# BFKL Dynamics at Hadron Colliders

## 1 Introduction

There has been considerable interest in recent years in QCD scattering processes in the so-called ‘high-energy limit’, i.e. processes in which $`𝒔\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝒕\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}𝚲_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}`$. The corresponding cross sections are controlled by BFKL dynamics , in which large $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{/}\mathbf{|}𝒕\mathbf{|}\mathbf{)}`$ logarithms arising from soft and virtual gluon emissions are resummed to all orders in perturbation theory. In the leading logarithm approximation, the energy dependence of the cross section is controlled by the (hard) BFKL pomeron: $`𝝈\mathbf{}𝒔^𝝀`$ with $`𝝀\mathbf{=}𝜶_𝒔\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝝅`$.

The paradigm BFKL process is deep inelastic scattering at small Bjorken $`𝒙`$, for which $`𝒕\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, $`𝒔\mathbf{}𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒙`$. Resummation of the leading $`𝜶_𝒔\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$ logarithms leads to the characteristic $`𝑭_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒙^\mathbf{}𝝀`$ behaviour for the structure function as $`𝒙\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$. However it has proved difficult in practice to disentangle BFKL and ordinary DGLAP physics at currently accessible $`𝒙`$ and $`𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ values. One is then led to consider whether hadron colliders such as the Tevatron and LHC can offer a more definitive test of BFKL small-$`𝒙`$ dynamics.

It was first pointed out by Mueller and Navelet  that production of jet pairs with modest transverse momentum $`𝒑_𝑻`$ and large rapidity separation $`𝚫𝒚`$ at hadron colliders would be a particularly clean environment in which to study BFKL dynamics. At asymptotic separations the subprocess cross section is predicted to increase as $`\widehat{𝝈}_{𝒋𝒋}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{(}𝝀𝚫𝒚\mathbf{)}`$.

To understand the special features of BFKL dynamics, it will be essential not only to study such fully inclusive cross sections, but also to investigate the structure of the associated final states. For the large $`𝚫𝒚`$ dijet cross section, for example, one expects an increasingly large number of ‘mini-jets’, with transverse momenta of order $`𝒑_𝑻`$, produced in the central region. More generally, one can use BFKL dynamics to predict the expected number of such mini-jets in any small-$`𝒙`$ hard scattering process at hadron colliders.

In this note we discuss two tests of BFKL dynamics at hadron colliders: the inclusive dijet cross section and the associated multiplicity of mini-jets in Higgs production.

## 2 Dijet cross sections at large rapidity separation

We wish to describe events in hadron collisions containing two jets with relatively small transverse momenta $`𝒑_{𝑻\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒑_{𝑻\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ and large rapidity separation $`𝚫𝒚\mathbf{}𝒚_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒚_\mathrm{𝟐}`$. Defining $`𝚫\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}𝝅`$ to be the relative azimuthal angle between the jets, the leading-logarithm BFKL prediction for the ($`𝒈𝒈`$) subprocess cross section integrated over $`𝒑_{𝑻\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒑_{𝑻\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{>}𝒑_𝑻`$ is

$$\frac{𝒅\widehat{𝝈}_{𝒈𝒈}}{𝒅𝚫\mathit{\varphi }}\mathbf{|}_{𝒑_{𝑻\mathrm{𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}𝒑_{𝑻\mathrm{𝟐}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{>}𝒑_𝑻^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟗}𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}𝝅}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒑_𝑻^\mathrm{𝟐}}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝝅}\underset{𝒏\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}{\overset{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}}{\mathbf{}}}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}𝒊𝒏𝚫\mathit{\varphi }𝑪_𝒏\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(1)   
with $`𝒕\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑}𝜶_𝒔𝚫𝒚\mathbf{/}𝝅`$ and

$`𝑪_𝒏\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝝅}}{\displaystyle \mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒅𝒛}{𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}}}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒕𝝌_𝒏\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}`$   
$`𝝌_𝒏\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}\mathbf{\left[}𝝍\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝝍\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝒏\mathbf{|}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒊𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}`$ (2)   
where $`𝝍`$ is the digamma function. The total subprocess cross section, and its corresponding asymptotic behaviour, is then 

$$\widehat{𝝈}_{𝒈𝒈}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟗}𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}𝝅}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒑_𝑻^\mathrm{𝟐}}𝑪_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝑪_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\{}\begin{array}{cc}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\hfill & \text{for}𝒕\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\hfill \\ \mathbf{}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝝅\mathrm{𝟕}𝜻\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}𝒕\mathbf{\right]}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒕\mathbf{)}\hfill & \text{for}𝒕\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)   
from which we see the characteristic BFKL prediction of an exponential increase in the cross section with large $`𝚫𝒚`$. It can also be seen from (1) that the average cosine of the azimuthal angle difference $`𝚫\mathit{\varphi }`$ defined above is proportional to $`𝑪_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$. In fact we have

$$\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑪_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}{𝑪_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}$$
(4)   
and as we shall see below, this falls off with increasing $`𝒕`$.

Unfortunately the increase of $`\widehat{𝝈}`$ with $`𝚫𝒚`$ disappears when the subprocess cross section is convoluted with parton distribution functions (pdfs), which decrease with $`𝚫𝒚`$ more rapidly than $`\widehat{𝝈}`$ increases. This is illustrated in fig. 1. The subprocess cross section rise at large $`𝚫𝒚`$ becomes a shoulder in the hadron-level cross section, whose exact shape depends on the (large-$`𝒙`$) form of the pdfs. To avoid this pdf sensitivity, one can study  the decorrelation in $`𝚫\mathit{\varphi }`$ that arises from emission of gluons between the jets; BFKL predicts (see eq. (4)) a stronger decorrelation than does fixed-order QCD, and this prediction should be relatively insensitive to the pdfs.

In practice it is not useful to compare analytic asymptotic BFKL predictions directly with experiment because nonleading corrections can be large. In particular, in the analytic BFKL calculation that leads to (1,2) above, gluons can be emitted arbitrarily, with no kinematic cost, and energy and momentum are not conserved. In Ref.  (see also ) a Monte Carlo approach is used in which the emitted gluons are subject to kinematic constraints (i.e. overall energy and momentum are conserved), and other nonleading effects such as the running of $`𝜶_𝒔`$ are included. Kinematic constraints are seen to have a significant effect, suppressing the emission of large numbers of energetic gluons. The effect is clearly visible in fig. 1 (solid lines) , where the ‘improved’ BFKL calculation actually gives a smaller cross section than that at lowest order. This is due to the sizeable increase in $`\widehat{𝒔}`$, and hence in the large $`𝚫𝒚`$ pdf suppression, due to the emitted BFKL gluons.

The azimuthal decorrelation is also weaker in the more realistic BFKL calculation. This is illustrated in fig. 2, where we show  the mean value of $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫\mathit{\varphi }`$ in dijet production in the improved BFKL MC approach (upper curves). The jets are completely correlated (i.e. back-to-back in the transverse plane) at $`𝚫𝒚\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, and as $`𝚫𝒚`$ increases we see the characteristic BFKL decorrelation, followed by a flattening out and then an increase in $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{}`$ as the kinematic limit is approached. Not surprisingly, the kinematic constraints have a much stronger effect when the $`𝒑_𝑻`$ threshold is set at $`\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}`$ GeV (dashed curve) than at $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}`$ GeV (solid curve); in the latter case more phase space is available to radiate gluons. We also show for comparison the decorrelation for dijet production at the Tevatron for $`𝒑_𝑻\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}`$ GeV. There we see that the lower collision energy (1.8 TeV) limits the allowed rapidity difference and substantially suppresses the decorrelation at large $`𝚫𝒚`$. Recent measurements of the dijet decorrelation by the D0 collaboration  at the Tevatron are in reasonable agreement with the improved BFKL parton-level predictions. Note that the larger centre-of-mass energy compared to transverse momentum threshold at the LHC would seem to give it a significant advantage as far as observing BFKL effects is concerned.

The lower set of curves in fig. 2 refer to Higgs production via the $`𝑾𝑾\mathbf{,}𝒁𝒁`$ fusion process $`𝒒𝒒\mathbf{}𝒒𝒒𝑯`$, and are included for comparison . This process automatically provides a ‘BFKL-like’ dijet sample with large rapidity separation, although evidently the jets are significantly less correlated in azimuthal angle.

## 3 Associated Jet Multiplicities in Higgs Production at the LHC

One important aspect of the final state at the LHC is the number of mini-jets produced. By mini-jets we mean jets with transverse momenta above some resolution scale $`𝝁_\text{R}`$ which is very much smaller than the hard process scale $`𝑸`$. Then the mini-jet multiplicity at small $`𝒙`$ involves not only $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}𝒙\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ but also another large logarithm, $`𝑻\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝝁_\text{R}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$, which needs to be resummed. The results derived in  include all terms of the form $`\mathbf{(}𝜶_\text{S}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}𝒙\mathbf{)}^𝒏𝑻^𝒎`$ where $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒎\mathbf{}𝒏`$. Terms with $`𝒎\mathbf{=}𝒏`$ are called double-logarithmic (DL) while those with $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒎\mathbf{<}𝒏`$ give single-logarithmic (SL) corrections. In the calculations the BFKL formalism  has been used, but the results are expected to hold  also in the CCFM formalism  based on angular ordering of gluon emissions.

In order to find $`\overline{𝒓}\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$, the mean number of resolved mini-jets as a function of $`𝒙`$, it is convenient to compute first the Mellin transform of this quantity

$$\overline{𝒓}_𝝎\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}_\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟏}𝒅𝒙𝒙^𝝎\overline{𝒓}\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(5)   
We find 

$$\overline{𝒓}_𝝎\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝝌^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝜸_\text{L}}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝝌^{\mathbf{\prime \prime }}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝝌^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{+}𝝌\mathbf{\right)}𝑻\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝝌^{\mathbf{}}}𝑻^\mathrm{𝟐}$$
(6)   
where $`𝜸_\text{L}`$ is the Lipatov anomalous dimension which solves

$$𝝎\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\overline{𝜶}_\text{S}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜸_\text{E}\mathbf{+}𝝍\mathbf{(}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝝍\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{}\overline{𝜶}_\text{S}𝝌\mathbf{(}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(7)   
Here $`\overline{𝜶}_\text{S}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑}𝜶_\text{S}\mathbf{/}𝝅`$, $`𝝍`$ is the digamma function and $`𝜸_\text{E}`$ the Euler constant. In eq. (6), $`𝝌^{\mathbf{}}`$ means the derivative of $`𝝌\mathbf{(}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ evaluated at $`𝜸\mathbf{=}𝜸_\text{L}`$. The corresponding expression for the variance in the number of jets, $`𝝈_𝝎^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\overline{𝒓^\mathrm{𝟐}}_𝝎\mathbf{}\overline{𝒓}_𝝎^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, is more complicated, see .

To invert the Mellin transform (5), we can expand eq. (6) perturbatively as a series in $`\overline{𝜶}_\text{S}\mathbf{/}𝝎`$ and then invert term by term using

$$\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝝅𝒊}\mathbf{}_{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{}𝒊\mathbf{}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{+}𝒊\mathbf{}}𝒅𝝎𝒙^{\mathbf{}𝝎\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\overline{𝜶}_\text{S}}{𝝎}\mathbf{\right)}^𝒏\mathbf{=}\frac{\overline{𝜶}_\text{S}}{𝒙}\frac{\mathbf{[}\overline{𝜶}_\text{S}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}^{𝒏\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}}}{\mathbf{(}𝒏\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{!}}\mathbf{.}$$
(8)   
The factorial in the denominator makes the resulting series in $`𝒙`$-space converge very rapidly. It is then straightforward to compute the mini-jet multiplicity associated with pointlike scattering on the gluonic component of the proton at small $`𝒙`$ using

$$𝒏\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑭\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{,}𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\overline{𝒓}\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}}{𝑭\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{,}𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}$$
(9)   
where $`𝑭\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{,}𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ is the gluon structure function and $`\mathbf{}`$ represents a convolution in $`𝒙`$.

As an application of these results, we can compute the mean value $`𝑵`$ and the dispersion $`𝝈_𝑵`$ of the associated (mini-)jet multiplicity in Higgs boson production at the LHC, assuming the dominant production mechanism to be gluon-gluon fusion. At zero rapidity we have gluon momentum fractions $`𝒙_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}𝒙_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}𝒙\mathbf{=}𝑴_𝑯\mathbf{/}\sqrt{𝒔}`$ where $`𝑴_𝑯`$ is the Higgs mass, and $`𝑵\mathbf{=}𝒏\mathbf{(}𝒙_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒏\mathbf{(}𝒙_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒏\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$. Similarly $`𝝈_𝑵^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝝈_𝒏^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒙_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝝈_𝒏^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒙_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝝈_𝒏^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$.

The results are shown in fig. 3. We see that in this case the DL results give an excellent approximation and the SL terms are less significant. The mini-jet multiplicity and its dispersion are rather insensitive to the Higgs mass at the energy of the LHC. The mean number of associated mini-jets is fairly low, such that the identification of the Higgs boson should not be seriously affected by them.

## References