1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% EXAMPLE FILE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FOR JHEPcls 3.1.0 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3:
4: %\documentclass[published]{JHEP3} % 10pt is ignored!
5: \documentclass{JHEP3} % 10pt is ignored!
6:
7: %\JHEP{00(2006)000}
8:
9: %\JHEPspecialurl{http://jhep.sissa.it/JOURNAL/JHEP3.tar.gz}
10:
11: \usepackage{epsfig,multicol}
12:
13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
14: %%%%%%%%%%%% Options: preprint* published, (no)hyper*, paper, draft, %%%%%%%
15: %%%%%%%%%%%% a4paper*, letterpaper, legalpaper, executivepaper,%%%%
16: %%%%%%%%%%%% 11pt, 12pt*, oneside*, twoside %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
17: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% *=default %%%%%%%%
18: %%%%%%%%%%%% \title{...} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
19: %%%%%%%%%%%% \author{...\\...} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \email{...} %%%%%%%%
20: %%%%%%%%%%%% \author{...\thanks{...}\\...} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
21: %%%%%%%%%%%% \abstract{...} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
22: %%%%%%%%%%%% \keywords{...} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
23: %%%%%%%%%%%% \preprint{...} %% or \received{...} \accepted{...} \JHEP{...} %
24: %%%%%%%%%%%% \dedicated{...} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
25: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
26: %%%%%%%%%%%% \aknowledgments %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
27: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
28: %%%%%%%%%%%% -- No pagestyle formatting. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
29: %%%%%%%%%%%% -- No size formatting. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
30: %%%%%%%%%%%% Your definitions: %%%%%%%%%%% MINE :) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
31: % ... %
32: \newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134} % \backslash for \tt (Nucl.Phys. :)%
33: \newcommand\fverb{\setbox\pippobox=\hbox\bgroup\verb}
34: \newcommand\fverbdo{\egroup\medskip\noindent%
35: \fbox{\unhbox\pippobox}\ }
36: \newcommand\fverbit{\egroup\item[\fbox{\unhbox\pippobox}]}
37: \newbox\pippobox
38: % ... %
39: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
40:
41: \newcommand{\jhepname}{\raisebox{-4pt}{\epsfig{file=JHEPlogo.eps, width=2.5em}}}
42:
43: \title{A simple method to simulate $W/Z$ + jet production at hadron collisions
44: with PS-ME matching}
45:
46: \author{Shigeru Odaka\\
47: High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK)\\
48: 1-1 Oho, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0801, Japan\\
49: E-mail: \email{shigeru.odaka@kek.jp}}
50:
51: %\received{April xx, 2006} %%
52: %\revised{May xx, 2001}
53: %\accepted{May xx, 2001} %% These are for published papers.
54:
55: %\preprint{\hepph{0604999}} % OR: \preprint{Aaaa/Mm/Yy\\Aaa-aa/Nnnnnn}
56: % Use \hepth etc. also in bibliography.
57:
58: \abstract{
59: We propose a simple method to simulate $W/Z$ + jet productions at hadron
60: collisions.
61: The simulation can be done by using existing tools with some modifications
62: allowed to users.
63: $W/Z$ + 1 jet events are generated using an ME-based event generator
64: at the tree level.
65: The divergence at low $p_{T}$ is suppressed by using the Sudakov form factor.
66: PS is added with an appropriate consideration for PS-ME matching.
67: The simulation for the $W$ + 1 jet production shows a smooth matching
68: with the $W$ + 0 jet simulation at low $p_{T}$s.
69: The $Z$ + 1 jet simulation in the Tevatron Run I condition well reproduces
70: the experimental measurement on the $p_{T}$ spectrum of $Z$.
71: }
72:
73: \keywords{Hadronic Colliders, Jets, QCD}
74:
75: \begin{document}
76:
77: %\maketitle IS IGNORED %%%%%%%%%%%
78:
79: \section{Introduction}
80: The simulation of multiple hadron jet (multi-jet) production is one of
81: the most serious problems in physics analyses
82: at high-energy hadron collider experiments.
83: Our experimental reach extends to heavier objects as the collision energy
84: increases.
85: Once such heavy objects decay hadronically, they frequently produce multi-jet
86: final states.
87: Similar multi-jet configuration originating from well-separated emission of
88: light quarks and/or gluons can be easily produced by non-resonant
89: QCD interactions.
90: They may blind or distort interesting heavy object signals.
91: We have already encountered this problem in the study of hadronic top-quark
92: decays at Tevatron.
93: The problem will become much more severe for heavier objects
94: (Higgs boson(s), SUSY particles, {\it etc.}) expected at forthcoming LHC
95: experiments,
96: since in principle the signal frequency decreases as the cm energy of the
97: hard interaction increases while the QCD activity remains nearly constant.
98: Understanding of the QCD multi-jet production will become crucial for
99: the study of such heavy objects.
100: Despite that, the technique is not well established for the simulation.
101:
102: The simulation of hadron collision interactions consists of two
103: components: parton showers (PS) describing relatively soft regions in the
104: initial-state and the final-state interactions,
105: and a simulation of hard interactions based on perturbative
106: matrix-element (ME) calculations.
