The evolution equations, eq. (
), express that, during
a small increase
there is a probability for parton
with
momentum fraction
to become resolved into parton
at
and another parton
at
.
Correspondingly, in backwards evolution, during a decrease
a parton
may be `unresolved' into parton
. The relative
probability
for this to happen is given by
the ratio
. Using eq. (
) one obtains
![]() |
(186) |
![]() |
|||
![]() |
(187) |
It may be useful to compare this with the corresponding expression
for forward evolution, i.e. with
in eq. (
).
The most obvious difference is the appearance of parton distributions
in
. Parton distributions are absent in
: the probability
for a given parton
to branch, once it exists, is independent of
the density of partons
or
. The parton distributions in
,
on the other hand, express the fact that the probability for a parton
to come from the branching of a parton
is proportional to
the number of partons
there are in the hadron, and inversely
proportional to the number of partons
. Thus the numerator
in the exponential of
ensures that the parton composition
of the hadron
is properly reflected. As an example, when a gluon is chosen at the
hard scattering and evolved backwards, this gluon is more likely to
have been emitted by a
than by a
if the incoming hadron is
a proton. Similarly, if a heavy flavour is chosen at the hard
scattering, the denominator
will vanish at the
threshold
of the heavy-flavour production, which means that the integrand
diverges and
itself vanishes, so that no heavy flavour remain
below threshold.
Another difference between
and
, already touched upon, is
that the
splitting kernel appears with a
normalization
in
but only with
in
, since
two gluons are produced but only one decays in a branching.
A knowledge of
is enough to reconstruct the parton shower
backwards. At each branching
, three quantities have to
be found: the
value of the branching (which defines the
space-like virtuality
of parton
), the parton flavour
and the splitting variable
. This information may be extracted as
follows:
![]() |
(188) |
The selection of
,
and
is then a standard task of the
kind than can be performed with the help of the veto algorithm.
Specifically, upper and lower bounds for parton distributions are
used to find simple functions that are everywhere larger than the
integrands in eq. (
). Based on these simple expressions,
the integration over
may be carried out, and
,
and
values selected. This set is then accepted with a weight given
by a ratio of the correct integrand in eq. (
) to
the simple approximation used, both evaluated for the given set.
Since parton distributions, as a rule, are not in a simple
analytical form, it may be tricky to find reasonably good bounds to
parton distributions. It is necessary to make different assumptions
for valence and sea quarks, and be especially attentive close to a
flavour threshold ([Sjö85]). An electron distribution
inside an electron behaves differently from parton distributions
encountered in hadrons, and has to be considered separately.
A comment on soft gluon emission. Nominally the range of the
integral in
is
. The lower limit corresponds
to
, and parton distributions vanish in this limit,
wherefore no problems are encountered here. At the upper cut-off
the splitting kernels
and
diverge. This is the soft gluon singularity:
the energy carried by the emitted gluon is vanishing,
for
.
In order to calculate the integral over
in
, an upper
cut-off
is introduced, i.e. only
branchings with
are included in
. Here
is a small number, typically chosen so that the
gluon energy is above 2 GeV when calculated in the rest frame of
the hard scattering. That is, the gluon energy
,
where
is the boost factor of the hard scattering. The
average amount of energy carried away by gluons in the
range
, over the given range of
values
from
to
, may be estimated [Sjö85]. The finally
selected
value may thus be picked as
,
where
is the originally selected
value and
is the
correction factor for soft gluon emission.
In QED showers, the smallness of
means that one can
use rather smaller cut-off values without obtaining large amounts of
emission. A fixed small cut-off
is therefore
used to avoid the region of very soft photons. As has been discussed
in section
, the electron distribution
inside the electron is cut off at
, for
numerical reasons, so the two cuts are closely matched.
The cut-off scale
may be chosen separately for QCD and QED
showers, just as in final-state radiation. The defaults are
1 GeV and 0.001 GeV, respectively. The former is the typical hadronic
mass scale, below which radiation is not expected resolvable; the
latter is of the order of the electron mass. Photon emission is also
allowed off quarks in hadronic interactions, with the same cut-off
as for gluon emission, and also in other respects implemented in the
same spirit, rather than according to the pure QED description.
Normally QED and QCD showers do not appear mixed. The most notable
exception is resolved photoproduction (in
) and resolved
events
(in
), i.e. shower histories of the type
.
Here the
scales need not be ordered at the interface, i.e.
the last
branching may well have a larger
than the first
one, and the branching
does not even have a strict parton-shower interpretation for the
vector dominance model part of the photon parton distribution.
This kind of configurations is best described by the
'gamma/lepton' machinery for having a flux of virtual photons
inisde the lepton, see section
. In this case,
no initial-state radiation has currently been implemented for the
electron (or
or
). The one inside the virtual-photon
system is considered with the normal algorithm, but with the lower
cut-off scale modified by the photon virtuality, see MSTP(66).
An older description still lives on, although no longer as the
recommended one. There, these issues are currently
not addressed in full. Rather, based on the
selected for the
parton (quark or gluon) at the hard scattering, the
is selected once and for all in the range
,
according to the distribution implied by eq. (
).
The QCD parton shower is then traced backwards from the hard
scattering to the QCD shower initiator at
. No attempt is
made to perform the full QED shower, but rather the beam remnant
treatment (see section
) is used to find the
(or
) remnant that matches the
(or
) QCD shower
initiator, with the electron itself considered as a second beam
remnant.