1 V.A. Khoze (IPPP, Durham) (based on works with A. Kaidalov, M. Ryskin, A.D. Martin amd W.J. Stirling) Selected Topics on Central Exclusive Production Higgs sector study- one of the central targets of FP420 physics menu aims: to list & expose the main uncertainties in the theoretical expectations for CEP rates, to propose the measurements which will allow to restrict the predictions By popular demand (ADR, Brian, Risto, Michele...) with a bit of personal flavour

2 refer. purposes ExHume tuning revisited t

3  How reliable are the calculations ?  Are they well tested experimentally ? ● How well we understand/model soft physics ? ● How well we understand hard diffraction ? ● Is ‘hard-soft factorization’ well justified ?  What else could/should be done in order to improve the accuracy of the calculations ? So far the Tevatron diffractive data have been Durham-friendly) clouds on the horizon ? Theory side - Hard rescattering corrections to CEP, (BBKM-06) (agreement with KMR at the TPF-level) new papers/talks by GLM-07 ( Strikman et al, ) or

4

5 Absorptive effects and soft survival factors (J.D. Bjorken, 1992)

6 Available data on soft diffraction at high energies are still rather fragmentary. Theoretical models contain various assumptions and many parameters. Durham models are tuned to describe available ‘soft’ diffractive data at high energies and predict the total, elastic, SD and DD dissociation cross sections which can be tested at the LHC. Durham models allowed to make predictions for the CEP jj and diphotons at the Tevatron which are broadly confirmed by the data, more tests to come. A way to compare the models : with the same exponential slope b in ME (an agreement within a factor of 2 is still a miracle! ) MC model predictions should be confronted with the CDF data ( e.g. proton spectra in SD) At the moment- no need to revise the Exhume default numbers, but we have to be opened-eyed. ( note, on the theory side –downward tendency (stronger absorption effects), but CDF data rather favour upward ) Recall: in reality survival factor is not universal (depends on the nature of the hard process, kinematics, selection criteria, acceptances, pt- spread….) 15 years on

7 PDF’s DEMOCRACY  KKMR -04 – factor of difference between CTEQ6M and MRST02  very recently, CLP-07, factor of 4 difference between CTEQ6L1 and MRST2002NLO, CTEQL1  7.38 fb for SM Higgs. Here we are on the conservative side, but further studies and tests are needed Higher-Order QCD effects  Uncomfortably large higher-order QCD effects in the case of exclusive processes, exemplified by the Sudakov effect. Seen now in the dijet exclusive data. (Thanks to CDF )  Further serious theoretical studies needed, NNLO Sudakov ?  Self-consistent combined treatment of higher order effects in unintegrated struct. functs and in the hard cross-section – requires detailed studies

8 KMR-00(07) : use 2(3)-channel eikonal + ‘soft’ enhanced contributions (A. Martin’s talk) Bartels,Bondarenko,Kutak,Motyka-06  used pert.thy.  corr n could be large and   H (excl) modified ? KMR-06  arguments for small effect enhanced absorption, discussed first KKMR-01 in the diffractive dijet context “enhanced” correction to  H (excl)? Semi-enhanced hard rescattering and soft- hard factorization

9 Leading neutron prod. at HERA, Zeus eikona l enhanced gap due to  exchange ~ exclusive Higgs     y i > 2 – 3 correction prop. to rap. interval prop. to  energy (negative) Prob. to observe leading neutron must decrease with  energy But expt.  flat  small enhanced correction KKMR ‘06 New ZEUS data  SD may change (flat) behaviour at the LHC if enh. contr. is large On top of KMR theoretical arguments

10 EXPERIMENTAL CHECKS (Yesterday and Today) Up to now the diffractive production data are consistent with K(KMR)S results Still more work to be done to constrain the uncertainties CED high-Et dijets (CDF: Run I, Run II) data up to (E t) min >50 GeV ‘ Factorization breaking’ between the effective diffractive structure functions measured at the Tevatron and HERA. (KKMR-01,a quantitative description of the results, both in normalization and the shape of the distribution) The ratio of high Et dijets in production with one and two rapidity gaps Preliminary CDF results on exclusive charmonium CEDP. Energy dependence of the RG survival (D0, CDF). CDP of γγ (…. ,  ), PRL paper (in line with the KMRS calculations)  Leading neutrons at HERA

11

12 Available CDF data on proton spectra are well described by KMR model Governs the rate of the pile-up backgr. MCs should be compared with the CDF data

13 y=-ln ,  =(1-x) ( also for calculations of the pile-up backgrounds) Higher sensitivity to the parameters of models for Soft Diffraction

14 Exclusive dijet monitor & Interferometer Dijet rate- combined effect of all basic ingredients ( Surviv, Sudakov, pdfs, Enhanc. Absp ) ( E T > 10 GeV) CEP of diphotons (rate permitting) would provide an excellent combined test at M>10-20 GeV (better accuracy!) E T -dependence -dominantly Sudakov (+anom dimens), weaker dependence on Surviv. At low ET- higher sensitivity to the Enhanced Absorption Correlations between proton transverse momenta, azim. distribts Practically insensitive to pdfs and Sudakov effects. High sensitivity to soft model parameters. Proton opacity scanner (KMR-02, also Kupco et al-05, Petrov et al -05) Advantages Comparatively high rate (3 orders of magnitude higher than for the Higgs at the same E T). Possibility to separate different effects and to restrict different uncertainties by studying the same process

15 d

16 KMR-02 Correlations

17 KMR-02 High ET central jets are not required (in principle)

18 weak dependence on  (t) – integrated effect

19

20 rich diffractive structures

21

22 Myths For the channel bgds are well known and incorporated in the MCs: Exclusive LO - production (mass-suppressed) + gg misident+ soft & hard PP collisions. Reality The complete background calculations are still in progress (uncomfortably & unusually large high-order QCD and b-quark mass effects). About a dozen various sources ( studied by Durham group )  admixture of |Jz|=2 production.  NLO radiative contributions (hard blob and screened gluons)  NNLO one-loop box diagram ( mass- unsuppressed, cut-non-reconstructible)’  ‘Central inelastic’ backgrounds  b-quark mass effects in dijet events – still incomplete potentially, the largest source of theoretical uncertainties! On top of MC studies (Andy, Marek et al. ) Uncertainties in the non-PU background calculation

23

24

25 (+ n soft gluons)

26 Should be (strongly) reduced by the existing cuts : mass matching, azimuth. correlations etc More MC studies needed

27 Conclusion We are now at the qualitatively new stage when the theoretical predictions for the CEP cross sections have reached the level of a factor of 3 accuracy. So far Durham group has been able to describe/predict the diffractive data. Essential improvement of the accuracy will require a lot of work and may not happen until the LHC experiments come FORWARD and produce the data (already) in the early runs. This will not be easy. It is not like a walk in the park LET THE DATA TALK ! (J.D. Bjorken 1992)

28 BACKUP

29 In reality, KMR –calculational procedure is (much) more complicated To account for the effects of the screening corrections the calculations are performed in impact parameter bt –space For illustration in a single-channel eikonal approx. hor the process is the Fourier transform to impact parameter space The soft rescattering effects are denoted only symbolically by a factor in the effective PP –luminosity (even for the integrated over proton transverse momenta quantities) (KMR-hep-ph/ ) In practice, there is no factorized form, and should be viewed as the soft survival factor appropriately averaged over the diffractive eigenstates (2,3 channel eikonals..)

30 In the topical case of production the introduction of the and angular correlations raise effective from  0.02 to ( KKMR hep-ph/ ) There are other assumptions. for example, factorization of the unintegrated distributions still schematically + correlation effects +…

31