1: \documentclass[aps,prl,showpacs,twocolumn,groupedaddress]{revtex4} % for submission
2: \usepackage{graphicx} % needed for figures
3: \usepackage{dcolumn} % needed for some tables
4: \usepackage{bm} % for math
5: \usepackage{amssymb} % for math
6: \usepackage{multirow}
7: \usepackage{epsfig}
8:
9: \newcommand{\zgamma}{\ensuremath{Z/\gamma^{*}}}
10: \newcommand{\stwcenter}{0.2321}
11: \newcommand{\stwcentercorr}{0.2326}
12: \newcommand{\stwstaterr}{0.0018}
13: \newcommand{\stwsysterr}{0.0006}
14: \newcommand{\stwsysterrpdf}{0.0005}
15: \newcommand{\stwsysterrscale}{0.0003}
16: \newcommand{\stwsysterrbkg}{0.0000}
17: \newcommand{\stw}{\ensuremath{\sin^2 \theta_{W}}}
18: \newcommand{\stweff}{\ensuremath{\sin^2 \theta^{\text{eff}}_{W}}}
19: \newcommand{\metpaul}{\mbox{$\rlap{\kern0.15em/}E_T$}}
20: \hyphenation{Resbos}
21:
22: \begin{document}
23:
24: \title{
25: Measurement of the forward-backward charge asymmetry and extraction of $\stweff$ in $p\bar{p} \rightarrow Z/\gamma^{*}+X \rightarrow e^+e^-+X$ events produced at $\sqrt{s}=1.96$ TeV
26: }
27: \input list_of_authors_r2.tex
28: \date{April 20, 2008}
29:
30: \begin{abstract}
31: We present a measurement of the forward-backward charge asymmetry ($A_{FB}$)
32: in $p\bar{p} \rightarrow Z/\gamma^{*}+X \rightarrow e^+e^-+X$ events at
33: a center-of-mass energy of 1.96 TeV using 1.1 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected
34: with the D0 detector at the Fermilab Tevatron collider.
35: $A_{FB}$ is measured as a function of the invariant mass of the electron-positron
36: pair, and found to be consistent with the standard model prediction.
37: We use the $A_{FB}$ measurement to extract the effective weak mixing angle
38: $\stweff = \stwcentercorr \pm \stwstaterr ~(\mbox{stat.}) \pm \stwsysterr ~(\mbox{syst.})$.
39: \end{abstract}
40: \pacs{13.85.-t, 13.38.Dg, 12.15.Mm, 12.38.Qk}
41: \maketitle
42:
43: In the standard model (SM), the neutral-current couplings of the $Z$
44: bosons to fermions ($f$) at tree level are defined as
45: \begin{equation}
46: -i \frac{g}{2\cos\theta_W} \cdot \bar{f} \gamma^{\mu}(g_{V}^f - g_{A}^f \gamma_5) f \cdot Z_{\mu}
47: \end{equation}
48: where $\theta_{W}$ is the weak mixing angle, and $g_V^{f}$ and $g_A^{f}$ are the
49: vector and axial-vector couplings with $g_V^f = I_3^f - 2Q_f\stw$ and $g_A^f = I_3^f$.
50: Here $I_3^f$ is the weak isospin component of the fermion and $Q_f$ its charge.
51: The presence of both vector and axial-vector couplings
52: in $q\bar{q} \rightarrow \zgamma \rightarrow \ell^+\ell^-$
53: gives rise to an asymmetry in the polar angle ($\theta$) of the negatively charged
54: lepton momentum relative to the incoming quark momentum
55: in the rest frame of the lepton pair. The angular differential cross
56: section can be written as
57: \begin{equation}
58: \frac{d\sigma}{d \cos \theta} = A(1+\cos^{2} \theta) + B\cos\theta,
59: \end{equation}
60: where $A$ and $B$ are functions dependent on $I_3^{f}$, $Q_f$, and $\stw$.
61: Events with $\cos \theta>0$ are called forward events,
62: and those with $\cos \theta<0$ are called backward events.
63:
64: The forward-backward charge asymmetry, $A_{FB}$, is defined as
65: \begin{equation}
66: A_{FB} = \frac{\sigma_{F}-\sigma_{B}}{\sigma_{F}+\sigma_{B}},
67: \label{form:AFB}
68: \end{equation}
69: where $\sigma_{F/B}$ is the integral cross section in the forward/backward configuration.
70: We measure $A_{FB}$ as a function of the invariant mass of the lepton pair.
71: To minimize the effect of the unknown transverse momenta of the incoming
72: quarks in the measurement of the forward and backward cross sections, we
73: use $\theta$ calculated in the Collins-Soper reference frame \cite{cs_frame}.
74: In this frame, the polar axis is defined as the
75: bisector of the proton beam momentum and the negative of the anti-proton beam
76: momentum when they are boosted into the rest frame of the lepton pair.
77:
78: The forward-backward asymmetry is sensitive to $\stweff$, which is an effective
79: parameter that includes higher order corrections. The current world average
80: value of $\stweff$ at the $Z$-pole is $0.23149 \pm 0.00013$ \cite{pdg}.
81: Two $\stweff$ measurements are more than two standard deviations
82: from the world average value: that from the charge asymmetry for $b$ quark
83: production ($A_{FB}^{0,b}$) from the LEP and SLD collaborations~\cite{lep_sinthetaW}
84: and that from neutrino and antineutrino cross sections from the NuTeV collaboration~\cite{nutev_sinthetaW}.
85: The $A_{FB}^{0, b}$ measurement is sensitive to the couplings of
86: $b$ quarks to the $Z$ boson, and the NuTeV measurement is sensitive
87: to the couplings of $u$ and $d$ quarks to the $Z$ boson, as is the
88: measurement presented here. Previous direct measurements of $u$ and $d$ quark
89: couplings to the $Z$ are of limited precision~\cite{cdf_RunII, H1}. Thus, modifications to the SM
90: that would affect only $u$ and $d$ couplings are poorly constrained.
91: In addition, $A_{FB}$ measurements at the Tevatron can be
92: performed up to values of the dilepton mass exceeding those
93: achieved at LEP and SLC, therefore becoming sensitive to
94: possible new physics effects~\cite{zprime, led}. Although direct
95: searches for these new phenomena in the $\zgamma \rightarrow \ell^+\ell^-$ final
96: state have been recently performed by the CDF and D0
97: collaborations~\cite{highmass}, charge asymmetry measurements are sensitive to
98: different combination of couplings, and can provide complementary
99: information~\cite{highmass_CDF}.
100:
101: The CDF collaboration measured $A_{FB}$ using 108 pb$^{-1}$ of data
102: in Run I~\cite{cdf_RunI} and 72 pb$^{-1}$ of data in Run II~\cite{cdf_RunII}.
103: This analysis uses $1066 \pm 65$ pb$^{-1}$ of data~\cite{d0lumi}
104: collected with the D0 detector~\cite{d0det} at the Fermilab Tevatron
105: collider at a center-of-mass energy of 1.96 TeV to measure the $A_{FB}$
106: distribution and extract $\stweff$.
107:
108: \indent To select $\zgamma$ events, we require two
109: isolated electromagnetic (EM) clusters that have shower shapes
110: consistent with that of an electron. EM candidates are required to
111: have transverse momentum $p_T>25 ~\mbox{GeV}$.
112: The dielectron pair must have a reconstructed invariant mass
113: $50<M_{ee}<500 ~\mbox{GeV}$. If an event has both its EM candidates
114: in the central calorimeter (CC events), each must be
115: spatially matched to a reconstructed track in the tracking system.
116: Because the tracking efficiency decreases with magnitude of the rapidity in
117: the end calorimeter, events with one candidate in the central and one candidate in the end
118: calorimeter (CE events) are required to have a matching track only for that in the
119: central calorimeter. For CC events, the two candidates are further required to have
120: opposite charges. For CE events, the determination of forward or
121: backward is made according to the charge of the EM candidate in the central calorimeter.
122: A total of 35,626 events remain after application of all selection criteria,
123: with 16,736 CC events and 18,890 CE events.
124: The selection efficiencies are measured using $Z/\gamma^{*} \rightarrow ee$ data with
125: the tag-probe method \cite{tag-probe}, and
126: no differences between forward and backward events are observed.
127:
128: The asymmetry is measured in 14 $M_{ee}$ bins within the $50<M_{ee}<500$ GeV range.
129: The bin widths are determined by the mass resolution, of order $(3 - 4)\%$, and event statistics.
130:
131: Monte Carlo (MC) samples for the $\zgamma \rightarrow e^{+}e^{-}$ process
132: are generated using the {\sc pythia} event generator~\cite{pythia} using
133: the CTEQ6L1 parton distribution functions (PDFs)~\cite{cteq}, followed by
134: a detailed {\sc geant}-based simulation of the D0 detector~\cite{geant}.
135: To improve the agreement between data and simulation,
136: selection efficiencies determined by the MC are corrected to corresponding
137: values measured in the data.
138: Furthermore, the simulation is tuned to reproduce the calorimeter
139: energy scale and resolution, as well as the distributions of the
140: instanteneous luminosity and $z$ position of the event primary
141: vertex observed in data. Next-to-leading order (NLO) quantum chromodynamics
142: (QCD) corrections for $\zgamma$ boson production~\cite{resbos, NLO_corr} are
143: applied by reweighting the $\zgamma$ boson transverse momentum, rapidity,
144: and invariant mass distributions from {\sc pythia}.
145:
146: The largest background arises from photon+jets and multijet final states in which
147: photons or jets are mis-reconstructed as electrons.
148: Smaller background contributions arise from electroweak processes
149: that produce two real electrons in the final state.
150: The multijet background is estimated using collider data by fitting
151: the electron isolation distribution in data to the sum of the
152: isolation distributions from a pure electron sample and
153: an EM-like jet sample. The pure electron sample is obtained
154: by enforcing tighter track matching requirements on the two electrons with
155: $80<M_{ee}<100$ GeV. The EM-like jets sample is obtained from a sample where only
156: one good EM cluster and one jet are back-to-back in azimuthal angle $\phi$.
157: The contamination in the EM-like jets sample from $W \rightarrow e\nu$
158: events is removed by requiring missing transverse energy $\metpaul<10$ GeV.
159: The average multijet background fraction over the entire mass region is found to be approximately $0.9\%$.
160: Other SM backgrounds due to $W+\gamma$,
161: $W+$jets, $WW$, $WZ$ and $t\bar{t}$ are estimated
162: separately for forward and backward events using {\sc pythia} events passed through the {\sc geant}
163: simulation. Higher order corrections to the {\sc pythia} leading order (LO)
164: cross sections have been applied~\cite{NLO_corr, WW_NLO_corr, ttbar_NLO_corr}.
165: These SM backgrounds are found to be negligible for almost all mass bins.
166: The $\zgamma \rightarrow \tau^+\tau^-$ contribution is similarly negligible.
167:
168: In the SM, the $A_{FB}$ distribution is fully determined by the
169: value of $\stweff$ in a LO prediction for the process
170: $q\bar{q} \rightarrow \zgamma \rightarrow \ell^+\ell^-$. The value of $\stweff$ is
171: extracted from the data by comparing the background-subtracted
172: raw $A_{FB}$ distribution with templates corresponding to different
173: input values of $\stweff$ generated with {\sc pythia} and {\sc geant}-based MC simulation.
174: Although $\stweff$ varies over the full mass range $50<M_{ee}<500$ GeV, it is
175: nearly constant over the range $70<M_{ee}<130$ GeV. Over this region, we measure
176: $\stweff =\stwcenter \pm \stwstaterr ~(\mbox{stat.}) \pm \stwsysterr~(\mbox{syst.})$.
177: The primary systematic uncertainties are due to the PDFs
178: (\stwsysterrpdf) and the EM energy scale and resolution (\stwsysterrscale).
179: We include higher order QCD and electroweak corrections using
180: the {\sc zgrad2}~\cite{zgrad} program with the
181: generator-level $\zgamma$ boson $p_T$ distribution tuned to match
182: our measured distribution~\cite{zpt}. The effect of higher order corrections
183: results in a central value of $\stweff=0.2326$~\cite{explaination}.
184:
185: Due to the detector resolution, events may be reconstructed in a different mass bin
186: than the one in which they were generated.
187: The CC and CE raw $A_{FB}$ distributions are unfolded separately and then combined.
188: The unfolding procedure is based on an iterative application of the method of
189: matrix inversion~\cite{matrix_inversion}.
190: A response matrix is computed as $R_{ij}^{FF}$ for an event that is measured as forward in $M_{ee}$
191: bin $i$ to be found as forward and in bin $j$ at the generator level.
192: Likewise, we also calculate the response matrices for backward
193: events being found as backward ($R_{ij}^{BB}$), forward as backward
194: ($R_{ij}^{FB}$), and backward as forward ($R_{ij}^{BF}$).
195: Four matrices are calculated from the {\sc geant} MC simulation and used to unfold the raw
196: $A_{FB}$ distribution. The method was verified by comparing the true and unfolded spectrum
197: generated using pseudo-experiments.
198:
199: The data are further corrected for acceptance and selection
200: efficiency using the {\sc geant} simulation. The overall
201: acceptance times efficiency rises from $3.5\%$ for $50<M_{ee}<60$ GeV
202: to $21\%$ for $250<M_{ee}<500$ GeV.
203:
204: The electron charge measurement in the central calorimeter determines
205: whether an event is forward or backward.
206: Any mismeasurement of the charge of the electron results in a dilution of $A_{FB}$.
207: The charge misidentification rate, $f_Q$, is measured using {\sc geant}-simulated
208: $\zgamma \rightarrow e^+e^-$ events tuned to the average rate measured in data. The
209: misidentification rate rises from 0.21\% at $50<M_{ee}<60$ GeV to 0.92\% at $250<M_{ee}<500$ GeV.
210: The charge misidentification rate is included as a dilution factor
211: $\cal{D}$ in $A_{FB}$, with ${\cal{D}}=(1-2f_Q)/(1-2f_Q+f^2_Q)$ for CC events
212: and ${\cal{D}}=(1-2f_Q)$ for CE events.
213:
214: \indent The final unfolded $A_{FB}$ distribution using both CC and CE events is shown in
215: Fig.~\ref{fig:compare_afb}, compared to the {\sc pythia} prediction using the CTEQ6L1 PDFs~\cite{cteq}
216: and the {\sc zgrad2} prediction using the CTEQ5L PDFs~\cite{cteq5}.
217: The $\chi^2/\mbox{d.o.f.}$ with respect to the {\sc pythia} prediction is $16.1/14$ for CC,
218: $8.5/14$ for CE, and $10.6/14$ for CC and CE combined.
219: The systematic uncertainties for the unfolded $A_{FB}$ distribution
220: arise from the electron energy scale and resolution,
221: backgrounds, limited MC samples used to calculate the response matrices,
222: acceptance and efficiency corrections, charge misidentification and PDFs.
223: The unfolded $A_{FB}$ together with the {\sc pythia} and {\sc zgrad2} predictions
224: for each mass bin can be found in Table~\ref{Tab:afb_final}.
225: The correlations between invariant mass bins are shown in Table~\ref{Tab:corr_matrix}.
226:
227: \indent In conclusion, we have measured the forward-backward charge
228: asymmetry for the $p\bar{p} \rightarrow \zgamma+X \rightarrow e^{+}e^{-}+X$
229: process in the dielectron invariant mass range 50 -- 500 GeV using
230: 1.1~fb$^{-1}$ of data collected by the D0 experiment.
231: The measured $A_{FB}$ values are in good agreement with the SM predictions.
232: We use the $A_{FB}$ measurements in the range $70<M_{ee}<130$ GeV to determine
233: $\stweff = \stwcentercorr \pm \stwstaterr~(\mbox{stat.}) \pm \stwsysterr~(\mbox{syst.})$.
234: The precision of this measurement is comparable to that obtained from LEP measurements
235: of the inclusive hadronic charge asymmetry~\cite{lep_sinthetaW} and that of NuTeV
236: measurement~\cite{nutev_sinthetaW}. Our measurements of $\stweff$ in a dilepton mass
237: region dominated by $Z$ exchange, which is primarily sensitive to the vector
238: coupling of the $Z$ to the electron, and of $A_{FB}$ over a wider mass region,
239: which is in addition sensitive to the couplings of the $Z$ to light quarks,
240: agrees well with predictions. With about 8~fb$^{-1}$ of data expected by the end of Run II,
241: a combined measurement of $A_{FB}$ by the CDF and D0 collaborations using electron and muon
242: final states could lead to a measurement of $\stweff$ with
243: a precision comparable to that of the current world average.
244: Further improvements to current MC generators, incorporating higher order QCD
245: and electroweak corrections, would enable the use of such measurement in a global
246: electroweak fit.
247:
248: \begin{center}
249: \begin{figure}[htbp]
250: \epsfig{file=fig1.eps, scale=0.45}
251: \caption{\small Comparison between the unfolded $A_{FB}$ (points) and
252: the {\sc pythia} (solid curve) and {\sc zgrad2} (dashed line)
253: predictions. The inner (outer) vertical lines
254: show the statistical (total) uncertainty.}
255: \label{fig:compare_afb}
256: \end{figure}
257: \end{center}
258:
259: \begin{table}[!htb]
260: \begin{center}
261: \begin{tabular}{r@{$\,- \,$}lcccc} \hline \hline
262: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M_{ee}$ range} & $\langle M_{ee} \rangle$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\ Predicted $A_{FB}$} & \ \ \multirow{2}{*}{Unfolded $A_
263: {FB}$} \\
264: \multicolumn{2}{c}{(GeV)} & {(GeV)} & {\ \sc pythia} & {\sc zgrad2} & \\ \hline
265: 50 & 60 & 54.5 & $-0.293$ & $-0.307$ & \ \ $-0.262 \pm 0.066 \pm 0.072$ \\
266: 60 & 70 & 64.9 & $-0.426$ & $-0.431$ & \ \ $-0.434 \pm 0.039 \pm 0.040$ \\
267: 70 & 75 & 72.6 & $-0.449$ & $-0.452$ & \ \ $-0.386 \pm 0.032 \pm 0.031$ \\
268: 75 & 81 & 78.3 & $-0.354$ & $-0.354$ & \ \ $-0.342 \pm 0.022 \pm 0.022$ \\
269: 81 & 86.5 & 84.4 & $-0.174$ & $-0.166$ & \ \ $-0.176 \pm 0.012 \pm 0.014$ \\
270: 86.5 & 89.5 & 88.4 & $-0.033$ & $-0.031$ & \ \ $-0.034 \pm 0.007 \pm 0.008$ \\
271: 89.5 & 92 & 90.9 & \ \ $0.051$ & \ \ $0.052$ & \ \ \ \ $0.048 \pm 0.006 \pm 0.005$ \\
272: 92 & 97 & 93.4 & \ \ $0.127$ & \ \ $0.129$ & \ \ \ \ $0.122 \pm 0.006 \pm 0.007$ \\
273: 97 & 105 & 99.9 & \ \ $0.289$ & \ \ $0.296$ & \ \ \ \ $0.301 \pm 0.013 \pm 0.015$ \\
274: 105 & 115 & 109.1 & \ \ $0.427$ & \ \ $0.429$ & \ \ \ \ $0.416 \pm 0.030 \pm 0.022$ \\
275: 115 & 130 & 121.3 & \ \ $0.526$ & \ \ $0.530$ & \ \ \ \ $0.543 \pm 0.039 \pm 0.028$ \\
276: 130 & 180 & 147.9 & \ \ $0.593$ & \ \ $0.603$ & \ \ \ \ $0.617 \pm 0.046 \pm 0.013$ \\
277: 180 & 250 & 206.4 & \ \ $0.613$ & \ \ $0.600$ & \ \ \ \ $0.594 \pm 0.085 \pm 0.016$ \\
278: 250 & 500 & 310.5 & \ \ $0.616$ & \ \ $0.615$ & \ \ \ \ $0.320 \pm 0.150 \pm 0.018$ \\ \hline
279: \hline
280: \end{tabular}
281: \caption{The first column shows the mass ranges used. The second column shows the
282: cross section weighted average of the invariant mass in each mass bin derived from {\sc pythia}. The
283: third and fourth columns show the $A_{FB}$ predictions from {\sc pythia} and {\sc zgrad2}.
284: The last column is the unfolded $A_{FB}$; the
285: first uncertainty is statistical, and the second is systematic.}
286: \label{Tab:afb_final}
287: \end{center}
288: \end{table}
289:
290: \begin{table*}
291: \begin{ruledtabular}
292: \begin{tabular}{c|cccccccccccccc}
293: Mass bin & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 &10 & 11 & 12 & 13 & 14 \\ \hline
294: 1 & 1.00 & 0.21 & 0.04 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.01 & 0.00 & 0.01 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
295: 2 & & 1.00 & 0.42 & 0.08 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
296: 3 & & & 1.00 & 0.49 & 0.13 & 0.04 & 0.03 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
297: 4 & & & & 1.00 & 0.52 & 0.16 & 0.08 & 0.04 & 0.01 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
298: 5 & & & & & 1.00 & 0.72 & 0.32 & 0.11 & 0.01 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
299: 6 & & & & & & 1.00 & 0.79 & 0.40 & 0.03 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
300: 7 & & & & & & & 1.00 & 0.80 & 0.15 & 0.01 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
301: 8 & & & & & & & & 1.00 & 0.50 & 0.04 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.01 & 0.00 \\
302: 9 & & & & & & & & & 1.00 & 0.38 & 0.04 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
303: 10 & & & & & & & & & & 1.00 & 0.30 & 0.01 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
304: 11 & & & & & & & & & & & 1.00 & 0.14 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
305: 12 & & & & & & & & & & & & 1.00 & 0.06 & 0.00 \\
306: 13 & & & & & & & & & & & & & 1.00 & 0.06 \\
307: 14 & & & & & & & & & & & & & & 1.00 \\
308: \end{tabular}
309: \caption{Correlation coefficients between different $M_{ee}$ mass bins. Only half of the symmetric correlation matrix is presented.}
310: \label{Tab:corr_matrix}
311: \end{ruledtabular}
312: \end{table*}
313:
314: % acknowledgement_paragraph_r2.tex
315: %
316: We thank the staffs at Fermilab and collaborating institutions,
317: and acknowledge support from the
318: DOE and NSF (USA);
319: CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France);
320: FASI, Rosatom and RFBR (Russia);
321: CNPq, FAPERJ, FAPESP and FUNDUNESP (Brazil);
322: DAE and DST (India);
323: Colciencias (Colombia);
324: CONACyT (Mexico);
325: KRF and KOSEF (Korea);
326: CONICET and UBACyT (Argentina);
327: FOM (The Netherlands);
328: STFC (United Kingdom);
329: MSMT and GACR (Czech Republic);
330: CRC Program, CFI, NSERC and WestGrid Project (Canada);
331: BMBF and DFG (Germany);
332: SFI (Ireland);
333: The Swedish Research Council (Sweden);
334: CAS and CNSF (China);
335: and the
336: Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.
337: %
338:
339: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
340: % visitors
341: \bibitem[a]{alton}
342: Visitor from Augustana College, Sioux Falls, SD, USA.
343: \bibitem[b]{burdin}
344: Visitor from The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
345: \bibitem[c]{podesta-lerma}
346: Visitor from ICN-UNAM, Mexico City, Mexico.
347: \bibitem[d]{quadt,meyer,hensel,park}
348: Visitor from II. Physikalisches Institut, Georg-August-University, G{\"o}ttingen, Germany.
349: \bibitem[e]{voutilainen}
350: Visitor from Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki, Finland.
351: \bibitem[f]{wenger}
352: Visitor from Universit{\"a}t Z{\"u}rich, Z{\"u}rich, Switzerland.
353: \bibitem[\ddag]{deceased}
354: Deceased.
355:
356: %
357: \vskip 0.25cm
358:
359: % reference
360: \bibitem{cs_frame}
361: J.C. Collins and D.E. Soper, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 16}, 2219 (1977).
362:
363: \bibitem{pdg}
364: C. Amsler {\it et al.} (Particle Data Group), Phys. Lett. B {\bf 667} (2008), p103.
365:
366: \bibitem{lep_sinthetaW}
367: G. Abbiendi {\it et al.} (LEP Collaborations ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL; SLD Collaboration,
368: LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak and Heavy Flavor Groups), Phys. Rep. {\bf 427}, 257 (2006).
369:
370: \bibitem{nutev_sinthetaW}
371: G.P. Zeller {\it et al.} (NuTeV Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 091802 (2002); {\bf 90}, 239902(E) (2003).
372:
373: \bibitem{cdf_RunII}
374: D. Acosta {\it et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71}, 052002 (2005).
375:
376: \bibitem{H1}
377: A. Aktas {\it et al.} (H1 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B {\bf 632} (2006).
378:
379: \bibitem{zprime}
380: J.L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 54}, 1078 (1996); M. Carena {\it et al.}, Phys.Rev. D {\bf 70} 093009 (2004).
381:
382: \bibitem{led}
383: H. Davoudiasl, J.L. Hewett, and T.G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 2080 (2000).
384:
385: \bibitem{highmass}
386: A. Abulencia {\it et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 252001 (2005);
387: D. Acosta {\it et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 131801 (2005);
388: V. Abazov {\it et al.} (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 091801 (2005);
389: V. Abazov {\it et al.} (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 161602 (2005);
390: T. Aaltonen {\it et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 99}, 171802 (2007);
391: V. Abazov {\it et al.} (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev Lett. {\bf 100}, 091802 (2008).
392:
393: \bibitem{highmass_CDF}
394: A. Abulencia {\it et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 96}, 211801 (2006).
395:
396: \bibitem{cdf_RunI}
397: T. Affolder {\it et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 131802 (2001); F. Abe {\it et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 2616 (1996).
398:
399: \bibitem{d0lumi}
400: T.~Andeen {\it et al.}, FERMILAB-TM-2365 (2007).
401:
402: \bibitem{d0det}
403: V. Abazov {\it et al.} (D0 Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A {\bf 565}, 463 (2006).
404:
405: \bibitem{tag-probe}
406: V. Abazov {\sl et al.} (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D {\bf 76}, 012003 (2007).
407:
408: %\bibitem{eta}
409: %$\eta=-\ln[\tan(\theta/2)]$, where $\theta$ is the polar angle measured relative to the proton beam direction.
410:
411: \bibitem{pythia}
412: T. Sj$\ddot{\text o}$strand {\it et al.}, Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 135}, 238 (2001). {\sc pythia} version v6.323 is used throughout.
413:
414: \bibitem{cteq}
415: J. Pumplin {\it et al.}, JHEP {\bf 0207}, 012 (2002); D. Stump {\it et al.}, JHEP {\bf 0310}, 046 (2003).
416:
417: \bibitem{geant}
418: R. Brun and F. Carminati, CERN Program Library Long Writeup
419: W5013, 1993 (unpublished).
420:
421: \bibitem{resbos}
422: C. Balazs and C.P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 5558 (1997).
423:
424: \bibitem{NLO_corr}
425: R. Hamberg, W.L. van Neerven, and T. Matsuura, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B359}, 343 (1991); {\bf 644}, 403(E) (2002).
426:
427: \bibitem{WW_NLO_corr}
428: J.M. Campbell and R.K. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60}, 113006 (1999).
429:
430: \bibitem{ttbar_NLO_corr}
431: N. Kidonakis and R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68}, 114014 (2003); M. Cacciari {\it et al.}, JHEP {\bf 04}, 68 (2004).
432:
433: \bibitem{zgrad}
434: U. Baur, S. Keller, and W.K. Sakumoto, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57}, 199 (1998); U. Baur {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 033007 (2002).
435:
436: \bibitem{zpt}
437: V. Abazov {\it et al.} (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 100}, 102002 (2008).
438:
439: \bibitem{explaination}
440: This value of $\stweff$ cannot be compared directly with the world average due to the different treatment of electroweak corrections.
441:
442: \bibitem{matrix_inversion}
443: G.L. Marchuk, Methods of Numerical Mathematics (Springer, Berlin, 1975).
444:
445: \bibitem{cteq5}
446: H.L. Lai {\it et al.}, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 12}, 375 (2000).
447: \end{thebibliography}
448: \end{document}
449:
450: %
451: % ****** End of file template.aps ******
452: