Tunneling transition to the pomeron regime

Ciafaloni, M.; Colferai, D.; Salam, Gavin P.; Staśto, Anna

doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(02)02271-2

Cited by 36 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For this reason it is strictly necessary to optimize the amplitude by (i) including some pieces of the (unknown) next-to-NLO corrections and/or (ii) suitably choosing the values of the energy and renormalization scales, which, though being arbitrary within the NLO, can have a sizeable numerical impact through subleading terms. A remarkable example of the former approach is the so-called collinear improvement [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30], based on the inclusion of terms generated by renormalization group (RG), or collinear, analysis, leading to more convergent kernels. As for the latter approach, the most common ways to optimize the choice of the energy and renormalization scales are those inspired by the principle of minimum sensitivity (PMS) [31,32], the fast apparent convergence (FAC) [33][34][35] and the Brodsky-LePage-McKenzie method (BLM) [36].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mueller–Navelet jets in next-to-leading order BFKL: theory versus experiment

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study, within QCD collinear factorization and including BFKL resummation at the next-to-leading order, the production of Mueller-Navelet jets at LHC with centerof-mass energy of 7 TeV. The adopted jet vertices are calculated in the approximation of a small aperture of the jet cone in the pseudorapidity-azimuthal angle plane. We consider several representations of the dijet cross section, differing only beyond the next-to-leading order, to calculate a few observables related with this process. We use various methods of optimization to fix the energy scales entering the perturbative calculation and compare our results with the experimental data from the CMS collaboration.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mueller–Navelet jets in next-to-leading order BFKL: theory versus experiment

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[26][27][28], for the case of the vector meson photoproduction). This calls for some optimization procedure, which can consist in (i) including some pieces of the (unknown) next-to-NLO corrections, such as those dictated by renormalization group, as in collinear improvement [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39], or by energymomentum conservation [40], and/or (ii) suitably choosing the values of the energy and renormalization scales, which, though arbitrary within the NLO, can have a sizeable numerical impact through subleading terms. Common optimization methods are those inspired by the principle of minimum sensitivity [41,42], the fast apparent convergence [43][44][45] and the Brodsky-Lepage-Mackenzie method (BLM) [46].…”

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mueller–Navelet jets at LHC: BFKL versus high-energy DGLAP

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The production of forward jets separated by a large rapidity gap at LHC, the so-called Mueller-Navelet jets, is a fundamental testfield for perturbative QCD in the high-energy limit. Several analyses have already provided us with evidence about the compatibility of theoretical predictions, based on collinear factorization and BFKL resummation of energy logarithms in the next-to-leading approximation, with the CMS experimental data at 7 TeV of centerof-mass energy. However, the question if the same data can be described also by fixed-order perturbative approaches has not yet been fully answered. In this paper we provide numerical evidence that the mere use of partially asymmetric cuts in the transverse momenta of the detected jets allows for a clear separation between BFKL-resummed and fixed-order predictions in some observables related with the MuellerNavelet jet production process.

show abstract

“…We could also argue that the presumably large effects in the next-to-NLA are not reduced under enough satisfactory control by the representations of the cross section and by the optimization methods we have considered in this work. In this respect, it would be interesting to test also approaches based on collinear improvement [74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84]. However, the consideration of these issues goes beyond the scope of present paper.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The γ * γ * total cross section in next-to-leading order BFKL and LEP2 data

Ivanov

Murdaca

Papa

2014

J. High Energ. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study the total cross section for the collision of two highly-virtual photons at large energies, taking into account the BFKL resummation of energy logarithms with full next-to-leading accuracy. A necessary ingredient of the calculation, the next-to-leading order impact factor for the photon to photon transition, has been calculated by Balitsky and Chirilli using an approach based on the operator expansion in Wilson lines. We extracted the result for the photon impact factor in the original BFKL calculation scheme comparing the expression for the photon-photon total cross section obtained in BFKL with the one recently derived by Chirilli and Kovchegov in the Wilson-line operator expansion scheme.We perform a detailed numerical analysis, combining different, but equivalent in nextto-leading accuracy, representations of the cross section with various optimization methods of the perturbative series. We compare our results with previous determinations in the literature and with the LEP2 experimental data. We find that the account of Balitsky and Chirilli expression for the photon impact factor reduces the BFKL contribution to the cross section to very small values, making it impossible to describe LEP2 data as the sum of BFKL and leading-order QED quark box contributions.

show abstract

Tunneling transition to the pomeron regime

Cited by 36 publications

References 34 publications

Mueller–Navelet jets in next-to-leading order BFKL: theory versus experiment

Mueller–Navelet jets in next-to-leading order BFKL: theory versus experiment

Mueller–Navelet jets at LHC: BFKL versus high-energy DGLAP

The γ * γ * total cross section in next-to-leading order BFKL and LEP2 data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About