Improving the simulation of quark and gluon jets with Herwig 7

  • Daniel Reichelt
  • Peter Richardson
  • Andrzej Siodmok
Open Access
Regular Article - Theoretical Physics
  • 71 Downloads

Abstract

The properties of quark and gluon jets, and the differences between them, are increasingly important at the LHC. However, Monte Carlo event generators are normally tuned to data from \(e^+e^-\) collisions which are primarily sensitive to quark-initiated jets. In order to improve the description of gluon jets we make improvements to the perturbative and the non-perturbative modelling of gluon jets and include data with gluon-initiated jets in the tuning for the first time. The resultant tunes significantly improve the description of gluon jets and are now the default in Herwig 7.1.

1 Introduction

Monte Carlo generators are essential tools, both for the design of future experiments and the analysis of data from the LHC, and previous collider experiments. Modern event generators [1, 2, 3] provide a simulation of exclusive eventsbased on the combination of fixed-order perturbative results, resummation of large logarithms of scales using the parton-shower approach and non-perturbative models of hadronisation and multiple-parton scattering.1

These simulations rely on universality and factorisation in order to construct a simulation of the complex final states observed in hadronic collisions. This allows the simulation of final-state radiation in the parton shower and the non-perturbative hadronisation models to be first developed, and the parameters of the model tuned, using the simpler and cleaner environment of \(e^+e^-\) collisions, and then applied to more complicated hadronic collisions. These models are then combined with the parton-shower simulation of initial-state radiation, a multiple scattering model of the underlying event and a non-perturbative colour reconnection model in order to describe hadronic collisions. In principle, universality requires that the colour reconnection model is also used to describe leptonic collisions. In practice, however, colour reconnection has little effect on the distributions which so far have been used to develop and tune the models. These models are therefore usually either not included at all for the simulation of leptonic collisions, or, if they are, the parameters are determined by tuning to hadronic data sensitive to multiple partonic scattering.

As the LHC accumulates data at an unprecedented rate there are a number of observables which are not well described by current Monte Carlo event generators, and where the limitations of this approach have started to become obvious, for example:
  • the difference in the properties of jets initiated by quarks and gluons is not well described with generators predicting either a larger or smaller difference between the jets than is observed by the LHC experiments [5];

  • the transverse momentum spectra of identified baryons and strange hadrons which are not well described by current generators [6];

  • long-range correlations in high multiplicity events [7, 8].

In this paper we will focus on improvements to the perturbative and non-perturbative modelling to give a better description of both quark- and gluon-initiated jets, as well as the differences between them in Herwig 7. Beyond leading order there is no clear distinction between quark and gluon jets and the definition will depend on the analysis.2 As \(e^+e^-\) annihilation to hadrons starts with an initial partonic quark–antiquark configuration the data used to develop the final-state parton-shower algorithm, tune its parameters and those of the hadronisation model, are dominated by quark-initiated jets. However, at the LHC jets initiated by gluons can often dominate, depending on the production process, rapidity and transverse momentum of the jets. Regrettably while there is great interest in the differences between quark and gluon jets at the LHC most of the experimental studies have concentrated on differentiating between quark and gluon jets using neural network, or similar, techniques which makes a direct comparison with simulated hadron-level events impossible. We will therefore use some recent data from the ATLAS experiment [10] which is sensitive to both quark and gluon jet properties, together with data on gluon jets in \(e^+e^-\) collisions from the OPAL experiment [11, 12] which has not previously been used in the development and tuning of the current generation of Monte Carlo event generators to study the properties of gluon jets.

In the next section we will first recap the default parton-shower algorithm used in Herwig 7 focussing on recent changes we have made to improve the simulation of both quark and gluon jets. In Sect. 3 we will briefly review the important parameters in the cluster hadronisation model used in Herwig 7 and identify the issues which may lead to different treatments of quark and gluon jets. We will then discuss the tuning strategy used to produce the tunes presented in this paper. We present our results in Sect. 5 3 followed by our conclusions.

2 Herwig 7 parton-shower algorithm

The default Herwig 7 parton-shower algorithm [13] is an improved angular-ordered parton shower. In this approach the momenta of the partons produced in the parton shower are decomposed in terms of the four-momentum of the parton initiating the jet, p (\(p^2=m^2\), the on-shell parton mass-squared), a light-like reference vector, n, in the direction of the colour partner of the parton initiating the jet and the momentum transverse to the direction of p and n. The four-momentum of any parton produced in the evolution of the jet can be decomposed as
$$\begin{aligned} q_i = \alpha _i p + \beta _i n + q_{\perp i}, \end{aligned}$$
(1)
where \(\alpha _i\) and \(\beta _i\) are coefficients and \(q_{\perp i}\) is the transverse four-momentum of the parton (\(q_{\perp i}\cdot p = q_{\perp i}\cdot n =0\)).
Fig. 1

Branching of parton i to produce partons jk, which then undergo subsequent branching

If we consider the branching of a final-state parton i to two partons j and k, i.e. \(i\rightarrow j k\) as shown in Fig. 1, the branching is described by the evolution variable
$$\begin{aligned} \tilde{q}^2_i = \frac{q^2_i-m^2_i}{z_i(1-z_i)}, \end{aligned}$$
(2)
where \(q^2_i\) is the square of the virtual mass developed by the parton i in the branching, \(m_i\) is the physical mass of parton i, and \(z_i\) is the momentum fraction of the parton j defined such that
$$\begin{aligned} \alpha _j = z_i \alpha _i, \quad \alpha _k = (1-z_i)\alpha _i. \end{aligned}$$
(3)
The transverse momenta of the partons produced in the branching are
$$\begin{aligned} q_{\perp j} = z_i q_{\perp i} + k_{\perp i}\quad q_{\perp k} = (1-z_i)q_{\perp i} - k_{\perp i}, \end{aligned}$$
(4)
where \(k_{\perp i}\) is the transverse momentum generated in the branching. In this case the virtuality of parton i is
$$\begin{aligned} q_i^2 = \frac{p^2_{Ti}}{z(1-z)} + \frac{m_j^2}{z}+\frac{m_k^2}{1-z}, \end{aligned}$$
(5)
where \(p_T\) is the magnitude of the transverse momentum produced in the branching defined such that \(k_{\perp i}^2=-p^2_{Ti}\).
In this case the probability for a single branching to happen is
$$\begin{aligned} \mathrm{d} \mathcal {P} = \frac{\mathrm{d}\tilde{q}^2_i}{\tilde{q}^2_i}\frac{\alpha _S}{2\pi } \frac{\mathrm{d} \phi _i}{2\pi } \mathrm{d} z_i P_{i\rightarrow jk}(z,\tilde{q}), \end{aligned}$$
(6)
where \(P_{i\rightarrow jk}(z,\tilde{q})\) is the quasi-collinear splitting function, and \(\phi _i\) is the azimuthal angle of the transverse momentum \(k_{\perp i}\) generated in the splitting.

As the branching probability is singular for massless partons an infrared cut-off is required to regularise the singularity. In HERWIG 6 [14] and early versions of Herwig++ [15] the cut-off was implemented by giving the partons an infrared mass. However, while this remains an option in later versions of Herwig++ and Herwig 7 [1] the default cut-off is now on the minimum transverse momentum of the branching [16].

In order to resum the dominant subleadinglogarithms [17] the transverse momentum of the branching is used as the scale for the strong coupling constant. This also means that the strong coupling used in the parton shower is that defined in the Catani-Marchesini-Webber (CMW) scheme which includes the subleadingterms via a redefinition of QCD scale, \(\Lambda _\mathrm{QCD}\).

While this specifies both the branching probability and the kinematics of the partons for a single emission in the case of subsequent emission from the daughter partons j and/or k we must decide which properties of the originally generated kinematics to preserve once the masses of j and/or k in Eq. 5 are no longer the infrared cut-off masses but the virtualities generated by any subsequent emissions. While this choice is formally subleading it can have a large effect on physical observables.

In Herwig++ the transverse momentum of the branching was calculated using Eq. 5 and the infrared cut-offmasses when the emission was generated and then preserved during the subsequent evolution of the daughter partons. In Herwig 7.0 the default option was to instead preserve the virtuality of the branching and calculate the transverse momentum of the branching using the virtual masses the daughter partons develop due to subsequent emissions. This means that if the daughter partons develop large virtual masses the transverse momentum of the branching is reduced, and in some cases the branching has to be vetoed if there is no solution of Eq. 5. However, this choice inhibits further soft emission and significantly changes the evolution by vetoing emissions and leads phenomenological to incorrect evolution of observables, see for example Fig. 11 (red dash-dot line). We therefore consider a further choice in which, if it is possible to preserve the virtuality and still have a solution for \(p_T^2>0\), we do so however, if this is not possible instead of vetoing the emission we set \(p_T=0\) and allow the virtuality to increase.

The most important parameters which affect thebehaviour of the parton shower and which we will tune in this paper are:
  • the choice of whether to preserve \(p_T\) or \(q^2\) during the subsequent evolution;

  • the value of the strong coupling constant AlphaMZ,taken to be \(\alpha ^\mathrm{CMW}_S(M_Z)\), the value of the coupling constant in the CMW scheme at the mass of the Z boson, \(M_Z\);

  • the cut-off in the parton shower.4 For a cut-off in \(p_T\) this is the minimum transverse momentum allowed for the branchings in the shower, \(p_T^{\min }\). For a virtuality cut-off we parameterize the threshold for different flavours by
    $$\begin{aligned} Q_{g}=\max \left( \frac{\delta -am_{q}}{b},c\right) , \end{aligned}$$
    (7)
    where a and b are parameters chosen to give a threshold which is slightly reduced for heavier quarks. The parameter \(c=0.3\) GeV is chosen to prevent the cut-off becoming too small, we also keep the default value of \(b=2.3\). Only the parameters \(\delta \) (cutoffKinScale) and a (aParameter) are tuned to the data.
There is one other major feature of the angular-ordered parton shower which we need to consider. The angular ordering of the parton shower, which is used to implement the phenomenon of colour coherence, leads to regions of phase space in which there is no gluon emission. Consider for example the process \(e^+e^-\rightarrow q \bar{q} g\). In this case there is a dead-zone which is not filled by one emission from the parton shower, as shown in Fig. 2. Given this deficit of hard, wide-angle emission it is necessary to combine the parton-shower with the fixed-order calculation of \(e^+e^-\rightarrow q\bar{q} g\). There are now a range of techniques which can achieve this including both the next-to-leading order normalisation of the total cross section or including the fixed-order results for multiple emissions. However, for our purposes it is sufficient to consider the simplest matrix-element correction approach where the dead-zone is filled using the leading-order matrix element for \(e^+e^-\rightarrow q\bar{q} g\), as shown in Fig. 3, together with the reweighting of emission probability, Eq. 6, to the exact leading-order result, for any emission which could have the highest transverse momentum in the parton shower.5
Fig. 2

Dalitz plot for \(e^+e^-\rightarrow q \bar{q} g\) showing the region of phase space filled by one emission from the quark and antiquark in the angular-ordered parton shower. The line shows the limits for the parton-shower emission. \(x_i = 2 E_i/Q\) where \(E_i\) is the energy of parton i and Q is the centre-of-mass energy of the collision

Fig. 3

Dalitz plot for \(e^+e^-\rightarrow q \bar{q} g\) showing the emission from the hard matrix-element correction into the dead-zone which is not populated by parton-shower emission. The line shows the limits for the parton-shower emission. \(x_i = 2 E_i/Q\) where \(E_i\) is the energy of parton i and Q is the centre-of-mass energy of the collision

Fig. 4

Dalitz plot for \(e^+e^-\rightarrow q \bar{q}\) showing the region of phase space filled after multiple emission from the quark and antiquark in the angular-ordered parton shower. The transverse momentum of the branchings was preserved in the case of multiple emission. The line shows the limits for the parton-shower emission for a single emission. \(x_i = 2 E_i/Q\) where \(E_i\) is the energy of parton i and Q is the centre-of-mass energy of the collision

Fig. 5

Dalitz plot for \(e^+e^-\rightarrow q \bar{q}\) showing the region of phase space filled after multiple emission from the quark and antiquark in the angular-ordered parton shower. The virtuality of the branchings was preserved in the case of multiple emission. The line shows the limits for the parton-shower emission for a single emission. \(x_i = 2 E_i/Q\) where \(E_i\) is the energy of parton i and Q is the centre-of-mass energy of the collision

The choice of whether to preserve the transverse momentum or virtuality of the branching affects the phase-space region which is filled by the shower in the case of multiple emission. In this case we cluster the partons using the Durham jet algorithm [19], using the p-scheme as implemented in FastJet [20], keeping track of the partons emitted by the quark and antiquark and then take the hardest additional jet to be the gluon.6 The resulting Dalitz plots of \(e^+e^-\rightarrow q \bar{q}\) show that while the choice to preserve the transverse momentum of the branching leads to a significant number of events in the dead-zone, Fig. 4, if the virtuality of the branching is preserved, Fig. 5, there is little emission outside the original angular-ordered region.

3 Hadronisation and colour reconnection

All the Herwig family of event generator generators use the cluster hadronisation model [21]. This model is based on the phenomenon of colour pre-confinement, i.e. if we non-perturbatively split the gluons left at the end of the parton shower into quark–antiquark pairs and cluster quarks and antiquarks into colour-singlet clusters the mass spectrum of these clusters is peaked at masses close to the cut-off in the parton shower, falls rapidly as the cluster mass increases, and is universal, i.e. the mass distribution of these clusters is independent of the hard scattering process and its centre-of-mass energy. The cluster model assumes that these clusters are a superposition of heavy hadronic states and uses a simple phase-space model for their decay into two hadrons. The main parameters of the model are therefore:
  • the non-perturbative gluon mass, which is not very sensitive and which we do not tune;

  • the parameters which control the probability of producing baryons and strange quarks during cluster decay;

  • the parameter which controls the Gaussian smearing of the direction of the hadrons produced which contain a parton from the perturbative evolution about the direction of that parton, with separate values for light, charm and bottom quarks.

There are, however, a small fraction of large mass clusters for which the two hadron decay ansatz is not reasonable and these must first be fissioned into lighter clusters. While only a small fraction of clusters undergo fission due to the larger masses of these clusters they produce a significant fraction of the hadrons.
A cluster is split into two clusters if the mass, M, is such that
$$\begin{aligned} M^\mathbf{Cl_{pow}} \ge \mathbf{Cl_{max}}^\mathbf{Cl_{pow}}+(m_1+m_2)^\mathbf{Cl_{pow}}, \end{aligned}$$
(8)
where \(\mathbf{Cl_{max}}\) and \(\mathbf{Cl_{pow}}\) are parameters of the model, and \(m_{1,2}\) are the masses of the constituent partons of the cluster.
Fig. 6

Example of colour-singlet gluon pair production followed by the branching of all the colours via \(g\rightarrow gg\). The Feynman diagram is shown in a whereas the colour flows, including the non-perturbative splitting of the gluons into quark–antiquark pairs, are shown in b

For clusters that need to be split, a \(q\bar{q}\) pair is selected to be popped from the vacuum. The mass distribution of the new clusters is given by
$$\begin{aligned} M_1= & {} m_1+(M-m_1-m_q)\mathcal {R}_1^{1/P_\mathrm{split}},\end{aligned}$$
(9a)
$$\begin{aligned} M_2= & {} m_2+(M-m_2-m_q)\mathcal {R}_2^{1/P_\mathrm{split}}, \end{aligned}$$
(9b)
where \(m_q\) is the mass of the parton popped from the vacuum, \(M_{1,2}\) are the masses of the clusters formed by the splitting and \(\mathcal {R}_{1,2}\) are pseudo-random numbers uniformly distributed between 0 and 1. The distribution of the masses of the clusters is controlled by the parameter \(P_{\mathrm{split}}\).

In order to improve the description of charm and bottom hadron production these parameters for cluster fission all depend on the flavour of the partons in the cluster, so that there are separate parameters for light, charm and bottom quarks.

In practice there is always a small fraction of clusters that are too light to decay into two hadrons. Before Herwig 7.1 these clusters were decayed to the lightest hadron, with the appropriate flavours. However, in some cases, for example for clusters containing a charm or bottom quark–antiquark pair, or a bottom quark and a light antiquark, there can be a number of hadrons of the appropriate flavour below the threshold. In these cases the lightest meson with the appropriate flavours is the pseudoscalar \(\phantom {1}^1S_0\) state and the vector \(\phantom {1}^3S_1\) state is also below the threshold7 which leads to a lower production rate for the vector state with respect to the pseudoscalar state than expected. For the mesons composed of a bottom quark and a light quark the rate is significantly less than that expected from the counting of spin states, or indeed observed experimentally [22, 23, 24, 25]. For charmonium and bottomonium states as this mechanism is the only way the vector states can be produced via hadronisation it leads to a complete absence of direct \(J/\psi \) and \(\Upsilon \) production. In Herwig 7.1 we therefore include the possibility that instead of just producing the lightest state all states below the threshold are produced with a probability proportional to \(2S+1\), where S is the spin of the particle.

In order to improve the behaviour at the threshold for charm and bottom clusters, the option exists of allowing clusters above the threshold mass, \(M_\mathrm{threshold}\), for the production of two hadrons to decay into a single hadron such that a single hadron can be formed for masses
$$\begin{aligned} M<M_\mathrm{limit} = (1+\mathbf{SingleHadronLimit})M_\mathrm{threshold}, \end{aligned}$$
(10)
where SingleHadronLimit is a free parameter of the model. The probability of such a single-meson cluster decay is assumed to decrease linearly for \(M_\mathrm{threshold}<M<M_\mathrm{limit}\) and there are separate parameters for charm and bottom clusters.

In order to explain the rising trend of \(\langle p_t\rangle \mathrm {\; vs\; } N_{ch}\) (average transverse momentum as a function of the number of charged particles in the event) observed already by UA1 [26] and describe Underlying Event [27, 28, 29, 30] and the Minimum Bias data [31, 32, 33, 34], the hadronisation model is supplemented with a model of colour reconnections (CR) [35]. The default version of the model implemented in Herwig 7.0 is not very sophisticated. The aim of the CR model is to reduce the colour length, defined as \(\lambda \equiv \sum _{i=1}^{N_{cl}}m_i^2\) ,8 where \(N_{cl}\) is the number of clusters in an event and \(m_i\) is the invariant mass of cluster i. The colour reconnection of the clusters leading to a reduction of \(\lambda \) is accepted with a given probability which is a parameter of the model. Although the default model is quite simple it should be stressed that its results resemble the more sophisticated statistical colour reconection model [35] which implements the minimisation of \(\lambda \) as Metropolis-like algorithm and requires a quick “cooling“ of the random walk.

In this model the only possible reconnections which are not allowed are connecting the quark and antiquark produced in the non-perturbative splitting of the gluon. It is therefore possible that the colour lines of a gluon produced at any other stage of the shower can be reconnected leading to the production of a colour-singlet object. While this is physically possible we would expect that it occurs at a rate which is suppressed in the number of colours, \(N_C\), as \(\sim \frac{1}{N_C^2}=\frac{1}{9}\), not the much higher reconnection rate \(\sim 2/3\) 9 which is necessary to describe the underlying event data. This can lead to the production of a colour-singlet gluon jet at a much higher rate than expected. This is particularly problematic in the theoretically clean, but experimentally inaccessible, colour-singlet gluon pair production processes often used to study gluon jets [9].

Consider, for example, the simple process of colour-singlet gluon pair production followed by the branching of all the gluons via \(g\rightarrow gg\), shown in Fig. 6a. After the non-perturbative splitting of the gluons into quark–antiquark pairs, as shown in Fig. 6b, without colour reconnection the quarks and antiquarks will be formed into colour-singlet clusters as \((q_1,\bar{q}_3)\), \((q_3,\bar{q}_4)\), \((q_4,\bar{q}_2)\) and \((q_2,\bar{q}_1)\). Given the configuration it is likely that the clusters containing partons from the parton shower of each of the original gluons, i.e. \((q_1,\bar{q}_3)\) and \((q_4,\bar{q}_2)\), will have large masses and the rearrangement to give the clusters \((q_1,\bar{q}_2)\) and \((q_4,\bar{q}_3)\) will be kinematically favoured, although it means the original gluons will effectively become colour singlets rather than octets.

In Herwig 7.1 we have therefore included the possibility to forbid the colour reconnection model making any reconnection which would lead to a gluon produced in any stage of the parton-shower evolution becoming a colour-singlet after hadronisation. We will investigate the effect of this change on the simulation of quark and gluon jets.

4 Tuning

The Rivet [38] program was used to analyse the simulated events and compare the results with the experimental measurements. The Professor program [39] was then used to interpolate the shower response and tune the parameters by minimising the chi-squared.10

In general we use a heuristic chi-squared function
$$\begin{aligned} \chi ^{\prime 2}({\varvec{p}}) = \sum _{\mathcal {O}} w_{\mathcal {O}} \sum _{b\exists \mathcal {O}} \frac{\left( f_b(\varvec{p})-\mathcal {R}_b\right) ^2}{\Delta _b^2} \end{aligned}$$
(11)
where \(\varvec{p}\) is the set of parameters being tuned, \(\mathcal {O}\) are the observables used each with weight \(w_{\mathcal {O}}\), b are the different bins in each observable distribution with associated experimental measurement \(\mathcal {R}_b\) , error \(\Delta _b\) and Monte Carlo prediction \(f_b(\varvec{p})\). Weighting of those observables for which a good description of the experimental result is important is used in most cases. The parameterisation of the event generator response, \(f(\varvec{p})\), is used to minimize \(\chi ^{\prime 2}\) and find the optimum parameter values. We take \(w_{\mathcal {O}}=1\) in most cases except for the particle multiplicities where we use \(w_{\mathcal {O}}=10\) and total charged particle multiplicities where we use \(w_{\mathcal {O}}=50\). This ensures that particle multiplicities influence the result of the fit and are required due to the much higher quantity of event shape and spectrum data used in the tuning. Given the aim of this paper is to improve the description of gluon jets this data was also included with \(w_{\mathcal {O}}=10\) in order to avoid the fit being dominated by the large quantity of data sensitive to quark jets. In addition as we do not except a Monte Carlo event generator to give a perfect description of all the data and in order to avoid the fit being dominated by a few observables with very small experimental errors we use
$$\begin{aligned} \Delta ^\mathrm{eff}_b = \max (0.05\times \mathcal {R}_b,\Delta _b), \end{aligned}$$
(12)
rather than the true experimental error, \(\Delta _b\), in the fit.
Table 1

The Monte Carlo parameters obtained for different choices of the cut-off option, the preserved quantity in the shower and weight of the charged particle multiplicity data

Cut-off

\(p_\perp \)

Virtual mass

Preserved

\(p_\perp \)

\(q^2\)

\(p_\perp \)

\(q^2\)

Tune

A

B

C

A

B

C

A

B

C

A

B

C

Bottom quark hadronisation parameters

   ClMaxBottom

 

4.655

  

3.911

  

4.0612

  

4.163

 

   ClPowBottom

 

0.622

  

0.638

  

0.9475

  

0.590

 

   PSplitBottom

 

0.499

  

0.531

  

1.9568

  

1.881

 

   ClSmrBottom

 

0.082

  

0.020

  

0.04

  

0.040

 

   SingleHadronLimitBottom

 

0.000

  

0.000

  

0.0204

  

0.000

 

Charm quark hadronisation parameters

   SingleHadronLimitCharm

 

0.000

  

0.000

  

0.078

  

0.012

 

   ClMaxCharm

 

3.551

  

3.638

  

3.805

  

3.885

 

   ClPowCharm

 

1.923

  

2.332

  

2.242

  

2.452

 

   PSplitCharm

 

1.260

  

1.234

  

1.895

  

1.767

 

   ClSmrCharm

 

0.000

  

0.000

  

0.000

  

0.000

 

Light quark hadronisation and shower parameters

   AlphaMZ (\(\alpha ^\mathrm{CMW}_S(M_Z)\))

0.1094

0.1087

0.1126

0.1260

0.1262

0.1265

0.1221

0.1218

0.1184

0.1314

0.1317

0.1254

   pTmin

1.037

0.933

0.809

1.301

1.223

0.992

 

N/A

  

N/A

 

   aParameter

 

N/A

  

N/A

  

0.367

  

0.234

 

   cutoffKinScale

 

N/A

  

N/A

 

2.939

2.910

2.294

3.277

3.279

1.938

   ClMaxLight

3.504

3.639

4.349

3.058

3.003

3.197

3.328

3.377

3.846

3.414

3.427

3.477

   ClPowLight

2.576

2.575

1.226

1.513

1.424

2.786

1.286

1.318

2.063

2.766

2.792

2.35

   PSplitLight

1.003

1.016

0.855

0.885

0.848

0.648

1.198

1.185

1.277

1.346

1.333

2.015

   PwtSquark

0.552

0.597

1.167

0.602

0.666

1.024

0.721

0.741

0.782

0.626

0.646

1.15

   PwtDIquark

0.369

0.344

0.181

0.416

0.439

0.512

0.277

0.273

0.246

0.321

0.328

0.366

The standard procedure which was adopted to tune the shower and hadronisation parameters of the Herwig++ and Herwig 7 event generators to data is
  • first the shower and those hadronisation parameterswhich are primarily sensitive to light quark-initiated processes are tuned to LEP1 and SLD measurements of event shapes, the average charged multiplicity andcharged multiplicity distribution, and identified particle spectra and rates which only involve light quark mesons and baryons;

  • the hadronisation parameters for bottom quarks aretuned to the bottom quark fragmentation function measured by LEP1 and SLD together with LEP1 and SLD measurements of event shapes and identified particlespectra from bottom events;

  • the hadronisation parameters involving charm quarks are then tuned to identified particle spectra, from both the B-factories and the LEP1, and LEP1 and SLD measurements of event shapes, and identified particle spectra from charm events;

  • the light quark parameters are then retuned using the new values of the bottom and charm parameters together with different weights for the charged multiplicity distributions in \(e^+e^-\) collisions at energies between 12 GeV and 209 GeV due to the difficulty in fitting the charged multiplicity.

Only \(e^+e^-\) annihilation data from the continuum region near the \(\Upsilon (4s)\) meson, for charm meson spectra, and at the Z-pole from LEP1 and SLD were used in the tuning.
Table 2

The values of \(\chi ^2\) per degree of freedom obtained in the fit for different choices of the cut-off option, the preserved quantity in the shower and weight of the charged particle multiplicity data. The values are \(\chi ^{\prime 2}\) as described in the text for the tuning observables, normalised to the sum of the weights for the different bins, and the true \(\chi ^2\) using the experimental error for the charged particle multiplicities. The number of degrees of freedom for each set of observables is given together with the sum including weights in brackets, where this is different

Cut-off

\(p_\perp \)

Virtual Mass

Number of degrees of freedom (sum including weights)

Preserved

\(p_\perp \)

\(q^2\)

\(p_\perp \)

\(q^2\)

Tune

A

B

C

A

B

C

A

B

C

A

B

C

Tuning observables

 

   Light quarks

4.4

4.3

6.7

3.0

2.9

4.2

7.8

7.6

6.9

4.6

4.3

3.6

10122 (14099)

   Charm quarks

3.2

2.8

5.8

3.6

3.5

3.9

4.5

4.6

6.4

3.9

3.9

7.4

549 (891)

   Bottom quarks

4.0

3.4

3.6

5.4

4.9

3.4

3.4

3.3

3.4

4.1

4.1

4.9

346 (1309)

   Gluons

1.1

1.1

1.5

1.1

1.1

1.4

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.3

1.2

1.5

188 (1880)

\(N_\mathrm{Charged}\)

 

   Gluon

14.2

18.6

22.6

26.9

37.1

60.0

3.4

3.7

8.1

10.0

11.0

22.8

26

   All quarks

4.6

2.7

2.7

3.4

2.5

5.2

11.6

10.7

3.7

7.2

6.5

1.6

48

   Light quarks

2.2

1.7

2.8

1.7

1.8

4.4

4.8

4.4

2.1

3.9

3.5

1.8

27

   Charm quarks

2.8

2.0

1.1

2.2

1.6

1.0

2.8

2.6

1.2

2.2

2.2

0.9

17

   Bottom quarks

20.4

18.1

15.8

24.1

21.3

15.7

33.4

33.1

34.7

22.0

21.5

46.2

27

   ATLAS Jets

3.2

0.9

4.3

13.3

10.1

7.8

21.8

19.0

6.4

33.3

31.3

38.0

22

Fig. 7

Multiplicity distribution of charged particles in gluons jets for two different gluon energies compared with data from OPAL [11]

In this paper we have extended this approach in order to better constrain the energy evolution to include data from a wider range of centre-of-mass energies both below the Z-pole, from the JADE and TASSO experiments, and above the Z-pole, from LEP2.

In order to tune the shower and light quark hadronisation parameters we used data on jet rates and event shapes for centre-of-mass energies between 14 and 44 GeV [40, 41, 42], at LEP1 and SLD [42, 43, 44, 45, 46] and LEP2 [42, 45, 46], particle multiplicities [43, 44] and spectra [43, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57] at LEP 1, identified particle spectra below the \(\Upsilon (4S)\) from Babar [58], the charged particle multiplicity [59, 60] and particle spectra [59, 61, 62] in light quark events at LEP1 and SLD, the charged particle multiplicity in light quark events atLEP2 [63, 64], the charged particle multiplicity distribution at LEP1 [65], and hadron multiplicities at the Z-pole [66]. We also implemented in Rivet and made use of the data on the properties of gluon jets [11, 12] for the first time.

The hadronisation parameters for charm quarks weretuned using the charged multiplicity in charm events atSLD [60] and LEP2 [63, 64], the light hadron spectra in charm events at LEP1 and SLD [59, 61, 62], the multiplicities of charm hadrons at the Z-pole [43, 66], and charm hadron spectra below the \(\Upsilon (4S)\) [67, 68] and at LEP1 [69].

The hadronisation parameters for bottom quarks were tuned using the charged multiplicity in bottom events atSLD [60] and LEP2 [63, 64], the light hadron spectra in bottom events at LEP1 and SLD [59, 61, 62], the multiplicities of charm and bottom hadrons at the Z-pole [43, 66], charm hadron spectra at LEP1 [69] and the bottom fragmentation function measured at LEP1 and SLD [70, 71, 72].

In order to tune the evolution of the total charged particle multiplicity in \(e^+e^-\) collisions as a function of energy the results of Refs. [43, 46, 60, 63, 64, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79] spanning energies from 12 to 209 GeV were used.

In order to study the various effects we have discussed we have produced tunes for the shower and hadronisation parameters in the case that either the transverse momentum or virtuality in the shower is preserved. In each case we first tuned the shower and light quark parameters without the data on charged particle multiplicities as centre-of-mass energies below the mass of the \(Z^0\) boson. In the final stage of the process where we retune these parameters three tunes were produced for each choice of cut-off and preserved quantity, one (labelled A) without the low-energy charged multiplicity data, one (labelled B) where all thecharged multiplicity data was included with in the tune with weight \(w_{\mathcal {O}}=100\) and a final tune (labelled C) where this data had weight \(w_{\mathcal {O}}=1000\).

Unfortunately due to the CPU time required it is impossible to include the ATLAS data [10] directly in the tune, therefore we compare the results of the different tunes to this data.
Fig. 8

Difference between the charged multiplicity in bottom and light quark events in \(e^+e^-\) collisions as a function of centre-of-mass energy. The data is from [60, 62, 63, 64, 74, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89] as compiled in [90]

Fig. 9

The evolution of the number of charged particles in \(e^+e^-\rightarrow \mathrm{hadrons}\) as a function of the centre-of-mass energy

Fig. 10

The thrust at the Z-pole compared with data from the DELPHI [43] experiment

Fig. 11

The evolution of the number of charged particles in gluon jets as a function of twice the energy of the gluon jet

Fig. 12

The average number of charged particles in jets as a function of the jet transverse momentum compared with data from the ATLAS experiment [10]

Fig. 13

The difference between the average number of particles in central and forward jets compared with data from the ATLAS experiment [10]

5 Results

We have produced 12 tunes for different choices of the cut-off variable in the shower, the choice of which quantity to preserve in the parton shower, and different weightings of the charged particle multiplicities. The parameters obtained in the fits are given in Table 1 while the \(\chi ^2\) values are given in Table 2.

The effects of changing the colour reconnection model can be seen in Fig. 7. In the results of Herwig++ 2.7.1 or Herwig 7.0 there is an unphysical tendency of the gluon jets to contain an even number of charged particles due to the production of colour-singlet gluons by the reconnection model, this feature is not present in any of the new tunes which provide a much better description of the distribution of charged particles in the gluon jets, see also the appendix.

The choice of which tune and choice of cut-off variable and preserved quantity has to be a balance between how well we wish to describe the various different data sets, as unfortunately no choice provides a good description of all the data sets.

If we first consider the choice of cut-off it is clear that using a virtual mass provides a larger \(\chi ^{\prime 2}\) for all sets of observables used in the tuning apart from those sensitive to bottom quarks. In addition it displays an unphysical energy dependence in the difference in charged particle multiplicities between bottom (or charm) quark and light quark events, as shown in Fig. 8, where the results, which use a cut-off on the virtual mass, Herwig++ 2.7.1 and the new tune\(q^2\)\(q^2\)–B, show a strong dependence on the centre-of-mass energy while those which use a \(p_\perp \) cut-off, Herwig 7.0 and the new tune \(p_\perp \)\(q^2\)-B, are relatively independent of energy. We therefore prefer a cut-off on the minimum transverse momentum of the branching.

In order to obtain a reasonable evolution of the number of charged particles with centre-of-mass energy in \(e^+e^-\) collisions, see Fig. 9, without ruining the description of particle spectra and event shape observables we choose to use the B tune as our default.

The choice of whether to preserve the \(p_\perp \) or \(q^2\) of the branching is more complicated. While the data on light quark jets, in particular event shapes measured at LEP (for example the thrust Fig. 10), favour preserving \(q^2\) the data on the charged particle multiplicity in gluon jets at LEP Fig. 11, and in jets at the LHC Figs. 12 and 13 favours preserving the \(p_\perp \) of the branching.

Our preferred choice, in particular in the presence of higher-order matching, is to preserve the \(q^2\) of the branching in order to ensure that the parton shower does not overpopulate the dead-zone. This also ensures a more reasonable value of strong coupling, \(\alpha ^\mathrm{CMW}_S(M_Z)=0.126\), which gives \(\alpha ^\mathrm{\overline{MS}}_S(M_Z)=0.118\). However, given the better description of gluon jets it is reasonable to also consider the alternative of preserving the \(p_\perp \); see for example Fig. 16 in the appendix.

6 Conclusions

We have performed a tuning the Herwig 7 event generator using data on gluon jets from LEP for the first time. Together with changes to the non-perturbative modelling this gives a significantly better description of gluon jets, in particular their charge particle multiplicity. It is, however, impossible to get a good description of the LEP particle spectra and the charged particle multiplicities, particularly in gluon jets, at the same time. We therefore choose the tune \(p_\perp \)\(q^2\)–B as the default for Herwig 7.1. However, for jets at the LHC the tune \(p_\perp \)\(p_\perp \)–B gives a better description of jet properties.

While the tunes presented in this paper are an improvement on their predecessors there is a tension between the data on charged particle multiplicities, for both quark- and gluon-initiated jets, and the data on event shapes and particle spectra from LEP. The cluster hadronisation model also continues to have problems describing final states in events with bottom quarks. Any further improvement in the description of this data will require improvements to the non-perturbative modelling.

Footnotes

  1. 1.

    For a recent review of modern Monte Carlo event generators, see [4].

  2. 2.

    See Ref. [9] for a more detailed discussion.

  3. 3.

    Additional results on quark and gluon jet discrimination power are included in the appendix.

  4. 4.

    There is an option to extend the parton-shower radiation to the non-perturbative region and effectively remove the cut-off; see [18].

  5. 5.

    Due to the choice of ordering variable the hardest emission may not be the one that has the highest value of the ordering variable, i.e. the hardest emission may be not the first emission.

  6. 6.

    The event was generated without hadronisation and clustered to three jets with \(g\rightarrow q\bar{q}\) splitting disabled. The quark and antiquark jets were then taken to be those containing the quark or antiquark.

  7. 7.

    For charmonium and bottomonium states there are a number of other states below the threshold.

  8. 8.

    For an alternative colour length measures, see for example [36].

  9. 9.

    The value from the tune of Herwig 7.1 with a new soft and diffractive model [37].

  10. 10.

    While tuning the parameters sensitive to bottom quarks it proved impossible to get a reliable interpolation of the generator response with Professor and therefore a random scan of the bottom parameters was performed and the values adjusted by hand about the minimum to minimise the \(\chi ^{\prime 2}\).

  11. 11.

    The results and the analysis code used for this study are available as a Rivet routine [38], which can be downloaded from https://github.com/gsoyez/lh2015-qg.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the European Union as part of the FP7 and H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Initial Training Networks MCnetITN and MCnetITN3 (PITN-GA-2012-315877 and 722104). Daniel Reichelt thanks CERN for the award of a summer studentship during which this work was initiated and acknowledges support from the German Research Foundation (DFG) under Grant No. SI 2009/1-1. Andrzej Siodmok acknowledges support from the National Science Centre, Poland Grant No. 2016/23/D/ST2/02605. We thank our collaborators on Herwig for many useful discussions. The tuning of Herwig to experimental data would not have been possible without the use of GRIDPP computer resources.

References

  1. 1.
    J. Bellm et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 76(4), 196 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4018-8 ADSGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J.R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C.O. Rasmussen, P.Z. Skands, Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024 ADSGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. Gleisberg, S. Hoeche, F. Krauss, M. Schönherr, S. Schumann, F. Siegert, J. Winter, JHEP 02, 007 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2009/02/007 ADSGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Buckley et al., Phys. Rept. 504, 145 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2011.03.005 ADSGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Aad et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 74(8), 3023 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3023-z ADSGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    V. Khachatryan et al., JHEP 05, 064 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2011)064 ADSGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    V. Khachatryan et al., JHEP 09, 091 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2010)091 ADSGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Aad et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116(17), 172301 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.172301 ADSGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Gras, S. Hoeche, D. Kar, A. Larkoski, L. Lönnblad, S. Plätzer, A. Siódmok, P. Skands, G. Soyez, J. Thaler, JHEP 07, 091 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2017)091 ADSGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. Aad et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 76(6), 322 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4126-5 ADSGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Abbiendi et al., Phys. Rev. D 69, 032002 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.69.032002 ADSGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Abbiendi et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 37(1), 25 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s2004-01964-4 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Gieseke, P. Stephens, B. Webber, JHEP 12, 045 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2003/12/045 ADSGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Corcella et al., JHEP 01, 010 (2001)ADSGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. Gieseke, A. Ribon, M.H. Seymour, P. Stephens, B. Webber, JHEP 02, 005 (2004)ADSGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Bähr et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 58, 639 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-008-0798-9 ADSGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Catani, B.R. Webber, G. Marchesini, Nucl. Phys. B 349, 635 (1991)ADSGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Gieseke, M.H. Seymour, A. Siodmok, JHEP 06, 001 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/06/001 ADSGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Catani, YuL Dokshitzer, M. Olsson, G. Turnock, B.R. Webber, Phys. Lett. B 269, 432 (1991).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(91)90196-W ADSGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2 ADSGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    B.R. Webber, Nucl. Phys. B 238, 492 (1984).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(84)90333-X ADSGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Acciarri et al., Phys. Lett. B 345, 589 (1995).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(95)01611-S ADSGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    P. Abreu et al., Z. Phys. C 68, 353 (1995)ADSGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    D. Buskulic et al., Z. Phys. C 69, 393 (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02907419 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    K. Ackerstaff et al., Z. Phys. C 74, 413 (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002880050404 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    C. Albajar et al., Nucl. Phys. B 335, 261 (1990).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(90)90493-W ADSGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    T. Affolder et al., Phys. Rev. D 65, 092002 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.65.092002 ADSGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    G. Aad et al., Phys. Rev. D 83, 112001 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.112001 ADSGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    S. Chatrchyan et al., JHEP 09, 109 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2011)109 ADSGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    M.H. Seymour, A. Siodmok, JHEP 10, 113 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2013)113 ADSGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    G. Aad et al., New J. Phys. 13, 053033 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/13/5/053033 ADSGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    G. Aad et al., Phys. Lett. B 758, 67 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2016.04.050 ADSGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    G. Aad et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 76(7), 403 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4203-9 ADSGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    M. Aaboud et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 76(9), 502 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4335-y ADSGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    S. Gieseke, C. Rohr, A. Siodmok, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 2225 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2225-5 ADSGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    J.R. Christiansen, P.Z. Skands, JHEP 08, 003 (2015). arXiv:1505.01681 [hep-ph].  https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2015)003
  37. 36.
    S. Gieseke, F. Loshaj, P. Kirchgaeßer, Eur. Phys. J. C 77(3), 156 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4727-7 ADSGoogle Scholar
  38. 37.
    A. Buckley, J. Butterworth, L. Lonnblad, D. Grellscheid, H. Hoeth, J. Monk, H. Schulz, F. Siegert, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 2803 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2013.05.021 ADSGoogle Scholar
  39. 38.
    A. Buckley, H. Hoeth, H. Lacker, H. Schulz, J.E. von Seggern, Eur. Phys. J. C 65, 331 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-009-1196-7 ADSGoogle Scholar
  40. 39.
    W. Braunschweig et al., Z. Phys. C 47, 187 (1990).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01552339 Google Scholar
  41. 40.
    P.A. Movilla Fernandez, O. Biebel, S. Bethke, S. Kluth, P. Pfeifenschneider, Eur. Phys. J. C 1, 461 (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s100520050096 ADSGoogle Scholar
  42. 41.
    P. Pfeifenschneider et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 17, 19 (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s100520000432 ADSGoogle Scholar
  43. 42.
    P. Abreu et al., Z. Phys. C 73, 11 (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002880050295 ADSGoogle Scholar
  44. 43.
    R. Barate et al., Phys. Rept. 294, 1 (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(97)00045-8 ADSGoogle Scholar
  45. 44.
    G. Abbiendi et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 40, 287 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s2005-02120-6 Google Scholar
  46. 45.
    A. Heister et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 35, 457 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s2004-01891-4 Google Scholar
  47. 46.
    R. Akers et al., Z. Phys. C 63, 181 (1994).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01411010 ADSGoogle Scholar
  48. 47.
    G. Alexander et al., Phys. Lett. B 358, 162 (1995).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(95)00935-E ADSGoogle Scholar
  49. 48.
    G. Alexander et al., Z. Phys. C 70, 197 (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002880050096 Google Scholar
  50. 49.
    P. Abreu et al., Z. Phys. C 67, 543 (1995).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01553980 ADSGoogle Scholar
  51. 50.
    G. Alexander et al., Z. Phys. C 73, 569 (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002880050349 Google Scholar
  52. 51.
    K. Ackerstaff et al., Phys. Lett. B 412, 210 (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(97)01077-0 ADSGoogle Scholar
  53. 52.
    P. Abreu et al., Phys. Lett. B 449, 364 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00105-7 ADSGoogle Scholar
  54. 53.
    K. Ackerstaff et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 5, 411 (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s100520050286 ADSGoogle Scholar
  55. 54.
    K. Ackerstaff et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 4, 19 (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s100520050183 ADSGoogle Scholar
  56. 55.
    G. Abbiendi et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 17, 373 (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s100520000505 ADSGoogle Scholar
  57. 56.
    A. Heister et al., Phys. Lett. B 528, 19 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(02)01220-0 ADSGoogle Scholar
  58. 57.
    J.P. Lees et al., Phys. Rev. D 88, 032011 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.032011 ADSGoogle Scholar
  59. 58.
    K. Ackerstaff et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 7, 369 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s100529901067 ADSGoogle Scholar
  60. 59.
    K. Abe et al., Phys. Lett. B 386, 475 (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(96)01025-8 ADSGoogle Scholar
  61. 60.
    K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. D 59, 052001 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.59.052001 ADSGoogle Scholar
  62. 61.
    K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. D 69, 072003 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.69.072003 ADSGoogle Scholar
  63. 62.
    P. Abreu et al., Phys. Lett. B 479, 118 (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(00)01086-8,  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00312-9. [Erratum: Phys. Lett. B 492, 398 (2000)]
  64. 63.
    G. Abbiendi et al., Phys. Lett. B 550, 33 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(02)02935-0 ADSGoogle Scholar
  65. 64.
    D. Decamp et al., Phys. Lett. B 273, 181 (1991).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(91)90575-B ADSGoogle Scholar
  66. 65.
    C. Amsler et al., Phys. Lett. B 667, 1 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2008.07.018 ADSGoogle Scholar
  67. 66.
    R. Seuster et al., Phys. Rev. D 73, 032002 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.73.032002 ADSGoogle Scholar
  68. 67.
    B. Aubert et al., Phys. Rev. D 75, 012003 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.75.012003 ADSGoogle Scholar
  69. 68.
    R. Barate et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 16, 597 (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s100520000421 ADSGoogle Scholar
  70. 69.
    K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. D 65, 092006 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.66.079905,  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.65.092006. [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 66, 079905 (2002)]
  71. 70.
    A. Heister et al., Phys. Lett. B 512, 30 (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00690-6 ADSGoogle Scholar
  72. 71.
    J. Abdallah et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1557 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1557-x ADSGoogle Scholar
  73. 72.
    M. Derrick et al., Phys. Rev. D 34, 3304 (1986).  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.34.3304 ADSGoogle Scholar
  74. 73.
    H. Aihara et al., Phys. Lett. B 184, 299 (1987).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(87)90586-7 ADSGoogle Scholar
  75. 74.
    C. Berger et al., Phys. Lett. B 95, 313 (1980).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(80)90494-3 ADSGoogle Scholar
  76. 75.
    W. Bartel et al., Z. Phys. C 20, 187 (1983)ADSGoogle Scholar
  77. 76.
    W. Braunschweig et al., Z. Phys. C 45, 193 (1989).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01674450 Google Scholar
  78. 77.
    H.W. Zheng et al., Phys. Rev. D 42, 737 (1990).  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.42.737 ADSGoogle Scholar
  79. 78.
    P.D. Acton et al., Z. Phys. C 53, 539 (1992).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01559731 ADSGoogle Scholar
  80. 79.
    P.C. Rowson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 2580 (1985).  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.54.2580 ADSGoogle Scholar
  81. 80.
    M. Sakuda et al., Phys. Lett. B 152, 399 (1985).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(85)90518-0 ADSGoogle Scholar
  82. 81.
    W. Braunschweig et al., Z. Phys. C 42, 17 (1989).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01565125 Google Scholar
  83. 82.
    M. Althoff et al., Phys. Lett. B 135, 243 (1984).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(84)90490-8 ADSGoogle Scholar
  84. 83.
    K. Nagai et al., Phys. Lett. B 278, 506 (1992).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(92)90593-S ADSGoogle Scholar
  85. 84.
    K. Okabe et al., Phys. Lett. B 423, 407 (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00073-2 ADSGoogle Scholar
  86. 85.
    B.A. Schumm et al., Phys. Rev. D 46, 453 (1992).  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.46.453 ADSGoogle Scholar
  87. 86.
    P. Abreu et al., Phys. Lett. B 347, 447 (1995).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(95)00190-V ADSGoogle Scholar
  88. 87.
    R. Akers et al., Phys. Lett. B 352, 176 (1995).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(95)00510-R ADSGoogle Scholar
  89. 88.
    P. Abreu, A. De Angelis, DELPHI NOTE 2002-052, CONF 586 (2002)Google Scholar
  90. 89.
    Yu. Dokshitzer, F. Fabbri, V.A. Khoze, W. Ochs, Eur. Phys. J. C 45, 387 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s2005-02424-5 ADSGoogle Scholar
  91. 90.
    A.J. Larkoski, J. Thaler, W.J. Waalewijn, JHEP 11, 129 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2014)129 ADSGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    J. Mo, F.J. Tackmann, W.J. Waalewijn, Eur. Phys. J. C 77(11), 770 (2017). arXiv:1708.00867 [hep-ph].  https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5365-9
  93. 92.
    J. Bellm, G. Nail, S. Plätzer, P. Schichtel, A. Siódmok, Eur. Phys. J. C 76(12), 665 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4506-x ADSGoogle Scholar
  94. 93.
    J. Bellm, S. Plätzer, P. Richardson, A. Siódmok, S. Webster, Phys. Rev. D 94(3), 034028 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.034028 ADSGoogle Scholar
  95. 94.
    S. Mrenna, P. Skands, Phys. Rev. D 94(7), 074005 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.074005 ADSGoogle Scholar
  96. 95.
    E. Bothmann, M. Schönherr, S. Schumann, Eur. Phys. J. C 76(11), 590 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4430-0 ADSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Funded by SCOAP3

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Reichelt
    • 1
  • Peter Richardson
    • 2
    • 3
  • Andrzej Siodmok
    • 4
  1. 1.Institut für Kern- und TeilchenphysikTechnische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany
  2. 2.Theory DepartmentCERNGenevaSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of Physics, IPPPDurham UniversityDurhamUK
  4. 4.Institute of Nuclear PhysicsPolish Academy of SciencesKrakowPoland

Personalised recommendations