & Webber 95 α 0 is non-perturbative but should be universal c T can be predicted through a calculation using a single massive-gluon emission

Gavin Salam (CERN/Princeton/CNRS) Pino and Power Corrections Pino2012 May 29 2012 5 / 15 You could legitimately ask the question: Given the complexity of real hadronic events, could dominant non-perturbative physics truly be determined from just a single-gluon calculation?

Gavin Salam (CERN/Princeton/CNRS) Pino and Power Corrections Pino2012 May 29 2012 5 / 15 0.7 ρ You could legitimately ask the question: Given the complexity of real hadronic events, could dominant non-perturbative physics truly be determined from just a single-gluon calculation? α 0 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 T (DW) ρ h C T (BB) B T B W 1-σ contours "Naive" massive gluon approach 0.110 0.120 0.130 α s (M Z ) The data clearly say something is wrong with this assumption initially, most clearly pointed out by the JADE collaboration

A first key result with Pino (+ Yuri & A. Lucenti) Gavin Salam (CERN/Princeton/CNRS) Pino and Power Corrections Pino2012 May 29 2012 6 / 15 Idea of wise dispersive method : probe non-perturbative effects by integrating over virtuality of an infrared gluon. But such a massive gluon will necessarily decay to two gluons or q q that go in different directions. issue raised: Nason & Seymour 95 So: explicitly include the calculation of that splitting. A very simple result: for thrust, non-perturbative correction simply gets rescaled by a numerical Milan factor M 1.49 Matrix elements from Berends and Giele 88 + Dokshitzer, Marchesini & Oriani 92 M first calculated for thrust: Dokshitzer, Lucenti, Marchesini & GPS 97 n f piece for σ L : Beneke, Braun & Magnea 97 calculation fixed: Dasgupta, Magnea & Smye 99

2nd key observation with Pino et al. Gavin Salam (CERN/Princeton/CNRS) Pino and Power Corrections Pino2012 May 29 2012 7 / 15 There are two classes of event shape 1) those that are a linear combination of contributions from individual emissions i = 1...n = + ( e.g. 1 T n ) p ti e η i i=1 2) those that are non-linear, e.g. B W, B T, ρ h for the latter, the non-perturbative correction cannot possibly be deduced just from a one-gluon calculation (2-gluon M diverges)

2nd key observation with Pino et al. Gavin Salam (CERN/Princeton/CNRS) Pino and Power Corrections Pino2012 May 29 2012 7 / 15 There are two classes of event shape 1) those that are a linear combination of contributions from individual emissions i = 1...n = + ( e.g. 1 T n ) p ti e η i i=1 2) those that are non-linear, e.g. B W, B T, ρ h = + for the latter, the non-perturbative correction cannot possibly be deduced just from a one-gluon calculation (2-gluon M diverges)

3rd key observation with Pino et al Gavin Salam (CERN/Princeton/CNRS) Pino and Power Corrections Pino2012 May 29 2012 8 / 15 In the presence of perturbative emissions with p t Λ QCD, then all the non-linear event shapes turn out to have an emergent linearity for non-perturbative emissions at scales Λ QCD = + non-perturbative (NP) effects can still be deduced from the effect of a single non-perturbative gluon, but its impact must be determined by averaging over perturbative configurations NP [dφ pert. ] M 2 (pert.) NP(pert.) first such observation, for ρ h : Akhoury & Zakharov 95 universality of Milan factor in e + e : Dokshitzer, Marchesini, Lucenti & GPS 98 PT and NP effects together in jet broadenings: Dokshitzer, Marchesini & GPS 98 universality of Milan factor in DIS: Dasgupta & Webber 98 moderate Λ/p t effects: Korchemsky & Tafat 00

Gavin Salam (CERN/Princeton/CNRS) Pino and Power Corrections Pino2012 May 29 2012 9 / 15 α 0 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 B T ρ T (DW) C ρ h T (BB) Original results for fits of α s and the non-perturbative parameter α s. Including all the DLMS improvements Pino et al 97-98 B W 0.2 0.1 1-σ contours "Naive" massive gluon approach 0.110 0.120 0.130 α s (M Z ) Taking care not just of gluon masses, but also hadron masses GPS & Wicke 01

Gavin Salam (CERN/Princeton/CNRS) Pino and Power Corrections Pino2012 May 29 2012 9 / 15 0.7 α 0 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 ρ h T C B T B W ρ Original results for fits of α s and the non-perturbative parameter α s. Including all the DLMS improvements Pino et al 97-98 0.2 0.1 Resummed coefficients 0.110 0.120 0.130 α s (M Z ) Taking care not just of gluon masses, but also hadron masses GPS & Wicke 01

Gavin Salam (CERN/Princeton/CNRS) Pino and Power Corrections Pino2012 May 29 2012 9 / 15 0.7 α 0 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 ρ h T ρ C B T B W Original results for fits of α s and the non-perturbative parameter α s. Including all the DLMS improvements Pino et al 97-98 0.2 0.1 p-scheme 0.110 0.120 0.130 α s (M Z ) Taking care not just of gluon masses, but also hadron masses GPS & Wicke 01

A rich field: many investigations in e + e and DIS Gavin Salam (CERN/Princeton/CNRS) Pino and Power Corrections Pino2012 May 29 2012 10 / 15 1/σ dσ/db T 10 1 OPAL 91 GeV NLO + NLL + hadronisation 0.1 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 Total Broadening (B T ) α 0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 a) average 1-T M H, M H 2 B T B W C Distributions 0.08 0.1 0.12 α S (M Z ) α 0 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 τ te Q > 30 GeV (a) C E τ ze ρ E B ze 0.11 0.115 0.12 0.125 0.13 α s 2.5 2 1.5 C F 1 Combined result SU(3) QCD SU(5) SU(4) OPAL N gg DELPHI FF OPAL 4-jet Event Shape ALEPH 4-jet Overall, many analyses in late 90s and early 00s paint a picture of general success of the simple physical idea of probing NP physics with perturbative tools. SU(2) 0.5 U(1) 3 86% CL error ellipses SU(1) 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 C A Even if there are corners where it doesn t work as well as we d like...

And today? Gavin Salam (CERN/Princeton/CNRS) Pino and Power Corrections Pino2012 May 29 2012 11 / 15 Some people had objected that combing NLO + 1/Q was inconsistent, because NNLO might easily account for all the discrepancy between NLO and data. In the past few years, thanks to epic calculations, NNLO has become available. Gehrmann-De Ridder, Gehrmann Glover & Heinrich 07 Weinzierl 09 A fit with NNLO shows clear need still for 1/Q component. Gehrmann, Jacquier & Luisoni 09 <(1-T)> > 2 <(1-T) > 3 <(1-T) > 4 <(1-T) > 5 <(1-T) 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.015 0.01 0.005 Fit with Pythia hadronization: α s = 0.1192 ± 0.0005 Fit with power corrections: α s = 0.1166 ± 0.0015 Pure NNLO prediction: α s = 0.1189 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 s (GeV) 0.025 Fit with Pythia hadronization: α s = 0.1272 ± 0.0008 Fit with power corrections: α s = 0.1202 ± 0.0018 0.02 NNLO with α s = 0.1189 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.0006 0.0004 0.0002 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 s (GeV) Fit with Pythia hadronization: α s = 0.1306 ± 0.0010 Fit with power corrections: α s = 0.1233 ± 0.0021 NNLO with α s = 0.1189 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 s (GeV) 0.0012 Fit with Pythia hadronization: α s = 0.1339 ± 0.0011 0.001 Fit with power corrections: α s = 0.1267 ± 0.0024 NNLO with α = 0.1189 0.0008 s 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.05 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 s (GeV) 0.1 0-3 10 Fit with Pythia hadronization: α s = 0.1367 ± 0.0013 Fit with power corrections: α s = 0.1294 ± 0.0027 NNLO with α s = 0.1189 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 s (GeV)

Non-perturbative effects in hadron-collider jets? Gavin Salam (CERN/Princeton/CNRS) Pino and Power Corrections Pino2012 May 29 2012 12 / 15 Could have been deduced from old work Korchemsky & Sterman 95 also Seymour 97 Main result { 0.4 GeV CF quarks p t,jet p t,parton shower R C A gluons cf. Dasgupta, Magnea & GPS 07 coefficient including M = 1.49 holds for anti-k t see Dasgupta & Delenda 09 for k t alg. only calculated example of M = 1.49

Underlying Event (UE) Gavin Salam (CERN/Princeton/CNRS) Pino and Power Corrections Pino2012 May 29 2012 13 / 15 Naive prediction (UE colour dipole between pp): { p t 0.4 GeV R2 2 CF q q dipole C A gluon dipole Monte Carlo tunes tell you: p t 5 10 GeV R2 2 This big coefficient motivated special effort to understand interplay between jet algorithm and UE: jet areas How does coefficient depend on algorithm? How does it depend on jet p t? How does it fluctuate? cf. Cacciari, GPS & Soyez 08 jet areas now used daily by the LHC experiments

1/Q corrections for hadron-collider jets v. data Gavin Salam (CERN/Princeton/CNRS) Pino and Power Corrections Pino2012 May 29 2012 14 / 15 (ATLAS jet data) / (NLO + 1/Q) s=7 TeV, CTEQ66, NLO QCD + non-pert., anti-k t, R=0.4 data/theory data/theory data/theory data/theory data/theory 0< y <0.3 1.5 1 0.5 0.3< y <0.8 1.5 1 0.5 0.8< y <1.2 1.5 1 0.5 1.2< y <2.1 NLO QCD 1.5 ATLAS 1 0.5 2.1< y <2.8 1.5 1 0.5 50 100 200 500 p t [GeV] Soyez 11

Closing remarks Gavin Salam (CERN/Princeton/CNRS) Pino and Power Corrections Pino2012 May 29 2012 15 / 15 This is just one of several fun physics topics that were pushed forwards in the late 90s with Pino in Milan. small x, resummations were others Pino wrote 15 articles with the students and postdocs then (including Banfi, Dasgupta, GPS, Smye, Zanderighi) Many of the collaborations that formed between them then have continued to this day, easily having produced another 15 articles.