107: The former is a 3-dimensional model based on the factorization theory,
108: adding the contributions of large collinear components to all orders.
109: The matching between the two components is important, but is not trivial
110: since theoretical discussions are usually made only at the collinear limit
111: where transverse behaviors are ignored.
112: A certain model-based discussion is necessary to construct a
113: consistent multi-jet simulation.
114:
115: Recently, the CKKW technique originally proposed for the final-state
116: jet production at $e^{+}e^{-}$ collisions \cite{ckkw} has been extended to the
117: initial state \cite{ckkw_had}, and implemented in an event generator
118: for hadron collisions \cite{sherpa}.
119: This technique consistently adds tree-level ME calculations
120: for a certain hard interaction process associated with 0 jet, 1 jet, 2 jets,
121: ..., to provide an exclusive event sample above a certain resolution scale.
122: A PS is applied to a limited phase space which ME calculations do not cover,
123: with a careful consideration for the matching.
124: The concept is also implemented in different ways in other event generators
125: \cite{other_gen}.
126:
127: CKKW provides us with an exclusive multi-jet sample.
128: Despite, in many cases, users are interested only in an inclusive behavior
129: of a certain number of leading jets.
130: They ignore non-leading ones in order to make the evaluation
131: as free from theoretical and experimental ambiguities in soft regions
132: as possible.
133: We expect that there must be a simpler method for such applications.
134: In this paper we propose a method to obtain a simulation sample
135: of inclusive $n$-jet events by using an $n$-jet ME event generator
136: with the help of an appropriate PS simulation.
137:
138: In the present study
139: we focus on the simplest case, the $W$ + 1 jet production.
140: Namely, we are interested only in the leading-jet behavior produced in
141: association with the $W$ boson production.
142: This process deals with the jet emission from the initial-state partons only.
143: The discussions would be able to extend to the final state with appropriate
144: replacements of the parameters and formulae.
145: We use only those tools which are publicly available.
146: Modifications are applied at the level where ordinary users are allowed.
147: We apply our method to the $Z$ + 1 jet production in the Tevatron Run I
148: condition for a comparison with experimental measurements.
149: The $Z$ production is used only because the momentum measurement is expected
150: to be less ambiguous than the $W$ production.
151:
152: \section{$W + 1$ jet simulation}
153:
154: The $W + 1$ jet production is simulated at the tree level
155: by using GR@PPA version 2.76 \cite{grappa27} together with the PS
156: in PYTHIA version 6.212 \cite{pythia62} in the present study.
157: The $W$ bosons always decay to the pair of an electron and a neutrino.
158: GR@PPA includes this decay in the ME calculation.
159: The sample program in the GR@PPA distribution package is used for
160: interfacing GR@PPA and PYTHIA.
161: Studies are done for the LHC condition, proton-proton collisions
162: at the cm energy of 14 TeV.
163: A CTEQ6L1 \cite{cteq6l1} routine included in the sample program is used for PDF.
164:
165: Both the initial and final state PSs are activated in PYTHIA with the default
166: setting, while the hadronization and the multiple interaction are deactivated
167: for simplicity ({\tt MSTP(81) = 0} and {\tt MSTP(111) = 0}).
168: The QED radiation is also deactivated ({\tt MSTJ(41) = 1}).
169: A jet clustering (PYCELL in PYTHIA) is applied to the parton-level events,
170: where the detector is assumed to cover the full azimuth ($\phi$)
171: and the pseudorapidity ($\eta$) up to 4.5 in the absolute value
172: with a granularity of about 0.1 in both $\phi$ and $\eta$.
173: The jets are reconstructed using a cone algorithm with the half-cone size of
174: 0.4 in $R$ and with the transverse energy ($E_{T}$) threshold of 10 GeV.
175:
176: A naive simulation of this process has an obvious difficulty.
177: In hadron collision simulations we have to give four energy scales:
178: renormalization scale ($\mu_{R}$), factorization scale ($\mu_{F}$),
179: and energy scales for the initial-state PS ($\mu_{\rm ISR}$)
180: and the final-state PS ($\mu_{\rm FSR}$).
181: It is usually said that they should be set to the {\it typical} energy scale
182: of the interaction.
183: However, there are two energy scales in the $W + 1$ jet production:
184: the $W$-boson mass ($m_{W}$) and the transverse momentum ($p_{T}$) of the jet.
185: They can be quite different from each other if we allow very low $p_{T}$
186: ($\sim$ 10 GeV/$c$) for the jet.
187:
188: \EPSFIGURE[t]{figures/simple.eps,width=160mm}
189: {\label{fig_simple}
190: Naive simulation of $W$ + 1 jet production at LHC.
191: The $p_{T}$ distribution of the $W$ boson and the $E_{T}$ distribution of
192: the leading jet are plotted.
193: The $W$ + 1 jet events are generated by GR@PPA 2.76 with the ${\hat p}_{T}$
194: cut of 5 GeV/$c$, and the PYTHIA PS is applied to the initial and final states
195: with the default setting.
196: A $E_{T}$ cut of 10 GeV is imposed in the jet reconstruction.
197: Results for two extreme cases of the energy-scale choice are shown:
198: $\mu = {\hat p}_{T}$ with solid circles, and $\mu = m_{W}$ with open circles.
199: Histograms show the results from the $W$ + 0 jet simulation with $\mu = m_{W}$.
200: }
201:
202: Figure \ref{fig_simple} shows the simulation results for the $p_{T}$
203: distribution of $W$ and the $E_{T}$ distribution of the leading jet
204: (the highest $E_{T}$ jet).
205: The ME events are generated with a minimum $p_{T}$ cut of 5 GeV/$c$
206: in the cm frame of the hard interaction.
207: Distributions are shown for two extreme cases of the energy-scale choice.
208: All energy scales are defined to be identical
209: and set equal to the jet $p_{T}$ in the cm frame (${\hat p}_{T}$) in one case,
210: and the $W$ mass (the invariant mass of the electron and neutrino) in the other.
211: These choices are non-standard in GR@PPA.
212: The user-define option ({\tt ICOUP = IFACT = 6}) is selected,
213: and the energy-scale parameters ({\tt GRCQ} and {\tt GRCFAQ}) are appropriately
214: set in the subroutine GRCUSRSETQ.
215: We frequently see similar simulations in previous $W$ + jets analyses.
216: The figure shows that the difference is significant not only in the absolute
217: value but also in the shape.
218:
219: The prediction from the $W$ + 0 jet event generator in GR@PPA 2.76
220: is also shown in Fig. \ref{fig_simple}.
221: The same PYTHIA PS is applied with all the energy scales set equal
222: to the $W$ mass.
223: The finite $p_{T}$ of $W$ and all jet activities are generated
224: by PS in this case.
225: The low $p_{T}$ behavior must be well described by this simulation.
226: However, neither the two $W + 1$ jet simulations agrees with it at low $p_{T}$s.
227: The $\mu = {\hat p}_{T}$ simulation looks better around $p_{T}$ = 20 GeV/$c$,
228: but deviates at further low $p_{T}$s.
229: This is unavoidable since the $W + 1$ jet cross section diverges
230: at ${\hat p}_{T} = 0$.
231:
232: %\EPSFIGURE[t]{figures/diagram.eps,width=50mm}
233: %{\label{fig_diagram}
234: %One of the Feynman diagrams for which the $W$ + 1 jet ME
235: %is evaluated.
236: %There are two energy scales in this process.}
237:
238: \begin{figure}[t]
239: \centering
240: \epsfig{file=figures/diagram.eps,width=70mm}
241: \caption{One of the Feynman diagrams for which the $W$ + 1 jet ME
242: is evaluated.
243: \label{fig_diagram}}
244: \end{figure}
245:
246: Figure \ref{fig_diagram} illustrates one of the Feynman diagrams for which
247: the $W + 1$ jet ME is evaluated.
248: In the present {\it inclusive} analysis, the jet in the ME should be
249: identical to the leading jet that we observe.
250: This means that there should not be any jet having $p_{T}$ larger than that.
251: The naive simulation with $\mu = m_{W}$ is apparently inadequate from this
252: point of view.
253: The initial-state PS frequently generates high $p_{T}$ jets,
254: resulting in large cross sections in medium $p_{T}$ and $E_{T}$ regions
255: in Fig. \ref{fig_simple}.
256:
257: The excessive PS activities can be eliminated by the choice of
258: $\mu = {\hat p}_{T}$.
259: This leads to a better behavior in low $p_{T}$ and $E_{T}$ regions.
260: The divergence at further low $p_{T}$s appears only because we stop
261: the perturbation at a limited order, the lowest order in this case.
262: Higher order corrections would produce higher $p_{T}$ jets and suppress
263: the contribution of the $W$ + 1 jet ME at low $p_{T}$s.
264: This is considered to be the mechanism to make the actual observation finite.
265: The suppression can be evaluated to all orders of the coupling constant
266: in a collinear approximation in terms of the Sudakov form factor.
267: This is the way usually adopted in QCD calculations having multiple energy
268: scales, and the way used in PS.
269: Therefore, the application of such a suppression with an appropriately
270: evaluated Sudakov form factor should modify the $W + 1$ jet simulation
271: to match the $W$ + 0 jet simulation at low $p_{T}$s, and to be finite
272: even at $p_{T}$ = 0.
273: We look for a suitable expression of the Sudakov form factor in the next
274: section.
275:
276: Although the choice of $\mu = {\hat p}_{T}$ looks better, it is too naive
277: to construct a realistic simulation.
278: We reconsider the choice of energy scales and discuss about the matching
279: between PS and ME in later sections.
280:
281: \section{Sudakov form factor}
282:
283: The Sudakov form factor for quarks can be described as
284: \begin{equation}\label{sudakov1}
285: S_{q}(Q_{1}^{2}, Q_{2}^{2}) = \exp\left[ - \int_{Q_{1}^{2}}^{Q_{2}^{2}}
286: {dQ^{2} \over Q^{2}} \int_{0}^{1-\epsilon} dz \
287: {\alpha_{s} \over 2\pi}\ P_{q \rightarrow q}(z) \right] ,
288: \end{equation}
289: where the splitting function for quarks with the radiation of a timelike
290: gluon is
291: \begin{equation}\label{split}
292: P_{q \rightarrow q}(z) = C_{F} { 1 + z^{2} \over 1 - z}
293: \end{equation}
294: at the leading order, with $C_{F} = 4/3$.
295: Equation (\ref{sudakov1}) represents the probability that a quark or an
296: anti-quark survives without any radiation from an evolution parameter
297: value of $Q_{1}^{2}$ up to $Q_{2}^{2}$.
298: However, the quantity is unphysical since the result depends on an
299: artificial cutoff $\epsilon$.
300: A smaller $\epsilon$ gives a smaller $S_{q}$.
301: This corresponds to a natural explanation that the non-radiation probability
302: becomes smaller if we allow softer radiation,
303: but the softness is not well defined.
304: It is necessary to introduce a definition of the splitting kinematics
305: in order to derive a physically meaningful quantity.
306:
307: \EPSFIGURE[t]{figures/kinem.eps,width=100mm}
308: {\label{fig_kinem}
309: The definition of the PS splitting kinematics that we adopt.}
310:
311: Here we examine the definition in PYTHIA for the initial-state PS
312: \cite{pythia_kinem},
313: where $Q^{2}$ is exactly the virtual of evolving partons.
314: Details of the definition are shown in Fig. \ref{fig_kinem}.
315: The four-momenta are so defined that $p_{1}^{2}$, $p_{2}^{2}$ and
316: $p_{3}^{2} < 0$, and $p_{4}^{2} \geq 0$.
317: The splitting parameter $z$ is the ratio of the squared invariant mass of
318: the collision system after and before the splitting, given as
319: \begin{equation}
320: z = { \hat{s}^{\prime} \over \hat{s} }
321: = { (p_{3} + p_{2})^{2} \over (p_{1} + p_{2})^{2} } .
322: \end{equation}
323: This definition preserves the relation $\hat{s}_{\rm hard} = x_{1}x_{2}s$
324: with $x$ given by the product of all $z$ values in each beam.
325: The squared four-momenta, $\hat{s}$ and $z$ are the inputs.
326: The other parameters can be derived from them.
327:
328: In this definition, the transverse momentum of the splitting can be
329: described as \cite{pythia_kinem}
330: \begin{equation}
331: p_{T}^{2} = E_{3}^{2} - p_{L}^{\prime 2} - p_{3}^{2},
332: \end{equation}
333: where
334: \begin{eqnarray}
335: E_{3} = { \hat{s}^{\prime} + p_{1}^{2} - p_{2}^{2} - p_{4}^{2}
336: \over 2\sqrt{\hat{s}} } , \qquad
337: p_{L}^{\prime} = { \hat{s}^{\prime} - p_{2}^{2} - p_{3}^{2} - 2E_{2}E_{3}
338: \over 2p_{L}} , \nonumber
339: \end{eqnarray}
340: with
341: \begin{eqnarray}
342: p_{L}^{2} = { (\hat{s} - p_{1}^{2} - p_{2}^{2})^{2} - 4 p_{1}^{2} p_{2}^{2}
343: \over 4\hat{s} } , \qquad
344: E_{2} = { \hat{s} - p_{1}^{2} + p_{2}^{2}
345: \over 2\sqrt{\hat{s}} } . \nonumber
346: \end{eqnarray}
347: In order to simplify the relation
348: we assume the radiation to be massless ($p_{4}^{2} = 0$),
349: and take the limit $p_{2}^{2} \rightarrow 0$ since fundamental properties
350: should not depend on not-well-defined target virtuality.
351: Furthermore, we take the limit $p_{3}^{2} \rightarrow p_{1}^{2} = -Q^{2}$
352: since Eq. (\ref{sudakov1}) indicates that we can take the
353: virtuality step as small as we want.
354: These approximations lead us to a relation,
355: \begin{equation}\label{relation1}
356: p_{T}^{2} = { ( 1 - z )^{2} Q^{2} \over 1 + { Q^{2} \over \hat{s} } } .
357: \end{equation}
358: If we assume $Q^{2} \ll \hat{s}$, this can be further simplified to
359: \begin{equation}\label{relation2}
360: p_{T} = ( 1 - z ) Q .
361: \end{equation}
362: This is different from the usually quoted relation
363: $p_{T}^{2} = ( 1 - z ) Q^{2}$,
364: but similar to the one obtained for the HERWIG PS \cite{herwig_ps}.
365:
366: %\EPSFIGURE[t]{figures/integArea.eps,width=80mm}
367: %{\label{fig_integ}
368: %the integration area.}
369:
370: \begin{figure}[t]
371: \centering
372: \epsfig{file=figures/integArea.eps,width=70mm}
373: \caption{The integration area defined by the $\theta$ function
374: in Eq. (\protect\ref{sudakov2}).}
375: \label{fig_integ}
376: \end{figure}
377:
378: If we assume the relation (\ref{relation2}), the Sudakov form factor
379: giving the no-radiation probability above a certain $p_{T}$ cut
380: ($p_{T{\rm min}}$) can be calculated as
381: \begin{equation}\label{sudakov2}
382: S_{q}(p_{T{\rm min}}, Q_{\rm max}) = \exp\left[ - \int_{0}^{Q_{\rm max}^{2}}
383: {dQ^{2} \over Q^{2}} \int_{0}^{1} dz \
384: {\alpha_{s} \over 2\pi}\ P_{q \rightarrow q}(z)
385: \theta(p_{T} - p_{T{\rm min}}) \right] .
386: \end{equation}
387: The integration area defined by the $\theta$ function is schematically
388: illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig_integ}.
389: The $\theta$ function naturally gives an upper bound of the $z$ integration
390: and an lower bound of the $Q^{2}$ integration.
391: Therefore, there is no need to introduce any artificial cutoff.
392: Namely, the result is well-defined and must have a physical meaning.
393: The upper bound $Q_{\rm max}$ should be given by the hardest energy scale in
394: the considered interaction.
395: It would be natural to take the $W$-boson mass for non-hard radiation
396: in the $W + 1$ jet production.
397: Although Eq. (\ref{sudakov2}) is numerically calculable,
398: it is rather complicated for the application to actual simulations.
399:
400: Let's start from the radiation function which the Sudakov form factor is
401: based on.
402: The radiation probability is usually expressed as
403: \begin{equation}
404: d\Gamma = {dQ^{2} \over Q^{2} }dz\ {\alpha_{s} \over 2\pi}\ P(z) .
405: \end{equation}
406: If we assume the relation (\ref{relation2}), we obtain another expression
407: that
408: \begin{equation}
409: d\Gamma = {dp_{T} \over p_{T} }dz\ {\alpha_{s} \over \pi}\ P(z) .
410: \end{equation}
411: Using this expression, the Sudakov form factor having the same meaning
412: as Eq. (\ref{sudakov2}) can be written as
413: \begin{equation}\label{sudakov3}
414: S_{q}(p_{T{\rm min}}, Q_{\rm max}) = \exp\left[
415: - \int_{p_{T{\rm min}}}^{Q_{\rm max}}
416: {dp_{T} \over p_{T}} \int_{0}^{1-{p_{T} \over Q_{\rm max}}} dz \
417: {\alpha_{s} \over \pi}\ P_{q \rightarrow q}(z) \right] .
418: \end{equation}
419: The upper bound of the $z$ integration is given by the relation
420: $p_{T} = (1 - z)Q \leq (1 - z)Q_{\rm max}$.
421:
422: Since it is natural to define $\alpha_{s}$ to be a function of $p_{T}$
423: of the splitting, the $z$ integration is easy to perform.
424: Assuming the leading order function (\ref{split}), we obtain
425: \begin{equation}\label{sudakov4}
426: S_{q}(p_{T{\rm min}}, Q_{\rm max}) = \exp\left[
427: - \int_{p_{T{\rm min}}}^{Q_{\rm max}}
428: {2C_{F} \over \pi}\ {\alpha_{s}(p_{T}) \over p_{T}}\
429: \left( \ln{1 \over \epsilon} - {3 - 4\epsilon + \epsilon^{2} \over 4}
430: \right) \ dp_{T} \right]
431: \end{equation}
432: with $\epsilon = p_{T}/Q_{\rm max}$.
433: This leads to the expression used in the CKKW method \cite{ckkw} if we take
434: the limit $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ in the non-divergent term,
435: although the definition of the parameters is slightly different.
436: The difference between Eq. (\ref{sudakov2}) and Eq. (\ref{sudakov4}) is
437: only in the definition of the integration variables.
438: They give exactly identical answers.
439:
440: \section{Suppressed $W + 1$ jet simulation}
441:
442: For the test of the suppression, $W$ + 1 jet events are generated
443: using GR@PPA 2.76 with the energy scale choice of
444: $\mu_{R} = \mu_{F} = {\hat p}_{T}$,
445: where ${\hat p}_{T}$ is the transverse momentum
446: of the jet and $W$ in the cm frame of the hard interaction.
447: The choice $\mu_{R} = {\hat p}_{T}$ merely means that the coupling at the
448: parton splitting is evaluated at this energy scale.
449: A CKKW-like correction has to be applied when we have multiple QCD vertices.
450: The other conditions are the same as those in the simulations
451: leading to Fig. \ref{fig_simple}.
452:
453: The weight factor for the suppression is defined as
454: \begin{equation}
455: w = S_{q}({\hat p}_{T}, Q_{\rm max})^{2}
456: \end{equation}
457: with Eq. (\ref{sudakov4}),
458: where we use the first-order expression for the strong coupling:
459: \begin{equation}
460: \alpha_{s}(p_{T}) = { 4\pi \over \beta_{0}\ln({p_{T}^{2}/\Lambda^{2}) } }
461: \end{equation}
462: with $\beta_{0} = 11 - 2n_{f}/3$ ($n_{f} = 5$) and $\Lambda$ = 0.0883 GeV.
463: This gives $\alpha_{s}(m_{Z})$ = 0.118.
464: The hard interaction scale is given by
465: \begin{equation}
466: Q_{\rm max} = {\hat m}_{T}(W) = \sqrt{ m_{W}^{2} + {\hat p}_{T}^{2} }.
467: \end{equation}
468: This naturally connects reasonable definitions at two extreme cases:
469: $Q_{\rm max} = m_{W}$ at small ${\hat p}_{T}$s and $Q_{\rm max} =
470: {\hat p}_{T}$ at large ${\hat p}_{T}$s.
471: The Sudakov form factor is squared since the no-radiation condition must be
472: required to two incoming quarks converted to the $W$ boson.
473: Events generated according to the ordinary $W$ + 1 jet cross section
474: are accepted in proportion to this weight
475: in the subroutine GRCUSRCUT of GR@PPA.
476: Though this degrades the event generation efficiency,
477: the degradation is moderate in GR@PPA because the same routine is used
478: in the initialization stage for optimizing the event generation.
479:
480: We have to apply PS also to these $W$ + 1 jet events in order to obtain
481: realistic events.
482: Here, an appropriate care is necessary to accomplish a reasonable matching
483: between the PS and ME.
484: In principle the PYTHIA PS is equivalent to the numerical evaluation of
485: the integral in Eq. (\ref{sudakov1}).
486: The Sudakov form factor is evaluated by carrying out the integration
487: over the shaded area in Fig. \ref{fig_integ}.
488: Thus, this area is covered by ME if $p_{T{\rm min}} = {\hat p}_{T}$;
489: {\it i.e.}, no radiation there.
490: PS has to cover the rest of the area.
491: We can easily see that the matching cannot be achieved by a simple choice
492: of the PS energy scale.
493: A certain {\it rejection} method is necessary to apply, as is done in CKKW,
494: when we use an ordinary $Q^{2}$-ordered PS.
495:
496: We adopt the following method in the present study:
497: the PYTHIA PS is applied with the energy-scale choice of
498: $\mu_{PS} = {\hat m}_{T}(W)$.
499: This can be done by explicitly setting the variable {\tt SCALUP} of
500: the LHA common {\tt HEPEUP} to this value in the subroutine UPEVNT.
501: After the PS is added we investigate the parton information in the {\tt PYJETS}
502: common of PYTHIA.
503: The PS is re-applied to the same event if there is any radiation from the
504: initial-state partons with $p_{T} \geq {\hat p}_{T}$.
505: This is an approximation since the examined $p_{T}$ does not directly
506: correspond to the $p_{T}$ of each splitting.
507: However, this method can be applied without any modification to PYTHIA
508: routines and, what is more, it provides us with a reasonably good results
509: as will be shown in the following.
510: In any case, it is impossible to achieve a perfect matching using
511: $Q^{2}$-ordered PSs.
512: There is no splitting to produce spacelike gluons in the $W$ + 1 jet ME,
513: while in PS such a splitting may produce the highest $p_{T}$ jet
514: although the probability must be very small.
515: This {\it rejection} does not significantly affect the event generation speed,
516: because the PS simulation is fast and the average number of trials is only
517: 1.3 in the present condition.
518:
519: \EPSFIGURE[t]{figures/supp.eps,width=160mm}
520: {\label{fig_supp}
521: Suppressed $W$ + 1 jet simulation in the LHC condition.
522: A ${\hat p}_{T}$ cut of 5 GeV/$c$ is applied in the hard-interaction
523: generation, and the jet reconstruction is applied with an $E_{T}$ threshold
524: of 10 GeV.
525: Filled circles show the results of the simulation implementing
526: the PS-ME matching,
527: while open circles show those without matching but with
528: $\mu_{PS} = {\hat p}_{T}$.
529: Dashed histograms are the naive simulation results for the energy-scale
530: choice of $\mu = {\hat p}_{T}$.
531: Solid histograms show the results from the $W$ + 0 jet simulation with
532: $\mu = m_{W}$.}
533:
534: Figure \ref{fig_supp} shows the $p_{T}(W)$ and $E_{T}$(leading jet)
535: distributions of the suppressed $W$ + 1 jet simulation.
536: Only low to medium $p_{T}$ and $E_{T}$ regions are shown in the figure.
537: The suppression is not significant in higher $p_{T}$ ($E_{T}$) regions.
538: The results from a naive simulation ($\mu = {\hat p}_{T}$) is overwritten
539: with dashed histograms to show how the suppression works.
540: We can see a smooth matching with the $W$ + 0 jet simulation (histograms)
541: at low $p_{T}$ ($E_{T}$) around 15 GeV.
542: This shows that our suppression method is reasonable.
543:
544: Two results are plotted in the figure.
545: The filled circles show the results of the simulation implementing the
546: above PS-ME matching method,
547: while the open circles show those without matching.
548: The PS energy scale is set to ${\hat p}_{T}$ in the latter
549: in order to avoid the overlap with ME.
550: The threshold behavior is more strongly smeared in the matched simulation.
551:
552: \DOUBLEFIGURE[t]{figures/wpt_jtag.eps,width=80mm}
553: {figures/ptcut.eps,width=80mm}
554: {\label{fig_wpt_jtag}
555: The $p_{T}$ distribution of $W$ for jet-tagged events.
556: Filled circles show the result of the simulation to which the PS-ME matching
557: method is applied, while open circles without the matching but with
558: the PS energy-scale choice of $\mu_{PS} = {\hat p}_{T}$.
559: The histogram shows the result of the same analysis applied to the $W$ + 0 jet
560: simulation.}
561: {\label{fig_ptcut}
562: Total cross section of jet-tagged events ($E_{T} \geq 20$ GeV)
563: as a function of the ${\hat p}_{T}$-cut in the hard-interaction generation.
564: Filled circles show the results from the suppressed $W$ + 1 jet simulation
565: with the PS-ME matching.
566: Open circles show those we obtain if we omit the {\it rejection}
567: procedure in the matching.}
568:
569: %\EPSFIGURE[t]{figures/wpt_jtag.eps,width=80mm}
570: %{\label{fig_wpt_jtag}
571: %the $p_{T}$ distribution of $W$ for jet-tagged events.}
572:
573: The difference between the matched and unmatched simulations is more clearly
574: seen in Fig. \ref{fig_wpt_jtag},
575: where $p_{T}(W)$ is plotted for jet-tagged events.
576: The distribution below the $E_{T}$ threshold (10 GeV) shows the collective
577: effect of the applied PS.
578: The result for the $W$ + 0 jet simulation obtained from the same analysis
579: is overwritten in the figure.
580: The matched simulation is in good agreement with the $W$ + 0
581: jet simulation below the threshold.
582: This means that our matching method is well performed;
583: namely, the PS added to the $W$ + 1 jet simulation is quite similar to the
584: non-leading PS in the $W$ + 0 jet simulation.
585: Since the leading behavior is already well matched,
586: the suppressed $W$ + 1 jet simulation is now indistinguishable from
587: the $W$ + 0 jet simulation at low $p_{T}$s.
588:
589: %\EPSFIGURE[t]{figures/ptcut.eps,width=100mm}
590: %{\label{fig_ptcut}
591: %Total cross section of jet-tagged events ($E_{T} \geq 20$ GeV)
592: %as a function of the ${\hat p}_{T}$-cut in the hard-interaction generation.
593: %The filled circles show the results from the suppressed $W$ + 1 jet simulation
594: %with the PS-ME matching.
595: %The open circles show those we obtain if we omit the {\it rejection}
596: %procedure in the matching.}
597:
598: Figure \ref{fig_ptcut} shows the total cross section of jet-tagged events
599: for a practical jet $E_{T}$ threshold (20 GeV),
600: as a function of the ${\hat p}_{T}$ cut in GR@PPA.
601: Observable quantities should not depend on artificial conditions in the
602: simulation such as the ${\hat p}_{T}$ cut.
603: The result shows that the jet-tagged cross section is stable against the
604: variation of the ${\hat p}_{T}$ cut if it is set reasonably small.
605: The ${\hat p}_{T}$ cut of 10 GeV/$c$ looks sufficient in the present study,
606: though further smearing due to the hadronization and detector effects may
607: alter it.
608:
609: \section{$Z$ production at Tevatron Run I}
610:
611: \EPSFIGURE[t]{figures/z_cdf.eps,width=100mm}
612: {\label{fig_z_cdf}
613: Comparison with CDF data at Tevatron Run I for the $p_{T}$ spectrum of $Z$.
614: The histogram shows the simulation result for the $Z$ + 1 jet production
615: with the ${\hat p}_{T}$ cut of 5 GeV/$c$.
616: }
617:
618: In this section we apply our suppressed simulation to the $Z$
619: production at Tevatron for a comparison with experimental data.
620: The simulation for the $Z$ production ($66 < m(Z \rightarrow e^{+}e^{-})
621: < 116$ GeV/$c^{2}$) is compared with CDF data at Tevatron Run I \cite{cdf_z}
622: in Fig. \ref{fig_z_cdf}.
623: The result from the suppressed $Z$ + 1 jet simulation for the Tevatron Run I
624: condition (${\bar p}p$ collisions at 1.8 TeV in the cm energy) is shown
625: with the histogram.
626: A ${\hat p}_{T}$ cut of 5 GeV/$c$ is applied again.
627: The simulation is essentially the same as that for the $W$ + 1 jet production,
628: except for the overall normalization.
629: The simulation result is multiplied by a factor of 1.48, the ratio between
630: the measured inclusive $Z$ production cross section and the corresponding
631: tree-level prediction by the $Z$ + 0 jet generator in GR@PPA.
632: We can see a very good agreement from low ($\sim 15$ GeV/$c$) to very high
633: ($\sim 100$ GeV/$c$) $p_{T}$ regions.
634: It should be noted that we have obtained this simulation result without
635: any tuning.
636:
637: Unfortunately jet spectrum data are not available for the comparison.
638: There would be a difficulty in the presentation of experimental data
639: since {\it jets} are experiment and analysis dependent.
640: By the way, there is no reason that experimental data much differ from our
641: simulation, since the agreement is very good in the $p_{T}(Z)$ spectrum.
642: At the 0th order, the leading jet should be balanced with $Z$ in $p_{T}$.
643: Though higher order effects violate the balance,
644: the dominant leading-order corrections are taken into account
645: by applying a PS in our simulation.
646: Thus, significant deviation can emerge only if we examine a quantity relevant
647: to the next-to-leading jet.
648: Note that the events generated by GR@PPA are passed to PYTHIA with the
649: energy scale choice of $\mu_{PS} = {\hat m}_{T}(Z)$.
650: The final-state PS is implemented up to this scale
651: since no rejection is applied to it.
652:
653: \section{Conclusion}
654:
655: We have introduced a simple method for simulating {\it inclusive} $W/Z$ +
656: jet productions at hadron collisions.
657: The divergence of the cross section at low $p_{T}$ is suppressed
658: by using the Sudakov form factor.
659: PS is added to the events generated by an ME-based event generator
660: at the tree level with an appropriate consideration for matching.
661: The simulation can be done using existing tools, GR@PPA and PYTHIA.
662: Necessary modifications can be applied at the level where ordinary users are
663: allowed.
664:
665: The results from our $W$ + 1 jet simulation show a smooth matching
666: at low $p_{T}$s with the $W$ + 0 jet simulation,
667: in which jet activities are totally generated by PS.
668: The simulation of $Z$ + 1 jet production in the Tevatron Run I condition
669: well reproduces the CDF data for $p_{T}(Z)$ measurement.
670:
671: The present study deals with the jet (parton) radiation from initial-state
672: partons only.
673: An extension to the final state is necessary to apply our method to multi-jet
674: productions.
675:
676: The method applied in the present study is similar to the {\it inclusive}
677: treatment for the highest jet-multiplicity events in CKKW \cite{sherpa}.
678: The success of our method suggests that the {\it inclusive} simulation of
679: $n$-jet events in CKKW might be enough to obtain a reasonable
680: inclusive $n$-jet sample, if the resolution scale can be lowered to the level
681: of the ${\hat p}_{T}$ cut in the present study.
682: The contribution from other multiplicity events might become insignificant.
683:
684: \acknowledgments
685:
686: This work has been carried out as an activity of the NLO Working Group,
687: a collaboration between the Japanese ATLAS group and the numerical analysis
688: group (Minami-Tateya group) at KEK.
689: The author wants to acknowledge useful discussions with the members:
690: J. Kodaira, J. Fujimoto, Y. Kurihara, T. Kaneko and T. Ishikawa of KEK,
691: S. Tsuno of Okayama University,
692: and K. Kato of Kogakuin University.
693:
694: \listoftables % ONLY IN DRAFT MODE
695: \listoffigures % ONLY IN DRAFT MODE
696: \begin{thebibliography}{999}
697:
698: \bibitem{ckkw} S. Catani, F. Krauss, R. Kuhn and B.R. Webber,
699: \jhep{11}{2001}{063}
700: \bibitem{ckkw_had} F. Krauss, \jhep{08}{2002}{015}; \\
701: S. Mrenna and P. Richardson, \jhep{05}{2004}{040}
702: \bibitem{sherpa} SHERPA: A. Sch\"{a}licke and F. Krauss,
703: \jhep{07}{2005}{018}
704: \bibitem{other_gen} ALPGEN: M.L. Mangano {\it et al.},
705: {\tt http://mlm.home.cern.ch/mlm/alpgen/}; \\
706: ARIADNE: N. Lavesson and L. L\"{o}nnblad, \jhep{07}{2005}{054}
707:
708: \bibitem{grappa27} S. Tsuno {\it et al.}, submitted to
709: {\it Comput. Phys. Commun.}; \hepph{0602213}
710: \bibitem{pythia62} T. Sj\"{o}strand {\it et al.}, \cpc{135}{2001}{238}; \\
711: T. Sj\"{o}strand, L. L\"{o}nnblad, S. Mrenna and P. Skands,
712: LU TP 01-21 (Apr. 2002); \hepph{0108264}
713: \bibitem{cteq6l1} J. Pumplin {\it et al.}, \jhep{07}{2002}{012}
714:
715: \bibitem{pythia_kinem} T. Sj\"{o}strand, {\it Phys. Lett.} 157B (1985) 321; \\
716: M. Bengtsson, T. Sj\"{o}strand and M. van Zijl, \zpc{32}{1986}{67}
717: \bibitem{herwig_ps} G. Marchesini and B. Webber, \npb{310}{1988}{461}
718:
719: \bibitem{cdf_z} CDF Collab., T. Affolder {\it et al.}, \prl{84}{2000}{845}
720:
721: \end{thebibliography}
722:
723: \end{document}
724: