Transverse momentum resummation: general formalism and

the case of diphoton production at LHC

Francesco Coradeschi
(University of Firenze and INFN, section of Firenze)

Cambridge - June 29, 2016

In collaboration with D. De Florian and L. Cieri

PART I:
qT RESUMMATION

Why resummation?
I

Lets have a look at the qT distribution for a generic inclusive

h1 h2 ! F process (F colorless)

Standard factorization formula reads

d F
=
dqT2

dx1 dx2 fa/h1 (x1 , 2f ) fb/h2 (x2 , 2f )

F
d ab
(
s , qT , M, . . .)
dqT2

with d F a perturbative object, fa/h nonperturbative but

universal (process-independent)
I

Fixed-order (in s ) expansion not reliable for qT M!

2
qT

d qT2

F
2
d ab
M2
(0)
2 M
' ab 1 + s c12 log 2 + c11 log 2 + c10 + . . .
dqT2
qT
qT

Why resummation?
I

Lets have a look at the qT distribution for a generic inclusive

h1 h2 ! F process (F colorless)

Standard factorization formula reads

d F
=
dqT2

dx1 dx2 fa/h1 (x1 , 2f ) fb/h2 (x2 , 2f )

F
d ab
(
s , qT , M, . . .)
dqT2

with d F a perturbative object, fa/h nonperturbative but

universal (process-independent)
I

Fixed-order (in s ) expansion not reliable for qT M!

2
qT

d qT2

F
2
d ab
M2
(0)
2 M
' ab 1 + s c12 log 2 + c11 log 2 + c10 + . . .
dqT2
qT
qT

Why resummation?
I

Lets have a look at the qT distribution for a generic inclusive

h1 h2 ! F process (F colorless)

Standard factorization formula reads

d F
=
dqT2

dx1 dx2 fa/h1 (x1 , 2f ) fb/h2 (x2 , 2f )

F
d ab
(
s , qT , M, . . .)
dqT2

with d F a perturbative object, fa/h nonperturbative but

universal (process-independent)
I

Fixed-order (in s ) expansion not reliable for qT M!

2
qT

d qT2

F
2
d ab
M2
(0)
2 M
' ab 1 + s c12 log 2 + c11 log 2 + c10 + . . .
dqT2
qT
qT

Why resummation?
I

In general, sn log2n

As soon as:

M2
2
qT

terms will be present

s log2 M 2 /qT2 & 1

need resummation of large logarithmic terms

Why resummation?
I

In general, sn log2n

As soon as:

M2
2
qT

terms will be present

s log2 M 2 /qT2 & 1

need resummation of large logarithmic terms

Why resummation?
I

In general, sn log2n

As soon as:

M2
2
qT

terms will be present

s log2 M 2 /qT2 & 1

need resummation of large logarithmic terms

d/dqT [pb/GeV] (F=R=M)

3
pp + X
ATLAS s=7 TeV
(3 body , NP : {gg=2*CA, qqbar=2*CF} )

2.5

1.5

NLL+LO
LO
(fin.)LO

0.5

0
0

10

15

20
25
30
qT [GeV]

35

40

45

50

Summing logs to all orders: basic idea

The appearance of logs is tied to IR singularities (soft and

collinear) of the theory, and their resummation is achieved via
exponentiation (Sudakov-style, think QED)
Need factorization of both dynamics and kinematics

Dynamics factorization is a general feature of soft QCD

emissions:
1 Y
dwn (q1 , . . . , qn ) '
dwi (qi )
(! small qi )
n!
i

(the general factorization is in fact more complicated . . . )

I

Kinematics does not factorize in general.

Summing logs to all orders: basic idea

The appearance of logs is tied to IR singularities (soft and

collinear) of the theory, and their resummation is achieved via
exponentiation (Sudakov-style, think QED)
Need factorization of both dynamics and kinematics

Dynamics factorization is a general feature of soft QCD

emissions:
1 Y
dwn (q1 , . . . , qn ) '
dwi (qi )
(! small qi )
n!
i

(the general factorization is in fact more complicated . . . )

I

Kinematics does not factorize in general.

Summing logs to all orders: basic idea

The appearance of logs is tied to IR singularities (soft and

collinear) of the theory, and their resummation is achieved via
exponentiation (Sudakov-style, think QED)
Need factorization of both dynamics and kinematics

Dynamics factorization is a general feature of soft QCD

emissions:
1 Y
dwn (q1 , . . . , qn ) '
dwi (qi )
(! small qi )
n!
i

(the general factorization is in fact more complicated . . . )

I

Kinematics does not factorize in general.

Summing logs to all orders: basic idea

In the qT case, the trick is going to impact parameter space:

Z
X
Y
d 2 qT exp( ib qT ) (qT
qiT ) =
exp( ib qiT )
i

Since exponentiaton holds in b-space, need to F.T. back to

physical space. The big logs become
log

M2
$ log M 2 b 2
qT2

(note the F.T. is rather challenging from a numerical p.o.v. !)

Summing logs to all orders: basic idea

In the qT case, the trick is going to impact parameter space:

Z
X
Y
d 2 qT exp( ib qT ) (qT
qiT ) =
exp( ib qiT )
i

Since exponentiaton holds in b-space, need to F.T. back to

physical space. The big logs become
log

M2
$ log M 2 b 2
qT2

(note the F.T. is rather challenging from a numerical p.o.v. !)

Summing logs to all orders: basic idea

The full story is a bit more complex: to get an idea, look at

this list of selected refs!

b-space formalism:
[Dokshitzer,Diakonov,Troian(78)] , [Parisi,Petronzio(79)] , [Kodaira,Trentadue(82)] ,
[Collins,Soper,Sterman(85)] , [Altarelli et al.(84)] , [Catani,dEmilio,Trentadue(88)] ,
[Catani,De Florian, Grazzini(01)] , [Catani,Grazzini(10)] , [Catani,Grazzini,Torre(14)] ,
[Catani,Cieri,De Florian,Ferrera,Grazzini(14)] .
In the framework of Eective Theories:
[Gao,Li,Liu(05)] , [Idilbi,Ji,Yuan(05)] , [Mantry,Petriello(10)] , [Becher, Neubert(10)] ,
[Echevarria,Idilbi,Scimemi(11)] .
In the context of transverse-momentum dependent factorization:
[DAlesio,Murgia(04)] , [Roger,Mulders(10)] , [Collins(11)] ,
[DAlesio,Echevarria,Melis,Scimemi(14)] , [Ceccopieri,Trentadue(14)] .
Eective qT -resummation obtained with Parton Shower algorithms
POWHEG/MC@NLO:
[Barzeetal.(12,13)] , [Hoeche,Li,Prestel(14)] , [Karlberg,Re,Zanderighi(14)] .

Summing logs to all orders: basic idea

Schematically, the actual full formula looks like (for a q q-initiated
process)1

Thanks to Giancarlo Ferrera for this picture!

Summing logs to all orders: basic idea

Schematically, the actual full formula looks like (for a q q-initiated
process)1

Thanks to Giancarlo Ferrera for this picture!

The (colorless) qT resummation formula

The explicit formula is
d

F (res) (s, q

d 2 qT
XZ 1

a1 ,a2

x1

Z
M 2 X F (0)
d 2 b ibqT
=
d c c
e
Sc (M, b)
s c
(2)2

i
dz2 h F
x1 b02
x2 b02
H C1 C2
fa1 /h1
,
f
,
z2
z1 b 2 a2 /h2 z2 b 2
c c;a1 a2

T , M, y , )
dM 2 dyd

dz1
z1

1
x2

with
Sc = exp

" Z

M2
b2
0
b2

dq 2
q2

M2
Ac (s (q )) log 2 + Bc (s (q 2 ))
q
2

M
x1,2 = p e y
s
X s n (n)
X s n (n)
Ac (s ) =
Ac , Bc (s ) =
Bc

n
n
b0 = 2e

The (colorless) qT resummation formula

The explicit formula is
d

F (res) (s, q

d 2 qT
XZ 1

a1 ,a2

x1

Z
M 2 X F (0)
d 2 b ibqT
=
d c c
e
Sc (M, b)
s c
(2)2

i
dz2 h F
x1 b02
x2 b02
H C1 C2
fa1 /h1
,
f
,
z2
z1 b 2 a2 /h2 z2 b 2
c c;a1 a2

T , M, y , )
dM 2 dyd

dz1
z1

1
x2

with
Sc = exp

" Z

M2
b2
0
b2

dq 2
q2

M2
Ac (s (q )) log 2 + Bc (s (q 2 ))
q
2

M
x1,2 = p e y
s
X s n (n)
X s n (n)
Ac (s ) =
Ac , Bc (s ) =
Bc

n
n
b0 = 2e

The (colorless) qT resummation formula

Some comments:
I

Ac and Bc in the exponent are evaluated at the scale q 2 .

They can be evolved using standard s evolution, and the q 2
integral can be solved explicitly

The result can be organized in a logarithmic expansion: Ac

(2)
contributes to Leading Log or LL s (R )n Ln+1 ; Ac and
(1)
Bc to NLL s (R )n Ln , and so on, with L = log(Mb).

(1)

The p.d.f. appearing in the formula are evaluated at the

relatively soft scale b02 /b 2 , and have to be evolved to M 2
using DGLAP equations.

The H F C1 C2 c c;a a term is the trickiest one, and its actual

1 2
structure depends on wheter the process is initiated by q q or
gg at LO.

The (colorless) qT resummation formula

Some comments:
I

Ac and Bc in the exponent are evaluated at the scale q 2 .

They can be evolved using standard s evolution, and the q 2
integral can be solved explicitly

The result can be organized in a logarithmic expansion: Ac

(2)
contributes to Leading Log or LL s (R )n Ln+1 ; Ac and
(1)
Bc to NLL s (R )n Ln , and so on, with L = log(Mb).

(1)

The p.d.f. appearing in the formula are evaluated at the

relatively soft scale b02 /b 2 , and have to be evolved to M 2
using DGLAP equations.

The H F C1 C2 c c;a a term is the trickiest one, and its actual

1 2
structure depends on wheter the process is initiated by q q or
gg at LO.

qT resummation in more detail: q q

The q q case is the simplest one
h

H F C1 C2
HqF =

q q;a1 a2

= HqF (x1 p1 , x2 p2 , ; s (2R ))Cqa1 (z1 ; s (b02 /b 2 ))Cqa2 (z2 ; s (b02 /b 2 )) ,

F (n)

Hq

Cqa (z, s ) =

qa

C (z, s (b02 /b 2 )) = C (z, s (2R )) exp

(1
"

z) +

X s n
n>1

M2
b2
0
b2

(n)

Cqa ,

dq 2
d log C (z, s (q 2 ))
(s (q 2 ))
2
q
d log s (q 2 )

One can define an eective p.d.f.:

Fq /h (x, b, ) =
f

X Z 1 dz q
a

Sq (M, b)Cqf a (z; s (b0 /b ))fa/h (x/z, b0 /b )

qT resummation in more detail: gg

In the gg case, collinear radiation from gluons leads to spin and
azimuthal correlations

H F C1 C2

gg ;a1 a2

= HgF;

1 h1

2 h2

(x1 p1 , x2 p2 , ; s (2R ))

Cga11h1 (z1 ; s (b02 /b 2 ))Cga22h2 (z2 ; s (b02 /b 2 )) ,

HgF;

1 h1

2 h2

F (n)
1 h1

Hg ;

2 h2

Cgah (z; s ) =Cga (z; s )

D (p, ~b) =
Cga (z, s ) =

ga

(1

z) +

+ D (p, ~b)Gga (z; s )

,h

2i ( (~
b) ')

X s n
n>1

, h

(n)
Cga
,

Gga =

X s n
n>1

(n)
Gga

qT resummation in more detail: gg

In contrast with the q q case, H F C1 C2 gg ;a a depends on the

1 2
azimuth (b), through D (p, ~b)

Furthermore, even integrating on the azimuth a spin

correlation remains, explicitly through the helicity-flipping
term proportional to Gga

Spin correlation prevents the straightforward definition of an

eective p.d.f. as in the q q case

qT resummation: universality
I

Process dependence is fully encoded in the hard-virtual

factor HcF (and the Born cross-sec.)

Even HcF has a universal structure; it is related to the

IR-subtracted purely virtual amplitude

Define the UV-finite, IR-divergent renormalized amplitude

X s n (n)
Mc c!F = sk
Mc c!F

And the IR-finite subtracted amplitude

h
i
c c!F = 1 Ic Mc c!F
M

qT resummation: universality
I

Process dependence is fully encoded in the hard-virtual

factor HcF (and the Born cross-sec.)

Even HcF has a universal structure; it is related to the

IR-subtracted purely virtual amplitude

Define the UV-finite, IR-divergent renormalized amplitude

X s n (n)
Mc c!F = sk
Mc c!F

And the IR-finite subtracted amplitude

h
i
c c!F = 1 Ic Mc c!F
M

qT resummation: universality
I

Process dependence is fully encoded in the hard-virtual

factor HcF (and the Born cross-sec.)

Even HcF has a universal structure; it is related to the

IR-subtracted purely virtual amplitude

Define the UV-finite, IR-divergent renormalized amplitude

X s n (n)
Mc c!F = sk
Mc c!F

And the IR-finite subtracted amplitude

h
i
c c!F = 1 Ic Mc c!F
M

qT resummation: universality

Then
s2k HqF =

s2k HgF

1 h1 2 h2

q q!F |2
|M
(0)

|Mq q!F |2

1 h1

2 h2
Mgg !F M
gg !F
(0)

|Mgg !F |2

The subtraction operator Ic is universal

In the end, a couple explicit f.o. calculations are sufficient to

fix all resummation coefficients up to the calculation of the
purely virtual loop corrections to M

qT resummation scheme
I

The resummation formula is invariant under the

transformations
HcF (s ) ! HcF (s )h(s )

d log hc (s )
(s )
d log s
p
Ccb (z, s ) ! Ccb (z, s ) hc (s )
Bc (s ) ! Bc (s )

with arbitrary hc .
I

HcF , Bc and Ccb not unambigously defined

An explicit choice corresponds to a resummation scheme; the

simplest is to set HcF 1 for a single specific process, though
other possibilities exist.

qT resummation: matching

All of this just describes the small qT cross-section, i.e. it is

valid up to power corrections O(qT2 /M 2 ).

To obtain the complete cross-section, a special matching

procedure is used. Namely
d
d (res) d (fin)
=
+
dqT
dqT
dqT
where d

(fin) /dq

is defined by subtraction at fixed order:

d (fin)
dqT

=
FO

d
dqT

d
FO

(res)

dqT

FO

qT resummation: matching

All of this just describes the small qT cross-section, i.e. it is

valid up to power corrections O(qT2 /M 2 ).

To obtain the complete cross-section, a special matching

procedure is used. Namely
d
d (res) d (fin)
=
+
dqT
dqT
dqT
where d

(fin) /dq

is defined by subtraction at fixed order:

d (fin)
dqT

=
FO

d
dqT

d
FO

(res)

dqT

FO

qT resummation: matching
I

We have
Z

2
qT

d qT2

d (fin)
!0
dqT

when qT ! 0

and furthermore impose a unitarity constraint

Z
I

1
0

dqT2

(res)

dqT

=
l.a.

1
0

dqT2

(res)

dqT

.
f .o.

This is implemented by the substitution

L ! L = log M 2 b 2 + 1
which ensures that we retain the full perturbative information,
and cuts o unwanted Log contributions at small b (large qT )

qT resummation: other features

Though the formal b integration extends from 0 to 1, very

small and very large values of b should not play any physical
role. The relevant range is
M

1
b QCD

The L-dependent exponential does have a singularity at large

b, which is related to the Landau pole of s ; this is regulated
by a minimal prescription [Catani et al. (96)] , [Laenen et al. (00)] .

The resummation is performed at the partonic level; p.d.f. are

evaluated at f and evolved perturbatively to b02 /b 2 .
Uncertainty can be estimated by f and R variation as in f.o.
calculations

qT resummation: other features

An additional ambiguity in the definition of the logarithms can

be accounted for by the introduction of an additional
resummation scale Q:
log(M 2 b 2 ) ! log(Q 2 b 2 ) + log(M 2 /Q 2 ) .

An extension to colored final states is possible in principle;

explicitly results include the production of a heavy q q pair and
of a Higgs+1 jet; the structure is similar with some additional
complications

qT resummation: other features

Finally, the formalism captures the QCD IR structure very

well: can also be used for subtraction of IR singularities.
Schematically:
h
i
(res) F
F +j
F
F
F
d N
d
(k) LO = HN (k) LO d LO + d
N (k 1) LO
N (k) LO

F
F (k) : only depends on purely
HN
(k) LO is directly related to H
virtual corrections

PART II:
PRODUCTION

Diphoton production: motivations

Clean experimental channel: good test ground for pQCD

Irreducible background for the production of a Higgs decaying

to two photons

Also irreducible background for many New Physics models:

UED, RS, SUSY, . . .

Diphoton production: avaible TH tools

I

DIPHOX

[T. Binoth, J.Ph. Guillet, E. Pilon and M. Werlen]

Full NLO for direct prod. and fragmentation + Box contribution (part of NNLO)
I

gamma2MC

[Z. Bern, L. Dixon, and C. Schmidt]

Full NLO (direct only) + Box, + partial correction to Box contribution (N3 LO)
I

MCFM

[J. M. Campbell, R.K. Ellis and C. Williams]

Full NLO for direct, but only LO for fragmentation + partial correction to Box
contribution (N3 LO)
I

Resbos

[C. Balzs, E. L. Berger, P. Nadolsky, and C.-P. Yuan]

NLL qT resummation for direct (with regulator for collinear singularities)

I

2 NNLO

[S. Catani, L. Cieri, D. de Florian, G. Ferrera and M. Grazzini]

Full NNLO for direct + partial correction to Box contribution (N3 LO)
I

2 Res

[L. Cieri, FC and de Florian]

Incorporates the qT resummation at NNLL+NNLO (direct only)

On isolation

Photons in hadron collisions can be produced directly in the

hard scattering or by collinear fragmentation of an emitted
parton

To identify photons experimentally, need an isolation

prescription

In a general prescription, only a combination of the direct +

fragmentation components is physically meaningful

However, fragmentation is nonperturbative (analogous to

p.d.f.) ) not under theoretical control

On isolation
I

Two standard experimental choices: cone isolation

X
X
EThad 6 pT
EThad 6 ETmax
<R0

<R0

A better choice from the theory p.o.v.: smooth (Frixione)

cone isolation. Well defined with just the direct component!

n
X
1 cos
had
max
ET 6 ET
( )
( )=
1 cos R0
<R0

On isolation

Not clear how to implement smooth isolation experimentally

2013 Les Houces accord goes for a pragmatic compromise:

use cone isolation with tight enough parameters in
experiments, use smooth isolation with same R0 and ETmax in
theory calculations

Estimate a TH uncertainty by using dierent profiles for the

smooth cone

Results: ATLAS comparison

We use as a test case ATLAS results @ 7 TeV

Kinematic cuts are pThard > 25 GeV, pTsoft > 22 GeV,

|y | 6 1.37 _ 1.52 6 |y | 6 2.37 for both photons,
R > 0.4

Isolation parameters are ETmax = 4 GeV, R0 = 0.4, n = 1

Theory uncertainty is around 6 8%, mainly due to gg

contribution which is eectively LO at O(s2 )

[ATLAS] 1211.1913

ATLAS
1

s = 7 TeV
Data 2011,

10-1

ATLAS
102

Ldt = 4.9 fb-1

d /d

d /dp

[pb/rad]

10

T,

[pb/GeV]

Results: ATLAS comparison - fixed order

DIPHOX+GAMMA2MC (CT10)

s = 7 TeV
Data 2011,

Ldt = 4.9 fb-1

DIPHOX+GAMMA2MC (CT10)

2 NNLO (MSTW2008)

2 NNLO (MSTW2008)

10-2
10
10-3
10-4
1

data/DIPHOX

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0

data/2 NNLO

data/2 NNLO

data/DIPHOX

10-5

50

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

p

T,

[GeV]

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3
[rad]

ATLAS
1

s = 7 TeV
Data 2011,

10-1

ATLAS
102

Ldt = 4.9 fb-1

d /d

d /dp

[pb/rad]

10

T,

[pb/GeV]

Results: ATLAS comparison - fixed order

DIPHOX+GAMMA2MC (CT10)

s = 7 TeV
Data 2011,

Ldt = 4.9 fb-1

DIPHOX+GAMMA2MC (CT10)

2 NNLO (MSTW2008)

2 NNLO (MSTW2008)

10-2
10
10-3
10-4
1

data/DIPHOX

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0

data/2 NNLO

data/2 NNLO

data/DIPHOX

10-5

50

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

p

T,

[GeV]

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3
[rad]

Results: ATLAS comparison - resummation

[Cieri,FC,De Florian] 1505.03162

3
NNLL+NLO (F=0.5*M; R=2*M)
NNLL+NLO (F=2*M; R=0.5*M)
Data

d/dqT [pb/GeV]

d/dqT [pb/GeV]

2.5
2

pp + X
ATLAS s=7 TeV

1.5
1
0.5

0.1

pp + X
ATLAS s=7 TeV

0.01

NNLL+NLO (F=0.5*M; R=2*M)

NNLL+NLO (F=2*M; R=0.5*M)
NLL+LO (F=R=M)
Data

0.001

0
-0.5

(3-body , gNP=2)
0

10

0.0001

15

20

25

qT [GeV]

30

35

40

(3-body , gNP=2)
1

10

100

qT [GeV]

I Resummation spreads the uncertainties due to the gg channel over the whole
qT range

10
ATLAS
1

s = 7 TeV
Data 2011,

d /dp

T,

[pb/GeV]

Results: ATLAS comparison - resummation

10-1

Ldt = 4.9 fb-1

DIPHOX+GAMMA2MC (CT10)
2 NNLO (MSTW2008)

10-2

d/dqT [pb/GeV]

10-3
10-4

data/2 NNLO

data/DIPHOX

10-5

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0

0.1

0.01

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

p

T,

[GeV]

NNLL+NLO (F=0.5*M; R=2*M)

NNLL+NLO (F=2*M; R=0.5*M)
NLL+LO (F=R=M)
Data

0.001

0.0001
50

pp + X
ATLAS s=7 TeV

(3-body , gNP=2)
1

10

100

qT [GeV]

I We have very good agreement between theory and experiment over the whole
qT range.

10
ATLAS
1

s = 7 TeV
Data 2011,

d /dp

T,

[pb/GeV]

Results: ATLAS comparison - resummation

10-1

Ldt = 4.9 fb-1

DIPHOX+GAMMA2MC (CT10)
2 NNLO (MSTW2008)

10-2

d/dqT [pb/GeV]

10-3
10-4

data/2 NNLO

data/DIPHOX

10-5

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0

0.1

0.01

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

p

T,

[GeV]

NNLL+NLO (F=0.5*M; R=2*M)

NNLL+NLO (F=2*M; R=0.5*M)
NLL+LO (F=R=M)
Data

0.001

0.0001
50

pp + X
ATLAS s=7 TeV

(3-body , gNP=2)
1

10

100

qT [GeV]

I The size of the uncertainty band is proportional to the luminosity of the p.d.f.
of the gluon

Results: ATLAS comparison - resummation

I Description of the data better with respect to f.o.

I Correct physical behaviour at small qT recovered

Results: ATLAS comparison - resummation

I

We estimated the impact of a possible NP contribution by

using a simple parametrization
a
SNP
= exp( Ca gNP b 2 )

a = q, g , Cq CF , Cg CA
I

The resummation formula is fully dierential in the final

partons phase space . Can be used to make prediction for
dierent distributions, not just qT (accuracy is no longer
formally NNLL).

Describing the photon phase space presents an ambiguity due

to a kinematic mismatch (HcF has Born kinematics). This can
be parametrized [Catani,De Florian,Ferrera,Grazzini] 1507.06937 and is an
additional source of TH error

Results: ATLAS comparison - resummation

d/dqT [pb/GeV] (F=R=M)

2.5
NNLL (3 body ; NP : {gg = 0, qqbar = 0} )
NNLL (3 body , NP : {gg=2*CA, qqbar=2*CF} )
NNLL (2 body , NP : {gg=2*CA, qqbar=2*CF} )

1.5

0.5

pp + X
ATLAS s=7 TeV
0

10

15
qT [GeV]

20

25

30

I Uncertainty due to NP and phase space parametrization. As expected, they are

subdominant with respect to scale variation (comparable for very small qT )

Results: ATLAS comparison - resummation

NNLL + NLO (Res=1)

NNLL + NLO (Res=0.5)
NNLL + NLO (Res=0.25)

d/dqT [pb/GeV]

d/dqT [pb/GeV]

2.5

pp + X
ATLAS s=7 TeV

1.5

0.5

(2-body , gNP=2 )
0

10

0.01

20

25

qT [GeV]

30

35

40

pp + X
ATLAS s=7 TeV

0.001

0.0001

15

NNLL + NLO (Res=1)

NNLL + NLO (Res=0.5)
NNLL + NLO (Res=0.25)

0.1

(2-body , gNP=2 )
1

10

100

qT [GeV]

I Uncertainty due to resummation scale Q variation; very much subdominant with

respect to R and f .

[pb/rad]

Results: ATLAS comparison - resummation

ATLAS

NNLL+NLO (F=2*M ;
NNLL+NLO (F=0.5*M ;
Data

R=0.5*M)
R=2*M)

data/DIPHOX

(3-body , gNP=2)
1

Ldt = 4.9 fb-1

10

0.5

Data 2011,

DIPHOX+GAMMA2MC (CT10)

10

pp -> +X
ATLAS s=7TeV

s = 7 TeV

2 NNLO (MSTW2008)

1.5

2.5

data/2 NNLO

d/d [pb/rad]

100

d /d

102

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0

0.5

1.5

[rad]

I The data-theory agreement is improved also for non-qT observables

2.5

3
[rad]

Results: resummation

NNLL +NLO (3-body)

NNLO

d/dqTH [pb/GeV]

d/dqTS [pb/GeV]

NNLL + NLO (3-body)

NNLO

2.5

pp + X
ATLAS s=7 TeV

pp + X
ATLAS s=7 TeV

1.5

0.5

0
20

25

30

35

qTS [GeV]

40

45

50

20

25

30

35

40

qTH [GeV]

I More exclusive observables: individual photon qT (without data).

45

50

Conclusions

qT resummation is a powerful tool for making accurate pQCD

predictions for multi-scale observables

The formalism is well-developed, flexible and mostly

process-independent

Sources of theoretical error are understood and under control

For diphoton production, resummation improves agreement

with experimental data over the whole qT range

The same set-up can be used to make predictions for dierent

observables