CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-SMP-16-014 ; CERN-EP-2017-290
Azimuthal correlations for inclusive 2-jet, 3-jet, and 4-jet events in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV
Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 566
Abstract: Azimuthal correlations between the two jets with the largest transverse momenta $ {p_{\mathrm{T}}} $ in inclusive 2-, 3-, and 4-jet events are presented for several regions of the leading jet $ {p_{\mathrm{T}}} $ up to 4 TeV. For 3- and 4-jet scenarios, measurements of the minimum azimuthal angles between any two of the three or four leading $ {p_{\mathrm{T}}} $ jets are also presented. The analysis is based on data from proton-proton collisions collected by the CMS Collaboration at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$. Calculations based on leading-order matrix elements supplemented with parton showering and hadronization do not fully describe the data, so next-to-leading-order calculations matched with parton shower and hadronization models are needed to better describe the measured distributions. Furthermore, we show that azimuthal jet correlations are sensitive to details of the parton showering, hadronization, and multiparton interactions. A next-to-leading-order calculation matched with parton showers in the MC@NLO method, as implemented in HERWIG 7, gives a better overall description of the measurements than the POWHEG method.
Figures & Tables Summary References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
Normalized inclusive 2-jet cross section differential in $ {\Delta \phi _\text {1,2}} $ for nine $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {max}}} $ regions, scaled by multiplicative factors for presentation purposes. The size of the data symbol includes both statistical and systematic uncertainties. The data points are overlaid with the predictions from the PH-2J + PYTHIA 8 event generator.

png pdf
Figure 2:
Normalized inclusive 3-jet cross section differential in $ {\Delta \phi _\text {1,2}} $ for eight $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {max}}} $ regions, scaled by multiplicative factors for presentation purposes. The size of the data symbol includes both statistical and systematic uncertainties. The data points are overlaid with the predictions from the PH-2J + PYTHIA 8 event generator.

png pdf
Figure 3:
Normalized inclusive 4-jet cross section differential in $ {\Delta \phi _\text {1,2}} $ for eight $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {max}}} $ regions, scaled by multiplicative factors for presentation purposes. The size of the data symbol includes both statistical and systematic uncertainties. The data points are overlaid with the predictions from the PH-2J + PYTHIA 8 event generator.

png pdf
Figure 4:
Ratios of PYTHIA 8, HERWIG++, and MadGraph + PYTHIA 8 predictions to the normalized inclusive 2-jet cross section differential in $ {\Delta \phi _\text {1,2}} $, for all $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {max}}} $ regions. The solid band indicates the total experimental uncertainty and the vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainties in the simulated data.

png pdf
Figure 5:
Ratios of PYTHIA 8, HERWIG++, and MadGraph + PYTHIA 8 predictions to the normalized inclusive 3-jet cross section differential in $ {\Delta \phi _\text {1,2}} $, for all $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {max}}} $ regions. The solid band indicates the total experimental uncertainty and the vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainties in the simulated data.

png pdf
Figure 6:
Ratios of PYTHIA 8, HERWIG++, and MadGraph + PYTHIA 8 predictions to the normalized inclusive 4-jet cross section differential in $ {\Delta \phi _\text {1,2}} $, for all $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {max}}} $ regions. The solid band indicates the total experimental uncertainty and the vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainties in the simulated data.

png pdf
Figure 7:
Ratios of PH-2J + PYTHIA 8, PH-2J + HERWIG++, PH-2J + PYTHIA 8, and HERWIG 7 predictions to the normalized inclusive 2-jet cross section differential in $ {\Delta \phi _\text {1,2}} $, for all $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {max}}} $ regions. The solid band indicates the total experimental uncertainty and the vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainties in the simulated data.

png pdf
Figure 8:
Ratios of PH-2J + PYTHIA 8, PH-2J + HERWIG++, PH-2J + PYTHIA 8, and HERWIG 7 predictions to the normalized inclusive 3-jet cross section differential in $ {\Delta \phi _\text {1,2}} $, for all $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {max}}} $ regions. The solid band indicates the total experimental uncertainty and the vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainties in the simulated data.

png pdf
Figure 9:
Ratios of PH-2J + PYTHIA 8, PH-2J + HERWIG++, PH-2J + PYTHIA 8, and HERWIG 7 predictions to the normalized inclusive 4-jet cross section differential in $ {\Delta \phi _\text {1,2}} $, for all $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {max}}} $ regions. The solid band indicates the total experimental uncertainty and the vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainties in the simulated data.

png pdf
Figure 10:
Normalized inclusive 3-jet cross section differential in $ {\Delta \phi _\text {2j}^\text {min}} $ for eight $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {max}}} $ regions, scaled by multiplicative factors for presentation purposes. The size of the data symbol includes both statistical and systematic uncertainties. The data points are overlaid with the predictions from the PH-2J + PYTHIA 8 event generator.

png pdf
Figure 11:
Normalized inclusive 4-jet cross section differential in $ {\Delta \phi _\text {2j}^\text {min}} $ for eight $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {max}}} $ regions, scaled by multiplicative factors for presentation purposes. The size of the data symbol includes both statistical and systematic uncertainties. The data points are overlaid with the predictions from the PH-2J + PYTHIA 8 event generator.

png pdf
Figure 12:
Ratios of PYTHIA 8, HERWIG++, and MadGraph + PYTHIA 8 predictions to the normalized inclusive 3-jet cross section differential in $ {\Delta \phi _\text {2j}^\text {min}} $, for all $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {max}}} $ regions. The solid band indicates the total experimental uncertainty and the vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainties in the simulated data.

png pdf
Figure 13:
Ratios of PYTHIA 8, HERWIG++, and MadGraph + PYTHIA 8 predictions to the normalized inclusive 4-jet cross section differential in $ {\Delta \phi _\text {2j}^\text {min}} $, for all $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {max}}} $ regions. The solid band indicates the total experimental uncertainty and the vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainties in the simulated data.

png pdf
Figure 14:
Ratios of PH-2J + PYTHIA 8, PH-2J + HERWIG++, PH-2J + PYTHIA 8, and HERWIG 7 predictions to the normalized inclusive 3-jet cross section differential in $ {\Delta \phi _\text {2j}^\text {min}} $, for all $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {max}}} $ regions. The solid band indicates the total experimental uncertainty and the vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainties of the simulated data.

png pdf
Figure 15:
Ratios of PH-2J + PYTHIA 8, PH-2J + HERWIG++, PH-2J + PYTHIA 8, and HERWIG 7 predictions to the normalized inclusive 4-jet cross section differential in $ {\Delta \phi _\text {2j}^\text {min}} $, for all $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {max}}} $ regions. The solid band indicates the total experimental uncertainty and the vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainties of the simulated data.
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
Monte Carlo event generators used for comparison in this analysis. Version of the generators, PDF set, underlying event tune, and corresponding references are listed.

png pdf
Table 2:
The integrated luminosity for each trigger sample considered in this analysis.
Summary
Measurements of the normalized inclusive 2-, 3-, and 4-jet cross sections differential in the azimuthal angular separation $ {\Delta\phi_\text{1,2}} $ and of the normalized inclusive 3- and 4-jet cross sections differential in the minimum azimuthal angular separation between any two jets $ {\Delta\phi_\text{2j}^\text{min}} $ are presented for several regions of the leading-jet transverse momentum $ {p_{\mathrm{T}}}^{\text{max}} $. The measurements are performed using data collected during 2016 with the CMS detector at the CERN LHC corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV.

The measured distributions in $ {\Delta\phi_\text{1,2}} $ and $ {\Delta\phi_\text{2j}^\text{min}} $ are compared with predictions from PYTHIA 8, HERWIG++, MadGraph + PYTHIA 8, PH-2J matched to PYTHIA 8 and HERWIG++, PH-3J + PYTHIA 8, and HERWIG 7 event generators.

The leading order (LO) PYTHIA 8 dijet event generator exhibits small deviations from the $ {\Delta\phi_\text{1,2}} $ measurements but shows significant deviations at low-$ {p_{\mathrm{T}}} $ in the $ {\Delta\phi_\text{2j}^\text{min}} $ distributions. The HERWIG++ event generator exhibits the largest deviations of any of the generators for the $ {\Delta\phi_\text{1,2}} $ measurements, but provides a reasonable description of the $ {\Delta\phi_\text{2j}^\text{min}} $ distributions. The tree-level multijet event generator MadGraph in combination with PYTHIA 8 for showering, hadronization, and multiparton interactions provides a good overall description of the measurements, except for the $ {\Delta\phi_\text{2j}^\text{min}} $ distributions in the 4-jet case, where the generator deviates from the measurement mainly at high $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {max}}} $.

The dijet next-to-leading order (NLO) PH-2J event generator deviates from the $ {\Delta\phi_\text{1,2}} $ measurements, but provides a good description of the $ {\Delta\phi_\text{2j}^\text{min}} $ observable. The predictions from the three-jet NLO PH-3J event generator exhibit large deviations from the measurements and describe the considered multijet observables in a less accurate way than the predictions from PH-2J. Parton shower contributions are responsible for the different behaviour of the PH-2J and PH-3J predictions. Finally, predictions from the dijet NLO HERWIG 7 event generator matched to parton shower contributions with the MC@NLO method provide a very good description of the $ {\Delta\phi_\text{1,2}} $ measurements, showing improvement in comparison to HERWIG++.

All these observations emphasize the need to improve predictions for multijet production. Similar observations, for the inclusive 2-jet cross sections differential in $ {\Delta\phi_\text{1,2}} $, were reported previously by CMS [5] at a different centre-of-mass energy of 8 TeV. The extension of $ {\Delta\phi_\text{1,2}} $ correlations, and the measurement of the $ {\Delta\phi_\text{2j}^\text{min}} $ distributions in inclusive 3- and 4-jet topologies are novel measurements of the present analysis.
References
1 D0 Collaboration Measurement of dijet azimuthal decorrelations at central rapidities in $ \mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 1.96 TeV PRL 94 (2005) 221801 hep-ex/0409040
2 D0 Collaboration Measurement of the combined rapidity and $ p_\mathrm{T} $ dependence of dijet azimuthal decorrelations in $ \mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 1.96 TeV PLB 721 (2013) 212 1212.1842
3 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of dijet azimuthal decorrelations in $ \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV PRL 106 (2011) 172002 1102.2696
4 CMS Collaboration Dijet azimuthal decorrelations in $ \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV PRL 106 (2011) 122003 CMS-QCD-10-026
1101.5029
5 CMS Collaboration Measurement of dijet azimuthal decorrelation in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV EPJC 76 (2016) 536 CMS-SMP-14-015
1602.04384
6 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of three-jet production cross-sections in pp collisions at 7 TeV centre-of-mass energy using the ATLAS detector EPJC 75 (2015) 228 1411.1855
7 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of four-jet differential cross sections in $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV proton-proton collisions using the ATLAS detector JHEP 12 (2015) 105 1509.07335
8 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004 CMS-00-001
9 T. Sjostrand et al. An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 CPC 191 (2015) 159 1410.3012
10 M. Bahr et al. Herwig++ physics and manual EPJC 58 (2008) 639 0803.0883
11 B. Andersson The Lund model Camb. Monogr. Part. Phys. NP Cosmol. 7 (1997) 1
12 B. R. Webber A QCD model for jet fragmentation including soft gluon interference NPB 238 (1984) 492
13 CMS Collaboration Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements EPJC 76 (2016) 155 CMS-GEN-14-001
1512.00815
14 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions with QED corrections NPB 877 (2013) 290 1308.0598
15 NNPDF Collaboration Unbiased global determination of parton distributions and their uncertainties at NNLO and at LO NPB 855 (2012) 153 1107.2652
16 J. Pumplin et al. New generation of parton distributions with uncertainties from global QCD analysis JHEP 07 (2002) 012 hep-ph/0201195
17 J. Alwall et al. The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations JHEP 07 (2014) 079 1405.0301
18 J. Alwall et al. Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions EPJC 53 (2008) 473 0706.2569
19 S. Mrenna and P. Richardson Matching matrix elements and parton showers with HERWIG and PYTHIA JHEP 05 (2004) 040 hep-ph/0312274
20 S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method JHEP 11 (2007) 070 0709.2092
21 S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX JHEP 06 (2010) 043 1002.2581
22 P. Nason A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms JHEP 11 (2004) 040 hep-ph/0409146
23 J. Bellm et al. Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note EPJC 76 (2016) 196 1512.01178
24 S. Frixione and B. R. Webber Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations JHEP 06 (2002) 029 hep-ph/0204244
25 R. Frederix and S. Frixione Merging meets matching in MC@NLO JHEP 12 (2012) 061 1209.6215
26 S. Alioli et al. Jet pair production in POWHEG JHEP 11 (2011) 081 1012.3380
27 A. Kardos, P. Nason, and C. Oleari Three-jet production in POWHEG JHEP 04 (2014) 043 1402.4001
28 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions for the LHC Run II JHEP 04 (2015) 040 1410.8849
29 L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, P. Motylinski, and R. S. Thorne Parton distributions in the LHC era: MMHT 2014 PDFs EPJC 75 (2015) 204 1412.3989
30 CMS Collaboration The CMS high level trigger EPJC 46 (2006) 605 hep-ex/0512077
31 CMS Collaboration The CMS trigger system JINST 12 (2017) P01020 CMS-TRG-12-001
1609.02366
32 CMS Collaboration Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector JINST 12 (2017) P10003 CMS-PRF-14-001
1706.04965
33 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The anti-$ k_t $ jet clustering algorithm JHEP 04 (2008) 063 0802.1189
34 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez FastJet user manual EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 1111.6097
35 CMS Collaboration Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV JINST 12 (2017) 02014 CMS-JME-13-004
1607.03663
36 GEANT4 Collaboration GEANT4---a simulation toolkit NIMA 506 (2003) 250
37 CMS Collaboration Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker JINST 9 (2014) P10009 CMS-TRK-11-001
1405.6569
38 CMS Collaboration Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data CMS-PAS-JME-16-003 CMS-PAS-JME-16-003
39 T. Adye Unfolding algorithms and tests using RooUnfold in PHYSTAT 2011 Workshop on Statistical Issues Related to Discovery Claims in Search Experiments and Unfolding, H. Prosper and L. Lyons, eds., p. 313 Geneva, Switzerland 1105.1160
40 M. H. Seymour and A. Siodmok Constraining MPI models using $ \sigma_{\text{eff}} $ and recent Tevatron and LHC underlying event data JHEP 10 (2013) 113 1307.5015
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN