1: \documentclass{JHEP3}
2: \usepackage{amsmath}
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4:
5: \title{On QCD resummation with $k_t$ clustering}
6:
7: \author{Yazid Delenda, Robert Appleby, Mrinal Dasgupta\\
8: School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester,\\
9: Oxford road, Manchester M13 9PL, U.K.\\
10: \email{yazid@hep.man.ac.uk},
11: \email{Robert.Appleby@manchester.ac.uk},
12: \email{Mrinal.Dasgupta@manchester.ac.uk}}
13:
14: \author{Andrea Banfi\\
15: Universit\`a degli studi di Milano Bicocca and INFN, Sezione
16: di Milano, Italy.\\
17: \email{Andrea.Banfi@mib.infn.it}}
18:
19: \preprint{MAN/HEP/2006/27\\Bicocca-FT-06-16}
20:
21: \abstract{We revisit the impact of the jet algorithm on predictions
22: of energy flow into gaps between hard jets, defined using the $k_t$
23: clustering procedure. The resulting prediction has two distinct
24: components: a primary emission piece that is related to independent
25: emission of soft gluons by the hard jets and a correlated emission
26: (non-global) piece known only in the large $N_c$ limit. We
27: analytically compute the dependence of the primary emission term on
28: the jet algorithm, which gives significantly more insight than our
29: previous numerical study of the same. We also point out that the
30: non-global component of the answer is reduced even more
31: significantly by the clustering than suggested previously in the
32: literature. Lastly we provide improved predictions for the latest
33: ZEUS photoproduction data, assessing the impact of our latest
34: findings.}
35:
36: \keywords{QCD, Jets}
37:
38: \begin{document}
39:
40: \section{Introduction}
41:
42: One of the most commonly studied QCD observables is the flow of
43: transverse energy ($E_t$) into gaps between jets in various QCD hard
44: processes. Since the $E_t$ flow away from jets is infrared and
45: collinear safe it is possible to make perturbative predictions for
46: the same, which can be compared to experimental data for a given
47: hard process. However since one is typically examining
48: configurations where $E_t$ is small compared to the hard scale $Q$
49: of the process (e.g. jet transverse momenta in hadronic collisions)
50: the perturbative predictions involve large logarithms in the ratio
51: $Q/E_t$. Resummation of logarithmically enhanced terms of the form
52: $\alpha_s^n \ln^{n} (Q/E_t)$ has proved a challenge that is still to
53: be fully met -- complete calculations are available only in the
54: large $N_c$ limit~\cite{DSNG1,DSNG2,BMS}. Studies of the $E_t$ flow
55: have in fact directly led to developments in the theoretical
56: understanding of QCD radiation and this process is still
57: ongoing~\cite{FKS}.
58:
59: Another feature of the energy flow away from jets is its sensitivity
60: to non-perturbative effects. Thus one may expect significant $1/Q$
61: power corrections to energy flow distributions of a similar origin
62: to those extensively studied for various jet-shape
63: observables~\cite{DSreview}. Moreover the $E_t$ flow in hadronic
64: collisions is a standard observable used to develop an understanding
65: of the underlying event and to assess its role after accounting for
66: perturbatively calculable QCD radiation~\cite{MW,BKS}.
67:
68: Given that $E_t$ flow studies potentially offer so much valuable
69: information on QCD over disparate scales, involving perturbative
70: parameters such as the strong coupling $\alpha_s$, QCD evolution,
71: coherence properties of QCD radiation and non-perturbative effects,
72: it is not surprising that they have been the subject of substantial
73: theoretical effort over the past few years.
74:
75: In this paper we wish to focus on the aspect of resummed predictions
76: for the $E_t$ flow into gaps between jets. Perhaps the most
77: significant problem involved in making such predictions is the
78: non-global nature of the observable~\cite{DSNG1,DSNG2}. More
79: precisely in order to resum the leading single logarithms involved,
80: one has to address not just a veto on soft emissions coupled to the
81: underlying primary hard parton antennae (known as the primary
82: emission term), but additionally correlated emission or non-global
83: contributions, where a clump of energy-ordered soft gluons
84: coherently emit a still softer gluon into the gap region $\Omega$.
85: For this latter contribution the highly non-trivial colour structure
86: of the multi-gluon ``hedgehog" configuration has proved at present
87: too significant an obstacle to overcome. One thus has to resort to
88: the large $N_c$ limit to provide merely a leading-log estimate for
89: the away-from--jet $E_t$ flow. This situation can be contrasted
90: with the case of event-shapes and Drell-Yan $q_T$ resummations which
91: have been pushed to next-to--leading and next-to--next-to--leading
92: logarithmic accuracy respectively. The impact of finite $N_c$
93: corrections in non-global observables is thus a factor in the
94: theoretical uncertainty involved in the corresponding resummed
95: predictions.
96:
97: Given that the non-global component has a substantial quantitative
98: impact over a significant range of $E_t$ values for a given hard
99: scale $Q$ and that it is computable only in the large $N_c$
100: approximation, it is clearly desirable to reduce the sensitivity of
101: a given observable to non-global logarithms. An important
102: observation in this regard was made in Ref.~\cite{AS1}: if one
103: employs the $k_t$ clustering algorithm~\cite{ktclus,ktclusinc} to
104: define the final state such that the energy flow into a gap between
105: jets is due to soft $k_t$-clustered mini-jets (rather than
106: individual hadrons), the non-global logarithms are significantly
107: reduced in magnitude\footnote{For recent progress on aspects of the
108: $k_t$ algorithm itself see Ref.~\cite{CacSal}.}. This observation
109: was exploited to study the case of $E_t$ flow in dijet
110: photoproduction where a result was provided for the primary emission
111: component of the $E_t$ distribution and the reduced non-global
112: component was modeled~\cite{AS2}.
113:
114: However it has subsequently been found that $k_t$ clustering also
115: has a non-trivial impact on the primary emission component of the
116: result~\cite{BD05}. This was not taken into account in
117: Refs.~\cite{AS1,AS2} and also affects the ability to make resummed
118: predictions for a host of other jet observables such as azimuthal
119: correlation between jets $\Delta \phi_{jj}$. In fact the findings of
120: Ref.~\cite{BD05} are not just specific to the $k_t$ algorithm but
121: would also crop up in the case of jet observables defined using
122: iterative cone algorithms.
123:
124: In the present paper we wish to shed more light on the resummation
125: of the primary or independent emission component of the result and
126: its dependence on the clustering algorithm. While the leading
127: ${\mathcal{O}} \left (\alpha_s^2 \ln^2 (Q/E_t) \right)$ clustering
128: dependent behaviour was computed analytically in Ref.~\cite{BD05},
129: the full resummed result for the primary emission component was
130: computed only numerically in the case of a single hard emitting
131: dipole ($e^{+}e^{-} \to 2$ jets or DIS $1+1$ jets). Here while
132: sticking to a single hard dipole we shed more light on the structure
133: of the primary emission term and analytically compute it to an
134: accuracy that is sufficient for a wide range of phenomenological
135: applications.
136:
137: The analytical insight and calculations we provide here will also
138: make the generalisation of the $k_t$-clustered primary emission
139: result to the case of several hard emitters (dijets produced in
140: photoproduction or hadron-hadron processes), involving a non-trivial
141: colour flow, relatively straightforward.
142:
143: The above resummation of the primary component of the answer assumes
144: greater significance when we discuss our second observation: once an
145: error is corrected in the numerical code used for the purposes of
146: Refs.~\cite{AS1,AS2} the non-global component of the result is
147: reduced even more compared to the earlier estimate. With a very
148: small non-global component (which can be numerically computed in the
149: large $N_c$ limit) and a primary emission component that correctly
150: treats the dependence on the jet algorithm, one is better placed to
151: make more accurate resummed predictions than has been the case till
152: now. This is true not just for the $E_t$ flow but also as we
153: mentioned for a variety of jet observables for which there are
154: either no resummed predictions as yet, or only those employing jet
155: algorithms not directly used in experimental studies~\cite{KS}.
156:
157: This paper is organised as follows. In the following section we
158: define the observable in question and revisit the issue of the
159: dependence of the primary and non-global pieces on the jet
160: clustering algorithm. Following this we demonstrate how the primary
161: or independent emission piece can be computed at all orders in
162: $\alpha_s$, accounting to sufficient accuracy for the effects of the
163: clustering algorithm. We explicitly describe the case of three and
164: four-gluon contributions to demonstrate the steps leading to our
165: all-order results. Following this we re-examine the non-global
166: component of the answer and find that this is significantly smaller
167: than earlier calculations of the same~\cite{AS1}. We put our
168: findings together to examine their impact on photoproduction data
169: from the ZEUS collaboration~\cite{ZEUS} and lastly point to the
170: conclusions one can draw and future extensions of our work.
171:
172: \section{Resummation of the primary emissions}
173:
174: Let us consider for simplicity the process $e^{+}e^{-} \to 2$ jets.
175: The calculations for processes involving a larger number of jets and
176: more complex jet topologies can be done along similar lines.
177:
178: We wish to examine the $E_t$ flow in a region $\Omega$ which we
179: choose as a slice in rapidity\footnote{Since we are here dealing
180: with back-to--back jets we can define the rapidity with respect to
181: the jet axis or equivalently, for our purposes, the thrust axis.} of
182: width $\Delta \eta$ which we can centre on $\eta=0$. We then define
183: the gap transverse energy as:
184: \begin{equation}
185: \label{defn} E_t = \sum_{i \in \Omega}{E_{t,i}}\,,
186: \end{equation}
187: where the index $i$ refers to soft jets obtained after $k_t$
188: clustering of the final state. We shall concentrate on the
189: integrated $E_t$ cross-section which is defined as:
190: \begin{equation}
191: \Sigma(Q,Q_\Omega) = \frac{1}{\sigma}\int_0^{Q_\Omega}
192: \frac{d\sigma}{d E_t} d E_t\,,
193: \end{equation}
194: with $\sigma$ the total cross-section for $e^+e^-\rightarrow$
195: hadrons, with center-of-mass energy $Q$.
196:
197: The single-logarithmic result for the above, without $k_t$
198: clustering (where the sum over $i$ in Eq.~\eqref{defn} refers to
199: hadrons in the gap rather than jet clusters), was computed in
200: Ref.~\cite{DSNG2} and can be expressed as:
201: \begin{equation}
202: \label{eq:signoclus} \Sigma(Q,Q_\Omega) = \Sigma_P (t)\,
203: S(t)\,,\qquad t = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{Q_\Omega}^{Q/2}
204: \frac{dk_t}{k_t}\, \alpha_s(k_t)\,.
205: \end{equation}
206: The above result contains a primary emission or ``Sudakov''
207: term\footnote{We use the term ``Sudakov'' in a loose sense since the
208: primary emission result leads to an exponential that is analogous to
209: a Sudakov form-factor.} $\Sigma_P(t)$ and a non-global term $S(t)$.
210:
211: The primary emission piece is built up by considering only emissions
212: attached to the primary hard partons namely those emitted from the
213: hard initiating $q\bar{q}$ dipole in our example, while the
214: non-global term arises from coherent soft emission from a complex
215: ensemble of soft emitters alongside the hard initiating dipole. More
216: precisely we have:
217: \begin{equation}
218: \label{eq:sudakov} \Sigma_P(t) = e^{-4 C_F t\Delta \eta }\,,
219: \end{equation}
220: which is the result of resumming uncancelled $k_t$-ordered
221: virtual-emission contributions, in the gap region. The non-global
222: component, as we stated before, is computed numerically in the large
223: $N_c$ limit.
224:
225: Next we turn to the $k_t$-clustered case. The result stated in
226: Ref.~\cite{AS1} assumes that the primary or Sudakov piece is left
227: unchanged by clustering since it appears to be the exponentiation of
228: a single gluon emitted inside the gap. The non-global piece is
229: recomputed numerically implementing clustering~\cite{AS1}. As
230: already shown in Ref.~\cite{BD05} however, the assumption regarding
231: the primary emission piece being unaffected is in fact untrue and
232: this too needs to be recomputed in the presence of clustering. The
233: corrections to the primary emission term first appear while
234: considering two gluons emitted by the hard $q \bar{q}$ dipole and
235: persist at all orders. Below we provide a reminder of the two-gluon
236: case discussed in Ref.~\cite{BD05} and subsequently consider
237: explicitly the three and four-gluon emission cases before writing
238: down the result to all orders as a function of the radius parameter
239: $R$.
240:
241: \subsection{Two-gluon emission}
242:
243: In order to examine the role of the $k_t$ algorithm we point out
244: that in our case ($k_t$-ordered soft limit) one can start the
245: clustering procedure with the lowest transverse-energy parton or
246: equivalently the softest parton. One examines the ``distances'' of
247: this particle, $i$, from its neighbours, defined by $d_{ij} =
248: E_{t,i}^2 \left(\left(\Delta \eta_{ij} \right)^2 + \left( \Delta
249: \phi_{ij}\right)^2\right)$, where $E_{t,i}$ is the transverse energy
250: of the softest parton. If the smallest of these distances is less
251: than $E_{t,i}^2 R^2$, particle $i$ is recombined or clustered into
252: its nearest neighbour and the algorithm is iterated. On the other
253: hand if all $d_{ij}$ are greater than $E_{t,i}^2 R^2$, $i$ is
254: counted as a jet and removed from the process of further clustering.
255: The process continues until the entire final-state is made up of
256: jets. Also in the limit of strong energy-ordering, which is
257: sufficient to obtain the leading-logarithms we are concerned with
258: here, the recombination of a softer particle with a harder one gives
259: a jet that is aligned along the harder particle.
260:
261: The dependence of the primary emission term on the jet clustering
262: algorithm starts naturally enough from the two-gluon level. While
263: the Sudakov result $\exp{\left(-4 C_F t\Delta \eta\right)}$ comes
264: about due to assuming real-virtual cancellations such that one is
265: left with only virtual emissions with $k_t \geq Q_{\Omega}$ in the
266: gap region (for the integrated distribution), $k_t$ clustering
267: spoils this assumed cancellation.
268:
269: Specifically let us take two real gluons $k_1$ and $k_2$ that are
270: ordered in energy ($\omega_1 \gg \omega_2$). We consider as in
271: Ref.~\cite{BD05} the region where the softer gluon $k_2$ is in the
272: gap whilst the harder $k_1$ is outside. Additionally we take the
273: case that the gluons are clustered by the jet algorithm which
274: happens when $\left(\Delta \eta \right)^2 + \left( \Delta \phi
275: \right)^2 \leq R^2$ with $\Delta\eta = \eta_2-\eta_1$ and similarly
276: for $\Delta \phi$, which condition we shall denote with the symbol
277: $\theta_{21}$. Since $k_2$ is clustered to $k_1$ it gets pulled
278: outside the gap, the recombined jet being essentially along $k_1$.
279: Thus in this region the double real-emission term does not
280: contribute to the gap energy \emph{differential} distribution
281: $d\sigma/dE_t$. Now let $k_1$ be a virtual gluon. In this case it
282: cannot cluster $k_2$ out of the gap and we do get a contribution to
283: the gap energy differential distribution. Thus a real-virtual
284: cancellation which occurs for the unclustered case fails here and
285: the mismatch for the integrated quantity $\Sigma(t)$, amounts to:
286: \begin{equation}
287: \label{eq:twog} C_2^{p} = \frac{(-4 C_F t)^2}{2!}
288: \int_{k_1\notin\Omega} d\eta_1 \frac{d \phi_1}{2 \pi} \int_{ k_2 \in
289: \Omega} d \eta_2 \frac {d \phi_2}{2 \pi} \theta_{21} = \frac{(-4C_F
290: t)^2}{2!} \frac{2}{3 \pi} R^3\,,
291: \end{equation}
292: where we reported above the result computed for $R \leq \Delta
293: \eta$, in Ref.~\cite{BD05}. Here we introduced the primary emission
294: term $C_n^{p}$ that corrects the Sudakov result at
295: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^n)$ due to the clustering requirement.
296:
297: The fact that the result scales as the third power of the jet radius
298: parameter is interesting in that by choosing a sufficiently small
299: value of $R$ one may hope to virtually eliminate this piece and thus
300: the identification of the primary result with the Sudakov exponent
301: would be at least numerically accurate. However the non-global term
302: would then be significant which defeats the main use of clustering.
303: If one chooses to minimise the non-global component by choosing e.g.
304: $R=1$, then one must examine the primary emission terms in higher
305: orders in order to estimate their role. To this end we start by
306: looking at the three and four-gluon cases below.
307:
308: \subsection{Three-gluon emission}
309:
310: Consider the emission of three energy-ordered gluons $k_1$, $k_2$
311: and $k_3$ with $\omega_3\ll \omega_2 \ll \omega_1$, off the primary
312: $q\bar{q}$ dipole, and employing the inclusive $k_t$ clustering
313: algorithm~\cite{ktclus,ktclusinc} as explained previously.
314:
315: We consider all the various cases that arise when the gluons (which
316: could be real or virtual) are in the gap region or outside. We also
317: consider all the configurations in which the gluons are affected by
318: the clustering algorithm. We then look for all contributions where a
319: real-virtual mismatch appears due to clustering, that is not
320: included in the exponential Sudakov term. The Sudakov itself is
321: built up by integrating just virtual gluons in the gap, above the
322: scale $Q_\Omega$. The corrections to this are summarised in
323: table~\ref{tab:cont}. \TABLE[ht]{
324: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|}
325: \hline $\theta_{32}$ & $\theta_{31}$ & $\theta_{21}$ &
326: $k_3\in\Omega$ & $k_2 \in\Omega$ & $k_1\in\Omega$ & $k_3\,,\,k_2
327: \in\Omega$ & $k_3\,,\,k_1 \in\Omega$ & $k_2\,,\,k_1 \in\Omega$
328: \\
329: \hline\hline
330: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
331: \hline
332: 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &$W$& 0\\
333: \hline
334: 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &$W$& 0 & 0\\
335: \hline
336: 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 &$W$& 0 & 0\\
337: \hline
338: 1 & 1 & 0 &$W$& 0 & 0 &$W$&$W$& 0\\
339: \hline
340: 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &$W$& 0\\
341: \hline
342: 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 &$W$& 0 & 0\\
343: \hline
344: 1 & 1 & 1 &$W$& 0 & 0 &$W$&$W$& 0\\
345: \hline
346: \end{tabular}
347: \caption{\label{tab:cont}Contributions of different configurations
348: of particles to $\Sigma_P(t)\,$ at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^3)$. We
349: define $\theta_{ij} = \theta\left( R^2-(\eta_{i}-\eta_j)^2 -
350: (\phi_{i} - \phi_j)^2\right)$, e.g. $\theta_{13}=1$ means
351: $(\eta_{1}-\eta_3)^2+(\phi_{1}-\phi_3)^2\leq R^2$. We also define
352: $W=(-4C_Ft)^3 /3!$, so the entries ``$W$'' indicate a
353: miscancellation which leads to a single-log correction to the
354: Sudakov result, while the entries ``0'' indicate a complete
355: real-virtual cancellation. We have discarded the case where all
356: particles are in the gap since such configurations are already
357: included in the exponential Sudakov result.}}
358:
359: In order to obtain the various entries of the table one just looks
360: at the angular configuration in question, draws all possible real
361: and virtual contributions and looks for a mismatch between them
362: generated by the action of clustering. We translate
363: table~\ref{tab:cont} to:
364: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:cont}
365: C_3^{p} & = & \frac{1}{3!}(-4C_F t)^3\times \nonumber\\
366: & & \times \bigg\{ \int_{k_1\notin\Omega} d\eta_1
367: \frac{d\phi_1}{2\pi} \int_{k_2\notin\Omega} d\eta_2
368: \frac{d\phi_2}{2\pi} \int_{k_3\in\Omega} d\eta_3\,
369: \theta_{32}\, \theta_{31} + \nonumber\\
370: & & + \int_{k_1\notin\Omega} d\eta_1 \frac{d\phi_1}{2\pi}
371: \int_{k_2\in\Omega} d\eta_2 \frac{d\phi_2}{2\pi} \int_{k_3\in\Omega}
372: d\eta_3 \left[\theta_{31}+(1-\theta_{31})(1-\theta_{32})
373: \theta_{21}\right] + \nonumber\\
374: & & + \int_{k_1\in\Omega} d\eta_1 \frac{d\phi_1}{2\pi}
375: \int_{k_2\notin\Omega} d\eta_2 \frac{d\phi_2}{2\pi}
376: \int_{k_3\in\Omega} d\eta_3\, \theta_{32}\bigg\}\,,
377: \end{eqnarray}
378: where we used the freedom to set $\phi_3=0$. We identify three equal
379: contributions consisting of the integrals in which there is only one
380: theta function constraining only two particles: the last integral
381: over $\theta_{32}$, the integral over $\theta_{31}$ and that over
382: $\theta_{21}$ in the third line. The set of configurations
383: $\theta_{32}$, $\theta_{31}$ and $\theta_{21}$ is just the set of
384: constraints on all possible pairs of gluons, and in fact we can
385: generalise the factor 3 to the case of any number $n$ of gluons by
386: $n(n-1)/2$, which will enable us to resum $R^3$ terms. We shall
387: return to this observation later. The integrals of the above type
388: reduce essentially to the clustered two-gluon case as calculated in
389: Eq.~\eqref{eq:twog}, and the integral over the third
390: ``unconstrained'' gluon is just $\Delta\eta$.
391:
392: Explicitly we write Eq.~\eqref{eq:cont} as:
393: \begin{eqnarray}
394: \label{eq:cont2}
395: C_3^{p} & = & \frac{1}{3!} (-4C_F t)^3 \times \nonumber\\
396: & & \times\Bigg\{ \int_{k_1\notin\Omega} d\eta_1
397: \frac{d\phi_1}{2\pi} \int_{k_2\notin\Omega} d\eta_2
398: \frac{d\phi_2}{2\pi} \int_{k_3\in\Omega} d\eta_3\,
399: \theta_{32}\,\theta_{31}+\nonumber\\
400: & & + \int_{k_1\notin\Omega} d\eta_1 \frac{d\phi_1}{2\pi}
401: \int_{k_2\in\Omega} d\eta_2 \frac{d\phi_2}{2\pi} \int_{k_3\in\Omega}
402: d\eta_3 \left[\theta_{31}\theta_{32}-\theta_{31}-\theta_{32}
403: \right] \theta_{21}+ \nonumber\\
404: && + 3\times \int_{k_1\in\Omega} d\eta_1 \frac{d\phi_1}{2\pi}
405: \int_{k_2\notin\Omega} d\eta_2 \frac{d\phi_2}{2\pi}
406: \int_{k_3\in\Omega} d\eta_3\,\theta_{32}\Bigg\}\,.
407: \end{eqnarray}
408: Computing the various integrals above (for simplicity we take $R
409: \leq \Delta \eta/2$, which is sufficient for our phenomenological
410: purposes) one obtains:
411: \begin{multline}
412: C_3^{p} = \frac{1}{3!} (-4C_F t)^3 \times\\
413: \times \left\{ \left( \frac{\pi}{3}-\frac{32}{45} \right)
414: \frac{R^5}{\pi^2} + f \frac{R^5}{\pi^2}- \left(\frac{\pi}{3} -
415: \frac{32}{45} \right) \frac{R^5}{\pi^2} - \frac{32}{45}
416: \frac{R^5}{\pi^2} + 3 \times \frac{2}{3\pi} \Delta\eta \, R^3
417: \right\},
418: \end{multline}
419: with $f \simeq 0.2807$ and we have written the results in the same
420: order as the five integrals that arise from the various terms in
421: Eq.~\eqref{eq:cont2}. Hence:
422: \begin{equation}
423: C_3^{p}=\frac{1}{3!}(-4C_F t)^3 \left\{3\times \frac{2}{3\pi}
424: \Delta\eta \, R^3 + f_2\, R^5 \right\},
425: \end{equation}
426: where $f_2 \simeq -0.04360$. We note the appearance of an $R^5$ term
427: which, as we shall presently see, persists at higher orders. This
428: term is related to a clustering constraint on \emph{three} gluons at
429: a time via the product of step functions $\theta_{32}\, \theta_{21}
430: (\theta_{31}-1)\,$ with $k_2,\,k_3\in\Omega$ and $k_1\notin\Omega$.
431:
432: Next we look at the emission of four soft, real or virtual
433: energy-ordered gluons. This will help us move to a generalisation
434: with any number of gluons.
435:
436: \subsection{Four-gluon case and beyond}
437:
438: Now we take the case of four-gluon emission and identify the
439: patterns that appear at all orders. A table corresponding to table
440: \ref{tab:cont} is too lengthy to present here. The result can
441: however be expressed in an equation similar to that for the
442: three-gluon case. We have:
443: \begin{eqnarray}
444: C_4^{p} & = & \frac{1}{4!} (-4C_Ft)^4 \times \nonumber\\
445: & & \times \bigg \{ \int_{1\,\mathrm{in}} \int_{2\,\mathrm{in}}
446: \int_{3\,\mathrm{out}} \int_{4\,\mathrm{in}} \theta_{43}+\nonumber\\
447: & & + \int_{1\,\mathrm{in}} \int_{2\,\mathrm{out}}
448: \int_{3\,\mathrm{in}} \int_{4\,\mathrm{in}}
449: \left[\theta_{42}+\theta_{32} (1-\theta_{43})
450: (1-\theta_{42})\right] + \nonumber\\
451: & & + \int_{1\,\mathrm{out}} \int_{2\,\mathrm{in}}
452: \int_{3\,\mathrm{in}} \int_{4\,\mathrm{in}} \left\{ \theta_{41} +
453: \theta_{-41} \left[ \theta_{31} \, \theta_{-43} + \theta_{43} \,
454: \theta_{21} \, \theta_{-42}+ \theta_{21} \, \theta_{-42}\,
455: \theta_{-43}\,\theta_{-31} \theta_{-32} \right] \right\} +
456: \nonumber\\ & & + \int_{1\,\mathrm{in}} \int_{2\,\mathrm{out}}
457: \int_{3\,\mathrm{out}} \int_{4\,\mathrm{in}}
458: \theta_{42}\, \theta_{43} + \nonumber\\
459: & & + \int_{1\,\mathrm{out}} \int_{2\,\mathrm{in}}
460: \int_{3\,\mathrm{out}} \int_{4\,\mathrm{in}} \theta_{43} \left[
461: \theta_{41}+ \theta_{-41} \, \theta_{-42}\, \theta_{21} \right] +
462: \nonumber\\ & & + \int_{1\,\mathrm{out}} \int_{2\,\mathrm{out}}
463: \int_{3\,\mathrm{in}} \int_{4\,\mathrm{in}} \theta_{41} \,
464: \theta_{42} + \theta_{41}\, \theta_{-42} \, \theta_{-43}\,
465: \theta_{32} + \theta_{-41}\, \theta_{-43} \, \theta_{31}
466: \left[\theta_{42} +
467: \theta_{-42}\, \theta_{32} \right] + \nonumber\\
468: & & + \int_{1\,\mathrm{out}} \int_{2\,\mathrm{out}}
469: \int_{3\,\mathrm{out}} \int_{4\,\mathrm{in}} \theta_{41}\,
470: \theta_{42}\, \theta_{43} \bigg\}\,,
471: \end{eqnarray}
472: where $\theta_{-ij}=1-\theta_{ij}$ and ``in'' or ``out'' pertains to
473: whether the gluon is inside the gap region or out. For brevity we
474: did not write the differential phase-space factor for each gluon
475: which is as always $d\eta\,d\phi/(2\pi)$. We identify six $R^3$
476: terms exactly of the same kind as computed before and similarly four
477: $R^5$ terms. Explicitly we have:
478: \begin{eqnarray}
479: C_4^{p} & = & \frac{1}{4!} (-4C_Ft)^4 \times \nonumber\\
480: & & \times \bigg\{ 6 \times \int_{1\,\mathrm{in}}
481: \int_{2\,\mathrm{in}} \int_{3\,\mathrm{out}}
482: \int_{4\,\mathrm{in}} \theta_{43}+\nonumber\\
483: & & + 4 \times \left( \int_{1\,\mathrm{in}} \int_{2\,\mathrm{out}}
484: \int_{3\,\mathrm{out}} \int_{4\,\mathrm{in}} \theta_{42}\,
485: \theta_{43} + \int_{1\,\mathrm{in}} \int_{2\,\mathrm{out}}
486: \int_{3\,\mathrm{in}} \int_{4\,\mathrm{in}} \theta_{32}
487: \left[\theta_{43} \, \theta_{42} - \theta_{43} - \theta_{42}
488: \right] \right) + \nonumber\\
489: & & + 3 \times \int_{1\,\mathrm{out}} \int_{2\,\mathrm{in}}
490: \int_{3\,\mathrm{out}} \int_{4\,\mathrm{in}} \theta_{21}\,
491: \theta_{43}
492: \left[1-\theta_{41}-\theta_{42}+\theta_{41}\,\theta_{42}\right]
493: +\nonumber\\
494: & & + \int_{1\,\mathrm{out}} \int_{2\,\mathrm{in}}
495: \int_{3\,\mathrm{in}} \int_{4\,\mathrm{in}} \theta_{21}
496: \big[\theta_{42}\,\theta_{43}-\theta_{42}-\theta_{43}-\theta_{41}\,
497: \theta_{-42}\, \theta_{-43}\big] \big[\theta_{31} \,
498: \theta_{32}-\theta_{31} -\theta_{32} \big] + \nonumber\\
499: & & + \int_{1\,\mathrm{out}} \int_{2\,\mathrm{out}}
500: \int_{3\,\mathrm{in}} \int_{4\,\mathrm{in}} \theta_{32}\,
501: \theta_{31} \left[\theta_{41}(1-\theta_{43})(\theta_{42}-2)
502: -\theta_{43}\right] +\nonumber\\
503: &&+\int_{1\,\mathrm{out}}\int_{2\,\mathrm{out}}\int_{3\,\mathrm{out}}
504: \int_{4\,\mathrm{in}}\theta_{41}\,\theta_{42}\,\theta_{43}
505: \bigg\}\,.
506: \end{eqnarray}
507: We discuss below each set of integrals, generalise the result to the
508: case of $n$ emitted gluons and then resum all orders.
509:
510: \begin{itemize}
511: \item The integral:
512: \begin{equation}
513: \frac{1}{4!} (-4C_Ft)^4\,6 \times \int_{1\,\mathrm{in}}
514: \int_{2\,\mathrm{in}} \int_{3\,\mathrm{out}} \int_{4\,\mathrm{in}}
515: \theta_{43}\,.
516: \end{equation}
517: \end{itemize}
518: The integrals over particles 1 and 2 give $\left (\Delta\eta
519: \right)^2$. The remaining integrals reduce to the result computed
520: for the two-gluon case, i.e. the $R^3$ term, multiplied by a factor
521: of 6 accounting for the number of pairs of gluons $n(n-1)/2$, for
522: $n=4$. Explicitly we have for this term:
523: \begin{equation}
524: \frac{1}{4!} (-4C_Ft)^4 \frac{4\times
525: 3}{2}\Delta\eta^{4-2}\frac{2}{3\pi}R^3\,.
526: \end{equation}
527: For $n$ emitted gluons the $R^3$ term, which is always related to
528: the clustering of two gluons, is given by:
529: \begin{equation}
530: \frac{1}{n!} \frac{n(n-1)}{2} (-4C_Ft\Delta\eta)^n \Delta\eta^{-2}
531: \frac{2}{3\pi} R^3\,, \quad n\geq 2\,.
532: \end{equation}
533: Hence to all orders one can sum the above to obtain:
534: \begin{equation}
535: e^{-4C_Ft\Delta\eta}\frac{(-4C_Ft)^2}{2}\frac{2}{3\pi}R^3\,.
536: \end{equation}
537: \begin{itemize}
538: \item The integrals:
539: \begin{multline}
540: \frac{1}{4!}(-4C_Ft)^4\,4\times \bigg( \int_{1\,\mathrm{in}}
541: \int_{2\,\mathrm{out}} \int_{3\,\mathrm{out}}
542: \int_{4\,\mathrm{in}} \theta_{42}\,\theta_{43}+\\
543: +\int_{1\,\mathrm{in}} \int_{2\,\mathrm{out}}\int_{3\,\mathrm{in}}
544: \int_{4\,\mathrm{in}}\theta_{32} \left[\theta_{43}\, \theta_{42}-
545: \theta_{43} - \theta_{42} \right] \bigg)\,.
546: \end{multline}
547: \end{itemize}
548: The integral over particle 1 gives $\Delta\eta$, while the rest of
549: the integrals reduce to the ones calculated earlier which gave the
550: $R^5$ result, accompanied with a factor of $4$ standing for the
551: number of triplet combinations formed by four gluons. For $n$
552: emitted gluons this factor is $n(n-1)(n-2)/3!$. Explicitly we have
553: for this case:
554: \begin{equation}
555: \frac{1}{4!} (-4C_Ft)^4\frac{4\times 3\times 2}
556: {6}\Delta\eta^{4-3}f_2\,R^5\,.
557: \end{equation}
558: At the $n^{\mathrm{th}}$ order we obtain:
559: \begin{equation}
560: \frac{1}{n!} (-4C_Ft\Delta\eta)^n \frac{n(n-1)(n-2)} {6}
561: \Delta\eta^{-3} f_2\,R^5\,, \quad n\geq 3\,.
562: \end{equation}
563: Summing all orders we get:
564: \begin{equation}
565: e^{-4C_Ft\Delta\eta} \frac{(-4C_Ft)^3}{6} f_2\, R^5\,.
566: \end{equation}
567: \begin{itemize}
568: \item The integral:
569: \begin{equation}
570: \frac{1}{4!}(-4C_Ft)^4\,3\times \int_{1\,\mathrm{out}}
571: \int_{2\,\mathrm{in}} \int_{3\,\mathrm{out}} \int_{4\,\mathrm{in}}
572: \theta_{21}\, \theta_{43}\,.
573: \end{equation}
574: \end{itemize}
575: This integral can be factored into two separate integrals involving
576: the constraint on $k_1$ and $k_2$ and over $k_3$ and $k_4$
577: respectively. Each of these reduces to the $R^3$ result obtained in
578: the two-gluon case. Thus we get:
579: \begin{equation}
580: \frac{1}{4!} (-4C_Ft)^4\, 3\times\left(\frac{2}{3\pi}\right)^2R^6\,.
581: \end{equation}
582: At $n^{\mathrm{th}}$ order this becomes:
583: \begin{equation}
584: \frac{1}{n!} \frac{n(n-1)(n-2)(n-3)}{8}(-4C_F t\Delta\eta)^n
585: \Delta\eta^{-4} \left(\frac{2}{3\pi}\right)^2R^6\,,\quad n\geq 4\,,
586: \end{equation}
587: which can be resummed to:
588: \begin{equation}
589: e^{-4C_Ft\Delta\eta}\frac{(-4C_Ft)^4}{8}
590: \left(\frac{2}{3\pi}\right)^2R^6.
591: \end{equation}
592: The factor 3 (and generally $n(n-1)(n-2)(n-3)/8$) is the number of
593: configurations formed by four (and generally $n$) gluons such that
594: we have two pairs of gluons each is formed by an out-of-gap gluon
595: connected to a softer in-gap one.
596: \begin{itemize}
597: \item The remaining integrals
598: \end{itemize}
599: These integrals give at most an $\mathcal{O}(R^7)$ term because
600: they constrain all the four gluons at once. In fact for gap sizes
601: $\Delta\eta \geq 3R$, these integrals go purely as $R^7$ with no
602: dependence on $\Delta \eta$. Since here however we wish to use the
603: condition $\Delta \eta \geq 2R$, which allows us to make use of the
604: whole range of HERA data, these integrals do not depend purely on
605: $R$ but are a function of $R$ and $\Delta \eta$ which have an upper
606: bound of order $R^7$. This can be seen by noting that there are
607: three azimuthal integrations that each produce a function which has
608: a maximum value proportional to $R$, so the result of integrating
609: over all azimuthal variables is a factor that is bounded from above
610: by $R^3$. Similarly there are four rapidity integrations with a
611: clustering constraint on all four gluons implying that they can
612: produce an $R^4$ term at most. In general the result at
613: $n^\mathrm{th}$ order of constraining $n$ gluons at once, is bounded
614: from above by a factor of order $R^{2n-1}$.
615:
616: We can write the result for all these as $(-4C_Ft)^4/4!\,
617: y(R,\Delta\eta)$, and resum such terms to all orders (in the same
618: manner as before) to:
619: \begin{equation}
620: e^{-4C_Ft\Delta\eta}\frac{(-4C_Ft)^4}{4!} y(R,\Delta \eta)\,,
621: \end{equation}
622: where $y(R,\Delta \eta)$ is at most ${\mathcal{O}}(R^7)$. We do not
623: calculate these terms (though it is possible to do so) since the
624: accuracy we achieve by retaining the $R^3$, $R^5$ and $R^6$ terms,
625: we have already computed, is sufficient as we shall show.
626:
627: The five-gluon case is too lengthy to analyse here. The same
628: patterns as pointed out above persist here but new terms that are at
629: most ${\mathcal{O}}(R^{9})$ appear when all five gluons are
630: constrained. There is also an $R^8$ term, coming from the
631: combination of $R^3$ and $R^5$ terms in the same manner that the
632: $R^6$ term arose as a combination of two $R^3$ terms.
633:
634: \section{All-orders result}
635:
636: From the above observations we can assemble an all-orders result to
637: $R^6$ accuracy, where we shall consider $R$ to be at most equal to
638: unity. The final result for primary emissions alone and including
639: the usual Sudakov logarithms (for $\Delta \eta \geq 2R$) is:
640: \begin{multline}\label{eq:result}
641: \Sigma_{P}(t) = e^{-4C_Ft\Delta\eta} \times\\ \times \left( 1+
642: (-4C_Ft)^2 \frac{1}{3\pi} R^3 + (-4C_Ft)^3 \frac{f_2} {6} R^5 +
643: (-4C_Ft)^4 \frac{1}{18\pi^2} R^6 + \frac{(-4C_Ft)^4}{4!}
644: \mathcal{O}(R^7) \right).
645: \end{multline}
646:
647: Formally one may wish to extend this accuracy by computing a few
648: more terms such as those integrals that directly give or are bounded
649: by an $R^7$ behaviour and this is possible though cumbersome. It
650: should also be unnecessary from a practical viewpoint, especially
651: keeping in mind that $R=0.7$ is a preferable value to $R=1$, in the
652: important case of hadron collisions\footnote{This is because the
653: underlying event will contaminate jets less if one chooses a smaller
654: $R$.} and the fact that even at $R=1$ the $R^3$ term significantly
655: dominates the result over the range of $t$ values of
656: phenomenological interest, as we shall see below.
657:
658: We further note that if one keeps track of all the terms that come
659: about as a combination of $R^3$ and $R^5$ terms in all possible ways
660: at all orders, one ends up with the following form for
661: Eq.~\eqref{eq:result}:
662: \begin{equation}
663: \Sigma_{P}(t)= e^{-4C_Ft\Delta\eta} \exp
664: \left(\frac{(-4C_Ft)^2}{2!}\frac{2}{3\pi}R^3 +
665: \frac{(-4C_Ft)^3}{3!}f_2\,
666: R^5+\frac{(-4C_Ft)^4}{4!}\mathcal{O}(R^7)\right),
667: \end{equation}
668: the expansion of which agrees with Eq.~\eqref{eq:result}. In the
669: above by ${\mathcal{O}}(R^7)$ we mean terms that, while they may
670: depend on $\Delta \eta$, are at most as significant as an $R^7$
671: term. We also mention that in the formal limit $\Delta \eta \to
672: \infty$, there is no dependence of the clustering terms on $\Delta
673: \eta$ and they are a pure power series in $R$. The limit of an
674: infinite gap appears in calculations where the region considered
675: includes one of the hard emitting partons. An example of such cases
676: (which have a leading double-logarithmic behaviour) is once again
677: the quantity $\Delta \phi_{jj}$ between jets in e.g. DIS or hadron
678: collisions.
679:
680: \FIGURE[ht]{\epsfig{file=MC.eps,width=0.7\textwidth}
681: \caption{\label{fig:results}Comparison of the analytical results to
682: a numerical Monte Carlo estimate.}}
683:
684: Fig.~\ref{fig:results} represents a comparison between the leading
685: $R^3$ result (i.e. the pure fixed-order result of Ref.~\cite{BD05}
686: combined with the resummed Sudakov exponent), the resummed $R^3$,
687: $R^5$ and $R^6$ result (Eq.~\eqref{eq:result}) and a numerical Monte
688: Carlo estimate with and without clustering. The Monte Carlo program
689: in question is essentially that described in Ref.~\cite{DSNG1}, with
690: the modification of $k_t$ clustering where we computed just
691: emissions off the primary dipole ``switching off'' the non-global
692: correlated emission.
693:
694: We note that the resummed analytical form~\eqref{eq:result} is in
695: excellent agreement with the numerical result which contains the
696: full $R$ dependence. We have tested this agreement with a range of
697: values of $R$. We take this agreement as indicating that uncomputed
698: $R^7$ and higher terms can safely be ignored even at $R=1$ and even
699: more so at fractional values of $R$, e.g. $R = 0.7$. To provide an
700: idea about the relative role of terms at different powers of $R$ in
701: Eq.~\eqref{eq:result} we note that for $R=1$ and $t = 0.25$ the
702: resummed $R^3$ term increases the Sudakov result $\exp\left(-4 C_Ft
703: \Delta \eta \right)$ by $19 \%$, the $R^5$ term represents a further
704: increase of $1.5 \%$ to the result after inclusion of the resummed
705: $R^3$ term and the $R^6$ term has a similar effect on the result
706: obtained after including up to $R^5$ terms.
707:
708: Next we comment on the size of the non-global component at different
709: values of $R$.
710:
711: \section{Revisiting the non-global contribution}
712:
713: We have seen above how the primary emission piece is dependent on
714: the jet clustering algorithm. It was already noted in
715: Ref.~\cite{AS1} that the non-global contribution is significantly
716: reduced by clustering. Here we wish to point out that after
717: correction of an oversight in the code used there, the non-global
718: component is even more significantly reduced than previously stated
719: in the literature. Indeed for $R=1$ and the illustrative value of
720: $t=0.15$, which corresponds to gap energy $Q_\Omega=1$ GeV for a
721: hard scale $Q =100$ GeV, the non-global logarithms are merely a $5
722: \%$ effect as opposed to the $20 \%$ reported previously~\cite{AS1}
723: and the over $65 \%$ effect in the unclustered case.
724:
725: \FIGURE[ht]{\epsfig{file=clust0.5.eps, width = 0.55\textwidth}
726: \epsfig{file=clust0.7.eps, width = 0.55\textwidth}
727: \epsfig{file=clust1.0.eps, width =0.55\textwidth}
728: \caption{\label{fig:ngs}Comparison of the Sudakov result, the
729: correct primary result and the full result including non-global
730: logarithms, for different values of $R$ and with $\Delta \eta=1$.
731: All quantities are shown in the large $N_c$ limit for ease of
732: comparison.}}
733:
734: In Fig.~\ref{fig:ngs} we plot the curves for the primary and full
735: results (in the large $N_c$ limit) for the integrated quantity
736: $\Sigma(t)$ as a function of $t$ defined earlier. We note that for
737: $R=0.5$ the primary result is essentially identical to the Sudakov
738: result. The non-global contribution (which is the ratio of the full
739: and primary curves) is however still quite significant. Neglecting
740: it leads to an overestimate of $40 \%$ for $t =0.15$. Increasing the
741: jet radius in a bid to lower the non-global component we note that
742: for $R=0.7$ the impact of the non-global component is now just over
743: $20 \%$ while the difference between the full primary result and the
744: Sudakov result is small (less than $5 \%$). The situation for $R=1$
745: is a bit different. Here it is the non-global logarithms that are
746: only a $5\%$ effect (compared to the $20 \%$ claimed
747: earlier~\cite{AS1}) while the full primary result is bigger than the
748: Sudakov term by around $11 \%$.
749:
750: The value $R=1$ is in fact the one used in the HERA analyses of
751: gaps-between--jets in photoproduction. It is now clear that such
752: analyses will have a very small non-global component and a moderate
753: effect on primary emissions due to clustering. In order to
754: completely account for the primary emission case for dijet
755: photoproduction one would need to generalise the calculations
756: presented here for a single $q\bar{q}$ dipole to the case of several
757: hard emitting dipoles. An exactly similar calculation would be
758: needed for the case of hadron-hadron collisions and this is work in
759: progress. It is straightforward however to at least estimate the
760: effect of our findings on the photoproduction case and we deal with
761: this in the following section.
762:
763: \section{Gaps between jets at HERA -- the ZEUS analysis}
764:
765: \FIGURE[ht]{\epsfig{file=gf.05.eps,width =0.7 \textwidth, angle =90}
766: \caption{\label{Fig:ZEUS1}The gap fraction for the ZEUS analysis
767: with a $k_t$-defined final state ($R=1.0$ and $Q_{\Omega}=0.5$
768: GeV). The solid line shows the effect of resummed primary emission,
769: the primary emission clustering correction factor and the non-global
770: suppression factor. The overall theoretical uncertainty in all three
771: contributions is shown by the dotted lines. The dashed line
772: indicates the gap fraction obtained by only including primary
773: resummed emission without accounting for clustering.}}
774: \FIGURE[ht]{\epsfig{file=gf.10.eps,width =0.7 \textwidth, angle =90}
775: \caption{\label{Fig:ZEUS2}The gap fraction for the ZEUS analysis
776: with a kt-defined final state ($R=1.0$ and $Q_{\Omega}=1.0$ GeV).
777: The solid line shows the effect of resummed primary emission, the
778: primary emission clustering correction factor and the non-global
779: suppression factor. The overall theoretical uncertainty in all three
780: contributions is shown by the dotted lines. The dashed line
781: indicates the gap fraction obtained by only including primary
782: resummed emission without accounting for clustering.}}
783:
784: We can test the perturbative framework presented in this paper with
785: energy flow measurements in the photoproduction of dijets. These
786: energy flow observables are defined with two hard jets in the
787: central detector region separated by a gap in pseudorapidity. A gap
788: event is defined when the sum of the hadronic transverse energy in
789: the gap is less than a cut-off, and the gap fraction is defined as
790: the ratio of the gap cross-section to the total inclusive
791: cross-section. The energy flow observables measured by
792: ZEUS~\cite{ZEUS} and H1~\cite{h1} use the $k_t$ clustering
793: definition of the hadronic final state, and the transverse energy in
794: the gap is given by the sum of the mini-jet contributions. In this
795: paper we focus on the ZEUS measurements and provide revised
796: theoretical estimates for them. These revisions lead to changes that
797: are minor in the context of the overall theoretical uncertainty but
798: should become more significant once the matching to fixed
799: higher-orders is carried out and an estimate of the next-to--leading
800: logarithms is obtained. The H1 data was considered in
801: Ref.~\cite{AS2}, where the theoretical analysis consisted of only
802: the resummed primary emission contribution without taking account of
803: the effect of $k_t$ clustering.
804:
805: The ZEUS data was obtained by colliding 27.5 GeV positrons with 820
806: GeV protons, with a total integrated luminosity of 38.6 $\pm$ 1.6
807: pb$^{-1}$ in the 1996-1997 HERA running period. The full details of
808: the ZEUS analysis can be found in Ref.~\cite{ZEUS}, but the cuts
809: relevant to the calculations in this paper are:
810: \begin{eqnarray}
811: 0.2 < y < 0.75\,, \nonumber \\
812: Q^2 < 1\,\mathrm{GeV}^2\,, \nonumber \\
813: 6,5 \, \mathrm{GeV} < E_T(1,2)\,, \nonumber \\
814: |\eta(1,2)| < 2.4\,, \nonumber \\
815: |0.5(\eta_1 + \eta_2)| < 0.75\,, \nonumber \\
816: 2.5 < \Delta\eta < 4\,,\nonumber
817: \end{eqnarray}
818: where $y$ is the inelasticity, $Q^2$ is the virtuality of the
819: photon, $E_T(1,2)$ are the transverse energies of the two hard jets,
820: $\eta(1,2)$ are the pseudorapidities of the two hardest jets and
821: $\Delta\eta$ is the jet rapidity difference. The further requirement
822: for the gap sample is $E_{t,\,\mathrm{gap}}\, <Q_\Omega=$ 0.5, 1,
823: 1.5, 2 GeV, and the clustering parameter $R$ is always taken to be
824: unity.
825:
826: The theoretical prediction for the gap fraction is composed of the
827: primary piece, with corrections due to clustering, and the
828: non-global piece. We shall now describe each in turn.
829:
830: The resummed primary contribution ignoring the clustering
831: corrections, is obtained from the factorisation methods of Sterman
832: et al~\cite{KS} and is described in Ref.~\cite{AS2}. The four-jet
833: case of photoproduction requires a matrix formalism, and the
834: exponents of the Sudakov factors in the gap cross-section are
835: anomalous dimension matrices over the basis of possible colour flows
836: of the hard sub-process. The emission of soft gluons cause mixing of
837: the colour basis. Consideration of the eigenvectors and eigenvalues
838: of the anomalous dimension matrices, together with
839: sub-process--dependent hard and soft matrices, allows the resummed
840: four-jet primary emission differential cross-section to be written
841: as~\cite{AS2}:
842: \begin{equation}
843: \label{primary} \frac{d\sigma}{d\eta}=\sum_{L,I}H_{IL}S_{LI}\exp
844: \left\{\left(\lambda_L^{*} (\eta,\Omega)+\lambda_I
845: (\eta,\Omega)\right)\int_{p_t}^{Q_{\Omega}} \frac{d\mu}{\mu}
846: \alpha_s(\mu)\right\},
847: \end{equation}
848: where $H$ and $S$ denote the hard and soft matrices (expanded over
849: the colour basis), $\lambda$ denotes the eigenvalues of the
850: anomalous dimension matrices, $\eta=\Delta\eta/2$ and $p_t$ is the
851: hard scale of the process. This was computed in Ref.~\cite{AS2} for
852: the case of photoproduction and energy flow observables measured by
853: H1. In this paper we have recomputed this differential gap
854: cross-section for the observable defined by the ZEUS collaboration.
855: The uncertainty in the renormalisation scale is quantified by
856: varying the hard scale in the resummation by a factor of 2 (upper
857: bound) and 0.5 (lower bound).
858:
859: We now need to account for the effect of clustering on
860: Eq.~\eqref{primary}. Since we do not have as yet the full results
861: for the four-jet case of photoproduction we simply estimate the full
862: correction as the square of the correction arising in the two-jet
863: case dealt with here, using the appropriate colour factors for each
864: hard sub-process. This was also the method used to approximate the
865: non-global contribution for the four-jet case in Ref.~\cite{AS2}.
866: While we emphasise that this is only a rough way of examining the
867: impact of the clustering dependent terms computed here, given the
868: size of the effects we are dealing with, it is clear that no
869: significant differences ought to emerge if one were to properly
870: compute the various dipole sub-processes we need to account for. We
871: also include the revised and virtually negligible non-global
872: component in an identical fashion to arrive at the best current
873: theoretical estimates.
874:
875: The results for the ZEUS gap-fraction with a $k_t$-defined final
876: state are shown in Figs.~\ref{Fig:ZEUS1} and~\ref{Fig:ZEUS2}. We
877: consider here two different values for the gap energy $Q_\Omega$.
878: For the value of $Q_\Omega = 0.5$ GeV one notes that the full
879: prediction accounting approximately for all additional sources of
880: single-logarithmic enhancements, is somewhat higher than the pure
881: ``Sudakov'' type prediction. This is due to the extra primary terms
882: we compute here, non-global corrections being negligible. For a
883: larger value of $Q_\Omega = 1.0$ GeV the difference between the
884: clustered and unclustered primary results is negligible. We also
885: note the large theoretical uncertainty on the prediction as
886: represented by the renormalisation scale dependence. This is to be
887: expected in light of the fact that the predictions here are not
888: matched to fixed-order and account only for the leading logarithms.
889: Improvements along both these directions should be possible in the
890: immediate future after which the role of the various effects we
891: highlighted here should be revisited.
892:
893: \section{Conclusions}
894:
895: In the present paper we have shed further light on resummations of
896: $k_t$-clustered final states. We have shown that both the primary
897: and non-global components of the resummed result are affected by
898: clustering and dealt with the resummation of each in turn. For the
899: non-global component we find that the results after applying
900: clustering are different from those presented earlier~\cite{AS1}.
901: The new results we present here indicate an even smaller non-global
902: component than previously believed.
903:
904: We have also shown how the primary emission clustering effects can
905: be resummed to all orders as an expansion in the clustering
906: parameter $R$ and computed a few terms of the series. The analytical
907: results we have provided here for a single emitting dipole should be
908: generalisable to the case of several hard dipoles (multi-jet
909: processes). This should then enable one to write a correct resummed
910: result for primary emissions to a high accuracy and deal with the
911: reduced non-global component in the large $N_c$ limit. Such progress
912: is relevant not just to energy-flow studies but to any jet
913: observable of a non-global nature, requiring resummation. An example
914: is the azimuthal angle $\Delta \phi_{jj}$ between jets, mentioned
915: previously. The work we have carried out should enable
916: next-to--leading log calculations of such jet observables to
917: sufficient accuracy to enable phenomenological studies of the same.
918:
919: Lastly we have also mentioned the impact of the new findings on the
920: ZEUS gaps-between--jets analysis. Since the non-global effects are
921: very small for $R=1$ the main new effect is the additional
922: clustering dependent primary terms we computed here. Approximating
923: the effect of these terms for the case of photoproduction, somewhat
924: changes the theoretical predictions but this change is insignificant
925: given the large theoretical uncertainty that arises due to missing
926: higher orders and unaccounted for next-to--leading logarithms. We
927: consider both these areas as avenues for further work and hope that
928: more stringent comparisons can thus be made in the very near future.
929:
930: \acknowledgments{ We would like to thank Gavin Salam and Claire
931: Gwenlan for helpful conversations. One of us (MD) would like to
932: thank the LPTHE Jussieu, Paris for their kind hospitality during the
933: completion of this work.}
934:
935: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
936:
937: \bibitem{DSNG1}
938: M.~Dasgupta and G.P.~Salam, \emph{Resummation of non-global QCD
939: observables}, \plb{512}{2001}{323} [\hepph{0104277}].
940: %%CITACTION = HEP-PH 0104277;%%
941:
942: \bibitem{DSNG2}
943: M.~Dasgupta and G.P.~Salam, \emph{Accounting for coherence in
944: interjet $E_t$ flow: a case study}, \jhep{03}{2002}{017}
945: [\hepph{0203009}].
946: %%CITACTION = HEP-PH 0203009;%%
947:
948: \bibitem{BMS}
949: A.~Banfi, G.~Marchesini and G.~Smye, \emph{Away-from-jet energy
950: flow}, \jhep{08}{2002}{006} [\hepph{0206076}].
951: %%CITACTION = HEP-PH 0206076;%%
952:
953: \bibitem{FKS}
954: J.R.~Forshaw, A.~Kyrieleis and M.H.~Seymour, \emph{Super-leading
955: logarithms in non-global observables in QCD?}, \jhep{08}{2006}{059}
956: [\hepph{0604094}].
957: %%CITACTION = HEP-PH 0604094;%%
958:
959: \bibitem{DSreview}
960: M.~Dasgupta and G.P.~Salam, \emph{Resummed event-shape variables in
961: DIS}, \jhep{08}{2002}{032} [\hepph{0208073}].
962: %%CITACTION = HEP-PH 0208073;%%
963:
964: \bibitem{MW}
965: G.~Marchesini and B.R.~Webber, \emph{Associated transverse energy in
966: hadronic jet production}, \prd{38}{1988}{3419}.
967:
968: \bibitem{BKS}
969: C.F.~Berger, T.~Kucs and G.~Sterman, \emph{Energy flow in interjet
970: radiation}, \prd{65}{2002}{094031} [\hepph{0110004}].
971: %%CITACTION = HEP-PH 0110004;%%
972:
973: \bibitem{AS1}
974: R.B.~Appleby and M.H.~Seymour, \emph{Non-global logarithms in
975: inter-jet energy flow with $k_t$ clustering requirement},
976: \jhep{12}{2002}{063} [\hepph{0211426}].
977: %%CITACTION = HEP-PH 0211426;%%
978:
979: \bibitem{ktclus}
980: S.~Catani, Yu.L.~Dokshitzer, M.H.~Seymour and B.R.~Webber,
981: \emph{Longitudinally-invariant $k_{\perp}$-clustering algorithms for
982: hadron-hadron collisions}, \npb{406}{1993}{187}.
983:
984: \bibitem{ktclusinc}
985: S.D.~Ellis and D.E.~Soper, \emph{Successive combination jet
986: algorithm for hadron collisions}, \prd{48}{1993}{3160}
987: [\hepph{9305266}].
988: %CITATION = HEP-PH 9305266;%%
989:
990: \bibitem{CacSal}
991: M.~Cacciari and G.P.~Salam, \emph{Dispelling the $N^3$ myth for the
992: $k_t$ jet-finder}, \plb{641}{2006}{57} [\hepph{0512210}].
993:
994: \bibitem{AS2}
995: R.B.~Appleby and M.H.~Seymour, \emph{The resummation of inter-jet
996: energy flow for gaps-between-jets processes at HERA},
997: \jhep{09}{2003}{056} [\hepph{0308086}].
998: %%CITACTION = HEP-PH 0308086;%%
999:
1000: \bibitem{BD05}
1001: A.~Banfi and M.~Dasgupta, \emph{Problems in resumming interjet
1002: energy flows with $k_t$ clustering}, \plb{628}{2005}{49}
1003: [\hepph{0508159}].
1004: %%CITACTION = HEP-PH 0508159;%%
1005:
1006: \bibitem{KS}
1007: N.~Kidonakis, G.~Oderda and G.~Sterman, \emph{Threshold resummation
1008: for dijet cross sections}, \npb{525}{1998}{299} [\hepph{9801268}].
1009: %%CITACTION = HEP-PH 9801268;%%
1010:
1011: \bibitem{ZEUS}
1012: ZEUS Collaboration, \emph{Photoproduction of events with rapidity
1013: gaps between jets at HERA}, in preparation.
1014:
1015:
1016:
1017: \bibitem{h1}
1018: C.~Adloff et al. [H1 Collaboration], \emph{Energy flow and rapidity
1019: gaps between jets in photoproduction at HERA}, \epjc{24}{2002}{517}
1020: [\hepex{0203011}].
1021: %%CITACTION = HEP-EX 0203011;%%
1022:
1023: \end{thebibliography}
1024:
1025: \end{document}
1026: