1: \voffset=-2cm
2: \hoffset=-1cm
3: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
4: \usepackage{amsmath}
5: %\usepackage{amssymb}
6: \usepackage{euscript}
7: \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
8: \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
9: \usepackage{graphics}
10: \usepackage{longtable}
11: \usepackage{color}
12: \usepackage{pslatex}
13: \usepackage{subfigure}
14: %--- The epsfig.sty is necessary to manage figures in postscript!
15: %\usepackage{epsfig}
16: \usepackage{pstricks,epsfig,amssymb,axodraw}
17: %--- The cite.sty collapses multiple citation like [1,2,3,4] into [1-4]
18: \usepackage{cite}
19: \textwidth=16cm
20: \textheight=22cm
21: \begin{document}
22:
23:
24:
25:
26:
27: \def\lb{\nextline}
28:
29: \def\Order#1{{\cal O}($#1$)}
30: \def\Kuhn{K\"uhn}
31: \def\alphapi{\Bigl({\alpha\over\pi}\Bigr)}
32: \def\sovem{{s\over m^2_e}}
33: \def\Born{{\rm Born}}
34: \def\nubar{\bar{\nu}}
35: \def\nubarnu{\bar{\nu}\nu}
36: \def\nubart{\bar{\nu}_\tau}
37: \def\sstrut{$\strut\atop\strut$}
38:
39:
40: %=======================Journals============================
41: \def\PL #1 #2 #3 {Phys. Lett. {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
42: \def\NP #1 #2 #3 {Nucl. Phys. {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
43: \def\PR #1 #2 #3 {Phys. Rev. {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
44: \def\PP #1 #2 #3 {Phys. Rep. {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
45: \def\PRL #1 #2 #3 {Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
46: \def\CPC #1 #2 #3 {Comp. Phys. Commun. {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
47: \def\ANN #1 #2 #3 {Annals of Phys. {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
48: \def\APP #1 #2 #3 {Acta Phys. Pol. {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
49: \def\ZP #1 #2 #3 {Z. Phys. {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
50:
51:
52: % These macros are used in type writer verbatim listings
53: % Use \beginverbatim and \endverbatim
54: \def\uncatcodespecials{\def\do##1{\catcode`##1=12 }\dospecials}
55: \def\setupverbatim{\tt
56: \def\par{\leavevmode\endgraf} \catcode`\`=\active
57: \obeylines \uncatcodespecials \obeyspaces \parindent=5mm \parskip=0pt}
58: {\obeyspaces\global\let =\ } % let active space = control space
59: {\catcode`\`=\active \gdef`{\relax\lq}}
60: \def\beginverbatim{\par\begingroup\setupverbatim\doverbatim}
61: {\catcode`\|=0 \catcode`\\=12 % | is temporary escape character
62: |obeylines|gdef|doverbatim^^M#1\endverbatim{#1|endgroup}}
63: \def\Was{\hbox{W\c as\;}}
64: \def\M{\hbox{\cal M}}
65: \def\lips{\hbox{Lips}}
66: \def\Im{\hbox{Im}}
67: \def\GeV{\hbox{GeV}}
68: \def\Maj{M_{R}} \def\Gaj{\Gamma_{R}}
69: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
70: \def\eqiv{\sim}
71: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
72: \def\eps{\epsilon}
73: %=======================================================================
74: \begin{titlepage}
75:
76: \begin{flushright} CERN-PH-TH/2006-056, \\
77: { IFJPAN-IV-2006-3}
78: \end{flushright}
79:
80: \vspace{0.5cm}
81: \begin{center}
82: {\bf\Large
83: Next to Leading Logarithms and the PHOTOS Monte Carlo
84: }\end{center}
85:
86: \begin{center}
87: {\bf P. Golonka} and {\bf Z. W\c{a}s }\\
88: {\em
89: CERN, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland\\
90: and \\
91: Institute of Nuclear Physics, PAN,
92: Krak\'ow, ul. Radzikowskiego 152, Poland}\\
93:
94:
95: \end{center}
96: \vspace{.6 cm}
97: \begin{center}
98: {\bf ABSTRACT }
99: \end{center}
100: With the approaching start-up of the experiments at LHC, the urgency to quantify systematic
101: uncertainties of the generators, used in the interpretation of the data,
102: is becoming pressing. The PHOTOS Monte Carlo program is often used for the simulation
103: of experimental, selection-sensitive, QED radiative corrections in decays of
104: $Z$ bosons and other heavy resonances and particles. Thanks to its complete
105: phase-space coverage it is possible, with no approximations
106: for any decay channel, to implement the matrix-element.
107: The present paper will be devoted to those parts of
108: the next-to-leading order corrections for $Z$ decays which are normally missing
109: in PHOTOS. The analytical form of the
110: exact and truncated, {\it standard}, kernel used in PHOTOS will be explicitly given. The correction, being the ratio of the exact to the approximate kernel,
111: can be activated as an optional contribution to the internal weight of PHOTOS.
112:
113:
114: To calculate the weight, the information on
115: the effective Born-level $Z/\gamma^*$ couplings and even directions of the
116: incoming beams, is needed.
117: A universal implementation would have made the PHOTOS solution less modular
118: and less convenient for the users.
119: That is why, for the time being, we will keep the correcting weight as an extra
120: option, available for special tests only.
121:
122:
123: We will quantify the numerical effect of the approximation with the
124: help of a multitude of distributions.
125: The numerical size of the effect is in general below 0.1\%;
126: however, in some corners of the phase-space
127: (well defined and contributing less than 0.5\% to the total rate),
128: it may reach up to about 20\%{} of their relative size.
129:
130:
131:
132: \vspace{.5cm}
133: \begin{flushleft}
134: { CERN-PH-TH/2006-056, \\ IFJPAN-IV-2006-3 \\
135: April, 2006}
136: \end{flushleft}
137:
138: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
139: \vspace*{1mm}
140: \bigskip
141: %%%%\vfill
142: \footnoterule
143: \noindent
144: {\footnotesize \noindent
145: Supported in part by the EU grant MTKD-CT-2004-510126,
146: in partnership with the CERN Physics Department,
147: and the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research
148: (KBN) grant 2 P03B 091 27 for years 2004--2006.
149: }
150: \end{titlepage}
151: %=======================================================================
152: %\begin{titlepage}
153: %\mbox{ }
154: %\end{titlepage}
155: %=======================================================================
156: %=======================================================================
157: \vspace{.5cm}
158: \begin{center}
159: {\bf 1. Introduction}
160: \end{center}
161: \vspace{.5cm}
162:
163:
164: Analysing the data from high-energy physics experiments, we try to
165: solve the {\it ``experiment = theory''} equation. This non-trivial task
166: requires many different effects to be considered simultaneously.
167: From the experimental side, these are mainly detector acceptance and cuts,
168: which are dictated by the construction and physical properties of the detector:
169: the shapes of distributions may be distorted by, say, misidentification
170: and residual background contamination; these effects need to be discriminated
171: in an appropriate and well-controlled way.
172: From the theoretical side, {\it all} effects of known physics have to be included in
173: predictions as well. Only then can experimental data and theoretical predictions be
174: confronted to determine numerical values of some coupling constants or
175: effects of new physics (to be discovered).
176:
177: A well-defined class of theoretical effects contains the QED radiative
178: corrections.
179: PHOTOS is a universal Monte Carlo algorithm that simulates the effects of these
180: corrections in decays of particles and resonances.
181: It is a project with a rather long history: the first version was
182: released in 1991 \cite{Barberio:1990ms}, followed by version 2.0
183: \cite{Barberio:1994qi} (double emission, threshold terms for fermions).
184: The package is in wide use \cite{Dobbs:2004qw}:
185: it was applied as a precision simulation tool for
186: $W$ mass measurement at the Tevatron \cite{Abazov:2003sv}
187: and LEP \cite{Abbiendi:2003jh,Abdallah:2003xn},
188: and for CKM matrix measurements
189: in decays of $K$ and $B$ resonances
190: (NA48 \cite{Lai:2004bt}, KTeV\cite{Alexopoulos:2004up}, Belle \cite{Limosani:2005pi},
191: BaBar \cite{Aubert:2004te} and at Fermilab \cite{Link:2004vk}).
192:
193: Throughout the years the core algorithm for the generation of $O(\alpha)$ corrections
194: did not change much; however, its precision, applicability to various
195: processes, and numerical stability improved significantly.
196: New features, such as multiple photon radiation
197: or interference effects for all possible decays, were also introduced.
198:
199: Growing interest in the algorithm expressed by the experimental
200: collaborations (including the future LHC experiments) was a motivation to
201: perform a more detailed study of the potential and precision of the PHOTOS
202: algorithm. The present paper is the third in the series \cite{Golonka:2005dn,Golonka:2005pn}. It is devoted
203: to the $Z$ boson decay and to simplifications in the matrix element used
204: in PHOTOS for that channel.
205: We also explore the limitations originating from compromises
206: introduced into PHOTOS bremsstrahlung kernels, which assured convenience
207: of use; no process-dependent weight need be involved.
208:
209: In that respect, the study of the PHOTOS {\it matrix element} can be understood as
210: a part of the on-going effort to find
211: the practical solutions of the improved expansions. Some aspects of our solution
212: resemble those of classical exclusive exponentiation as described in \cite{kkcpc:1999,Jadach:2000ir};
213: in an other, the parton shower may be identified. The solution may be understood as a rearrangement
214: of the QED perturbation expansion, yet this point will not be discussed here. Instead, let us point to some
215: similarities of the PHOTOS solution to the methods discussed elsewhere:
216: interaction picture of Quantum Mechanics, expansion of
217: special functions around asymptotic solutions \cite{Nikiforov} or in field theory;
218: see eg. \cite{Tkachov:1997gz}. In PHOTOS the expansion is performed
219: in terms of multidimensional operators.
220:
221: The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 the main properties used in the PHOTOS design
222: and, in particular, the analytical form of the (NLO) weight, necessary to introduce the complete
223: first-order matrix-element, are presented.
224: It is also explained there how the complete matrix elements break the requirement
225: of separation of the calculation of the final-state bremsstrahlung
226: from the properties of the Born-level matrix elements and the phenomena affecting
227: the $Z$ production. To support the discussion and visualize the results,
228: a multitude of numerical
229: comparisons and tests will be presented.
230: Section 3 provides the definition of the method used in those comparisons.
231: The method is particularly suitable to visualize the results in the non-collinear regions of the phase space.
232: Section 4 presents numerical tests performed at fixed first order of the QED expansion.
233: Since
234: PHOTOS uses the same building block for a part of the single-photon generation algorithm
235: and for the multiple bremsstrahlung, the results presented in this
236: section have implications for the multiple-photon option of PHOTOS.
237: Section 5 addresses these aspects of the program construction which are relevant
238: to the use of the NLO weight
239: in the multiple-photon option. Section 6 collects the
240: results of the tests performed for the programs run with multiple-photon emission.
241: Summary, Section 7, closes the paper.
242:
243:
244:
245:
246: \vspace{.5cm}
247: \begin{center}
248: {\bf 2. Phase space and matrix element}
249: \end{center}
250: \vspace{.5cm}
251:
252: To discuss the implementation of the
253: complete first-order QED radiative corrections in $Z$ decay,
254: we must start with the complete parametrization of the phase space.
255:
256:
257: Let us start with the explicit expression for the parametrisation of the $(n+1)$-body final state
258: in the decay of an object of four-momentum $P$.
259: To define iterative relations, let us denote the four-momenta
260: of the first $n$ decay products as $k_i$, and the last $(n+1)$-th as $q$.
261: For the case discussed here, the ($n+1$)-th particle will always be the real and massless
262: photon. However, the parametrization does not rely on this assumption and, in principle, can be
263: applied to define other formulas for the phase space, such as the
264: emission of a (massive) pion, and could even be extended to the case of emission of pairs of heavy particles.
265: In later steps of our construction the fact that photons are massless and the related properties
266: of QED matrix elements will of course be used.
267:
268: In the following, the notations from refs. \cite{Was:1994kg,Jadach:1993hs} will be used.
269: We will, however, not rely on any particular results of those papers and only
270: point to the more detailed presentations of other, nonetheless
271: quite similar, options for
272: the exact $n$-body phase-space parametrization to the one presented here.
273:
274: Let us define the element of Lorentz-invariant phasespace ({\it Lips}) as follows:
275:
276: \begin{eqnarray}
277: &&dLips_{n+1}(P)= \nonumber\\
278: &&
279: {d^3k_1 \over 2k_1^0 (2\pi)^3}\; . . .\;{d^3k_n \over 2k_n^0 (2\pi)^3}
280: {d^3q \over 2q^0 (2\pi)^3}
281: (2\pi)^4 \delta^4\Bigl(P -\sum_1^n k_i-q\Bigr)\nonumber\\
282: &=&
283: d^4p\delta^4(P -p-q){d^3q \over 2q^0 (2\pi)^3}
284: {d^3k_1 \over 2k_1^0 (2\pi)^3} \;. . .\;{d^3k_n \over 2k_n^0 (2\pi)^3}
285: (2\pi)^4 \delta^4\Bigl(p -\sum_1^n k_i\Bigr)\nonumber\\
286: &=&
287: d^4p\delta^4(P -p-q){d^3q \over 2q^0 (2\pi)^3} dLips_n(p\to k_1 ... k_n).
288: \label{Lips_n+1}
289: \end{eqnarray}
290: Extra integration variables, the four-vector $p$, compensated with $\delta^4\bigl(p -\sum_1^n k_i\bigr) $, are first introduced.
291: In the next step, another integration variable $M_1$ and
292: $\delta\bigl(p^2 -M_1^2\bigr) $ are introduced.
293: The element of the phase-space integration may thus be transformed into:
294:
295: \begin{eqnarray}
296: &&dLips_{n+1}(P)= \nonumber\\
297: &&
298: {dM_1^2 \over (2\pi)} dLips_2(P \to p\ q) \times dLips_n(p \to k_1 ... k_n)\nonumber\\
299: &=&
300: dM_1^2 \biggl[d\cos\theta d\phi {1 \over 8(2\pi)^3}
301: {\lambda^{1\over 2}(M^2, {M_1^2 },{m^2 })\over M^2}\biggr]
302: \times dLips_n(p \to k_1 ... k_n).
303: \label{Lips_n+1.3}
304: \end{eqnarray}
305:
306: The part of the phase-space Jacobian corresponding to the integration over the direction
307: and the energy of the last particle (or invariant mass of the remaining system) is explicitly given;
308: $\lambda(a, b,c)={a^2+b^2+c^2-2ab-2ac-2bc}$.
309: The integration over the angles is defined in the rest frame of $n+1$ particles;
310: the integration over the invariant mass $M_1$ is limited by the phase-space boundaries.
311: There is no need to choose the axes with respect to which the angles are oriented;
312: we will not elaborate on that point here, as details can be found in Ref. \cite{Barberio:1990ms}.
313: Formula (\ref{Lips_n+1.3}) may
314: be iterated to provide parametrization of the phase space with an arbitrary number of
315: final-state
316: particles. The question of the orientation of the reference frames used to define the angles
317: and the order of the choice for limits in $M_i$ integrations, becomes particularly complex then; our choice is described in ref. \cite{Barberio:1994qi}.
318: Since nothing new was introduced for the purpose of the present study
319: we will not discuss this interesting point further. Except for the details mentioned above,
320: the choice we made for the phase-space organization is the same as in
321: FOWL \cite{FOWL}, TAUOLA \cite{Jadach:1993hs}, and probably many other generators.
322:
323: To simplify the formula for the phase space, let us finally take advantage of the zero mass of the photon.
324: The invariant mass of the system of all particles but the first one may be replaced by the energy
325: of the first one (defined in the $P$ rest frame). The phase-space formula can then be written as:
326:
327: \begin{eqnarray}
328: && dLips_{n+1}(P)= \nonumber\\
329: &&
330: \biggl[ 4 dk_\gamma {k_\gamma} d\cos\theta d\phi {1 \over 8(2\pi)^3}
331: \biggr]
332: \times dLips_n(p \to k_1 ... k_n) \nonumber\\
333: &=&
334: \biggl[ k_\gamma dk_\gamma d\cos\theta d\phi {1 \over 2(2\pi)^3}
335: \biggr]
336: \times dLips_n(p \to k_1 ... k_n).
337: \label{Lips_n+1.5}
338: \end{eqnarray}
339: If we had $l$ photons accompanying $n$ other particles,
340: the factor in square brackets would be iterated.
341: A statistical factor ${1 \over l!}$ would complete the formula for the phase-space
342: parametrization, which is quite similar to the formal expansion
343: of the exponent\footnote{The exact form of the functional
344: exponent is achieved if the four-vector
345: $p$ is replaced by $P$ in formula (\ref{Lips_n+1.5}). In this way the tangent
346: space for the ($n+1$)-body phase space can be constructed. We use that space, together with
347: an eikonal-like form of the matrix element
348: (emissions from individual final-state charged products are treated as independent),
349: for the construction of the crude distribution of photon emission probability.
350: Note that, in this space, the photons' four-momenta are unconstrained by energy--momentum conservation.
351: The limits on the energies of the photons
352: are arbitrary. We checked that, at the $10^{-4}$ precision level, the results obtained from our
353: simulations do not depend on the particular choice.
354: We leave the underlying formal aspect
355: of the algorithm to future papers.}.
356: The last formula, supplemented with the definition of the orientation of the angles, is used
357: to define the full kinematic configuration of the event.
358: The four-momenta of all final-state particles may now be constructed
359: from the angles and energies ($k_{\gamma_i})$
360: of the photons, and the angles and masses of the other decay products.
361:
362: Similarly, an inverse operation may be performed; the energies and angles for
363: the parametrization could be reconstructed from the four-vectors (even though the parametrization was not
364: necessarily used in the previous generation steps).
365: The phase-space Jacobians may be easily calculated as
366: well.
367: By replacing $dLips_n(p \to k_1 ... k_n)$ in formula (\ref{Lips_n+1.5}) by
368: $dLips_n(P \to k_1 ... k_n)$ we obtain a parametrization where the photons do not affect the construction
369: of other particles' momenta.
370: This operation could be considered as treating the photon in
371: an approximation valid only in the soft photon limit.
372: This, however, {\it does not need} to be the case. In the first step, the photon may be
373: constructed with an arbitrarily large momentum, as nothing else depends on it.
374: The kinematical variables of the photon are generated with the help of the distribution defined
375: by the factor
376: $\bigl[ k_\gamma dk_\gamma d\cos\theta d\phi {1 \over 2(2\pi)^3} \bigr] $;
377: which provides the photon variables of the {\it tangent
378: space}.
379: Fully constructed with four-momenta, an event of the $n$-body decay can be turned back into a representation
380: of angles and invariant masses. In the final step these angular variables, together with those
381: of the photon, can be used to define a new event in the ($n+1$)-body phase space.
382: In the case when the new kinematical variables do not fit the limits of available
383: ($n+1$)-body
384: phase space the new event should be rejected and the original configuration
385: (in the $n$-body phase space) kept. An important property of the algorithm presented here
386: is the full coverage of the ($n+1$)-body phase-space being assured.
387: In this procedure, the difference between $n$-body and $n+1$ body phase-space Jacobians
388: can be calculated in an unambiguous way and introduced in the same rejection step as for the phase-space
389: limits\footnote{The effects of
390: matrix elements, including those of virtual corrections, have to be introduced at this stage as well.
391: They are indispensable, for example, to calculate relative probabilities of configurations with distinct number
392: of final-state particles. }.
393:
394: The features and transformations of the phase-space parametrization presented here
395: are at the heart of the construction
396: of the PHOTOS kinematics and have been used since its beginning.
397: To complete the generation of photons, the exact phase-space parametrization must be completed with a
398: matrix element, with both virtual and real QED corrections included. Careful
399: regularization of soft singularities must be performed\footnote{Volumes of the partial width attributed to the configurations
400: with $n$, $n+1$ particles, etc., have to be normalized to the total width, both at the
401: level of the tangent and the correct (final) phase space.}.
402:
403: In the standard version of PHOTOS, as published in \cite{Barberio:1990ms,Barberio:1994qi},
404: the expression
405: \begin{eqnarray}
406: X_{f}^{\mathrm{PHOTOS}}=&\frac{Q'^{2}\alpha(1-\Delta)}{4\pi^{2}s}s^{2} \hskip 3 mm \Bigg\{ \hskip 8 cm \nonumber \\
407: \frac{1}{k'_{+}+k'_{-}}\frac{1}{k'_{-}}&\bigg[(1+(1-x_{k})^{2})
408: \frac{{d}\sigma_{B}}{d\Omega}\Big(s,\frac{s(1-\cos\Theta_{+})}{2},
409: \frac{s(1+\cos\Theta_{+})
410: }{2}\Big)\bigg]\frac{(1+\beta\cos\Theta_{\gamma})}{2}\;\;\; \nonumber\\
411: +
412: \frac{1}{k'_{+}+k'_{-}}\frac{1}{k'_{+}}&\bigg[(1+(1-x_{k})^{2})
413: \frac{{d}\sigma_{B}}{d\Omega}\Big(s,\frac{s(1-\cos\Theta_{-})}{2},
414: \frac{s(1+\cos\Theta_{-})
415: }{2}\Big)\bigg]\frac{(1-\beta\cos\Theta_{\gamma})}{2}\Bigg\} \nonumber \\
416: \mathrm{where:} & \Theta_{+}=\angle(p_{+},q_{+}),\; \Theta_{-}=\angle(p_{-},q_{-}),
417: \;\hskip 4 cm \nonumber\\
418: & \Theta_{\gamma}=\angle(\gamma,\mu^{-})\; \textrm{is\, defined\,
419: in}\;(\mu^{+},\mu^{-})\textrm{-pair\, rest\, frame,} \hskip 1.2 cm
420: \label{X-fotos}
421: \end{eqnarray}
422: is used for the real-photon matrix element. The virtual corrections
423: are requested to be such that the total decay rate remains unchanged after
424: complete QED corrections are included. The expression, without approximation, reads:
425: \begin{eqnarray}
426: X_{f}=\frac{Q'^{2}\alpha(1-\Delta)}{4\pi^{2}s}s^{2} &
427: \Bigg\{\frac{1}{(k'_{+}+k'_{-})}\frac{1}{k'_{-}}\bigg[\frac{{d}\sigma_{B}
428: }{{d}\Omega}(s,t,u')+\frac{{d}\sigma_{B}}{{d}\Omega}(s,t',u
429: )\bigg]\nonumber \\
430: &
431: +\frac{1}{(k'_{+}+k'_{-})}\frac{1}{k'_{+}}\bigg[\frac{{d}\sigma_{B}}{{d}
432: \Omega}(s,t,u')+\frac{{d}\sigma_{B}}{{d}\Omega}(s,t',u)\bigg
433: ]\Bigg\}.
434: \label{X-mustraal}
435: \end{eqnarray}
436: The combined effect of the virtual and real corrections on the total rate is its
437: increase by a factor of
438: $1+ \frac{3}{4} \frac{\alpha}{\pi}$.
439:
440: The notation from ref.~\cite{Berends:1982ie} are used:
441: \begin{eqnarray}
442: s=2p_+\cdot p_-, & s'=2q_+\cdot q_-, \nonumber \\
443: t=2p_+\cdot q_+, & t'=2p_+\cdot q_-, \nonumber\\
444: u=2p_+\cdot q_-, & u'=2_-\cdot q_+, \nonumber \\
445: k'_{\pm}=q_\pm\cdot k, & x_k= 2E_\gamma/\sqrt{s}.
446: \end{eqnarray}
447: This paper
448: collects complete first-order radiative corrections for the process
449: $e^+e^-\to \mu^+\mu^-(\gamma)$. Final-state bremsstrahlung
450: constitutes part of these results, where nonetheless reference is made to the incoming
451: electron beam momenta.
452:
453:
454: The $\Delta$ term encapsulates final-state mass-dependent terms,
455: $p_+$, $p_-$, $q_+$, $q_-$, $k$ denote four-momenta of:
456: incoming $e^+$, $e^-$,
457: outcoming $\mu^+$, $\mu^-$ and the bremsstrahlung photon respectively.
458: Expression (\ref{X-mustraal})
459: is explicitly taken from ref. \cite{Berends:1982ie}, on Monte Carlo MUSTRAAL,
460: which is where the interested reader will find the details of the definitions
461: of variables and expressions such as $\Delta$, used in the
462: formulae (\ref{X-fotos}) and (\ref{X-mustraal}).
463:
464: The ratio of (\ref{X-mustraal}) to (\ref{X-fotos}) constitutes the basic element of upgrading
465: PHOTOS functionality to the complete first order\footnote{This is only true for PHOTOS
466: being run at first order. For the multiple-photon radiation option,
467: the iteration of the single-photon emission kernel (and thus also its weight) is performed; see section 5.}.
468: Nothing needs to be changed in the phase-space parametrization.
469: The effects of the virtual corrections have to be included as well and have to be properly introduced
470: in the normalization.
471: The expression for the correcting weight could be chosen\footnote{ Alternatively, a factor $(1+ \frac{3}{4} \frac{\alpha}{\pi})$ can be included in the definition
472: of the crude distribution.} simply as
473: \begin{equation}
474: wt=\frac{X_{f}}{X_{f}^{\mathrm{PHOTOS}}}\frac{1}{(1+ \frac{3}{4} \frac{\alpha}{\pi})}.
475: \label{wgt}
476: \end{equation}
477: For the purpose of constructing a Monte Carlo algorithm, however, it is more convenient
478: to separate it into a sum of two generation branches (with slightly different angular variable mapping).
479: Then, the expression for the distribution and those for the weight take the form
480: \begin{eqnarray}
481: X_{f}=& X_{f}^1+X_{f}^2 \hskip 13 cm \nonumber \\
482: X_{f}^1=& WT_1 \;\; \frac{Q'^{2}\alpha(1-\Delta)}{4\pi^{2}s}s^{2} \frac{1}{k'_{+}+k'_{-}}\frac{1}{k'_{-}}\bigg[(1+(1-x_{k})^{2})
483: \frac{{d}\sigma_{B}}{d\Omega}\Big(s,\frac{s(1-\cos\Theta_{+})}{2},
484: \frac{s(1+\cos\Theta_{+})
485: }{2}\Big)\bigg]\frac{(1+\beta\cos\Theta_{\gamma})}{2},\;\;\nonumber \\
486: X_{f}^2=& WT_2 \;\; \frac{Q'^{2}\alpha(1-\Delta)}{4\pi^{2}s}s^{2} \frac{1}{k'_{+}+k'_{-}}\frac{1}{k'_{+}}\bigg[(1+(1-x_{k})^{2})
487: \frac{{d}\sigma_{B}}{d\Omega}\Big(s,\frac{s(1-\cos\Theta_{-})}{2},
488: \frac{s(1+\cos\Theta_{-})
489: }{2}\Big)\bigg]\frac{(1-\beta\cos\Theta_{\gamma})}{2}, \nonumber \\
490: WT_1=& \frac{\frac{{d}\sigma_{B}
491: }{{d}\Omega}(s,t,u')+\frac{{d}\sigma_{B}}{{d}\Omega}(s,t',u
492: )}{\bigg[(1+(1-x_{k})^{2})
493: \frac{{d}\sigma_{B}}{d\Omega}\Big(s,\frac{s(1-\cos\Theta_{+})}{2},
494: \frac{s(1+\cos\Theta_{+})
495: }{2}\Big)\bigg]\frac{(1+\beta\cos\Theta_{\gamma})}{2}\; \big(1+ \frac{3}{4} \frac{\alpha}{\pi}\big)}, \hskip 5 cm \nonumber \\
496: WT_2=& \frac{\frac{{d}\sigma_{B}}{{d}
497: \Omega}(s,t,u')+\frac{{d}\sigma_{B}}{{d}\Omega}(s,t',u)}{\bigg[(1+(1-x_{k})^{2})
498: \frac{{d}\sigma_{B}}{d\Omega}\Big(s,\frac{s(1-\cos\Theta_{-})}{2},
499: \frac{s(1+\cos\Theta_{-})
500: }{2}\Big)\bigg]\frac{(1-\beta\cos\Theta_{\gamma})}{2}\; \big(1+ \frac{3}{4} \frac{\alpha}{\pi}\big)}. \hskip 5 cm
501: \label{wgt1}
502: \end{eqnarray}
503: At this point, let us make the following remark.
504: Event though the introduction of the NLO weight into PHOTOS is trivial, the developed
505: approximation \cite{Barberio:1990ms} at the heart of PHOTOS design is not. It enabled
506: universality of the program\footnote{Indeed, after inspection, the differences between
507: formulae (\ref{X-fotos}) and (\ref{X-mustraal}) are quite significant.
508: The exact expression does
509: not allow a transfer of the complete Born-level angular dependence to the host generator. In the
510: correction weight, the two contributions, one depending on the angle $\Theta_{+}$ and another on $\Theta_{-}$,
511: have to be simultaneously included. The dependence on the Born-level (effective) couplings
512: thus need
513: to be known at the level of the calculation of the final-state bremsstrahlung weight. This would make
514: the modular structure of PHOTOS design more difficult to keep. Also, the direction
515: of the (effective) beam need to be provided for the calculation of $\Theta_{+}$ and $\Theta_{-}$ angles.
516: This exhibits another difficulty
517: in the separation of the final-state bremsstrahlung and the dynamics of the initial state for $Z/\gamma^*$
518: production.}. Simplification was not necessary to attribute the generation
519: of bremsstrahlung photons to individual charged particles%
520: \footnote{ For other decays, it will probably
521: not be necessary to find an explicit form of such NLO
522: separation.
523: Starting from the NNLO, such separation was shown to be impossible
524: \cite{Kleiss:1990jv} anyway. }. The separation holds for the complete NLO as well.
525: The simplified emission
526: kernel, which we used for other decays as well, reads:
527: \begin{eqnarray}
528: & \frac{Q'^{2}\alpha(1-\Delta)}{4\pi^{2}s}s^{2} \frac{1}{k'_{+}+k'_{-}}\frac{1}{k'_{-}}(1+(1-x_{k})^{2})
529: \frac{(1+\beta\cos\Theta_{\gamma})}{2}\;\;\nonumber \\
530: & \frac{Q'^{2}\alpha(1-\Delta)}{4\pi^{2}s}s^{2} \frac{1}{k'_{+}+k'_{-}}\frac{1}{k'_{+}}(1+(1-x_{k})^{2})
531: \frac{(1-\beta\cos\Theta_{\gamma})}{2}.
532: \label{dist}
533: \end{eqnarray}
534: It depends
535: on the spin and charge of the ``emitting particle'' only\footnote{ In the original PHOTOS
536: documentation we called this well-controlled truncation of the
537: kernel a ``property (such) that leading-log (collinear) and infrared limits are properly reproduced''.
538: This explanation turned out to be misleading for many readers.
539: One can get biased, and expect the collinear approximation not only
540: for the kernel, but for the whole design of the algorithm.
541: This would be a serious limitation of our program design
542: if indeed, as suggested in ref. \cite{Hamilton:2006xz},
543: ``PHOTOS was based on collinear approximation''. Fortunately it is not the case.
544: Such confusion was not a concern for the users, until now: precision
545: requirements were not as high.
546: }. It does not depend on the properties of the other decay products, which only define the phase-space
547: limits. To obtain the universal
548: form of the photon emission kernel, the interference was eliminated with the help of
549: the factor, either $\frac{2}{(1+\beta\cos\Theta_{\gamma})}$ or $\frac{2}{(1-\beta\cos\Theta_{\gamma})}$.
550: The interference is recovered later, using the weight given in formula (17) of ref. \cite{Barberio:1994qi}, that is with approximation.
551: On the other hand, having paid the price of the approximated solution, both the kernel
552: and the interference weight can then be used
553: for decay of any particle or resonance.
554:
555: In our present study the
556: analytical expression for the matrix element for the
557: $e^{+} e^{-} \to Z^{0}/\gamma^{*} \to \mu^{+} \mu^{-}$ is used
558: (and compared to the approximated, yet process-independent, solution of the standard
559: PHOTOS).
560: If necessary, a matrix element for other decay processes (if available) could be used.
561:
562:
563: \vspace{.5cm}
564: \begin{center}
565: {\bf 3. Method used in numerical tests }
566: \end{center}
567: \vspace{.5cm}
568:
569: In the comparison of the multitude of final states generated,
570: at different levels of physics sophistication by two distinct Monte Carlo programs,
571: the choice of a method is of great importance.
572: To compare the Monte Carlo programs it is quite common to present the distributions generated by the programs superimposed on a single plot,
573: often in logarithmic scale.
574: Such a method was used, for example, in ref. \cite{Hamilton:2006xz}. The method is
575: unquestionably sufficient, if one's interest is limited to, say, the collinear content
576: of the results or other distributions of the intrinsically logarithmic type.
577:
578: For instance, applying this method for the comparison
579: of the total energy carried out by all bremsstrahlung photons,
580: we would obtain a distribution such as those presented in Fig. \ref{fig:classical}.
581: We could conclude that there is excellent agreement, and the non-leading
582: effects, which are essential for estimating systematic errors for generators
583: like PHOTOS, would be marginalized in the presentation.
584: %
585: \begin{figure*}
586: \caption{\label{fig:classical} \it \small A typical plot for comparisons, as
587: described in ref.
588: \cite{Hamilton:2006xz}. We use it to illustrate our method.
589: The histograms presented in the left and right plots have identical content,
590: and show a comparison of KKMC \cite{kkcpc:1999} and PHOTOS
591: used in $Z$ decay.
592: The total energy carried out by all final-state photons is presented.
593: Red (darker grey) colour represents the results of KKMC, green (lighter grey) of
594: PHOTOS with the NLO weight activated. Samples of $10^7$ events were used in this
595: comparison. The results are overwhelmed
596: by the collinear/soft content of the predictions.
597: \newline
598: If the $W$ instead of $Z$ decay was chosen,
599: it would not be
600: the case. There, NLO effects would be dominant
601: for the part of the spectrum above
602: $M_W/2$.
603: However, in that case, we would not profit from the second-order matrix element
604: Monte Carlo, available for tests. }
605:
606: \begin{center}
607: \subfigure[A logarithmic scale is used.
608: Excellent agreement between the two programs is
609: visible all over the energy range from 0 to $M_Z$.
610: The presence of the two lines can be spotted at the high end of the spectrum,
611: mainly thanks to the statistical errors.
612: The kink at the limit of the phase-space, where single
613: hard-photon configuration ceases to contribute, dominates the content of the whole picture.
614: ]{\includegraphics[%
615: width=0.49\columnwidth,
616: keepaspectratio]{c1.eps}}
617: %
618: %
619: \subfigure[ {\it The method of MC-TESTER is applied.
620: Both individual distributions, from PHOTOS and KKMC, are
621: presented, but overlap. The samples populate the first few bins of the histograms.
622: The differences would normally be
623: visible on the black histogram, which presents the ratio of the results from
624: PHOTOS and KKMC. The agreement is perfect all over the spectrum.
625: No structure can be spotted in the vicinity of the kink (total photon energy,
626: close to half of the $Z$ mass). If present,
627: the structure of possible differences, would be well separated from this of the
628: shapes themselves. } ]{\includegraphics[%
629: width=0.49\columnwidth,
630: keepaspectratio]{c2.eps}}
631: \end{center}
632: \end{figure*}
633: This is also the case if for the same distribution (see right-hand side
634: of Fig. \ref{fig:classical})
635: the method \cite{Golonka:2005pn} based on MC-TESTER is used.
636: The distributions are indeed dominated by the collinear content
637: of the programs! For other distributions, sensitive to second-order matrix-element parts, missing
638: in PHOTOS, the differences would become
639: visible on the plots obtained normally from MC-TESTER.
640: That is why, in the present paper, we will
641: keep to that class of comparison
642: plots.
643: The comparisons are automated and standardized. This not only
644: reduces the time needed for debugging the tests, but also allows for
645: easy cross-comparisons of the results presented in our consecutive papers.
646:
647: For a selected decay process, such as the $Z/\gamma^*$ decay,
648: the four-momenta of the decay products and their flavours
649: are extracted from the event record in an automated way (thereby
650: limiting the effort of setting up the appropriate analysis code and
651: also the risk of accidental errors). The decay
652: events obtained that way are classified in distinct decay channels,
653: according to the particles present in the final state.
654: The histograms
655: of all possible invariant masses, which can be formed from the decay
656: products, are defined and filled for each identified
657: decay channel. At the end of the run they are
658: stored in output files.
659: Two output files (from distinct runs of event generators instrumented
660: with MC-TESTER) are then analysed, and the results are presented in
661: a form visualized as a ``booklet'' made of plots and summary tables.
662: The user is given some general information concerning the comparison of the two
663: runs with different
664: Monte Carlo generators, a list of the decay channels with their branching
665: fractions, and the maximum values (for each decay channel)
666: of the shape difference parameter (SDP)%
667: \footnote{ The shape difference parameter, defined in \cite{Golonka:2002rz},
668: quantifies the difference in shape of the histograms coming from the
669: two runs being compared. The SDP value is calculated separately for each histogrammed
670: mass: it quantifies the exclusive surface between the
671: (normalized to unity) corresponding histograms obtained from the two runs.
672: The effects of statistical fluctuations are appropriately subtracted.
673: The maximum SDP over all distributions for a given decay channel is taken
674: and printed in the table.}.
675:
676: For each decay channel the plots of histogrammed values are then included;
677: each plot presents two distributions from the two distinctive runs and a
678: curve, which is the ratio of the two normalized distributions. The value of the SDP
679: is also printed for each plot.
680: In practice, as in paper \cite{Golonka:2005pn},
681: the histograms obtained from the compared programs will often overlap.
682: The differences will then be visible only in the plot of the ratio
683: of histograms.
684:
685: The testing approach implemented in MC-TESTER could be used directly in the
686: case of validation of the TAUOLA package. Nevertheless, for the purpose
687: of studies presented here, it needed an extension.
688: It is necessary, according to the particular method of handling soft photon cancellations,
689: to consistently treat the soft final-state QED bremsstrahlung photons, which may or may not be present in the
690: event.
691: If results of different programs
692: were compared blindly,
693: ambiguities due to differences in the treatment
694: of the soft emission region and of the different boundaries for the photon
695: phase-space (integrated analytically) would arise.
696: To prevent these ambiguities, the most convenient solution was to introduce a technical
697: regulator {\it in the test itself}.
698:
699:
700: For our comparisons to make physical sense and
701: remain automatic, we had to remove the softest photons from the final states.
702: We defined zero-, one-, and two-photon topologies in
703: the following way: we called the event ``zero photon''
704: if there was no photon of energy (in a decaying particle's rest frame)
705: larger than $E_\mathrm{test}$.
706: The ``one-photon'' event had to have one (and only one) photon of
707: energy larger than $E_\mathrm{test}$.
708: If there were more than one such photons, we called it a ``two-photon'' event.
709: In the case where there were more than two photons of energy larger than $E_\mathrm{test}$,
710: we considered only the two most energetic ones, and treated
711: the remaining (softer) ones as if they had not passed the $E_\mathrm{test}$ threshold.
712: For all the photons that did not pass the $E_\mathrm{test}$ threshold we
713: summed their four-momenta with the momentum of the outgoing fermion of smaller
714: angular separation. With the help of our test we divide the
715: phase space for two fermions and an arbitrary number of photons into {\it slots}
716: of 0, 1 and 2 distinguished final-state photons.
717:
718: In the paper we will use two variants of this test definition:
719: \emph{test1} and \emph{test2}. The \emph{test2} is
720: exactly as explained above. In \emph{test1}, only one photon (the
721: most energetic one) will be accepted. The free parameter,
722: $E_\mathrm{test}$ is chosen to be $1$ GeV for all results presented
723: in this paper.
724:
725: Systematic histogramming of all possible invariant masses that can be
726: constructed from a combination of final-state four-vectors,
727: and storing them as
728: one-dimensional histograms, does not define a test of ultimate sensitivity.
729: The method is blind to the $P$-parity-sensitive effects, important for $\tau$ lepton
730: physics, for instance. Also important effects, such as coherence between the photons
731: are to a large degree washed out. Nonetheless we believe that the advantages
732: of the method are prevailing, and we decided to use it in this study.
733:
734:
735: \vspace{.5cm}
736: \begin{center}
737: {\bf 4. Results of the tests performed at first order}
738: \end{center}
739: \vspace{.5cm}
740:
741: Let us start with a comparison of PHOTOS and
742: KORALZ \cite{Jadach:1991ws}, both run at first order and
743: without exponentiation. For KORALZ, the complete first-order matrix element, as
744: in Section 2, is used.
745: The results from KORALZ are given by a
746: red (darker grey) line and from PHOTOS by a green (lighter grey) line.
747: (In the presentation of the results we use the colour coding consistently in the plots and the summary tables, following the methodology of MC-TESTER).
748: The lines overlap almost completely on all plots and
749: only the ratios of the distributions shown as black histograms indicate that there is some difference.
750: The actual plots for MC-TESTER comparison, are prepended with a summary table giving the fractions
751: of event with and without photons (of energy above 1 GeV).
752: In all comparisons samples of $10^8$ events were used.
753:
754:
755:
756:
757: \vspace{0.3cm}
758: {\centering \begin{longtable}{|c|c|c|c|}
759: \hline
760: Decay channel &\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{ Branching ratio $\pm$ rough errors} & Max. SDP\\
761: & \textcolor{red}{KORALZ} & \textcolor{green}{PHOTOS} & \\
762: \hline
763: \hline \( Z^{0} \rightarrow \mu^{-} \mu^{+} \) & \textcolor{red}{82.5137 $\pm$ 0.0091\%} &\textcolor{green}{ 82.3622 $\pm$ 0.0091\%} & 0.00000 \\
764: \hline
765: \hline \( Z^{0} \rightarrow \mu^{-} \mu^{+} \gamma \) & \textcolor{red}{17.4863 $\pm$ 0.0042\%} &\textcolor{green}{ 17.6378 $\pm$ 0.0042\%} & 0.00534 \\
766: \hline
767: \end{longtable}\par}
768: \vspace{0.3cm}
769:
770: As can be seen, the difference in the fraction of events with
771: photon (of energy above 1 GeV) is about 0.15\%.
772: Although noticeable (thanks to our method), this is not a large discrepancy.
773: Let us now turn to the distributions.
774: \section*{Decay Channel: $Z^{0} \rightarrow \mu^{-} \mu^{+} \gamma $}
775: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{booklet1/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma./M1a0001.eps}} }
776: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{booklet1/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma./M1a0002.eps}} }
777: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{booklet1/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma./M1a0102.eps}} }
778: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{booklet1/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma./M1a000102.eps}} }
779:
780: Analysing the values of the SDP,
781: printed in the upper right corners of the plots,
782: we conclude that the surfaces between green and red
783: histograms (both normalized to unity before calculation of the ratio)
784: differ by at most 0.005; this low value quantifies the fact that
785: the histograms for the two programs overlap almost completely.
786: The ratio of the two lines (black histogram) nonetheless reveals
787: the difference,
788: which is located at the far end of the spectra, sparsely
789: populated by configurations with photons of extremely large energies and
790: away from the direction of the muons.
791:
792: Even though the agreement is amazing, it is yet improved once the NLO term is included into the correction weight of PHOTOS:
793: the differences disappear below the statistical
794: error of $10^8$ event samples and they are not noticeable in the histograms'
795: ratio curve either!
796: In the following table and figures, we collect the results as
797: previously discussed, but for the runs with the NLO correcting weight
798: activated in PHOTOS.
799:
800:
801:
802:
803:
804: \vspace{0.3cm}
805: {\centering \begin{longtable}{|c|c|c|c|}
806: \hline
807: Decay channel &\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{ Branching ratio $\pm$ rough errors} & Max. SDP\\
808: & \textcolor{red}{KORALZ} & \textcolor{green}{PHOTOS} & \\
809: \hline
810: \hline \( Z^{0} \rightarrow \mu^{+} \mu^{-} \) & \textcolor{red}{82.5110 $\pm$ 0.0091\%} &\textcolor{green}{ 82.5074 $\pm$ 0.0091\%} & 0.00000 \\
811: \hline
812: \hline \( Z^{0} \rightarrow \mu^{+} \mu^{-} \gamma \) & \textcolor{red}{17.4890 $\pm$ 0.0042\%} &\textcolor{green}{ 17.4926 $\pm$ 0.0042\%} & 0.00000 \\
813: \hline
814: \end{longtable}\par}
815: \vspace{0.3cm}
816:
817:
818: %Generated by MC-TESTER: BOOKLET.C
819: % to be included in tester.tex
820:
821: \section*{Decay Channel: $Z^{0} \rightarrow \mu^{+} \mu^{-} \gamma$}
822: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{booklet2/Z0.TO.gamma.mu+.mu-./M1a0102.eps}} }
823: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{booklet2/Z0.TO.gamma.mu+.mu-./M1a0001.eps}} }
824: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{booklet2/Z0.TO.gamma.mu+.mu-./M1a0002.eps}} }
825: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{booklet2/Z0.TO.gamma.mu+.mu-./M1a000102.eps}} }
826:
827:
828:
829:
830:
831:
832:
833: The agreement for the branching fractions (of events with and without photons of energy larger than 1 GeV) is better than 0.01\% now!
834: This excellent agreement indeed confirms that the theoretical
835: effects missing in the standard version of PHOTOS are negligibly small. It is equally important
836: that it provides, a powerful technical test of the generator. The
837: kinematical variables used in PHOTOS differ from those of KORALZ;
838: four-vectors are used instead of angles
839: to parametrize the intermediate steps of the generation.
840: The differences could have indicated, say, consequences of aggregation of rounding errors.
841: Keeping in mind that
842: similar levels of agreement for muons
843: was achieved for the multiphoton version of
844: PHOTOS and KKMC in the case
845: of $Z\to e^+ e^-$ decay,
846: we can confidently claim that PHOTOS has numerical stability
847: under control. This was not the case for the early
848: versions of the program, and reaching that level of technical reliability
849: required a major effort.
850:
851: \begin{center}
852: {\bf 5. Algorithm for multiple-photon generation}
853: \end{center}
854: Before presentation of the results for multiple-photon generation from PHOTOS,
855: let us comment on those
856: technical details of the PHOTOS algorithm,
857: that are important in the implementation of the NLO contribution to the correcting weight.
858: The iteration algorithm, as explained first in ref. \cite{Barberio:1994qi}, and recently also
859: in refs. \cite{Golonka:2005dn,Golonka:2005pn}, did not require changes for the case of multiple
860: photon generation. Nevertheless, the following details have to be clarified for the proper implementation of
861: the NLO weight, given by formula (\ref{wgt1}). All identical terms present in the
862: numerator and denominator, expressions (\ref{X-mustraal}) and
863: (\ref{X-fotos}) respectively,
864: were cancelled out at the analytical level%
865: \footnote{The cancelled-out terms could have been calculated using slightly different
866: kinematical variables; the differences would have appeared only in the case of more than one hard photon
867: present
868: in the final state. In such a case the ratio of the terms would not be equal to 1.
869: These effects generally go beyond the NLO, and in fact our choice was motivated by the comparisons
870: with the second-order matrix-element calculation, but without necessary details. That is why
871: an appropriate discussion of this choice
872: would require detailed presentation of the second-order matrix element.
873: It would have to be similar, for example, to the discussion of the extrapolation procedure as
874: that described in ref. \cite{Was:2004ig}. }.
875: The weight (\ref{wgt1})
876: is always calculated for the
877: single-photon configuration. If there are other photons
878: generated in the previous steps of the iteration,
879: their momenta are absorbed into the momenta of the final-state fermions. The constraint on
880: the direction and the opening angle between the photon under consideration and the direction of the
881: charged emitter \cite{Barberio:1990ms}, is assured.
882:
883:
884: \vspace{.5cm}
885:
886: \begin{center}
887: {\bf 6. Numerical results of the tests performed with multiple-photon radiation}
888: \end{center}
889:
890:
891: Let us now turn to the tests of PHOTOS running in multiple-photon option.
892: For that purpose we will use \emph{test1} as defined in Section 3, and samples of
893: $10^8$ events generated from KKMC with exponentiation and the second-order
894: matrix element and the multiple-photon radiation version of PHOTOS, without NLO terms.
895: The results are included in the table and plots below.
896:
897:
898:
899: %Generated by MC-TESTER:ANALYZE.C.
900: % to be included in tester.tex
901:
902:
903: \vspace{0.3cm}
904: {\centering \begin{longtable}{|c|c|c|c|}
905: \hline
906: Decay channel &\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{ Branching ratio $\pm$ rough errors} & Max. SDP\\
907: & \textcolor{red}{KKMC} & \textcolor{green}{PHOTOS} & \\
908: \hline
909: \hline \( Z^{0} \rightarrow \mu^{-} \mu^{+} \) & \textcolor{red}{83.9176 $\pm$ 0.0092\%} &\textcolor{green}{ 83.8372 $\pm$ 0.0092\%} & 0.00000 \\
910: \hline
911: \hline \( Z^{0} \rightarrow \mu^{-} \mu^{+} \gamma \) & \textcolor{red}{16.0824 $\pm$ 0.0040\%} &\textcolor{green}{ 16.1628 $\pm$ 0.0040\%} & 0.00409 \\
912: \hline
913: \end{longtable}\par}
914: \vspace{0.3cm}
915:
916:
917: \section*{Decay Channel: $Z^{0} \rightarrow \mu^{-} \mu^{+} \gamma $}
918: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{booklet3/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma./M1a0001.eps}} }
919: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{booklet3/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma./M1a0002.eps}} }
920: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{booklet3/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma./M1a0102.eps}} }
921: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{booklet3/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma./M1a000102.eps}} }
922:
923:
924:
925: The pattern of differences between the results of PHOTOS and KKMC runs resembles
926: the one present in the plots for the comparisons performed at the first order.
927: Again, the black curves of the histogram ratios for the KKMC and PHOTOS results are not consistent with 1
928: for configurations with hard photons and in the regions where histograms are nearly
929: at 0. The differences reach few per cent in the
930: corners of the phase space contributing few per mille to the total rate. The discrepancies are again
931: smaller than 0.1\% with respect to the total rate.
932:
933:
934: Once the NLO weight in PHOTOS is activated, the already small differences become even smaller,
935: by a factor of about 50, measured with the SDP. The differences are practically 0
936: with $10^8$ samples, which can be seen in the table and the plots below.
937:
938: \vspace{0.3cm}
939: {\centering \begin{longtable}{|c|c|c|c|}
940: \hline
941: Decay channel &\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{ Branching ratio $\pm$ rough errors} & Max. SDP\\
942: & \textcolor{red}{KKMC} & \textcolor{green}{PHOTOS} & \\
943: \hline
944: \hline \( Z^{0} \rightarrow \mu^{-} \mu^{+} \) & \textcolor{red}{83.9176 $\pm$ 0.0092\%} &\textcolor{green}{ 83.9312 $\pm$ 0.0092\%} & 0.00000 \\
945: \hline
946: \hline \( Z^{0} \rightarrow \mu^{-} \mu^{+} \gamma \) & \textcolor{red}{16.0824 $\pm$ 0.0040\%} &\textcolor{green}{ 16.0688 $\pm$ 0.0040\%} & 0.00003 \\
947: \hline
948: \end{longtable}\par}
949: \vspace{0.3cm}
950:
951: \section*{Decay Channel: $Z^{0} \rightarrow \mu^{-} \mu^{+} \gamma $}
952:
953: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{booklet4/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma./M1a0001.eps}} }
954: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{booklet4/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma./M1a0002.eps}} }
955: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{booklet4/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma./M1a0102.eps}} }
956: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{booklet4/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma./M1a000102.eps}} }
957:
958:
959: This confirms that the main source of residual discrepancy between KKMC and
960: PHOTOS, both running in exponentiated versions, was due to the NLO term missing
961: in the previous group of results and activated now.
962:
963:
964: Let us now turn to \emph{test2}, where configurations
965: of up to 2 hard photons are analysed. To this end,
966: we will present at first the results of a comparison of the standard multiple-radiation version of PHOTOS
967: with that of KKMC, followed by the comparison of multiple-radiation version PHOTOS with NLO weight and KKMC
968: (again with second-order matrix element and exponentiation).
969:
970:
971:
972: \vspace{0.3cm}
973: {\centering \begin{longtable}{|c|c|c|c|}
974: \hline
975: Decay channel &\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{ Branching ratio $\pm$ rough errors} & Max. SDP\\
976: & \textcolor{red}{KKMC} & \textcolor{green}{PHOTOS} & \\
977: \hline
978: \hline \( Z^{0} \rightarrow \mu^{-} \mu^{+} \) & \textcolor{red}{83.9177 $\pm$ 0.0092\%} &\textcolor{green}{ 83.8372 $\pm$ 0.0092\%} & 0.00000 \\
979: \hline
980: \hline \( Z^{0} \rightarrow \mu^{-} \mu^{+} \gamma \) & \textcolor{red}{14.8164 $\pm$ 0.0038\%} &\textcolor{green}{ 14.8676 $\pm$ 0.0039\%} & 0.00232 \\
981: \hline
982: \hline \( Z^{0} \rightarrow \mu^{-} \mu^{+} \gamma \gamma \) & \textcolor{red}{ 1.2659 $\pm$ 0.0011\%} &\textcolor{green}{ 1.2952 $\pm$ 0.0011\%} & 0.00918 \\
983: \hline
984: \end{longtable}\par}
985: \vspace{0.3cm}
986:
987: \section*{Decay Channel: $Z^{0} \rightarrow \mu^{-} \mu^{+} \gamma $}
988: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet5/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma./M1a0001.eps}} }
989: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet5/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma./M1a0002.eps}} }
990: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet5/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma./M1a0102.eps}} }
991: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet5/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma./M1a000102.eps}} }
992:
993: \section*{Decay Channel: $Z^{0} \rightarrow \mu^{-} \mu^{+} \gamma \gamma $}
994: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet5/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma.gamma./M1a0001.eps}} }
995: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet5/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma.gamma./M1a0002.eps}} }
996: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet5/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma.gamma./M1a0003.eps}} }
997: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet5/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma.gamma./M1a0102.eps}} }
998: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet5/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma.gamma./M1a0103.eps}} }
999: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet5/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma.gamma./M1a0203.eps}} }
1000: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet5/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma.gamma./M1a000102.eps}} }
1001: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet5/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma.gamma./M1a000103.eps}} }
1002: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet5/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma.gamma./M1a000203.eps}} }
1003: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet5/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma.gamma./M1a010203.eps}} }
1004:
1005:
1006: One can see that already for the standard PHOTOS the agreement is good.
1007: Residual deficiencies are small for both slots of the phase space:
1008: single hard photon,
1009: and two hard-photon.
1010: Let us present now what kind of changes the inclusion of NLO terms in PHOTOS brings to the
1011: results of \emph{test2}.
1012:
1013:
1014: \vspace{0.3cm}
1015: {\centering \begin{longtable}{|c|c|c|c|}
1016: \hline
1017: Decay channel &\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{ Branching eatio $\pm$ rough errors} & Max. SDP\\
1018: & \textcolor{red}{KKMC} & \textcolor{green}{PHOTOS} & \\
1019: \hline
1020: \hline \( Z^{0} \rightarrow \mu^{-} \mu^{+} \) & \textcolor{red}{83.9177 $\pm$ 0.0092\%} &\textcolor{green}{ 83.9303 $\pm$ 0.0092\%} & 0.00000 \\
1021: \hline
1022: \hline \( Z^{0} \rightarrow \mu^{-} \mu^{+} \gamma \) & \textcolor{red}{14.8164 $\pm$ 0.0038\%} &\textcolor{green}{ 14.7829 $\pm$ 0.0038\%} & 0.00005 \\
1023: \hline
1024: \hline \( Z^{0} \rightarrow \mu^{-} \mu^{+} \gamma \gamma \) & \textcolor{red}{ 1.2659 $\pm$ 0.0011\%} &\textcolor{green}{ 1.2868 $\pm$ 0.0011\%} & 0.00293 \\
1025: \hline
1026: \end{longtable}\par}
1027: \vspace{0.3cm}
1028:
1029:
1030: \section*{Decay Channel: $Z^{0} \rightarrow \mu^{-} \mu^{+} \gamma $}
1031: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet6/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma./M1a0001.eps}} }
1032: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet6/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma./M1a0002.eps}} }
1033: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet6/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma./M1a0102.eps}} }
1034: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet6/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma./M1a000102.eps}} }
1035: \section*{Decay Channel: $Z^{0} \rightarrow \mu^{-} \mu^{+} \gamma \gamma $}
1036: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet6/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma.gamma./M1a0001.eps}} }
1037: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet6/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma.gamma./M1a0002.eps}} }
1038: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet6/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma.gamma./M1a0003.eps}} }
1039: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet6/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma.gamma./M1a0102.eps}} }
1040: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet6/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma.gamma./M1a0103.eps}} }
1041: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet6/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma.gamma./M1a0203.eps}} }
1042: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet6/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma.gamma./M1a000102.eps}} }
1043: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet6/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma.gamma./M1a000103.eps}} }
1044: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet6/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma.gamma./M1a000203.eps}} }
1045: { \resizebox*{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{./booklet6/Z0.TO.mu-.mu+.gamma.gamma./M1a010203.eps}} }
1046:
1047:
1048:
1049:
1050: For the single hard-photon distributions, the differences
1051: diminished significantly, again a factor of about 50! This was to
1052: be expected. Even for the
1053: distributions of the phase-space slot with two hard photons, the differences diminished.
1054: The SDP decreased by a factor of about 3.
1055: This is not as striking as for the single hard-photon
1056: configuration, but it is of no surprise: the complete second-order matrix
1057: element is missing. The improvement by a factor of 3 provides, however, a strong indication that the
1058: algorithm of iteration used in the generation of consecutive photons work well from the
1059: point of view of NNLL level as well.
1060: The acoplanarity plots presented in the previous paper \cite{Golonka:2005pn} also demonstrated some of the NNLL aspect of the algorithm. That is why we are not going to discuss
1061: this point here, but we would rather leave it to future
1062: discussion of the NNLL content of our algorithm: this aspect goes
1063: beyond the purpose of the present paper and the scope of interest of most of PHOTOS users.
1064:
1065: Much as is described in the present paper,
1066: a new contribution to the PHOTOS correcting weight would be needed for the NNLL case. However no changes
1067: in the phase-space algorithm would {\it a priori} be required. The techniques
1068: of gauge-invariant separation of the amplitudes into parts,
1069: as used for instance in ref. \cite{Was:2004ig}, will probably be necessary.
1070: They proved to be instrumental
1071: in the implementation of the second-order
1072: matrix elements for $e^+e^- \to \nu_e \bar \nu_e \gamma \gamma $ into KKMC. The
1073: exclusive exponentiation scheme of the KKMC Monte Carlo is prepared for $s$-channel processes.
1074:
1075:
1076:
1077: We have to admit that once the NLO terms are switched on in PHOTOS,
1078: the difference between its results and those of the second-order matrix-element
1079: generator KKMC are at the limit of being recognized, even if samples
1080: of $10^8$ events are used. For the case of the two-photon test, differences
1081: due to the missing second-order matrix element in PHOTOS
1082: can be observed; yet they are too
1083: small, and don't have enough structure, to understand their possible origin.
1084: A part of the differences may even originate from the third-order LL
1085: terms (after integration), which are missing in KKMC but generated in PHOTOS in the process of iteration.
1086:
1087: In any case,
1088: even for PHOTOS running with standard options, the differences
1089: affect only a tiny fraction of the $Z$ decay phase space. Thus, we do not consider it to be of much
1090: interest to continue the discussion of the missing terms.
1091: Nevertheless, from a more fundamental side, we are disappointed by the fact that the comparisons did not provide
1092: numerical insight into the structure of the differences.
1093: The particularly interesting aspects of the study in the context of the extension of the algorithm for QCD did not bring any constructive indications so far.
1094:
1095: \begin{center}
1096: {\bf 7. Summary}
1097: \end{center}
1098: \vspace{.5cm}
1099: To quantify the size of the NLL effects, which are normally
1100: missing in PHOTOS, we reinstalled them back into the program,
1101: using the original complete first-order expression for $Z$ decay. After the NLO correcting weight was installed,
1102: the differences between PHOTOS and KORALZ
1103: were below the statistical error of $10^8$ events and for all the distributions
1104: used in the tests. Both PHOTOS and KORALZ were run at fixed first order without exponentiation.
1105: The agreement provided a technical cross-check test for the two simulations.
1106: For the case of multiple-photon radiation in PHOTOS, a comparison
1107: with the KKMC generator\cite{kkcpc:1999} (exponentiation and second-order matrix element used) was performed.
1108: The implementation of the NLO terms in PHOTOS indicated, in the results of our universal test,
1109: an improvement by a factor of about 50 for the observables
1110: sensitive to a single hard photon in the final states and remained at the level of better
1111: than 0.1\% on the total rate for all other
1112: cases we examined. Because of the smallness of the residual differences, it was difficult
1113: to understand their structure and origin in the final states with two hard photons.
1114:
1115: The improvement in the agreement due to the introduction of the NLO correcting weight
1116: came at a price. Even though the weight is analytically simple and
1117: generation of weight 1 events remained possible, the calculation of the weight
1118: required information on Born-level coupling constants of the intermediate
1119: $Z/\gamma^*$. Also, the direction
1120: of the beam was necessary in the calculation of the weight. These requirements
1121: threatened the modular organization of the PHOTOS solution, as used
1122: in the large Monte Carlo generation chains of experimental collaborations. Numerically, the introduced improvements are
1123: rather small and the deficiencies of standard PHOTOS are
1124: localized in the corners
1125: of bremsstrahlung phase-space populated by photons of very high energies and angularily, well separated
1126: from the final-state muons. Those regions of the phase space
1127: weigh less than 0.005 to the total
1128: rate and the differences in that region approach 20\% of their size. The effects are thus less
1129: than 0.1\% of the total rate of the $Z$ decay to muons. That is why we do not think it
1130: justified
1131: to complicate the PHOTOS algorithm and to enable the use of the NLO correcting weight
1132: in the general case.
1133:
1134: The analysis presented here concentrates not only on the numerical results for the final-state
1135: bremsstrahlung in $Z$ decay, but also on various aspects of a mathematical organization
1136: of the program for calculation of radiative corrections in $Z$ production
1137: and decay. Separation of radiative corrections
1138: into parts: (i) embodied in effective couplings of the hard-scattering process,
1139: (ii) final-state QED bremsstrahlung, and (iii) initial-state
1140: bremsstrahlung, eventually with initial-state hadronic interactions, were mentioned as well.
1141: The effects of QED initial--final-state bremsstrahlung interference were to a large degree neglected.
1142: Such an approach is reasonable in the leading-pole approximation for the $Z$,
1143: but at a certain precision level the effects may need to be taken care of. For the
1144: time being the results of ref. \cite{Jadach:1988zp}
1145: can be used instead.
1146:
1147: Thanks to the analytic form of the kernel used in PHOTOS for the single-photon emission, the analysis presented here may easily be
1148: extended to other
1149: decay channels, if high precision is required and a calculation of matrix element
1150: is available. The study for the case of $B$ meson decay into a pair
1151: of $\pi^\pm (K^\pm)$ is near completion
1152: \cite{Giso2006}.
1153: In this case the questions of reliability of scalar QED for the calculation of photons
1154: of high $p_T$, with respect to charged scalars,
1155: need to be addressed. A natural extension of the study of the systematic error
1156: in PHOTOS simulations, as presented here, would be the discussion
1157: of bremsstrahlung in $W$ and Higgs boson decays.
1158:
1159: The decays of the $W$ and Higgs bosons
1160: are probably the only ones where formal studies of the NL terms,
1161: similar to the ones presented in this paper, can be performed. As
1162: was the case with $Z$ decays, those cases will also be limited
1163: to the leading-pole approximation.
1164:
1165:
1166: For other decay channels, the correction weight can be
1167: applied as well; however, in most cases the part of the weight going beyond soft and/or collinear
1168: regimes may need to be constructed
1169: with the help of the fits to the data. Let us stress that the unique design of PHOTOS, enabling
1170: the use of the same
1171: kernel for multiple-photon radiation (exponentiated)
1172: mode and at fixed first, second, third, and fourth orders,
1173: establishes a convenient environment for such fits of form factors to the data.
1174: At the same time the analytical form of these form factors
1175: can be taken from the first-order
1176: analytic calculations based on effective theory, or from any other model.
1177:
1178: On the technical level it is worth mentioning that the NLO correcting
1179: weight of PHOTOS can be used as an internal correcting weight.
1180:
1181:
1182: Finally, let us stress that the approximations introduced in PHOTOS affect the matrix elements and not the
1183: phase space. The generation of the latter is based on the tangent space constructed from
1184: eikonal approximation but used also for hard photons, even of energies above the available maximum enforced
1185: by energy--momentum conservation. Only in the second step are phase-space constraints enforced. This is similar
1186: to the case of the classical exclusive exponentiation. The energy momentum constraints
1187: are introduced for each individual photon, step by step, and conformal symmetry is not used
1188: in that procedure.
1189:
1190: In principle, if necessary, complete higher-order matrix elements can
1191: be incorporated with the help of correcting weights.
1192: This point goes beyond the scope of the present paper. This is equally true for the possible extensions
1193: to simulations in QCD.
1194:
1195: \vskip 3mm
1196:
1197: {\bf Acknowledgements.}
1198: Useful discussions with Dmitri Bardin, Borut Kersevan, Maarten Bonekamp and Daniel Froidevaux are acknowledged.
1199: Special thanks go to Torbj\"orn Sj\"ostrand whose critical remarks convinced us
1200: of the necessity and urgency to perform the presented work.
1201:
1202: %\bibliographystyle{utphys_spires}
1203: %\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{\refname}\bibliography{PhotosStudy}
1204: \providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}\begingroup\begin{thebibliography}{10}
1205:
1206: \bibitem{Barberio:1990ms}
1207: E.~Barberio, B.~van Eijk and Z.~Was, {\em Comput. Phys. Commun.} {\bf 66}
1208: (1991)
1209: 115.
1210: %%CITATION = CPHCB,66,115;%%.
1211:
1212: \bibitem{Barberio:1994qi}
1213: E.~Barberio and Z.~Was, {\em Comput. Phys. Commun.} {\bf 79} (1994)
1214: 291--308.
1215: %%CITATION = CPHCB,79,291;%%.
1216:
1217: \bibitem{Dobbs:2004qw}
1218: M.~A. Dobbs {\em et al.},
1219: \href{http://www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0403045}{{\tt hep-ph/0403045}}.
1220: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403045;%%.
1221:
1222: \bibitem{Abazov:2003sv}
1223: {CDF} Collaboration, V.~M. Abazov {\em et al.}, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D70}
1224: (2004) 092008,
1225: \href{http://www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0311039}{{\tt hep-ex/0311039}}.
1226: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0311039;%%.
1227:
1228: \bibitem{Abbiendi:2003jh}
1229: {OPAL} Collaboration, G.~Abbiendi {\em et al.}, {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B580}
1230: (2004) 17--36,
1231: \href{http://www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0309013}{{\tt hep-ex/0309013}}.
1232: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0309013;%%.
1233:
1234: \bibitem{Abdallah:2003xn}
1235: {DELPHI} Collaboration, J.~Abdallah {\em et al.}, {\em Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C31}
1236: (2003) 139--147,
1237: \href{http://www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0311004}{{\tt hep-ex/0311004}}.
1238: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0311004;%%.
1239:
1240: \bibitem{Lai:2004bt}
1241: {NA48} Collaboration, A.~Lai {\em et al.}, {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B602} (2004)
1242: 41--51,
1243: \href{http://www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0410059}{{\tt hep-ex/0410059}}.
1244: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0410059;%%.
1245:
1246: \bibitem{Alexopoulos:2004up}
1247: {KTeV} Collaboration, T.~Alexopoulos {\em et al.}, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D71}
1248: (2005) 012001,
1249: \href{http://www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0410070}{{\tt hep-ex/0410070}}.
1250: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0410070;%%.
1251:
1252: \bibitem{Limosani:2005pi}
1253: {Belle} Collaboration, A.~Limosani {\em et al.},
1254: \href{http://www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0504046}{{\tt hep-ex/0504046}}.
1255: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0504046;%%.
1256:
1257: \bibitem{Aubert:2004te}
1258: {BABAR} Collaboration, B.~Aubert {\em et al.}, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D69}
1259: (2004) 111103,
1260: \href{http://www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0403031}{{\tt hep-ex/0403031}}.
1261: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0403031;%%.
1262:
1263: \bibitem{Link:2004vk}
1264: {FOCUS} Collaboration, J.~M. Link {\em et al.},
1265: \href{http://www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0412034}{{\tt hep-ex/0412034}}.
1266: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0412034;%%.
1267:
1268: \bibitem{Golonka:2005dn}
1269: P.~Golonka and Z.~Was,
1270: \href{http://www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0508015}{{\tt hep-ph/0508015}}.
1271: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0508015;%%.
1272:
1273: \bibitem{Golonka:2005pn}
1274: P.~Golonka and Z.~Was, {\em Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C45} (2006) 97--107,
1275: \href{http://www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0506026}{{\tt hep-ph/0506026}}.
1276: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0506026;%%.
1277:
1278: \bibitem{kkcpc:1999}
1279: S.~Jadach, Z.~W\c{a}s and B.~F.~L. Ward, {\em Comput. Phys. Commun.} {\bf 130}
1280: (2000) 260, Up to date source available from http://home.cern.ch/jadach/.
1281:
1282: \bibitem{Jadach:2000ir}
1283: S.~Jadach, B.~F.~L. Ward and Z.~Was, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D63} (2001) 113009,
1284: \href{http://www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0006359}{{\tt hep-ph/0006359}}.
1285: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006359;%%.
1286:
1287: \bibitem{Nikiforov}
1288: A.~Nikiforov and Y.~Ouvarov, {\it \'El\'ements de la Th\'eorie des Fonctions
1289: sp\'eciales}, Editions Mir, Moscow, 1976.
1290:
1291: \bibitem{Tkachov:1997gz}
1292: F.~V. Tkachov, {\em Sov. J. Part. Nucl. } {\bf 25} (1994) 649,
1293: \href{http://www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9701272}{{\tt hep-ph/9701272}}.
1294: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9701272;%%.
1295:
1296: \bibitem{Was:1994kg}
1297: Z.~Was, Written on the basis of lectures given at the 1993 European School of
1298: High Energy Physics, Zakopane, Poland, 12-25 Sep 1993,
1299: \href{http://www.arXiv.org/abs/CERN-TH-7154-94}{{\tt CERN-TH/7154-94}}.
1300:
1301: \bibitem{Jadach:1993hs}
1302: S.~Jadach, Z.~Was, R.~Decker and J.~H. K\"uhn, {\em Comput. Phys. Commun.} {\bf
1303: 76} (1993)
1304: 361--380.
1305: %%CITATION = CPHCB,76,361;%%.
1306:
1307: \bibitem{FOWL}
1308: F.~James, FOWL - a General Monte-Carlo Phase Space Program, 1977, CERN Computer
1309: Centre Program Library, Long Writeup W505.
1310:
1311: \bibitem{Berends:1982ie}
1312: F.~A. Berends, R.~Kleiss and S.~Jadach, {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B202} (1982)
1313: 63.
1314: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B202,63;%%.
1315:
1316: \bibitem{Kleiss:1990jv}
1317: R.~Kleiss, {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B347} (1990)
1318: 67--85.
1319: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B347,67;%%.
1320:
1321: \bibitem{Hamilton:2006xz}
1322: K.~Hamilton and P.~Richardson,
1323: \href{http://www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0603034}{{\tt hep-ph/0603034}}.
1324: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603034;%%.
1325:
1326: \bibitem{Golonka:2002rz}
1327: P.~Golonka, T.~Pierzcha\l{}a, and Z.~Was, {\em Comput. Phys. Commun.} {\bf 157}
1328: (2004) 39--62,
1329: \href{http://www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0210252}{{\tt hep-ph/0210252}}.
1330: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210252;%%.
1331:
1332: \bibitem{Jadach:1991ws}
1333: S.~Jadach, B.~F.~L. Ward and Z.~Was, {\em Comput. Phys. Commun.} {\bf 66}
1334: (1991)
1335: 276--292.
1336: %%CITATION = CPHCB,66,276;%%.
1337:
1338: \bibitem{Was:2004ig}
1339: Z.~Was,
1340: \href{http://www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0406045}{{\tt hep-ph/0406045}}.
1341: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406045;%%.
1342:
1343: \bibitem{Jadach:1988zp}
1344: S.~Jadach and Z.~Was, {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B219} (1989)
1345: 103.
1346: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B219,103;%%.
1347:
1348: \bibitem{Giso2006}
1349: G.~Nanava and Z.~Was, In preparation. See transparencies:
1350: http://piters.home.cern.ch/piters/MC/PHOTOS-MCTESTER/AtNLO/
1351: Plot$\_$B$\_$PiPiGamma.pdf.
1352:
1353: \end{thebibliography}\endgroup
1354:
1355:
1356: \end{document}
1357: