Resummation Scales and the Assessment of Theoretical Uncertainties in Parton Distribution Functions
Extracted source text ยท arXiv 2205.15900
\documentclass{moriond}
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
% for BibTeX - sorted numerical labels by order of
% first citation.
% A useful Journal macro
\def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}
% Some useful journal names
\def\NCA{\em Nuovo Cimento}
\def\NIM{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods}
\def\NIMA{{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods} A}
\def\NPB{{\em Nucl. Phys.} B}
\def\PLB{{\em Phys. Lett.} B}
\def\PRL{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}
\def\PRD{{\em Phys. Rev.} D}
\def\ZPC{{\em Z. Phys.} C}
% Some other macros used in the sample text
\def\st{\scriptstyle}
\def\sst{\scriptscriptstyle}
\def\mco{\multicolumn}
\def\epp{\epsilon^{\prime}}
\def\vep{\varepsilon}
\def\ra{\rightarrow}
\def\ppg{\pi^+\pi^-\gamma}
\def\vp{{\bf p}}
\def\ko{K^0}
\def\kb{\bar{K^0}}
\def\al{\alpha}
\def\ab{\bar{\alpha}}
\def\be{\begin{equation}}
\def\ee{\end{equation}}
\def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
\def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
\def\CPbar{\hbox{{\rm CP}\hskip-1.80em{/}}}
%temp replacement due to no font
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% %
% BEGINNING OF TEXT %
% %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%\newcommand{\Photo}{\includegraphics[height=35mm]{mypicture}}
\newcommand{\Photo}{}
\begin{document}
\vspace*{4cm}
\title{Resummation Scales and the Assessment of
Theoretical Uncertainties in \\
Parton Distribution Functions~\footnote{Presented
by F.~Hautmann at the {\it 29th Workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scattering
and Related Subjects}, 2-6 May 2022.}}
\author{V.~Bertone$^1$, G.~Bozzi$^{2,3}$ and F.~Hautmann$^{4,5,6}$}
\address{$^1$IRFU, CEA, Universit\'e Paris-Saclay, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette\\
$^2$Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit\`a di Cagliari, Cittadella Universitaria, I-09042 Monserrato\\
$^3$INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Cittadella Universitaria, I-09042 Monserrato\\
$^4$CERN, Theoretical Physics Department, CH 1211 Geneva \\
$^5$Elementaire Deeltjes Fysica, Universiteit Antwerpen, B 2020 Antwerpen\\
$^6$Theoretical Physics Department, University of Oxford,
Oxford OX1 3PU
}
\maketitle
\abstracts{We discuss perturbative solutions of renormalization group equations, and
propose the use of resummation scale techniques in assessing
theoretical uncertainties on the extraction of parton distribution functions from data.}
\vspace*{-8cm}
\begin{flushright}
CERN-TH-2022-088
\end{flushright}
\vspace*{8cm}
Many applications of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) to precision calculations for
high-energy collider physics involve the perturbative solution of renormalization group equations (RGEs).
It has long been known that, at any given order of
perturbation theory, the differences between RGE solutions
obtained by methods which
are equivalent up to
formally subleading orders
provide a significant source of theoretical uncertainty on predictions for
physical observables.
In the literature of calculations based on QCD resummation,
these uncertainties are commonly taken into account by a variety
of different techniques, which appeal to the principle of introducing
so-called resummation scales, of the order of the hard momentum-transfer
scale of the process but otherwise arbitrary, and setting criteria to let them
vary and evaluate the corresponding variation
in
the theoretical prediction.
In several other common applications of QCD to collider physics, on the
other hand,
resummation scale variations are not performed.
A notable example is the determination of
parton distribution functions (PDFs) from global fits to experimental
data,~\cite{Ball:2022hsh,Ball:2021leu,NNPDF:2019ubu,Bailey:2020ooq,Hou:2019efy,Alekhin:2017kpj,Abramowicz:2015mha}
central to virtually any aspect of hadron collider physics.
In this application, RGEs and their perturbative solutions are used
for the evolution of the PDFs themselves
and for the evolution of the running coupling.
The fact that RGE theory uncertainties are not
included and resummation scale variations are not performed leads to
an underestimate of the uncertainties associated with the
extraction of PDFs from global fits to data.
This point is illustrated in detail in our recent work~\cite{Bertone:2022sso}.
There, we discuss various aspects of theory uncertainties
from RGE perturbative solutions
and propose resummation scale methods to characterize them. Applying this
to deep-inelastic
scattering (DIS) structure functions, we show that resummation scale effects
are significant in kinematic regions relevant to PDF determinations.
In this article we summarize some of the results from Ref.~\cite{Bertone:2022sso}.
We consider RGE of the general form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:RGEproto}
\frac{d\ln R}{d\ln \mu} (\mu, \alpha_s(\mu) )= \gamma(\alpha_s(\mu))\,,
\end{equation}
where $R$ is a renormalized quantity, function of the strong coupling
$\alpha_s$ and renormalization scale $\mu$, and $\gamma$ is
its anomalous dimension, computable as a
power series expansion in the coupling $\alpha_s$.
In Ref.~\cite{Bertone:2022sso} we examine several examples,
at next-to-leading (NLO) and next-to-next-to-leading (NNLO) order,
and analyze
RGE solutions obtained by methods which differ by subleading-order
terms.\footnote{The examples considered in
Ref.~\cite{Bertone:2022sso} are single-logarithmic resummation problems.
Similar effects in double-logarithmic Sudakov problems have been observed
e.g.~in Refs.~\cite{Ebert:2021aoo,Billis:2019evv,Hautmann:2019biw}.}
To characterize the differences between such solutions,
we
introduce the evolution operator $G$ which connects
$R$ at two scales $\mu$ and $\mu_0$, $R_{\mu} = G ( \mu , \mu_0) R_{\mu_0}$, and
trace the differences between solutions back to the fact that, due
to subleading orders, one has, for a given $\mu^\prime$,
$G (\mu, \mu_0) \neq G (\mu, \mu^\prime) G (\mu^\prime , \mu_0)$.
We refer to this as {\it perturbative hysteresis}~\cite{Bertone:2022sso}.
For the application to PDF evolution, $R$ in
Eq.~(\ref{eq:RGEproto}) is to be thought of as the
flavor multiplet of PDF Mellin moments,
and $\gamma$ as the Mellin transform of
DGLAP splitting functions. Besides, one has an RGE of the
form (\ref{eq:RGEproto}) for the running coupling, in which
$R$ is proportional to the
coupling $\alpha_s$, and $\gamma$ to the QCD $\beta$
function. Hysteresis effects in both these RGEs
are analyzed quantitatively in Ref.~\cite{Bertone:2022sso}.
The extraction of PDFs $f_j ( x , \mu)$ from collider data
uses factorization formulas relating $f_j$ to physical observables $\Sigma$,
e.g.~DIS structure functions, with the schematic form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:factS}
\Sigma ( x , Q) = \sum_j \int dz H_j ( z, Q, \alpha_s ( \mu_R) , \mu_F) f_j
( x / z, \mu_F ) ,
\end{equation}
where $H_j$ are perturbatively computable hard-scattering functions,
$\mu_F$ is the factorization scale, and $\mu_R$ is the renormalization
scale. Standard QCD calculations estimate theoretical uncertainties
associated with unknown higher orders in Eq.~(\ref{eq:factS})
by setting criteria for variations of the scales $\mu_F$ and $\mu_R$.
Ref.~\cite{Bertone:2022sso} observes that theoretical uncertainties
on the extraction of PDFs arise both from $\mu_F$ and $\mu_R$
variations in Eq.~(\ref{eq:factS}) and from unknown higher orders in
the kernels $\gamma$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:RGEproto}), and
proposes to take the latter into account
by resummation scale techniques. To this end, two different
but essentially equivalent methods are formulated. One is based on
expressing the evolution
operator $G$ via the
analytic formalism of
$g$-functions,~\cite{Bertone:2022sso}
which is frequently applied in soft-gluon resummation
calculations.
Schematically, at the $k$-th
order of logarithmic accuracy ${\rm N}^{k}{\rm LL}$,
this is of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gensoldglap}
G^{{\rm N}^{k}{\rm LL}} \sim g_0^{ {\rm N}^k{\rm LL}}(\lambda)\exp\left[\sum_{l=0}^{k} \alpha_s^l(\mu) g_{l+1}(\lambda)\right] \;\; , \;\;\;
\lambda \sim \alpha_s(\mu) \beta_{0}\ln (\mu^{\rm (Res)} / \mu )\,,
\end{equation}
where the $g$'s are perturbatively
computable functions of the scaling variable $\lambda$, and
$\mu_{\rm Res}$ is the resummation scale.
Explicit expressions for the $g$-functions up to $k=3$ are given
in Ref.~\cite{Bertone:2022prep}.
Another method is based on displacing
the argument of the coupling appearing in the
perturbative expansion of $\gamma$, so as to obtain a
new effective anomalous dimension
differing from the previous one by subleading terms. This method is well-suited for
numerical evaluations. In either method, one ends up
introducing resummation scales
$\mu^{\rm (Res)}_{\rm PDF}$ for the PDF evolution and
$\mu^{\rm (Res)}_{\alpha_s}$ for the coupling evolution.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{StructureFunctions_N1LO_Q=10GeV.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{StructureFunctions_N2LO_Q=10GeV.pdf}
%\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{figs/StructureFunctions_N1LO_Q=500GeV.pdf}
%\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{figs/StructureFunctions_N2LO_Q=500GeV.pdf}
\caption{The structure function $F_2$ from Ref.~\protect\cite{Bertone:2022sso} versus $x$,
at NLO and NNLO in perturbation
theory, with the uncertainty bands associated with variations of renormalization and
factorization scales, $\mu_R$ and $ \mu_F$, and resummation scale parameters $\xi_{\alpha_s}$ and $\xi_{\rm PDF}$.
We use MSHT20 PDFs at $Q_0 = 2$ GeV and $\alpha_s (M_Z ) = 0.118 $ as RGE inputs.}
\label{fig:f2_muFmuR2resscales1}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
As an application, we illustrate the case in which we take $\Sigma$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:factS}) to be the DIS structure function
$F_2 (x , Q)$. We perform variations of renormalization and factorization scales, $\mu_R$ and $\mu_F$, and of
resummation scales, which we
parameterize as $\mu^{\rm (Res)}_{\alpha_s} = \xi_{\alpha_s} Q$
and $\mu^{\rm (Res)}_{\rm PDF} = \xi_{\rm PDF} Q$.
Fig.~\ref{fig:f2_muFmuR2resscales1} shows results at NLO (left panel) and NNLO (right panel).
Resummation scale
uncertainties are observed to be generally non-negligible with respect to the
renormalization and factorization scale uncertainties in the kinematic
region considered. In
the left hand side panel, we see
that the effect of the
resummation scale parameter $\xi_{\rm PDF}$ dominates the low-$x$ region while
the effect of the factorization scale $ \mu_F$ dominates at the largest $x$.
The right hand side panel illustrates that
the size of the uncertainty bands is reduced at NNLO.
The behavior above
reflects
higher-order corrections to
$F_2$ at small $x$ being dominated by flavor-singlet
quark anomalous dimensions.~\cite{Catani:1993rn,Ellis:1995gv}
The results shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:f2_muFmuR2resscales1} are for
$Q = 10$ GeV. The importance of resummation
scale effects,
relative to that of renormalization and factorization scale effects,
increases with $Q$ (and is
eventually becoming relevant for increasing $x$).
To illustrate the behavior of the uncertainty bands with varying $Q$, in
Fig.~\ref{fig:f2_muFmuR2resscales2} we plot the $Q$-dependence of the
relative variation
$\Delta F_2 / F_2$. The $\xi_{\rm PDF}$ contribution starts from
zero and grows rapidly with $Q$, remaining sizeable out to large $Q$
while the $\mu_F$ contribution is largest at low $Q$ and
decreases with increasing $Q$.
Analogously, the $\mu_R$ contribution is important at low $Q$
and decreases with $Q$, while the
$\xi_{\alpha_s}$ is subdominant at low $Q$ but becomes relevant at high $Q$.
The above numerical results
indicate that RGE uncertainties are relevant in kinematical
regions which influence current and forthcoming PDF extractions.
They
will also be relevant in regions explored at future
lepton-hadron colliders~\cite{LHeC:2020van,Proceedings:2020eah}.
As the $\xi_{\rm PDF}$ contribution remains significant at large $Q$,
RGE uncertainties are important for
high-scale PDF probes such as very energetic jets and top quarks.
To conclude, we note that
the method we have described can be used
in processes
sensitive to collinear as well as
transverse momentum dependent (TMD)~\cite{Angeles-Martinez:2015sea}
distributions.
It will be applicable in extractions both of PDF and of TMD.
\vskip 0.5 cm
\noindent {\bf Acknowledgment.} We warmly thank N.~Armesto and the organizers of the
2022 Deep-Inelastic Scattering Workshop for putting up a very interesting
conference and for allowing us to present these results from remote.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{StructureFunctions_N1LO_x=0-01.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{StructureFunctions_N2LO_x=0-01.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{StructureFunctions_N1LO_x=0-001.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{StructureFunctions_N2LO_x=0-001.pdf}
\caption{$Q$-dependence of the relative variation
$\Delta F_2 / F_2$ for $x=10^{-2}$ (top) and $x=10^{-3}$ (bottom),
%from Ref.~\protect\cite{Bertone:2022sso},
at NLO (left) and NNLO (right), associated with variations of renormalization and
factorization scales, $\mu_R$ and $ \mu_F$, and resummation scale parameters $\xi_{\alpha_s}$ and $\xi_{\rm PDF}$.}
\label{fig:f2_muFmuR2resscales2}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\section*{References}
\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\bibitem{Ball:2022hsh}
R.~D.~Ball, J.~Butterworth, A.~M.~Cooper-Sarkar, A.~Courtoy, T.~Cridge, A.~De Roeck, J.~Feltesse, S.~Forte, F.~Giuli and C.~Gwenlan, \textit{et al.}
%``The PDF4LHC21 combination of global PDF fits for the LHC Run III,''
arXiv:2203.05506 [hep-ph].
\bibitem{Ball:2021leu}
R.~D.~Ball, S.~Carrazza, J.~Cruz-Martinez, L.~Del Debbio, S.~Forte, T.~Giani, S.~Iranipour, Z.~Kassabov, J.~I.~Latorre and E.~R.~Nocera, \textit{et al.}
%``The path to proton structure at 1\% accuracy: NNPDF Collaboration,''
Eur. Phys. J. C \textbf{82} (2022) 428
%doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10328-7
[arXiv:2109.02653 [hep-ph]].
\bibitem{NNPDF:2019ubu}
R.~Abdul Khalek \textit{et al.} [NNPDF],
%``Parton Distributions with Theory Uncertainties: General Formalism and First Phenomenological Studies,''
Eur. Phys. J. C \textbf{79} (2019) 931
%doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7401-4
[arXiv:1906.10698 [hep-ph]].
\bibitem{Bailey:2020ooq}
S.~Bailey, T.~Cridge, L.~A.~Harland-Lang, A.~D.~Martin and R.~S.~Thorne,
%``Parton distributions from LHC, HERA, Tevatron and fixed target data: MSHT20 PDFs,''
Eur. Phys. J. C \textbf{81} (2021) 341
%doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09057-0
[arXiv:2012.04684 [hep-ph]].
\bibitem{Hou:2019efy}
T.~J.~Hou, J.~Gao, T.~J.~Hobbs, K.~Xie, S.~Dulat, M.~Guzzi, J.~Huston, P.~Nadolsky, J.~Pumplin and C.~Schmidt, \textit{et al.}
%``New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high-precision data from the LHC,''
Phys. Rev. D \textbf{103} (2021) 014013
%doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.014013
[arXiv:1912.10053 [hep-ph]].
\bibitem{Alekhin:2017kpj}
S.~Alekhin,
% {\it et al.},
J.~Bluemlein, S.~Moch and R.~Placakyte,
%``Parton distribution functions, $\alpha_s$, and heavy-quark masses for LHC Run II,''
Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 96} (2017) 014011
% doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.014011
[arXiv:1701.05838 [hep-ph]].
\bibitem{Abramowicz:2015mha}
H.~Abramowicz \textit{et al.} [H1 and ZEUS],
%``Combination of measurements of inclusive deep inelastic ${e^{\pm }p}$ scattering cross sections and QCD analysis of HERA data,''
Eur. Phys. J. C \textbf{75} (2015) 580
%doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3710-4
[arXiv:1506.06042 [hep-ex]].
\bibitem{Bertone:2022sso}
V.~Bertone, G.~Bozzi and F.~Hautmann,
%``Perturbative hysteresis and emergent resummation scales,''
Phys. Rev. D \textbf{105} (2022) 096003
%doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.096003
[arXiv:2202.03380 [hep-ph]].
\bibitem{Ebert:2021aoo}
M.~A.~Ebert,
%``Analytic results for Sudakov form factors in QCD,''
JHEP \textbf{02} (2022) 136
%doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2022)136
[arXiv:2110.11360 [hep-ph]].
\bibitem{Billis:2019evv}
G.~Billis, F.~J.~Tackmann and J.~Talbert,
%``Higher-Order Sudakov Resummation in Coupled Gauge Theories,''
JHEP \textbf{03} (2020) 182
%doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2020)182
[arXiv:1907.02971 [hep-ph]].
\bibitem{Hautmann:2019biw}
F. Hautmann, L. Keersmaekers, A. Lelek and A.M. Van Kampen,
%``Dynamical resolution scale in transverse momentum distributions at the LHC,''
Nucl. Phys. B \textbf{949} (2019) 114795
%doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2019.114795
[arXiv:1908.08524 [hep-ph]].
\bibitem{Bertone:2022prep}
V.~Bertone {\it et al.}, in preparation.
\bibitem{Catani:1993rn}
S.~Catani and F.~Hautmann,
%``Quark anomalous dimensions at small x,''
Phys. Lett. B \textbf{315} (1993) 157; Nucl. Phys. B \textbf{427} (1994) 475; arXiv:hep-ph/9408251.
\bibitem{Ellis:1995gv}
R.~K.~Ellis, F.~Hautmann and B.~R.~Webber,
%``QCD scaling violation at small x,''
Phys. Lett. B \textbf{348} (1995) 582; arXiv:hep-ph/9506303.
%doi:10.1016/0370-2693(95)00148-E
\bibitem{LHeC:2020van}
P.~Agostini \textit{et al.} [LHeC and FCC-he Study Group],
%``The Large Hadron-Electron Collider at the HL-LHC,''
J. Phys. G \textbf{48} (2021) 110501
%doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abf3ba
[arXiv:2007.14491 [hep-ex]].
\bibitem{Proceedings:2020eah}
Y.~Hatta \textit{et al.},
%``Proceedings, Probing Nucleons and Nuclei in High Energy Collisions: Dedicated to the Physics of the Electron Ion Collider: Seattle (WA), United States, October 1 - November 16, 2018,''
%doi:10.1142/11684
arXiv:2002.12333 [hep-ph].
\bibitem{Angeles-Martinez:2015sea}
R.~Angeles-Martinez {\it et al.},
%``Transverse Momentum Dependent (TMD) parton distribution functions: status and prospects,''
Acta Phys. Polon. B \textbf{46} (2015) 2501
%doi:10.5506/APhysPolB.46.2501
[arXiv:1507.05267 [hep-ph]].
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}
%%% Local Variables:
%%% mode: latex
%%% TeX-master: t
%%% End:
%%% Local Variables:
%%% mode: latex
%%% TeX-master: t
%%% End:
%%% Local Variables:
%%% mode: latex
%%% TeX-master: t
%%% End: