![Arxiv:2008.06508V2 [Hep-Ph] 28 Oct 2020 Very Low Energy Particles Exactly Cancel [1–4]](http://data.docslib.org/img/bb8c6205b84f66ac675cad92a231abdb-1.webp)
Covariantizing Phase Space
Andrew J. Larkoski1, ∗ and Tom Melia2, † 1Physics Department, Reed College, Portland, OR 97202, USA 2Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe (WPI), UTIAS, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8583, Japan We covariantize calculations over the manifold of phase space, establishing Stokes’ theorem for differential cross sections and providing new definitions of familiar observable properties like infrared and collinear safety. Through the introduction of explicit coordinates and a metric we show phase space is isomorphic to the product space of a simplex and a hypersphere, and we identify geometric phenomena that occur when its dimensions are large. These results have implications for fixed order subtraction schemes, machine learning in particle physics and high-multiplicity heavy ion collisions.
Relativistic N-body phase space is the manifold on tant for applications of machine learning in particle which essentially all calculations in a perturbative quan- physics [7–11]. The space in which the data input to tum field theory take place. S-matrix elements are func- the machine lives can be used to optimize its architec- tions that live on the phase space manifold and can ex- ture, as exploited in convolutional or recurrent neural hibit divergences on degenerate subspaces. Experiments networks, and a neural network equivariant under the extrapolate smooth probability distributions from dis- Lorentz group has recently been constructed [12]. Re- crete, finite data of particles’ momenta. The first step cent work has shown that phase space in four dimensions of any Monte Carlo for fixed-order calculation or par- is a Stiefel manifold modulo the little group [13, 14], see ton shower simulation involves the sampling of points on also [15]. Optimization and machine learning on Stiefel phase space. In each of these cases, phase space itself is manifolds is well-explored in other fields, particularly for often treated as the background on which the calculations pattern recognition, e.g. [16–22]. take place, with little focus on its intrinsic geometry. We introduce explicit global coordinates that enable In this Letter, we present a covariant description of the construction of a metric and other quantities on phase phase space and elucidate some of its novel geometric space, providing essential input and new ways of orga- properties. Our aim is to demonstrate that a deeper un- nizing data to machine learning applications. Another derstanding of phase space can enable the identification promising application of explicit metrics on phase space is of restrictions on differentiable functions that can live on to provide natural distance measures that can act as reg- it, bring new interpretations of fundamental quantities ularization observables; such observables are employed like differential cross sections, and broaden the questions in techniques [23–36] to isolate soft and collinear diver- that can be asked of particle physics data. gences in modern efforts to push calculations in pertur- bation theory to high orders in QCD. We establish the application of Stokes’ theorem to dif- We also establish geometric phenomena that occur on ferential cross sections, viewing observables as provid- the phase space manifold when particle multiplicity is ing foliations of the phase space manifold. This sheds large, and derive new geometric test statistics in this new light on the criteria of infrared and collinear (IRC) limit. Specifically, the ‘curse of dimensionality’ forces safety and additivity of an observable. These proper- the phase space volume to concentrate at the boundaries ties play a special role in massless gauge theories in four of phase space—we show in our explicit coordinate sys- dimensions—only through the calculation of IRC safe tem that this implies lightcone momenta of particles are observables do divergences from unresolved collinear or squeezed to the boundaries of a simplex. Such high di- arXiv:2008.06508v2 [hep-ph] 28 Oct 2020 very low energy particles exactly cancel [1–4]. Making a mensional geometry has a natural application in heavy mathematically rigorous statement of precisely how IRC ion physics, where multiplicities are large. safety constrains observables is known to have problems Let Π denote the phase space manifold of dimension D. [5]. Much of the challenge is related to the technical fact Anticipating a covariant description, we introduce local that real and virtual divergences only need to strictly coordinates xi and metric g on Π, and write the phase √ cancel in the exact soft and/or collinear limit, but a space measure in terms of the metric as dDx g. We lack of a smoothness can render perturbative predictions consider an integral of a function M(x) over phase space, pathological slightly away from these limits. Neverthe- restricted to a hypersurface Σ, defined by h(x) = O, via less, some progress has been made by either restricting a δ-function, to a smaller class of observables or exploiting smoothness Z √ properties of the space of collections of particles equipped F (O) = dDx g M(x) δ (O − h(x)) . (1) with a metric [6]. We make a conjecture for a definition Π of IRC safety based on the validity of Stokes’ theorem. If M(x) is a squared S-matrix element, then F (O) is Establishing the phase space manifold is also impor- interpreted as a differential cross section for O, as de-
x2 ⌃ ⇧ 1 ⇧ @⇧ ⌃1
⌃2 ⌃2 ⌦ ⌦ @⇧
x1 (b)
(a)
FIG. 1. (a) Stokes’ theorem applied to a subvolume Ω of Π bounded by two hypersurfaces Σ1 and Σ2 that are foliations defined by observable values O1 and O2. (b) The case for which the boundary of subvolume Ω includes part of the boundary ∂Π of the full space. (c) C-parameter foliation of three-body phase space in the xi coordinates introduced in the text.
Z fined by the function h(x) on phase space. This notation D √ i = d x g Di V , (6) makes the possible multiple real and virtual contribu- Ω tions to the matrix element implicit. This integral form where the definition of the surface element dσ can be also describes observables defined by smooth weights on i inferred from Eq. (3), and the covariant divergence is phase space, like the energy-energy correlation function given by [37]. At this point we also note that as M(x) ≥ 0, it p is possible to interpret the quantity gM 2 as a volume i i j i DiV = ∇iV + Γ V , (7) form, and a metric be associated with the dynamical the- ij ory; we return to this interesting possibility in the below. with the contracted Christoffel symbols The δ-function has the effect of turning Eq. (1) into i j √ an integral of a vector V over the hypersurface Σ. To Γij = ∇i log g . (8) see this, we change to coordinates (h, x˜a), defining the induced metric on Σ, In general, a closed boundary on phase space could involve (subsets of) the boundary of phase space—see ∂xi ∂xj Fig. 1 b for an illustration. g˜ab = gij a b . (2) ∂x˜ ∂x˜ As an illustrative example, we consider the foliation of hh hh + − Using the identity det(gij) = det(˜gab)/g , where g = phase space by the C-parameter [38–40] in e e → qqg¯ ij 2 g ∇ih∇jh, introducing the normal covector to the hy- events. Defining the variables xi = 2pi · Q/Q , where pi kl 1/2 persurface, Ni = (∇ih)/(g ∇kh ∇lh) , and perform- is the momentum of particle i = 1, 2, 3 and Q is the total ing the now trivial integral over the δ-function in these momentum vector of the collision, we choose three-body coordinates, it follows that Eq. (1) becomes phase space coordinates (x1, x2). The C-parameter sets Z D− p i O 1 (1 − x1)(1 − x2)(1 − x3) F ( ) = d x˜ g˜ Ni V , (3) h(x) = 6 , (9) Σ (x1x2x3) where we define the vector with x = 2 − x − x , and we plot its contours in gij∇ h(x) 3 1 2 i j Fig. 1 c. In these coordinates the manifold is flat, gij = V = M(x) kl . (4) g ∇kh(x) ∇lh(x) ij i δ , the gradient is ∇ = (∂/∂x1, ∂/∂x2), and the vector i This vector V i describes a flow in phase space along the field V in Eq. (5) is straightforwardly calculated, using gradient of observable O: the squared matrix element dxi x2 + x2 M(x) = V i . (5) M(x) = 1 2 . (10) dO (1 − x1)(1 − x2) We will show shortly that such an interpretation is useful in classifying properties of observables. With these results, one can then verify that Stokes’ the- Eq. (3) is now in a form where Stokes’ theorem, in co- orem holds for the C-parameter, where the difference be- variant form, can be readily applied. Consider a volume tween the differential cross section at two different values Ω in Π with closed boundary ∂Ω defined by two hyper- of the C-parameter is described by the divergence of the vector V i over that domain. In fact, using the known surfaces Σ1 and Σ2, corresponding to two values of the value of the leading-order differential cross section for observable h = O1 and h = O2 (see Fig. 1 a), then we have, by Stokes the C-parameter at its maximum value [41], where Z Z i i 3 256 √ F (O1) − F (O2) = dσi V − dσi V F C = = π 3 , (11) Σ1 Σ2 4 243 3 the value of the differential cross section at a general gradient exclusively in the emitted particle phase space value C is means that the arbitrarily soft emissions can be thought Z of as changing the value of O on a fixed background of 3 D √ i F (C) = F C = − d x g Di V . (12) N particles. This definition of an additive observable is 4 Ω consistent with a form established long ago [42] and gen- Here, Ω is the region of phase space where the C- eralizes a definition from Ref. [5]. For example, the defi- parameter takes values between C and 3/4. This formu- nition of Ref. [5] can be stated in the following way. Let lation of the cross section with respect to endpoint values τ({p}) be an IRC safe observable that depends on a set can be generalized to other observables where the end- of particle momenta {p}. Then, τ is additive if there is a point value at a given order in perturbation theory can subset of momentum {p˜} on which τ({p˜}) = 0 and m ad- be easily calculated or is known to vanish, for example. ditional emissions remain in the soft and collinear region The application of Stokes’ theorem to cross sections which can be accomplished by scaling their momentum differential in an observable on phase space also enables by a parameter v. Then, in the limit that v → 0, the enumeration of properties of that observable that are not observable takes the form obvious in its original and familiar δ-function form. In m particular, for Eq. 6 to hold for a given M(x) requires X lim τ ({p˜}, κ1(vζ1), κ2(vζ2), . . . , κm(vζm)) = v ζi , v→0 the function h(x) on phase space to be highly restricted. i=1 Most acutely, if M(x) is constructed from fixed-order (13) N-body matrix elements, it generically has divergences where ζi is the functional form that τ takes on parti- throughout N-body phase space as different numbers cle i and κi(ζi) is a momentum function that translates of external particles go unresolved. For M(x) itself the value of τ to the realization of momentum of parti- to be smooth on a subvolume of phase space requires cle i. This definition demonstrates that the hard particle embedding lower-dimensional phase space into higher- momenta {p˜} are completely unaffected by the m soft dimensional phase space and then real and virtual di- and collinear particles, and so indeed corresponds to flow vergences can be canceled point by point within the along a gradient perpendicular to the phase space man- larger phase space. The functional form of the observable ifold for momenta {p˜}. This definition of additivity has O = h(x) must respect this embedding. In such a case, the further requirement that soft particles individually an observable is infrared and collinear safe if the quantity contribute to the observable, while our definition just re- F (O) in Eq. 3 is calculable on all hypersurfaces defined quires the value of the observable in the soft limit to by h(x). It follows that the lhs of Eq. 6 is calculable. exclusively be a function of the soft momenta. Modern The textbook statement of conditions for which Stokes’ jet grooming algorithms, for example, can enforce corre- theorem holds is that the manifold Ω is smooth, and that lations between the relative angle and/or energy of soft the D − 1 form that is integrated over the boundary ∂Ω particles, while still retaining all of the nice calculability is smooth and has compact support on Ω. We make the properties of additivity [43]. Because of their nice prop- conjecture that the same conditions for Stokes’ theorem erties, additive observables are among the most widely to hold in Eq. 6 are those that dictate IRC safety, namely studied and include thrust [44, 45], the C-parameter, that the D − 1 form that is integrated over the hyper- (recoil-free) angularities [46–49], N-(sub)jettiness [50– surface Σ in Eq. (3) is smooth and has compact support 54], energy correlation functions [5, 55, 56], energy flow on all of the phase space manifold Π, in the case when polynomials [57], among others. M(x) is constructed from fixed order matrix elements. As a simple example of our definition of additivity, we In the C-parameter example above, this definition of consider the angularities τ (α) measured with respect to IRC safety holds because Eq. (12) holds for all values the final state momentum or thrust axis [46–48], which of C, in particular as ∂Ω approaches the boundary (and for three-body phase space in the above coordinates, as- indeed when it becomes the boundary, where one should suming the ordering x1, x2 ≤ x3, can be expressed as also include the contribution of a virtual matrix element). We leave a detailed study as to whether particularly α/2 1 − x2 pathological IRC safe/unsafe observables exist that evade τ (α) = x 1 − (14) 1 x (2 − x − x ) the above conjecture (and any potential smoothness tests 1 1 2 α/2 for IRC safety that could be performed for a given h(x)) 1 − x1 + x2 1 − , to future work, and instead focus here on a geometric x2(2 − x1 − x2) definition of an important subclass of IRC observables. We say that an IRC safe observable O = h(~x) is addi- for parameter α > 0. In the soft limit of x1 → 0, tive if the trajectory from N- to N +m-body phase space τ (α) → 0, demonstrating the infrared and collinear safety with fixed total momentum by the emission of m arbi- of the angularities. For this class of observables, addi- (α) trarily soft particles flows along a gradient perpendicular tivity means that the expansion of τ for x1 → 0 is to the N-body phase space submanifold. Flow along the proportional to its derivative with respect to x1, in the 4 same limit. That is, In these spinor coordinates, the on-shell integration measure for momentum p becomes (α) (α) ∂τ lim τ ∝ x1 . (15) d2λ1 d2λ2 x1→0 ∂x 4 2 1 x1→0 d p δ(p ) Θ(p ) = , (18) 0 U(1) This can only hold if the second term in the expression of Eq. 14, which quantifies the recoil of the harder par- where the division by U(1) represents implicit restriction ticle 2 away from the thrust axis, is subdominant in the to one element of the little group action on the spinors. The momentum conserving δ-functions can be expressed x1 → 0 limit. Only for α > 1 are these angularities additive and the emission of soft particle 1 corresponds most simply through construction of two N-dimensional to flow perpendicular to the two-body phase space mani- complex vectors fold. Thrust corresponds to α = 2 and is therefore indeed ~u = λ1 λ1 ··· λ1 , ~v = λ2 λ2 ··· λ2 , (19) classified as an additive observable. 1 2 N 1 2 N The value of an additive observable O is proportional a i where λi is the ath (a = 1, 2) component of the spinor to the distance along the flow defined by V of the parti- for the ith particle. In terms of ~u and ~v, the phase space cles to a lower-body phase space manifold. This property volume element is compactly is one of the reasons that makes additive observables es- pecially well-suited for the application of regularization N N 4−3N 2N−4 d u d v of infrared divergences. N-jettiness subtraction [32, 33] dΠN = (2π) Q N (20) U(1) is an example of an additive observable for regularization. 2 2 (2) † Additionally, it is known that some additive observables × δ 1 − |~u| δ 1 − |~v| δ ~u ~v . can be interpreted as a metric distance from a lower-body phase space manifold [6]. Our covariant definition of ad- The phase space measure describes two orthonormal ditivity demonstrates that all additive observables enjoy N-dimensional complex vectors ~u and ~v. The orthonor- this property. mal constraints are invariant under the action of U(N) Having presented a number of covariant statements and further U(N − 2) acts on a subspace without affect- about observables on phase space, we now turn to con- ing ~u or ~v. Thus the phase space manifold, which we structing an explicit coordinate system and metric for denote by ΠN , can be expressed as the quotient space the phase space manifold. We begin with a brief review ∼ 1 U(N) of geometrical aspects of phase space that were eluci- ΠN = (21) N − dated in Refs. [13–15]. In conventional coordinates and U(1) U(N 2) 1 U(N) U(N − 1) normalization, the volume form for four-dimensional, on- = shell, massless, N-body phase space in the center-of-mass U(1)N U(N − 1) U(N − 2) frame is: 1 = S2N−1 × S2N−3 . U(1)N " N # N ! 4−3N Y 4 + 2 (4) X dΠN = (2π) d pi δ (pi ) δ Q − pi . The quotient space U(N)/U(N−2) is the Stiefel manifold i=1 i=1 of complex two-frames in N : (16) C
N U(N) V2(C ) = . (22) Here Q = (Q, 0, 0, 0) represents both the total momen- U(N − 2) tum four-vector and the total energy in the center-of- + 2 2 0 mass frame, and δ (pi ) = δ(pi )Θ(pi ). Our first step The quotient space U(N)/U(N −1) = S2N−1, the 2N −1 is to rescale all momenta by the center-of-mass energy: sphere, so the phase space manifold has topology of a pi → Qpi. The on-shell δ- and Θ-functions can be triv- product of spheres modulo the action of the little group. ially enforced by expressing a momentum p as the outer Our development of these ideas from hereon is two-fold. a ˜a˙ product of spinors λ and λ , where First, we establish the topology of phase space when the
aa˙ little group redundancy is eliminated. This is important p − p −p + ip (p · σ)aa˙ = 0 3 1 2 (17) for applications of machine learning, so as to remove the −p1 − ip2 p0 + p3 need for learning of redundant directions on the mani- !aa˙ fold. Second, we provide explicit global coordinates and λ1λ˜1˙ λ1λ˜2˙ = λaλ˜a˙ = . construct a metric on phase space. 2 ˜1˙ 2 ˜2˙ λ λ λ λ The little group action can be explicitly accounted for by ‘gauge fixing’ (see also [15] where this was done in Reality of momentum p requires that λa and λ˜a˙ are com- conjunction with fixing the Lorentz frame, whereupon plex conjugates: λ˜∗ = λ. phase space has topology of a Grassmann manifold). We 5 focus on the action of the little group on vector ~u for that of the sphere. That is, the measure for the ~v coor- which its ith entry is dinates can be expressed as
1 iφi N 2 (2) † ui = λi = rie . (23) d v δ 1 − |~v| δ ~u ~v (28) N−1 0 − | 0|2 ≡ 2N−3 We can then express the integration measure for ~u mod = d v δ 1 ~v dS , the little group as the measure of the 2N − 3 sphere. Explicit coordinates 0 0 2 N QN N ! for ~v that ensure normalization |~v | = 1 are d u 2 i=1 ri dri dφi X 2 δ 1 − |~u| = δ 1 − ri N N v0 = e−iξ1 cos η , (29) U(1) U(1) i=1 1 1 N N ! 0 −iξ2 Z 2 v2 = e sin η1 cos η2 , Y dri X 2 = dφi δ(φi) δ 1 − r 2 i . i=1 i=1 .
N N ! 0 −iξN−2 1 Y X vN−2 = e sin η1 ··· sin ηN−3 cos ηN−2 , = N [dρi] δ 1 − ρi . (24) 2 0 −iξN−1 i=1 i=1 vN−1 = e sin η1 ··· sin ηN−3 sin ηN−2 . In the first equation, we express the integration measure These generalize coordinates for the Hopf fibration to in polar coordinates for the components of ~u. In the the embedding of S2N−3 in CN−1. The parameters have second line, we use the little group invariance to explicitly ranges ξi ∈ [0, 2π], and ηi ∈ [0, π/2], and the volume form fix the phases φi = 0, and then on the third line we make in these coordinates is 2 the change of variables ri = ρi. The variable ρi is just N− a lightcone component of momentum, from the mapping dS2 3 = (30) in Eq. 17: N−2 ! Y 2k+1 cos ηk sin ηk dξ ··· dξN− dη ··· dηN− . 2 1 2 + 1 1 1 2 ρi = ri = (λi ) = p0,i − p3,i ≡ pi . (25) k=1 The manifold that remains after explicitly accounting for The phase space manifold is the product of the simplex the little group is the N −1 simplex ∆N−1 with unit base, and the sphere: which represents the conservation of +-component light- ∼ 2N−3 cone momentum. We can then express the integration ΠN = ∆N−1 × S . (31) measure for ~u as The dimension of phase space is reconstructed as the N d u 2 1 sum of the simplex and sphere dimensions, (N − 1) + δ 1 − |~u| = d∆N−1 , (26) U(1)N 2N (2N − 3) = 3N − 4. Similarly the phase space vol- ume can be especially easily derived in this framework, where d∆N−1 represents the flat measure on the simplex. using well-known formulas Vol(∆N−1) = 1/(N − 1)! and The other factor in the phase space measure that de- Vol(S2N−3) = 2πN−1/(N − 2)!. pends on the vector ~v can be manifestly expressed as the We can further construct the line element (metric) on measure for the sphere S2N−3. We just outline the pro- the phase space manifold. As phase space is a product cedure here. First, the δ-function that enforces orthogo- manifold, its line element can be constructed from the in- nality of ~u and ~v can be used to eliminate the component dividual line elements of the simplex and sphere, requir- vN so that ing the resulting line element to be positive definite and
N−1 produce the correct volume form for phase space. The N 2 (2) † d v 2 2 d v δ 1 − |~v| δ ~u ~v = δ 1 − |~v| − |vN | , line element of the simplex is just the Euclidean metric ρN in the ρ coordinates: (27) where the factor of 1/ρN is the resulting Jacobian and N−1 2 X 2 we have left vN component implicit in the remaining δ- ds∆ = dρi . (32) function. In general, vN now has dependence on all N −1 i=1 other components of ~v as well as all coordinates of the In the Hopf-like coordinates, the line element of the simplex, so the measure is not manifestly that of the sphere satisfies a recursive relationship: sphere. We can transform it into the desired form by changing variables from ~v to ~v0, under which the real 2 2 2 2 2 2 dsS2N−3 = dη1 + cos η1 dξ1 + sin η1 dsS2N−5 , (33) and imaginary parts of ~v mix only amongst themselves 1 2 2 via a real, symmetric matrix. Conservation of the ρ co- and the line element on S is flat, dsS1 = dξ1 . It is ordinates of the simplex ensures that this transformation trivial to extend this for systems in which energy con- has the Jacobian J = ρN , rendering the measure exactly servation is not assumed, but note that we can always 6 work in the frame in which the net three-momentum is Eq. (5) in this space. This would be the ultimate pro- zero. A metric on unordered and arbitrary collections of motion of phase space—from a background upon which particle momenta has been proposed [6, 58], but to our calculations take place to being geometrically entwined knowledge, this is the first that is directly constructed with a theory’s dynamics. from the phase space manifold. A.L. thanks the IPMU for support and hospitality We end by presenting some observations about the ge- where this work was initiated. We thank Ben Nach- ometry of phase space we derived in Eq. (31) in the case man for emphasizing the importance of the manifold where the dimension 3N − 4 is large. One of the phe- of input data in machine learning, Patrick Komiske, nomena associated with the ‘curse of dimensionality’ is Eric Metodiev and Jesse Thaler for comments on the that the volume of a manifold with boundary becomes in- manuscript and discussions regarding the relationship creasingly concentrated at its boundary. For the n-ball, to the metric of Ref. [6], and Peter Cox, Ian Moult, for example, when n = 1000, more than 99.99% of its Duff Neill, and Mihoko Nojiri for useful discussions and volume lies within 1% of the surface. When little group comments. T.M. is supported by the World Premier redundancy is removed, phase space has a boundary, and International Research Center Initiative (WPI) MEXT, in the coordinates we introduced, this is the boundary of + Japan, and by JSPS KAKENHI grants JP18K13533, the simplex of lightcone momenta pi , see Eq. (25). On + JP19H05810, JP20H01896 and JP20H00153. the boundary, one or more of the pi are zero. As particle multiplicity grows, so does the dimension of the simplex, and the concentration of phase space at the boundary implies that a number of particles will have close to zero + ∗ pi . [email protected] This can be made more quantitative, and general † [email protected] statements about how lightcone momenta are distributed [1] F. Bloch and A. Nordsieck, “Note on the Radiation Field around zero at large particle multiplicity can be derived of the electron,” Phys. Rev. 52, 54–59 (1937). [2] T. Kinoshita, “Mass singularities of Feynman ampli- purely from geometrical features of the high dimensional tudes,” J. Math. Phys. 3, 650–677 (1962). phase space manifold. We assume a flat matrix element [3] T.D. Lee and M. Nauenberg, “Degenerate Systems on phase space and that the number of particles N is and Mass Singularities,” Phys. Rev. 133, B1549–B1562 large, N 1. The probability of m particles with p+ (1964). less than ρminQ for ρmin 1/N is [4] R.Keith Ellis, W.James Stirling, and B.R. Webber, QCD and collider physics, Vol. 8 (Cambridge University Press, 2011). N m m N−m pm = N ρmin(1 − Nρmin) . (34) [5] Andrea Banfi, Gavin P. Salam, and Giulia Zan- m derighi, “Principles of general final-state resummation and automated implementation,” JHEP 03, 073 (2005), 2 As a binomial distribution, its mean is µ = N ρmin and arXiv:hep-ph/0407286. 2 2 variance is σ = N ρmin(1−Nρmin). This novel ‘large N’ [6] Patrick T. Komiske, Eric M. Metodiev, and Jesse Thaler, limit is still consistent with σ µ in which a significant “The Hidden Geometry of Particle Collisions,” (2020), number of particles have very small lightcone momenta. arXiv:2004.04159 [hep-ph]. The assumption of a flat matrix element on phase space [7] Andrew J. Larkoski, Ian Moult, and Benjamin Nachman, “Jet Substructure at the Large Hadron Collider: A Re- is motivated by strongly-coupled systems like heavy ions view of Recent Advances in Theory and Machine Learn- for which the matrix elements are expected to be smooth, ing,” Phys. Rept. 841, 1–63 (2020), arXiv:1709.04464 non-singular distributions on phase space. The large [hep-ph]. event multiplicities suggests that the probabilities pm [8] Dan Guest, Kyle Cranmer, and Daniel Whiteson, “Deep given in Eq. (34) could make interesting test statistics. Learning and its Application to LHC Physics,” Ann. Rev. Relaxing the assumption of a flat matrix element to Nucl. Part. Sci. 68, 161–181 (2018), arXiv:1806.11484 one that is slowly varying means that a harmonic expan- [hep-ex]. [9] Alexander Radovic, Mike Williams, David Rousseau, sion on the Stiefel manifold/phase space (see [13, 14]) Michael Kagan, Daniele Bonacorsi, Alexander Himmel, would quickly converge, and a small number of coeffi- Adam Aurisano, Kazuhiro Terao, and Taritree Wongji- cients of that expansion would quantify interesting cor- rad, “Machine learning at the energy and intensity fron- relations at different angular and energy scales, as would tiers of particle physics,” Nature 560, 41–48 (2018). deviations from the pm given in Eq. (34). This scenario [10] Kim Albertsson et al., “Machine Learning in High Energy also suggests itself as one well-suited to the interesting Physics Community White Paper,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser. possibility we mentioned under Eq. (1)—of incorporat- 1085, 022008 (2018), arXiv:1807.02876 [physics.comp- ph]. ing the slowly varying matrix element M(x) itself into [11] Giuseppe Carleo, Ignacio Cirac, Kyle Cranmer, Lau- the metric. The resulting geometry would encapsulate rent Daudet, Maria Schuld, Naftali Tishby, Leslie Vogt- both phase space and dynamics, and it would be fasci- Maranto, and Lenka Zdeborov´a, “Machine learning nating to study geodesics and the observable flows per and the physical sciences,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 045002 7
(2019), arXiv:1903.10563 [physics.comp-ph]. Del Duca, “A Subtraction scheme for computing QCD [12] Alexander Bogatskiy, Brandon Anderson, Jan T. Of- jet cross sections at NNLO: Regularization of doubly-real fermann, Marwah Roussi, David W. Miller, and Risi emissions,” JHEP 01, 070 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0609042. Kondor, “Lorentz Group Equivariant Neural Network for [30] Stefano Catani and Massimiliano Grazzini, “An NNLO Particle Physics,” (2020), arXiv:2006.04780 [hep-ph]. subtraction formalism in hadron collisions and its appli- [13] Brian Henning and Tom Melia, “Conformal-helicity du- cation to Higgs boson production at the LHC,” Phys. ality & the Hilbert space of free CFTs,” (2019), Rev. Lett. 98, 222002 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0703012. arXiv:1902.06747 [hep-th]. [31] M. Czakon, “A novel subtraction scheme for double-real [14] Brian Henning and Tom Melia, “Constructing effective radiation at NNLO,” Phys. Lett. B 693, 259–268 (2010), field theories via their harmonics,” Phys. Rev. D 100, arXiv:1005.0274 [hep-ph]. 016015 (2019), arXiv:1902.06754 [hep-ph]. [32] Radja Boughezal, Christfried Focke, Xiaohui Liu, and [15] Peter Cox and Tom Melia, “Independently Parameterised Frank Petriello, “W -boson production in association Momenta Variables and Monte Carlo IR Subtraction,” with a jet at next-to-next-to-leading order in pertur- JHEP 12, 038 (2018), arXiv:1809.09325 [hep-ph]. bative QCD,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 062002 (2015), [16] Alan Edelman, Tom´asA. Arias, and Steven Thomas arXiv:1504.02131 [hep-ph]. Smith, “The geometry of algorithms with orthogonality [33] Jonathan Gaunt, Maximilian Stahlhofen, Frank J. Tack- constraints,” SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 20, 303–353 mann, and Jonathan R. Walsh, “N-jettiness Subtrac- (1998). tions for NNLO QCD Calculations,” JHEP 09, 058 [17] Shun-ichi Amari, “Natural gradient learning (2015), arXiv:1505.04794 [hep-ph]. for over- and under-complete bases in ica,” [34] Matteo Cacciari, Fr´ed´ericA. Dreyer, Alexander Karl- Neural Computation 11, 1875–1883 (1999), berg, Gavin P. Salam, and Giulia Zanderighi, “Fully Dif- https://doi.org/10.1162/089976699300015990. ferential Vector-Boson-Fusion Higgs Production at Next- [18] Simone Fiori, “A theory for learning by to-Next-to-Leading Order,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 082002 weight flow on stiefel-grassman manifold,” (2015), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 120, 139901 (2018)], Neural Computation 13, 1625–1647 (2001), arXiv:1506.02660 [hep-ph]. https://doi.org/10.1162/089976601750265036. [35] Fabrizio Caola, Kirill Melnikov, and Raoul R¨ontsch, [19] P. Saisan, G. Doretto, Ying Nian Wu, and S. Soatto, “Nested soft-collinear subtractions in NNLO QCD “Dynamic texture recognition,” in Proceedings of the computations,” Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 248 (2017), 2001 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer arXiv:1702.01352 [hep-ph]. Vision and Pattern Recognition. CVPR 2001, Vol. 2 [36] Franz Herzog, “Geometric IR subtraction for final state (2001) pp. II–II. real radiation,” JHEP 08, 006 (2018), arXiv:1804.07949 [20] Wolf Kienzle, Matthias O. Franz, Bernhard Sch¨olkopf, [hep-ph]. and G¨okhanH. Bakir, “Face detection — efficient and [37] C.Louis Basham, Lowell S. Brown, Stephen D. Ellis, rank deficient,” in Advances in Neural Information Pro- and Sherwin T. Love, “Energy Correlations in electron cessing Systems 17 , edited by L. K. Saul, Y. Weiss, and - Positron Annihilation: Testing QCD,” Phys. Rev. Lett. L. Bottou (MIT Press, 2005) pp. 673–680. 41, 1585 (1978). [21] Yasunori Nishimori and Shotaro Akaho, “Learning algo- [38] G. Parisi, “Super Inclusive Cross-Sections,” Phys. Lett. rithms utilizing quasi-geodesic flows on the stiefel mani- B 74, 65–67 (1978). fold,” Neurocomputing 67, 106 – 135 (2005), geometrical [39] John F. Donoghue, F.E. Low, and So-Young Pi, “Tensor Methods in Neural Networks and Learning. Analysis of Hadronic Jets in Quantum Chromodynam- [22] P. Turaga, A. Veeraraghavan, and R. Chellappa, “Sta- ics,” Phys. Rev. D 20, 2759 (1979). tistical analysis on stiefel and grassmann manifolds with [40] R.Keith Ellis, D.A. Ross, and A.E. Terrano, “The Per- applications in computer vision,” in 2008 IEEE Confer- turbative Calculation of Jet Structure in e+ e- Annihila- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2008) tion,” Nucl. Phys. B 178, 421–456 (1981). pp. 1–8. [41] S. Catani and B.R. Webber, “Infrared safe but infinite: [23] S. Frixione, Z. Kunszt, and A. Signer, “Three jet cross- Soft gluon divergences inside the physical region,” JHEP sections to next-to-leading order,” Nucl. Phys. B 467, 10, 005 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9710333. 399–442 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9512328. [42] Fyodor V. Tkachov, “Measuring multi - jet structure of [24] S. Catani and M.H. Seymour, “A General algorithm for hadronic energy flow or What is a jet?” Int. J. Mod. Phys. calculating jet cross-sections in NLO QCD,” Nucl. Phys. A 12, 5411–5529 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9601308. B 485, 291–419 (1997), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 510, 503– [43] Christopher Frye, Andrew J. Larkoski, Matthew D. 504 (1998)], arXiv:hep-ph/9605323. Schwartz, and Kai Yan, “Factorization for groomed [25] Stefan Weinzierl, “Subtraction terms at NNLO,” JHEP jet substructure beyond the next-to-leading logarithm,” 03, 062 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0302180. JHEP 07, 064 (2016), arXiv:1603.09338 [hep-ph]. [26] Charalampos Anastasiou, Kirill Melnikov, and Frank [44] S. Brandt, C. Peyrou, R. Sosnowski, and A. Wroblewski, Petriello, “A new method for real radiation at NNLO,” “The Principal axis of jets. An Attempt to analyze high- Phys. Rev. D 69, 076010 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0311311. energy collisions as two-body processes,” Phys. Lett. 12, [27] William B. Kilgore, “Subtraction terms for hadronic 57–61 (1964). production processes at next-to-next-to-leading order,” [45] Edward Farhi, “A QCD Test for Jets,” Phys. Rev. Lett. Phys. Rev. D 70, 031501 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0403128. 39, 1587–1588 (1977). [28] A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, and E.W.Nigel [46] Carola F. Berger, Tibor Kucs, and George F. Sterman, Glover, “Antenna subtraction at NNLO,” JHEP 09, 056 “Event shape / energy flow correlations,” Phys. Rev. D (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0505111. 68, 014012 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0303051. [29] Gabor Somogyi, Zoltan Trocsanyi, and Vittorio [47] Leandro G. Almeida, Seung J. Lee, Gilad Perez, 8
George F. Sterman, Ilmo Sung, and Joseph Virzi, “Sub- ph]. structure of high-p T Jets at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D [53] Jesse Thaler and Ken Van Tilburg, “Identifying Boosted 79, 074017 (2009), arXiv:0807.0234 [hep-ph]. Objects with N-subjettiness,” JHEP 03, 015 (2011), [48] Stephen D. Ellis, Christopher K. Vermilion, Jonathan R. arXiv:1011.2268 [hep-ph]. Walsh, Andrew Hornig, and Christopher Lee, “Jet [54] Jesse Thaler and Ken Van Tilburg, “Maximizing Boosted Shapes and Jet Algorithms in SCET,” JHEP 11, 101 Top Identification by Minimizing N-subjettiness,” JHEP (2010), arXiv:1001.0014 [hep-ph]. 02, 093 (2012), arXiv:1108.2701 [hep-ph]. [49] Andrew J. Larkoski, Duff Neill, and Jesse Thaler, “Jet [55] Andrew J. Larkoski, Gavin P. Salam, and Jesse Thaler, Shapes with the Broadening Axis,” JHEP 04, 017 (2014), “Energy Correlation Functions for Jet Substructure,” arXiv:1401.2158 [hep-ph]. JHEP 06, 108 (2013), arXiv:1305.0007 [hep-ph]. [50] S. Brandt and H.D. Dahmen, “Axes and Scalar Mea- [56] Ian Moult, Lina Necib, and Jesse Thaler, “New Angles sures of Two-Jet and Three-Jet Events,” Z. Phys. C 1, on Energy Correlation Functions,” JHEP 12, 153 (2016), 61 (1979). arXiv:1609.07483 [hep-ph]. [51] Iain W. Stewart, Frank J. Tackmann, and Wouter J. [57] Patrick T. Komiske, Eric M. Metodiev, and Jesse Thaler, Waalewijn, “N-Jettiness: An Inclusive Event Shape “Energy flow polynomials: A complete linear basis for jet to Veto Jets,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 092002 (2010), substructure,” JHEP 04, 013 (2018), arXiv:1712.07124 arXiv:1004.2489 [hep-ph]. [hep-ph]. [52] Ji-Hun Kim, “Rest Frame Subjet Algorithm With SIS- [58] Patrick T. Komiske, Eric M. Metodiev, and Jesse Thaler, Cone Jet For Fully Hadronic Decaying Higgs Search,” “Metric Space of Collider Events,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, Phys. Rev. D 83, 011502 (2011), arXiv:1011.1493 [hep- 041801 (2019), arXiv:1902.02346 [hep-ph].