- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Prompt diphoton production compared to measurements at 13 TeV in kT-factorization: A comparative analysis of unintegrated PDF models

R. Kord Valeshabadi1, S. Rezaie1, and K. Azizi2,3,1,† (CHROMA Collaboration*)

  • *Computational Hadronic Research for Observable Modeling and Analysis.
  • †Contact author: kazem.azizi@ut.ac.ir
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 113, 014006 – Published 7 January, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/tgyt-kydy

Abstract

We perform an in-depth comparative analysis of unintegrated parton distribution function (UPDF) models for isolated prompt diphoton production in proton-proton collisions at s=13  TeV within the kT-factorization framework. Predictions are obtained with three UPDF approaches: parton branching (PB), NLO-MRW, and modified KMRW (MKMRW). Tree-level q+q¯→γ+γ, q+q¯→γ+γ+g, and q+g→γ+γ+q subprocesses are generated with katie using off shell initial states; the loop-induced g+g→γ+γ channel is evaluated independently. We compare differential cross sections with ATLAS measurements across a broad set of observables, including the photon transverse momenta, diphoton invariant mass and transverse momentum, the Collins-Soper angle, acoplanarity, ϕη*, and a transverse thrust-related variable. This comparative study quantifies the impact of the UPDF choice on the diphoton spectra. We find that the PB model provides the most consistent agreement over all distributions, whereas NLO-MRW tends to overshoot in regions correlated with larger factorization scales and MKMRW generally undershoots due to stronger Sudakov suppression. With standard scale variations, our results indicate that kt-factorization with PB UPDFs can accurately describe diphoton production, while fixed-order collinear predictions typically require higher-order corrections together with parton-shower effects to achieve a comparable description.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (57)

  1. S. Catani, L. Cieri, D. de Florian, G. Ferrera, and M. Grazzini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 072001 (2012); 117, 089901(E) (2016).
  2. A. Gavardi, C. Oleari, and E. Re, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2022) 061.
  3. J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 222001 (2017); 124, 259901(E) (2020).
  4. A. V. Lipatov, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2012) 009.
  5. M. Nefedov and V. Saleev, Phys. Rev. D 92, 094033 (2015).
  6. M. Modarres, R. Aminzadeh Nik, R. K. Valeshbadi, H. Hosseinkhani, and N. Olanj, J. Phys. G 46, 105005 (2019).
  7. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012).
  8. S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012).
  9. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 171801 (2014).
  10. T. Binoth, in 36th Rencontres de Moriond on QCD and Hadronic Interactions (2001) pp. 51–54, arXiv:hep-ph/0105149.
  11. C. Balazs, E. L. Berger, P. M. Nadolsky, and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 76, 013009 (2007).
  12. S. Catani, L. Cieri, D. de Florian, G. Ferrera, and M. Grazzini, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2018) 142.
  13. S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2011) 133.
  14. S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 3129 (2014).
  15. T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 101801 (2013).
  16. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 85, 012003 (2012).
  17. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2012) 086.
  18. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2021) 169.
  19. T. Gehrmann et al., Proc. Sci., RADCOR2017 (2018) 074 [arXiv:1801.06415].
  20. J. Andersson et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 25, 77 (2002).
  21. V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15, 438 (1972).
  22. Y. L. Dokshitzer, Sov. Phys. JETP 46, 641 (1977).
  23. G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. B126, 298 (1977).
  24. B. Andersson et al. (Small x Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 25, 77 (2002).
  25. J. R. Andersen et al. (Small x Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 35, 67 (2004).
  26. J. R. Andersen et al. (Small x Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 48, 53 (2006).
  27. E. A. Kuraev, L. N. Lipatov, and V. S. Fadin, Sov. Phys. JETP 45, 199 (1977).
  28. I. I. Balitsky and L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 28, 822 (1978).
  29. M. Ciafaloni, Nucl. Phys. B296, 49 (1988).
  30. S. Catani, F. Fiorani, and G. Marchesini, Nucl. Phys. B336, 18 (1990).
  31. S. Catani, F. Fiorani, and G. Marchesini, Phys. Lett. B 234, 339 (1990).
  32. G. Marchesini, Nucl. Phys. B445, 49 (1995).
  33. M. A. Kimber, A. D. Martin, and M. G. Ryskin, Phys. Rev. D 63, 114027 (2001).
  34. A. D. Martin, M. G. Ryskin, and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C 66, 163 (2010).
  35. F. Hautmann, H. Jung, A. Lelek, V. Radescu, and R. Zlebcik, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2017) 070.
  36. F. Hautmann, H. Jung, A. Lelek, V. Radescu, and R. Zlebcik, Phys. Lett. B 772, 446 (2017).
  37. R. K. Valeshabadi, M. Modarres, and S. Rezaie, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 961 (2021).
  38. A. Bermudez Martinez et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 598 (2020).
  39. A. V. Lipatov and M. A. Malyshev, Phys. Rev. D 94, 034020 (2016).
  40. A. Chernyshev and V. Saleev, Phys. Rev. D 109, 094029 (2024).
  41. A. Chernyshev and V. Saleev, Phys. Rev. D 110, 114031 (2024).
  42. R. K. Valeshabadi, M. Modarres, and S. Rezaie, Phys. Rev. D 104, 054019 (2021).
  43. B. Guiot, Phys. Rev. D 107, 014015 (2023); 110, 039901(E) (2024).
  44. B. Guiot, Phys. Rev. D 101, 054006 (2020).
  45. K. Golec-Biernat and A. M. Stasto, Phys. Lett. B 781, 633 (2018).
  46. R. K. Valeshabadi and M. Modarres, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 66 (2022).
  47. A. van Hameren, Comput. Phys. Commun. 224, 371 (2018).
  48. Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, and C. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D 66, 074018 (2002).
  49. F. Hautmann, H. Jung, M. Krämer, P. J. Mulders, E. R. Nocera, T. C. Rogers, and A. Signori, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 3220 (2014).
  50. S. Bailey, T. Cridge, L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, and R. S. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 341 (2021).
  51. R. Kord Valeshabadi and S. Rezaie, arXiv:2412.16680.
  52. A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordström, B. Page, M. Rüfenacht, M. Schönherr, and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 132 (2015).
  53. G. P. Lepage, J. Comput. Phys. 27, 192 (1978).
  54. R. Maciula and A. Szczurek, Phys. Rev. D 100, 054001 (2019).
  55. S. Frixione, Phys. Lett. B 429, 369 (1998).
  56. L. Cieri, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 273–275, 2033 (2016).
  57. L. Heinrich, M. Feickert, E. Rodrigues, and A. P. Neuwirth, pylhe: v1.0.1.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 113, 014006– Published 7 January, 2026
  • Received 10 November 2025
  • Accepted 10 December 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation