1:
2:
3: \section{Event Selection}
4: As mentioned in the previous section, the t-channel single top measurement at LHC is not limited by statistics. With a large cross section of $\sim$ 250 pb, the production will be in millions per year even at low luminosity. The analysis therefore focuses more on precision measurements with early LHC data. The measurement of the cross section will provide the first evidence of single top and top polarisation can only be studied with single top. Firstly, a strategy was developed to isolate the t-channel single top signal. The basic object selection follows that defined in section \ref{Sec::fullfast::selection} throughout the analysis unless otherwise stated.
5:
6: \subsection{Event Selection Strategy}
7: \begin{figure}[htb]
8: \begin{center}
9: \includegraphics[height=4.4cm]{figures/SingleTop/Numjets0tag.jpg}
10: \includegraphics[height=4.35cm]{figures/SingleTop/Numjets1tag.jpg}
11: \includegraphics[height=4.4cm]{figures/SingleTop/Numjets2tag.jpg}
12: \caption{Total number of jets for events with zero (left), one (middle) and two (right) b-tagged jets. The signal significance is indicated by the black line. The plots are normalised to 1 fb$^{-1}$. Values for the signal significance is shown on the right sides of the plots.}
13: \label{Fig::tchan::Numjets}
14: \end{center}
15: \end{figure}
16:
17: The background to t-channel production can be roughly divided into three kinds and selection cuts were developed to reject each of these:
18: \begin{itemize}
19: \item \textbf{non-W background:} QCD multijet background with no heavy resonance in the final state. While estimation of the QCD background needs to be performed with real data, it has been shown \cite{CommissioningTop2007} that the requirement of \met\ $>$ 20 GeV is highly effective against this background. The fake rate of the electrons and muons can be kept at a low level with the current selection based on shower shape and isolation as shown in chapter \ref{Chapter::FullSimFastSim}.
20: \item \textbf{W background:} W + light jets and W + heavy flavour jets. These include real W bosons with associated jets. Figure \ref{Fig::tchan::Numjets} shows the distribution of the number of jets above \pt\ $>30$ GeV, requiring \met$>$20 GeV and one lepton with \pt$>20$ GeV, for different numbers of b-tagged jets found in the event. The black line over the histograms shows the significance of signal, $S/\sqrt{S+B}$ in each bin. The selection with no b-tagged jets suffers from large W background with very little signal. The b-tagging requirements reduce the W background significantly, especially those with light jets. The LO topology with two jets has the highest signal population and its significance is the largest of all jet multiplicity bins. W\bbbar\ events are hard to remove with b-tagging requirements, though a tight cut on the leading jet \pt\ lowers the level of this background further.
21: \item \textbf{top background:} \ttbar, s-channel and Wt single top channels. These include a real top quarks in the final state. With b-tagging, top background becomes increasingly problematic as one considers larger number of jets. With two b-tagged jets, top background is by far the most dominant. Therefore, the two-jet final state with one b-tagged jet provides the most promising signal isolation. Lepton plus jet decay modes of \ttbar\ tend to result in a large number of jets and they can be further reduced by vetoing events with extra low \pt\ jets. The dilepton \ttbar\ decay mode can also be reduced further by a lepton veto with a lower lepton threshold, though this is not effective when one of the leptons is outside the acceptance. Additional rejection is desirable and this can be achieved by a requirement on the properties of the jets; light jets from \ttbar\ events tend to be found in the central region of the detector as they originate from a W. On the other hand, the signal contains a jet in the high $\eta$ region due to the existence of the spectator jet. Figure \ref{Fig::tchan::variables} shows the $\eta$ of the non-b-tagged jet for the signal and \ttbar\ events. Several other variables were studied, some of which were used for single top observation at the Tevatron \cite{ONeil2006}. Rejection strategies sensitive to major systematic effects weaken the event selection. Variables such as $H_T$ (scalar sum of \pt\ of objects) and invariant mass were found to be extremely vulnerable to jet energy scale uncertainty. On the other hand, centrality, defined as $(\sum p_T^{jets})/(\sum |p^{jets}|)$ is stable against this effect due to cancellation and a large degree of separation was observed as seen in figure \ref{Fig::tchan::variables}.
22: \end{itemize}
23:
24: \begin{figure}[\begin{figure}[htb]
25: \centering
26: \includegraphics[height=5cm]{figures/EventSelection/NonBJet1_eta_sys.jpg}
27: \includegraphics[height=5cm]{figures/EventSelection/Centrality_sys.pdf}
28: \includegraphics[height=5cm]{figures/EventSelection/HT_jets_sys.pdf}
29: \includegraphics[height=5cm]{figures/EventSelection/Mass_jets_sys.pdf}
30: \caption{Effect of jet energy scale uncertainty on discriminating variables. The $\eta$ of non-b-tagged jet and centrality of jets (top), The $H_T$ of jets and the invariant mass of jets (bottom) . The yellow and the red bands show statistical errors while the blue and the black bands show the variation due to jet energy scale uncertainty (see section \ref{Sec::Sel::JES}). The yellow and red bands show the statistical fluctuation for \ttbar\ and t-channel single top samples respectively, while black and blue show systematic fluctuation due to JES variation.}
31: \label{Fig::tchan::variables}
32: \end{figure}
33:
34: In summary, the initial event selection consist of the following:
35: \begin{itemize}
36: \item \textbf{\met}: Missing transverse energy $>20$ GeV.
37: \item \textbf{Lepton Selection}: Exactly one good lepton: an isolated electron with \pt$>$25 GeV\footnote{The electron threshold is raised due to the trigger threshold. In this analysis the trigger is not applied explicitly but care was taken to minimise trigger effects.} and $|\eta|<2.5$ or an isolated muon with \pt$>20$ and $|\eta|<2.5$ GeV.
38: \item \textbf{Lepton Veto}: Veto events with two opposite-charge leptons above \pt$>15$ GeV. Veto events with leptons in the crack region (see section \ref{Sec::fullfast::elec}).
39: \item \textbf{Jet Selection}: Exactly two jets with \pt$>$30 GeV and $|\eta|<5$. Leading jet \pt$>$50 GeV. Non-b-tagged jet $\eta>$1.5.
40: \item \textbf{Jet Veto}: Veto events with more than 4 jets with \pt$>15$ GeV.
41: \item \textbf{B-tag Selection}: One of the two jets is b-tagged.
42: \item \textbf{Centrality}: Centrality of jets is smaller than 0.5
43: \end{itemize}
44:
45: \subsection{Event Selection Efficiency}
46: Table \ref{Tab::tchan::EventSelection} shows the efficiency of the selection together with the final number of events assuming 1 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity. The bottom row shows the signal to background ratio.
47:
48: \newpage
49: \begin{landscape}
50: \begin{table}[ht]
51: \begin{center}
52: \begin{tabular}{l|p{1.5cm}p{1.5cm}p{1.5cm}p{1.5cm}p{1.5cm}p{1.5cm}p{1.5cm}|p{1.5cm}}
53: \hline
54: Process & \met\ & Lepton Selection & Lepton Veto & Jet Selection & Jet Veto & B-tag Selection & Centrality & Number Left \\
55: \hline \hline
56: \textbf{signal} & & & & & & & & \\
57: t-channel & 90.74 $(\pm 0.10)$ & 34.85 $(\pm 0.17)$ & 33.04 $(\pm 0.16)$ & 2.79 $(\pm 0.06)$ & 2.67 $(\pm 0.06)$ & 1.48 $(\pm 0.04)$ & 1.38 $(\pm 0.04)$ & 1123.15 \\
58: \hline
59: \textbf{top background} & & & & & & & & \\
60: s-channel & 90.30 $(\pm 0.52)$ & 30.69 $(\pm 0.80)$ &29.07 $(\pm 0.79)$ & 1.82 $(\pm 0.23)$ & 1.80 $(\pm 0.23)$ & 1.18 $(\pm 0.19)$ & 1.05 $(\pm 0.18)$ & 34.71 \\
61: Wt & 89.37 $(\pm 0.19)$ & 38.25 $(\pm 0.30)$ & 36.41 $(\pm 0.29)$ & 1.26 $(\pm 0.07)$ & 1.12 $(\pm 0.06)$ & 0.50 $(\pm 0.04)$ & 0.44 $(\pm 0.04)$ & 117.07 \\
62: \ttbar\ & 92.19 $(\pm 0.04)$ & 39.40 $(\pm 0.07)$ & 36.17 $(\pm 0.07)$ & 0.85 $(\pm 0.01)$ & 0.70 $(\pm 0.01)$ & 0.39 $(\pm 0.01)$ & 0.35 $(\pm 0.01)$ & 1596.24\\
63: \hline
64: \textbf{W background} & & & & & & & & \\
65: W + jets & 76.89 $(\pm 0.04)$ & 27.81 $(\pm 0.05)$ & 26.93 $(\pm 0.05)$ & 0.44 $(\pm 0.01)$ & 0.39 $(\pm 0.01)$ & 0.211 $(\pm 0.005)$ & 0.195 $(\pm 0.004)$ & 1897.96 \\
66: Wbb & 73.03 $(\pm 0.13)$ & 25.94 $(\pm 0.13)$ & 24.94 $(\pm 0.13)$ & 0.30 $(\pm 0.02)$ & 0.29 $(\pm 0.02)$ & 0.12 $(\pm 0.01)$ & 0.11 $(\pm 0.01)$ & 125.26 \\
67: Diboson & 80.76 $(\pm 0.22)$ & 45.73 $(\pm 0.28)$ & 42.99 $(\pm 0.28)$ & 1.47 $(\pm 0.07)$ & 1.40 $(\pm 0.07)$ & 0.09 $(\pm 0.02)$ &0.08 $(\pm 0.02)$ & 26.62 \\
68: \hline \hline
69: %$S/\sqrt{S+B}$ & & & & & & & & \\
70: $S/B $ & 0.057 & 0.056 & 0.056 & 0.24 & 0.27 & 0.29 & 0.30 & \\
71: \hline
72: \end{tabular}
73: \caption{Cumulative efficiency of basic event selection in percent. The last column show the number of remaining events at the integrated luminosity of 1fb$^{-1}$ }
74: \label{Tab::tchan::EventSelection}
75: %\begin{tabular}{l|p{1.5cm}p{1.5cm}p{1.5cm}p{1.5cm}p{1.5cm}p{1.5cm}p{1.5cm}|p{1.5cm}}
76: %\hline
77: %Process & \met\ & Lepton Selection & Lepton Veto & Jet Selection & Jet Veto & B-tag Selection & Centrality & Number Left \\
78: %\hline \hline
79: %\ttbar\ & & & & & & & & \\
80: %\ttbar\ (lep+jets) & & & & & & & & \\
81: %\ttbar\ (tau+jets) & & & & & & & & \\
82: %%\ttbar\ (dilep) & & & & & & & & \\
83: %%\hline
84: %W + jets & & & & & & & & \\
85: %W + jets (0 partons) & & & & & & & & \\
86: %W + jets (1 parton) & & & & & & & & \\
87: %W + jets (2 partons) & & & & & & & & \\
88: %W + jets (3 partons) & & & & & & & & \\
89: %\hline
90: %\end{tabular}
91: %\caption{Efficiency of basic event selection. Breakdown of \ttbar\ and W + jet background }
92: %\label{Tab::tchan::EventSelection_detail}
93: \end{center}
94: \end{table}
95: \end{landscape}
96:
97:
98: \section{Leptonic Top Reconstruction}
99: The measurement of the top polarisation is performed in the top quark's rest frame and for this it needs to be reconstructed in each event. However, the reconstruction of top quarks with leptonic decay is not without ambiguity. The neutrino from the subsequent W decay escapes detection and can only be inferred as missing transverse energy; the z component of the momentum of this object is unmeasurable. To constrain this, one can use the kinematic constraints in the event.
100:
101: \subsection{Small $\eta$ Solution Using $W$ Mass Constraint}
102: Assuming that the lepton found is the decay product of a $W$ and the missing transverse energy comes from the unmeasured transverse energy of the neutrino from the same $W$ decay, one can use the known $W$ mass as a constraint and solve the kinematic equation for $p_{z}$ of the neutrino, that is to solve the equation:
103: \begin{equation}
104: \label{Eqn::WmassConst}
105: M_{(W,pdg)}^2=(p^e+p^{\nu})^2=80.4^2 \mathrm{[GeV]}
106: \end{equation}
107: where $M_{W,pdg}$ is the mass of the $W$ boson, which was taken to be the known PDG value of $80.4$ GeV, $p^e$ is the four momentum of the charged lepton and $p^{\nu}$ is the four momentum of the neutrino. Solving this equation, it can be shown that
108: \begin{equation}
109: p_z^{\nu} = \frac{\lambda \pm \sqrt{\delta}}{2.0}
110: \end{equation}
111: where,
112: \begin{eqnarray}
113: \alpha & = & M_{W,pdg}^2+(p_x^{\nu}+p_x^{e})^2+(p_y^{\nu}+p_y^{e})^2-(E^e)^2\\
114: \beta & = & 0.5(\alpha - (p_{T}^{\nu})^2+(p_z^{e})^2) \\
115: \gamma & = & -(\beta^2 - (E^e)^2(p_T^{\nu})^2)/((E^e)^2-(p_{z}^e)^2)\\
116: \lambda & = & 2\beta p_z^e / ((E^e)^2 - (p_z^e)^2) \\
117: \delta & = & \lambda^2 - 4\gamma
118: \end{eqnarray}
119: In approximately 25\% of the times this results in an unphysical solution with imaginary momenta. This will be dealt with separately in section \ref{sec::toprec::approx}. Figure \ref{Fig::SmallEta_deltaR} shows the $\Delta \eta$ between the reconstructed neutrino and the Truth neutrino ($p_x$ and $p_y$ are fixed in this case.) The ``correct'' solution is the solution with smaller $\Delta \eta$ to the Truth neutrino. The $\Delta \eta$ between the correct and the wrong solution is generally large.
120:
121: \subsection{Performance of Small $\eta$ Solution}
122: \begin{figure}[htp]
123: \begin{center}
124: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{figures/SingleTop/Nusol_DeltaEta.jpg}
125: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{figures/SingleTop/TopMass_Const.pdf}
126: \caption{Left: the $\Delta \eta$ distance to the true neutrino for correct (solid), wrong (dashed) and small $\eta$ (red fill) solution. Right: the likelihood of obtaining the correct solution using various values of the top masses. The generated top mass was 175 GeV.}
127: \label{Fig::SmallEta_deltaR}
128: \end{center}
129: \end{figure}
130:
131: %\begin{wrapfigure}{l}{7cm}
132: %\begin{center}
133: %\includegraphics[width=6cm]{figures/SingleTop/TopMass_Const.pdf}
134: %\caption{Likelihood of obtaining the correct solution using various top mass. Generated top mass was 175 GeV.}
135: %\label{Fig::Nusol_topmass}
136: %\end{center}
137: %\end{wrapfigure}
138:
139: No variables were found that have a sharp correlation with the chance of selecting the correct solution. The selection of the solution with smaller $p_{z}$ was used in previous top analyses, though, as it turns out, $\eta$ is a more relevant variable to describe the kinematics and since the $p_{x}$ and $p_{y}$ are already fixed, one can chose the neutrino with smaller $\eta$ and obtain the same result. This selects the correct solution in around 60\% of cases. A correlation was seen between the likelihood of selecting the correct solution and the lepton $\eta$ though it is too weak to be used as a realistic method of selection. Instead, one can require the reconstructed top mass, obtained by adding the b-tagged jet and the reconstructed W, to be close to a given mass value. As shown in figure \ref{Fig::SmallEta_deltaR} the selection of the solution now depends on the top mass. Although top quarks were generated at 175 GeV, the optimal selection is at 170 GeV. This is primarily due to the b-jet energy scale, which is measured around 5\% lower than truth on average. Therefore, 170 GeV was used to select the neutrino solution, which yields the correct solution $\sim$ 70\% of the time.
140:
141: \subsection{Resolving Unphysical Solution}
142: \label{sec::toprec::approx}
143: It can be shown that the method above results in imaginary solutions when the W transverse mass,
144: \begin{eqnarray}
145: M_T & \equiv & 2(E_T^{\nu}E_T^{e}-\vec{p_T^{\nu}} \cdot \vec{p_T^{e}}) \\
146: & \simeq & 2p_T^e p_T^{\nu}(1-cos\phi_{e\nu}) ~ \mathrm{(massless ~ limit)}
147: \end{eqnarray}
148: is larger than $M_{(W,pdg)}$ because it does not take the W width into account. In such cases, an approximation has to be made to obtain a physical solution. In Truth, occurrence of $M_T>M_{(W,pdg)}$ is fairly rare since the W width is narrow compared to the long tail on the lower end of the $M_T$ distribution. However, the reconstructed $M_T$ is smeared due to finite \met\ resolution and more events tend to be lost (25\% in t-channel). To obtain an approximate solution, one can take advantage of the fact that $M_T\simeq M_W$ when $M_T>M_W$. It can be shown that the W mass can be decomposed into transverse mass and ``longitudinal'' mass, $M_L$ such that
149: \begin{eqnarray}
150: M_W^2 & = & M_T^2 + M_L^2, ~ \mathrm{where}\\
151: M_L^2 & = & 2|p^e||p^{\nu}|(1-\cos{(\theta^e-\theta^{\nu})})
152: \end{eqnarray}
153: therefore, in proximity to $M_T\sim M_W$, $\theta^e \simeq \theta^{\nu}$ or $\eta^e \simeq \eta^{\nu}$. Therefore, it is a good approximation to assign the $\eta$ of the charged lepton to the neutrino when solutions are imaginary.
154:
155: \subsection{The Reconstructed Top Quark}
156:
157: \begin{figure}[htb]
158: \begin{center}
159: \includegraphics[height=4cm]{figures/SingleTop/TopMass_nuid.pdf}
160: \includegraphics[height=4cm]{figures/SingleTop/TopMass_bid.pdf}
161: \caption{The invariant mass of the reconstructed top quark. Left: Break down of neutrino solution type. The entries for ``no solution'' are those from the approximation (see Section \ref{sec::toprec::approx}). Right: Showing events with a misidentified b jet.}
162: \label{Fig::nusol::topmass}
163: \end{center}
164: \end{figure}
165:
166: The top quarks reconstructed with the two methods above were combined for further analysis. Figure \ref{Fig::nusol::topmass} shows the reconstructed top mass with different contributions indicated. In addition to the neutrino reconstruction method, identification of the jet representing the b quark (or simply ``b jet'') is also indicated. Charged lepton misidentification is almost at a negligible level and is not shown here. The width of the invariant mass distribution is affected by both b jet energy scale and \met\ measurements. Low \pt\ b jets tend to spread wider than the jet cone size and reconstructed energy tends to be underestimated. This contributes to the lower tail of the top mass peak. Misidentification of b jets occur at a low rate and does not have a significant impact on the shape of the mass distribution. \met\ has a wide resolution as seen in \ref{Fig::MET_res} which tends to widen the mass peak. Approximate solutions tend to be at the higher end while wrongly chosen solutions contribute more to the lower end of the mass peak.
167:
168:
169:
170: \section{Measurement of Top Polarisation}
171: \begin{figure}[tb]
172: \begin{center}
173: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{figures/SingleTop/optimised.jpg}
174: \includegraphics[height=5cm]{figures/SingleTop/legend.pdf}
175: \caption{Cosine of the angle between the spin basis and the charged lepton after the selection cuts.}
176: \label{STpolarization}
177: \end{center}
178: \end{figure}
179:
180: The final event selection purifies the sample sufficiently well that the signal contributes to a significant asymmetry in the distribution. The degree of asymmetry forms an estimator of the top polarisation. The optimal choice of spin measurement basis depends on whether a top or an anti-top is produced in the event as explained in section \ref{Sec::Motivation::Polarisation}. $cos(\chi^t_{jet-lep})$, the cosine of the angle between the spectator jet and the charged lepton was used in case the lepton was positively charged and $cos(\chi^t_{beam-lep})$ when otherwise. The beam direction was chosen to be the one that is going in same z direction as the spectator jet. Figure \ref{STpolarization} shows the distribution of the estimator after the selection cuts. The large loss of events in the rightmost bins is due to the lepton isolation cut which tends to remove events in which the lepton and the spectator jet are close to each other. Although this is a requirement made in the laboratory frame, boosting to the top's rest frame only causes minor changes to the event topology \cite{Sullivan2005}.
181:
182: The measurement of polarisation can be performed with different methods; the simplest is to calculate the forward-backward asymmetry by counting the number of entries in the negative and the positive sides of the plot. A higher sensitivity can be obtained by maximum likelihood fitting where the information is obtained from the shape of the whole histogram by fitting template histograms (or just ``templates'') corresponding to different degree of polarisation. This method provides a more natural and direct way of inferring the degree of polarisation from the observed asymmetry.
183:
184: Leading-order signal models generated by Pythia were used to construct templates since the AcerMC, TopRex and MC@NLO generators do not generate events with different degrees of polarisation. Pythia t-channel events were generated with no polarisation and events that passed the selection cuts were re-weighted to produce templates varying the Truth polarisation ($cos(\chi^t_{d-lep})$ measured with Truth objects) between -1 and 1 in steps of 0.02. Figure \ref{STtemplate} illustrates the templates produced by this procedure.
185: % Histograms were fitted with 3rd order polynomial to reduce sensitivities to statistical fluctuation.
186:
187: \begin{figure}[tb]
188: \begin{center}
189: %\includegraphics[height=6cm]{figures/SingleTop/templates.jpg}
190: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{figures/SingleTop/templates_revised.jpg}
191: \caption{Some of the signal templates for the spectator basis generated with Pythia with varying amount of polarisation. Polarisation varied from 1 (more entry in positive bins, solid line) to -1 (more entry in negative bins, solid line with solid marker.)}
192: \label{STtemplate}
193: \end{center}
194: \end{figure}
195:
196: When the probability of entry in each bin is given by $p_1,...,p_n$ ($\sum{p_i}=1$), the probability density for obtaining a histogram with entries $x_1,...,x_n$ ($\sum{x_i}=N$), is described by a multinomial probability distribution:
197: \[ p(x_1,...,x_n;p_1,...,p_n)=\frac{N!}{\prod_{i=1}^{n} x_i!}\prod_{i=1}^{n}p_i^{x_i}. \]
198: In our case, $p_i$ are computed using MC distributions and $p_i=x_i^{MC}/N$; $x_i$ are the entries in the data histogram. Taking the log of the probability density function, we obtain the log likelihood function ignoring the constant term,
199: \[ log(\mathcal{L})=\sum_{i=0}^{bins} x_i^{data} log(\frac{x_i^{MC}}{N}), \]
200: where the total number of entries in the histograms are both normalised to $N$.
201:
202: Using this, the best fit can now be identified at the maximum of the likelihood function and the expected uncertainty can be evaluated at 0.5 below the maximum \cite{Cowan2007}. To test the method, a toy Monte Carlo was generated based on the signal (Pythia) and background shape (from various generators as shown in table \ref{STsamples}) to obtain statistically independent pseudo-data. The amount of input signal polarisation was varied from -1 to 1 in steps of 0.02. The signal plus background pseudo-data was fitted with the templates obtained by the signal template plus background model and a binned likelihood was calculated for each fit. Figure \ref{Likelihood} shows the value of the log likelihood function evaluated with each fit when the input polarisation was set to be zero. Figure \ref{Fig::SingleTop::STerrors} shows the polarisation of the best fit template against the input polarisation in pseudo-data. It shows the method has little bias and a linear response.
203:
204: \begin{figure}[tb]
205: \begin{center}
206: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{figures/SingleTop/Likelihood.jpg}
207: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{figures/SingleTop/errors2.jpg}
208: \caption{Left: Log likelihood function calculated at zero asymmetry. The maximum and the 0.5 below the maximum are indicated with lines. Right: Measured polarisation for each input polarisation value with errors from the fit. The red (solid) line is a straight line fit to the plot with its slope (p1) and offset (p0) as quoted in the figure.}
209: \label{Likelihood}
210: \label{Fig::SingleTop::STerrors}
211: \end{center}
212: \end{figure}
213:
214: The estimated errors were validated with further tests. For each input polarisation, the toy MC was repeated 100 times and the width of the distribution of the measured polarisation was calculated. The ``Pull'' is defined as the width of the ensemble distribution divided by the error estimated by the maximum likelihood fit and the soundness of the method is confirmed by the pull distribution being uniform at unity across the whole input range. A small bias in the measured central values was seen near the extreme values (1 and -1) at $\sim2\%$ level which can be ignored for the sake of error estimation.
215:
216: %\begin{figure}[htb]
217: %\begin{center}
218: %\includegraphics[height=6cm]{figures/SingleTop/Pull.pdf}
219: %\caption{Pull (the error bars) and bias (the mid points) obtained by comparing the estimated error from maximum likelihood fit and ensemble tests.}
220: %\label{Fig::SingleTop::Pull}
221: %\end{center}
222: %\end{figure}
223:
224: \section{Statistical Uncertainties}
225:
226: \begin{figure}[tb]
227: \begin{center}
228: \includegraphics[height=5cm]{figures/SingleTop/sensitivity.pdf}
229: \caption{Statistical sensitivity of polarisation measurement against integrated luminosity. Lines with empty markers were obtained with reduced background.}
230: \label{Fig::SingleTop::STsensitivity}
231: \end{center}
232: \end{figure}
233:
234: The statistical sensitivity of the polarisation measurement can now be evaluated. A toy MC was generated for numbers of events corresponding to different integrated luminosities and the errors were averaged from the measurements of all input polarisation values. Figure \ref{Fig::SingleTop::STsensitivity} shows the statistical uncertainty against integrated luminosity.
235:
236: In comparison with a previous study \cite{Pineiro2000}, which reported a 4\% statistical error at 2fb$^{-1}$ the result obtained is significantly worse ($\sim 11\%$ at 2fb$^{-1}$). However, this is largely due to the previous optimistic estimation of background rejection in which S/B=2.57 was obtained. The current background separation is considerable lower and S/B=0.30. The difference in signal rejection can be attributed to simpler signal and background modelling and an old parton shower model, which tended to result in a more distinct signature of the signal. For instance, Herwig was used for W+jets background though Alpgen tends to produce a harder jet \pt\ distribution which is now confirmed with Tevatron data. W+jets background with a harder jet \pt\ spectra has a closer resemblance to the signal. In addition, the previous analysis was fully based on an old version of \Atlfast\ whose performance was more optimistic. The current study is mainly based on fully simulated samples except W+jets which was produced with the newer version of \Atlfast\ with additional modification to match full simulation performance.
237:
238: Additional background rejection may be possible with further study of signal and background kinematics, e.g. using additional discriminating variables to form a multi-variate discriminant. Two scenarios were considered in addition to the current background level, one with background level reduced to a half (uniform scaling of all background channels) and reduced to a tenth, close to what was obtained in \cite{Pineiro2000}. This is showed in figure \ref{Fig::SingleTop::STsensitivity}. A competitive result (6\% at 2 fb$^{-1}$) was obtained with the latter modification indicating the compatibility of the methods used in the two analyses.
239:
240: Table \ref{Tab::SingleTop::STsensitivity} shows the statistical sensitivity of the measured polarisation at some values of integrated luminosity. The percentage calculation is based on the measured polarisation of unity. Two additional estimators were considered\footnote{see Section \ref{Sec::Motivation::Polarisation} for the definition of spin bases.}: pure spectator basis (regardless of lepton charge), pure beamline basis (regardless of lepton charge) as well as the optimised basis (spectator basis for positive lepton charge and beamline basis otherwise). While the optimal choice is statistically the most sensitive one, any dependence on the spectator jet may make the measurement more sensitive to systematic effects and the beamline basis may provide a more robust measure of polarisation as studied in the next section. The sensitivity is similar with all three estimators though the optimised basis yields the best result as expected. Although the spectator basis is the correct basis more often, the performance is worse than the beamline basis. This may be due to the ambiguity involved in the selection of the spectator basis.
241:
242: \begin{table}[ht]
243: \begin{center}
244: \begin{tabular}{c|ccc}
245: \hline
246: Luminosity & Optimised & Spectator & Beamline \\
247: \hline
248: 100 pb$^{-1}$ & 50.4\% & 52.2\% & 51.0\% \\
249: 1 fb$^{-1}$ & 15.8\% & 16.5\% & 16.0\% \\
250: 30 fb$^{-1}$ & 2.90\% & 3.01\% & 2.91\% \\
251: \hline
252: \end{tabular}
253: \caption{Statistical sensitivity at selected values of integrated luminosity.}
254: \label{Tab::SingleTop::STsensitivity}
255: \end{center}
256: \end{table}
257:
258:
259: \section{Systematic Uncertainties}
260: The uncertainties due to systematic effects were evaluated for the analysis developed above. Unlike a cross section measurement, a polarisation measurement is not sensitive to the absolute beam luminosity. Rather, it is affected by the change in ratio of signal and background; e.g. if the background distribution was underestimated, the asymmetry in the templates would be overestimated and one would underestimate the degree of top polarisation. In addition, the shape of the estimator distribution can be affected by systematic effects which cause a discrepancy between the template and data.
261:
262: Previous studies of the single-top cross section \cite{Lucotte2006, ATLAS1997-2} identified the most significant systematic effects, most of which are also relevant to this analysis. The primary concern is those arising from experimental causes including the determination of jet energy scale and estimation of b-tagging efficiency and rejection, which may alter the sample composition significantly. One of the main theoretical uncertainties originates from the cross section of the background channels which directly affects the sample composition. The degree of initial and final state gluon radiation (ISR/FSR) may alter the event topology in such a way that both event selection and estimator distribution are affected. Furthermore, the analysis depends on the theoretical model used to construct templates which still involve some uncertainties as pointed out in section \ref{Sec::Motivation::Polarisation}.
263:
264: \subsection{Jet Energy Scale}
265: \label{Sec::Sel::JES}
266: In the ``messy'' hadron collision environment, determination of the jet energy scale (JES) is rather challenging. While several methods are proposed such as using $\gamma +$jet events to propagate the electromagnetic scale to the hadronic scale \cite{gammajet}, the jet energy scale depends on a variety of detector and physics effects. This includes non-linearities in the calorimeter response due, for example, to energy losses in ``dead'' material, and additional energy due to the underlying event. Energy lost outside the jet cone can also affect the measured jet energy. Effects due to the ISR/FSR modelling could also affect JES but they are evaluated separately below. As discussed in \cite{ATLAS1997-2} the ultimate goal in \ATLAS\ is to reach 1\% uncertainty on JES though such performance is only reachable after several years of study. We therefore estimate the uncertainty on JES in a more realistic scenario with a preliminary calibration and so a scale variation of 10\% was considered. Correspondingly, the \met\ was also scaled by scaling the jet contribution to \met\ such that
267: \begin{eqnarray}
268: \slashed{E'}_{x(y)} & = & \slashed{E}_{x(y)}\sum{p_{x(y)}}\cdot(\frac{\Delta E_{jet}}{E_{jet}}) \\
269: \slashed{E'}_T & = & \sqrt{\slashed{E'}_x^2+\slashed{E'}_y^2},
270: \end{eqnarray}
271: where $\frac{\Delta E_{jet}}{E_{jet}}$ is 0.1 or -0.1. The JES uncertainty affects the measurement in various ways. It affects the event selection as a tight jet multiplicity requirement is imposed in this analysis. In particular, a large number of W+jets events consist of jets in the vicinity of the \pt\ selection cut and the increase in JES increases the efficiency of W+jets selection. On the other hand, the decrease in JES increases the number of 2 jet \ttbar\ events as more jets are lost. Therefore, the variation of JES has a significant impact on this measurement. The signal selection efficiency is also slightly affected; the nominal efficiency is 1.38 while 1.28 and 1.39 were obtained by -10\% and +10\% variation of JES. The S/B of 0.278 and 0.258 were obtained for -10\% and +10\% variation respectively while the nominal value was 0.296. Figure \ref{Fig::::tchan::JES} shows the degree of variation on the optimised estimator due to JES. Table \ref{Tab::tchan::JES} summarises the effect of JES uncertainty on the measured polarisation. The response of each estimator is significantly different. The optimised and the beamline basis have similar dependency at $\sim 10\%$ level while the spectator basis is slightly less affected. As indicated in the table, the bias on all estimators is reduced markedly with lower background.
272:
273: \begin{figure}[htbp]
274: \centering
275: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{figures/SingleTop/JESvariation.pdf}
276: \caption{The cumulative variation of the optimised estimator due to change in JES. The central points are the average between 0.9 and 1.1 scaling. Black band indicates variation from signal only, red from signal and \ttbar\ background and green from signal, \ttbar\ and W+jets background.}
277: \label{Fig::::tchan::JES}
278: \end{figure}
279:
280: \begin{table}[ht]
281: \begin{center}
282: \begin{tabular}{l|ccc}
283: \hline
284: Background Level & Optimised Basis & Spectator Basis & Beamline Basis \\
285: \hline &&&\\
286: %Nominal & $^{+19.41}_{-10.54}$ \% & $^{+1.52}_{-12.05}$ \% & $^{+17.21}_{-5.81}$ \% \\[1ex]
287: %1/2 & $^{+10.8}_{-7.68}$ \% & $^{+0.26}_{-7.94}$ \% & $^{+10.28}_{-5.88}$ \% \\[1ex]
288: %1/4 & $^{+6.98}_{-5.96}$ \% & $^{+0.95}_{-5.64}$ \% & $^{+7.24}_{-5.55}$ \% \\[1ex]
289: Nominal & $\pm15.0$ \% & $\pm6.8$ \% & $\pm11.5$ \% \\[1ex]
290: 1/2 & $\pm9.2$ \% & $\pm4.1$ \% & $\pm8.1$ \% \\[1ex]
291: 1/4 & $\pm6.5$ \% & $\pm3.3$ \% & $\pm6.4$ \% \\[1ex]
292: \hline
293: \end{tabular}
294: \caption{Uncertainty on the measured polarisation due to the jet energy scale uncertainty, using the three estimators.}
295: \label{Tab::tchan::JES}
296: \end{center}
297: \end{table}
298:
299:
300: \subsection{B-Tagging}
301: Vertex tagging of jets requires fine tuning of the inner detector performance. Determination of the b-tagging efficiency requires careful study of control samples. The effect of the uncertainty on this analysis was measured by varying the performance of the b jet tagging efficiency by 5\% changing the cut on b-jet likelihood. The increase in b jet efficiency is accompanied by an increased tagging efficiency of other objects, i.e. reduction of the rejection. For samples using simulated vertex information, the \texttt{weight} cut was varied so that the b-tagging efficiency shifts by this amount. For samples using parameterised b-tagging using the TRF method (see chapter \ref{Chapter::TRFBTag}), the parameterisation of the b jet efficiency and c,$\tau$,light and pure light jet rejection were varied by the corresponding amount (see section \ref{Sec::fullfast::btag}) so that the resulting tagging rates match the likelihood cuts.
302:
303: The effects on the measured polarisation are summarised in table \ref{Tab::tchan::Btag}. Similar to JES, the bias can be reduced significantly by reducing the background. This tendency is stronger than with the JES uncertainty as the main part of the bias comes from the normalisation of the W+jets background. The level of bias is at a similar level for all estimators at $\sim10\%$ with the nominal background.
304:
305: \begin{table}[ht]
306: \begin{center}
307: \begin{tabular}{l|ccc}
308: \hline
309: Background Level & Optimised Basis & Spectator Basis & Beamline Basis \\
310: \hline &&&\\
311: Nominal & $\pm10.8$ \% & $\pm9.8$ \% & $\pm10.9$ \% \\[1ex]
312: 1/2 & $\pm4.4$ \% & $\pm4.0$ \% & $\pm4.8$ \% \\[1ex]
313: 1/4 & $\pm1.3$ \% & $\pm1.1$ \% & $\pm1.7$ \% \\[1ex]
314: \hline
315: \end{tabular}
316: \caption{Uncertainty on the measured polarisation due to the uncertainty on b-tagging efficiency, using the three estimators.}
317: \label{Tab::tchan::Btag}
318: \end{center}
319: \end{table}
320:
321:
322: \subsection{Gluon Radiation Modelling}
323: \label{sec::eventsel::isrfsr}
324: To make a conservative estimation of the effects of ISR/FSR modelling, three parameters were identified which had large effects on \ttbar\ selection efficiency and the top mass \cite{Liza}. These were varied from the default Pythia values in groups in such a way that all variations in one group tend to increase reconstructed top mass and the other tend to decrease it. The following variations were considered (Pythia parameter shown in braces):
325: \begin{itemize}
326: \item for max. mass : ISR $\Lambda_{QCD}$ (parp:61) = 0.384, ISR cutoff (parp:62)=1.0, FSR $\Lambda_{QCD}$ (parj:81)=0.07
327: \item for min. mass : ISR $\Lambda_{QCD}$=0.096, ISR cutoff=3.0, FSR $\Lambda_{QCD}$=0.28
328: \end{itemize}
329: where the regularisation scheme with a sharp cutoff (mstp:70=0) was used for the ISR parameterisation. The extreme values were chosen based on the study by T. Sjostrand \cite{Sjostrand2004} and adjusted for the ``new'' parton showering algorithm used for the samples under study. The t-channel signal and the \ttbar\ background (generated with AcerMC) were produced with these parameters. W+jets was not included for this study and the calculated uncertainties may be underestimated. With variations applied only to the signal, bias on the measured polarisation is $~3\%$ regardless of the amount of background or the estimators used. Event selection was affected by $\sim 10\%$ which accounts for most of this bias. The bias increases to $\sim 8\%$ with the variation of \ttbar\ as shown in table \ref{Tab::tchan::ISRFSR}. Again, this can be reduced significantly when the background level is reduced. The difference among the three estimators is small for the ISR/FSR variation.
330:
331: \begin{table}[ht]
332: \begin{center}
333: \begin{tabular}{l|ccc}
334: \hline
335: Background Level & Optimised Basis & Spectator Basis & Beamline Basis \\
336: \hline &&&\\
337: Nominal & $\pm8.0$ \% & $\pm7.1$ \% & $\pm6.2$ \% \\[1ex]
338: 1/2 & $\pm4.4$ \% & $\pm4.6$ \% & $\pm4.2$ \% \\[1ex]
339: 1/4 & $\pm2.4$ \% & $\pm2.4$ \% & $\pm3.0$ \% \\[1ex]
340: \hline
341: \end{tabular}
342: \caption{Uncertainty on the measured polarisation due to the uncertainty on ISR/FSR modelling, using the three estimators.}
343: \label{Tab::tchan::ISRFSR}
344: \end{center}
345: \end{table}
346:
347: \subsection{Theoretical Cross Section}
348: In the current analysis, the level of signal and background is estimated solely from theoretical predictions. While most processes are normalised to the NLO cross section, there are residual uncertainties on the cross sections of the signal and background processes. The main source of these uncertainties are the choice of factorisation and renormalisation scale, the choice of PDF, and the top mass. The effects of these on the cross sections have been studied as shown in table \ref{Tab::tchan::BackgroundVar}. The large uncertainty on W+jets channels is particularly significant to this analysis. The quoted 15\% is a rough estimate and it can vary greatly depending on the scheme of the calculation. Therefore, the estimation of the uncertainty due to these channels must be studied in detail once the data taking starts. The uncertainty on the Wt channel was estimated from the NLO/LO K-factor shown in the reference. Diboson channels were not considered as their contribution to the final sample was very small.
349: \begin{table}[ht]
350: \begin{center}
351: \begin{tabular}{l|cccccc}
352: \hline
353: Process & t-channel & s-channel & Wt & \ttbar\ &Wbb+jets & W+jets \\
354: \hline &&&&&&\\[0.5ex]
355: Uncertainty : & $^{+3.76}_{-4.12}\%$ \cite{Sullivan2004}
356: & $^{+6.08}_{-6.03}\%$ \cite{Sullivan2004}
357: & $\pm20\%$ \cite{Campbell2005}
358: & $^{+6.2}_{-4.7}\%$ \cite{Bonciani1998}
359: & $^{+15}_{-12.7}\%$ \cite{Campbell2003}
360: & 15.0\% \cite{Lucotte2006} \\[1ex]
361: \hline
362: \end{tabular}
363: \caption{Estimated theoretical uncertainties of the cross section for the relevant processes.}
364: \label{Tab::tchan::BackgroundVar}
365: \end{center}
366: \end{table}
367:
368: Errors on the cross sections are correlated as they originate from the variation of common parameters. No attempts were made to study the correlations in detail in this study. To make a conservative estimate, each channel was varied independently to identify whether an increase of the cross section produced positive or negative bias on the measured polarisation. They were then grouped together in such a way that the resulting variation of polarisation is maximised. Table \ref{Tab::tchan::BackgroundSys} summarises the biases for the three estimators. The effect was calculated again for three levels of background; as expected, bias decreases with reduced background from $\sim5\%$ to $\sim2\%$. Variation can also be seen among the estimators. The optimised and the spectator bases give competitive results, while the beamline basis is affected more severely. A significant fraction of the uncertainty originates from the W+Jets background. On its own it accounts for about half of the errors quoted in the table.
369:
370: \begin{table}[ht]
371: \begin{center}
372: \begin{tabular}{l|ccc}
373: \hline
374: Background Level & Optimised Basis & Spectator Basis & Beamline Basis \\
375: \hline \\
376: Nominal %& & & \\
377: %Background Only & $^{+4.04}_{-3.3}$ \% & $^{+3.12}_{-2.23}$ & $^{+6.72}_{-5.78}$ \% \\[1ex]
378: %Total
379: & $\pm4.6$ \% & $\pm3.5$ \% & $\pm7.5$ \% \\[1ex]
380: %\hline
381: 1/2 %& & & \\
382: %Background Only & $^{+2.38}_{-1.81}$ \% & $^{+2.34}_{-1.67}$ & $^{+3.93}_{-3.25}$ \% \\[1ex]
383: %Total
384: & $\pm2.8$ \% & $\pm2.6$ \% & $\pm4.6$ \% \\[1ex]
385: %\hline
386: 1/4 %& & & \\
387: %Background Only & $^{+1.47}_{-0.91}$ \% & $^{+1.67}_{-1.01}$ & $^{+2.39}_{-1.79}$ \% \\[1ex]
388: %Total
389: & $\pm1.8$ \% & $\pm1.8$ \% & $\pm2.0$ \% \\[1ex]
390: \hline
391: \end{tabular}
392: \caption{Bias on measured polarisation due to the uncertainties on theoretical cross sections.}
393: \label{Tab::tchan::BackgroundSys}
394: \end{center}
395: \end{table}
396:
397: \subsection{Signal Modelling}
398: As detailed in chapter \ref{Chapter::Modeling}, there are several methods available for the generation of t-channel events and some instabilities were noticed. For the sake of template generation, the study so far has been based on the Pythia LO model. This suffices for the purpose of error estimation though a more refined model must be used to measure the top polarisation in data. To assess the systematic uncertainty in the current prediction due to modelling, measurements were performed on the signal samples generated by AcerMC and TopRex using the Pythia templates with no background contribution. Figure \ref{Fig::SingleTop::Opt_comp} shows the variation of the optimised spin basis. For AcerMC and TopRex, the sample size obtained for the study was only about 1 fb$^{-1}$ and the distinction between the three models is not clear. Indeed, the corresponding precision from the likelihood fit (without background) at this sample size is approximately 7\% and the observed variation of 2 to 5 \% due to model dependency is not conclusive.
399:
400: \begin{figure}[htbp]
401: \begin{center}
402: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{figures/SingleTop/Opt_comp.jpg}
403: \caption{Comparison of optimised basis of the three generators at the maximal polarisation.}
404: \label{Fig::SingleTop::Opt_comp}
405: \end{center}
406: \end{figure}
407:
408: \subsection{Other Systematic Effects}
409: The main systematic uncertainties were studied as described above and the effects of each were calculated. Refined estimation can be obtained by studying each item in more detail. As pointed out in chapter \ref{Chapter::Modeling}, there are several models available for multiple interactions, which affects the nature of underlying events. The main effect of this is on the jet energy scale and therefore has partially been evaluated above. Similarly, the effect of pile-up affects the measured jet energy and was treated in the context of JES uncertainty.
410:
411: PDF uncertainty partially affects the cross section of the signal and background production. This was roughly estimated with the overall uncertainty of the cross sections arising from all possible sources. More importantly, PDFs can cause changes in the signal models since the amount of polarisation depends on the initial-state quark flavour. This should be investigated carefully to enable meaningful comparisons between the measured polarisation and the Standard Model prediction.
412:
413: Additional effects must be considered once real data become available. Methods need to be developed to identify the impact of QCD background from data. Possible biases from uncertainties related to the triggers also have to be evaluated with real data.
414:
415: \subsection{Summary of Systematic Uncertainties}
416: Table \ref{Tab::tchan::Systematics} summarises the systematic uncertainties evaluated in this section. The total uncertainty was obtained by adding the errors in quadrature as there is little correlation between the items. Variations of individual and final uncertainties can be seen among the three estimators. The spectator basis tends to be less affected and the final systematic uncertainty is about 15\%. The optimised and beamline basis have larger uncertainties of $\sim20\%$. Reduction of the background can drastically reduce these uncertainties; if the background level was half the current nominal background, the systematic uncertainty would be reduced by a factor of $\sim2$. The systematic uncertainties are comparable to the statistical uncertainty with a few fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity though they will become dominant once we accumulate a few tens of fb$^{-1}$ of data, which corresponds to around two years of LHC operation.
417:
418: \begin{table}[ht]
419: \begin{center}
420: \begin{tabular}{l|ccc|ccc|ccc}
421: \hline
422: Basis & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Optimised Basis} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Spectator Basis} & \multicolumn{3}{|c}{Beamline Basis}\\
423: Background & Nominal & 1/2 & 1/4 & Nominal & 1/2 & 1/4 & Nominal & 1/2 & 1/4 \\
424: \hline \hline &&&&&&&&&\\
425: Jet energy scale & 15.0 & 9.2 & 6.5 & 6.8 & 4.1 & 3.3 & 11.5 & 8.1 & 6.4 \\
426: B-tagging & 10.8 & 4.4 & 1.3 & 9.8 & 4.0 & 1.1 & 11.0 & 4.8 & 1.7 \\
427: \hline
428: Exp. Sum & 18.5 & 10.2 & 6.6 & 11.9 & 5.7 & 3.5 & 15.9 & 9.4 & 6.6 \\
429: \hline \hline &&&&&&&&&\\
430: ISR/FSR & 7.8 & 4.4 & 2.4 & 7.1 & 4.6 & 2.4 & 6.2 & 4.2 & 3.0\\
431: Background & 4.6 & 2.8 & 1.8 & 3.5 & 2.6 & 1.8 & 7.5 & 4.6 & 3.6\\
432: \hline
433: Theo. Sum & 9.2 & 5.2 & 3.0 & 7.9 & 5.3 & 3.0 & 9.3 & 6.2 & 3.6 \\
434: \hline \hline &&&&&&&&&\\
435: \textbf{Grand Total}&20.7 & 11.4 & 7.3 & 14.3 & 7.8 & 4.6 & 18.7 & 11.3 & 7.5 \\
436: \hline
437: \end{tabular}
438: \caption{Summary of the systematic uncertainties (in \%).}
439: \label{Tab::tchan::Systematics}
440: \end{center}
441: \end{table}
442:
443:
444: \section{Conclusion}
445: Several estimators and reduced background scenarios were considered in this analysis. Using the optimised basis with at 1 fb$^{-1}$ of data, the estimated precision of the measured polarisation is
446: \[
447: \frac{\Delta \mathcal{A}_{\uparrow \downarrow}}{\mathcal{A}_{\uparrow \downarrow}}=\pm 15.8 \%_{stat} \pm 9.2 \%_{sys,theo} \pm 18.5 \%_{sys,exp} = \pm 26.0 \%
448: \]
449:
450: The statistical error reduces to a $\sim 1\%$ level with a few tens of fb$^{-1}$ of data, indicating that the measurement will be dominated by the large systematic uncertainties at the early stage of the LHC operation. Experimental uncertainties due to JES and b-tagging were shown to be a major drawback. On the other hand, reducing the amount of background was shown to be highly effective. The S/B ratio achieved with the current selection is significantly lower than previous studies. While much of this can be attributed to optimistic predictions of previous studies that were solely based on \Atlfast, improvements could be made by further exploiting the topological variables using multi-variate techniques. This would also reduce a significant fraction of systematic uncertainties due to theoretical uncertainties. To obtain a better estimate of the background uncertainty, the large uncertainty on the cross section of the W + jets background must be constrained from the real data. Further study is required to include all samples when ISR/FSR uncertainties are evaluated. Larger MC samples are required to understand the differences in the theoretical models and templates must be constructed from the best possible signal and background models.
451: