1: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper,dvips]{article}
2: \usepackage{a4p}
3: % The default fonts are Computer Modern fonts.
4: % You can get Postscript fonts by uncommenting the line below.
5: % This means the font in the text and figures can be identical.
6: % You have to use dvips -Ppsmath ... if you want to use the psmath package.
7: %\usepackage{times,psmath}
8: \usepackage{cite,mcite}
9: \usepackage{graphicx}
10: % \usepackage{physics }
11: \usepackage{physics}
12: \usepackage{l3_title,ifthen, Lep}
13: %
14: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
15: % Give the journal name
16: \journalname{Phys. Lett. B}
17: % Give the date, when it is final - default is \today
18: \date{March 13, 2003}
19: % Uncomment the relevant line
20: % \lthreedraft for drafts
21: % \preprint for CERN-PPE preprints
22: % \journal for journal version
23: % This also moves the figures to the end on separate
24: % pages.
25: % Use \journaln to avoid the figures moving macro.
26: %
27: % Draft version: uncomment the line below and give the version number
28: %\def\lthreenote#1{\def@docversion{{\large L3 Note #1}}}
29: % \lthreenote{2748}
30: % \lthreedraft{4.0}
31: % CERN-PPE preprint: uncomment the line below and give the preprint number.
32: \preprint{2003-012}
33: % Journal: uncomment the line below.
34: % \journal
35: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
36: %
37: % Indicate the Lep running period by uncommenting one of the lines below.
38: % If you don't, then you will get a warning message when the author list
39: % is included.
40: %
41: %\Lep{1}
42: %\Lep{2}
43: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
44: %
45: % Use \psdraft to avoid printing the figures in early drafts
46: % Use \psfull to turn printing back on, e.g. if you have one very big
47: % figure that you only want to print on stable versions.
48: %\psdraft
49: %
50: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
51: %
52: % List of directories containing figures.
53: % Each directory must have its own curly brackets {dir1}{dir2}
54: % Don't forget the / at the end of the name.
55: %
56: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
57: %
58: % Use \icaption instead of \caption in tables and figures to get a
59: % caption that is indented by 1cm.
60: % Note that the label should be included inside \icaption for it to
61: % work properly.
62: %
63: \newlength{\capindent}
64: \setlength{\capindent}{1.0cm}
65: \newlength{\capwidth}
66: \setlength{\capwidth}{\textwidth}
67: \addtolength{\capwidth}{-2\capindent}
68: \newlength{\figwidth}
69: \setlength{\figwidth}{\textwidth}
70: \addtolength{\figwidth}{-2.0cm}
71: \newcommand{\icaption}[2][!*!,!]{\hspace*{\capindent}%
72: \begin{minipage}{\capwidth}
73: \ifthenelse{\equal{#1}{!*!,!}}%
74: {\caption{#2}}%
75: {\caption[#1]{#2}}
76: \end{minipage}}
77: %
78:
79: \def\as{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}
80: \def\asp{\overline{\alpha}_{\mathrm{s}}}
81: \def\bt{B_{T}}
82: \def\bw{B_{W}}
83: \def\ee{\mathrm{e^{+}e^{-}}}
84: \def\WW{\mathrm{W^{+}W^{-}}}
85: \def\ff{\mathrm{ff}}
86: \def\FF{\mathrm{f} \, {\mathrm{f}}^\prime}
87: \def\etal{{\it et~al.}}%
88: \def\mz{M_{Z}}
89: \def\rs{\sqrt{s}}
90: \def\rsp{\sqrt{s'}}
91: \def\yc{y_{cut}}
92: \def\qq{\mathrm{q}\bar{\mathrm{q}}}
93: \def\ksistar{\xi^\star}
94: \def\rspn{\sqrt{s'/s}}
95: \def\Nf{\mathrm{N_{f}}}
96: \def\Nc{\mathrm{N_{c}}}
97: \def\nch{\langle \mathrm{n_{ch}} \rangle}
98: \def\WW{\mathrm{W^{+}W^{-}}}
99: \def\TT{\tau^{+}\tau^{-}}
100: \def\WW{\mathrm{W^{+}W^{-}}}
101: \def\Z{\mathrm{Z}}
102: \def\ZZ{\mathrm{Z} \mathrm{Z}}
103:
104: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
105: % This is where the document really begins
106: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
107: %
108: \begin{document}
109: \bibliographystyle{l3style}
110: %
111: \begin{titlepage}
112: %
113:
114: \title{ Search for Colour Reconnection Effects in \\
115: \boldmath$\ee \rightarrow \WW \rightarrow \mathrm{hadrons}$
116: through Particle-Flow Studies at LEP}
117:
118:
119: \author{The L3 Collaboration}
120:
121: %
122: % The abstract
123: %
124: \begin{abstract}
125: A search for colour reconnection effects in
126: hadronic decays of W pairs is performed with the L3 detector at centre-of-mass energies
127: between 189 and 209 \GeV.
128: The analysis is based on
129: the study of the particle flow between jets associated to the same W boson and between two
130: different W bosons in $\qq\qq$ events.
131: The ratio of particle yields in the different interjet regions
132: is found to be sensitive to colour reconnection effects implemented in some
133: hadronisation models. The data are compared to different models with and
134: without such effects. An extreme scenario of colour reconnection is ruled out.
135:
136: \end{abstract}
137: %
138: % Adds "To be submitted to ..." or "Submitted to ...", if relevant
139: %
140: \submitted
141: % \vspace*{20mm}
142: % \centerline{To be submitted to Phys. Lett. B. }
143:
144:
145:
146: \end{titlepage}
147:
148: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
149: \vspace{5cm}
150:
151: \section{Introduction}
152:
153: According to the string model of hadronisation, the particles produced
154: in the process $\ee\rightarrow\WW\rightarrow hadrons$
155: originate, in the absence of colour reconnection,
156: from the fragmentation of two colour singlet strings each of
157: which is
158: stretched between the two quarks from a W boson.
159: In this case the hadrons are uniquely associated to a particular W and
160: there is a direct correspondence between the jets formed by these
161: hadrons and the primary quarks from the W boson decays.
162: Energy-momentum is separately conserved for each of the W systems.
163: However,
164: it has been suggested that interactions may occur between the decay products of
165: the two W bosons~\cite{gusta,sjost,gh,yellow}.
166: The main justification for this ``cross-talk'' is the relatively short distance separating the
167: decay vertices of the W bosons produced in $\ee$ annihilation
168: ($\approx$ 0.1 fm) compared to the typical hadronic scale (1 fm),
169: which implies a large space-time overlap of the two hadronising systems.
170:
171: The main consequence of these interactions, called Colour Reconnection (CR)
172: effects, is a modification of the distribution in phase space of hadrons.
173: CR effects are thought to be suppressed in the
174: hard perturbative phase, but may be more important in the soft gluon
175: emission regime~\cite{sjost}.
176: While hard gluons, with energy greater than the W width, are radiated independently
177: from different colour singlets,
178: soft gluons could in principle be affected by the colour strings of both decaying W's.
179: Such CR would affect the number of soft particles in specific
180: phase space regions, especially outside the jet cores.
181:
182: The study of CR is interesting not only for probing QCD dynamics but also
183: for determining a possible bias in the W mass measurement
184: in the four-quark channel.
185: CR could affect the invariant masses of jet pairs originating from
186: W decays. Therefore
187: the precision with which the W mass may be determined using the four-quark channel
188: depends strongly on the understanding of CR effects.
189: Events where only one W decays hadronically are unaffected by CR.
190:
191: Previous LEP studies of CR, performed at centre-of-mass energy $\rs \le$ 183 \GeV,
192: were based on charged particle multiplicity and momentum
193: distributions~\cite{lepnchcr}.
194:
195: The analysis presented in this paper uses the
196: method suggested in Reference~\citen{crdom} based on energy and particle flow
197: to probe the string topology of four-quark events to search for particular
198: effects of particle depletion and enhancement.
199: The results are based on 627 pb$^{-1}$ of data collected
200: with the L3 detector~\cite{l3detect} at $\rs$=189$-$209 \GeV.
201: Comparisons with various models are made at detector level and the compatibility with
202: the existence of CR effects in various models is investigated.
203:
204: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
205: \section{Colour Reconnection Models}
206: Several phenomenological models have been
207: proposed~\cite{sjost,gh,geiger,arcr,hwcr,rathsman}
208: to describe CR effects in $\ee\rightarrow\WW\rightarrow hadrons$
209: events.
210: The analysis presented in this paper is performed with some of those
211: CR models, which are
212: implemented in the PYTHIA~\cite{pythia}, ARIADNE~\cite{ariadne}
213: and HERWIG~\cite{herwig} Monte Carlo (MC) programs.
214:
215: We investigate two models by Sj\"ostrand and Khoze~\cite{sjost} implemented
216: in PYTHIA. They are based on
217: rearrangement of the string configuration during the fragmentation
218: process. They follow
219: the space-time evolution of the strings and allow local reconnections
220: if the strings overlap or cross,
221: depending on the string definition (elongated bags or vortex lines).
222:
223: In the type I model (SKI) the strings are associated with colour flux tubes having a
224: significant transverse extension. The reconnection occurs when these tubes
225: overlap and only one reconnection
226: is allowed, the one with the largest overlap volume. The reconnection
227: probability depends on this volume of overlap and is controlled by
228: one free parameter, $k_{\rm{I}}$, which can be varied in the model
229: to generate event samples with different fractions of reconnected events.
230: The relation with the event reconnection probability ($P_{\rm{reco}}$) is given by
231: the following formula:
232: \begin{eqnarray}
233: P_{\rm{reco}} = 1-{\rm{exp}}(-f k_{\rm{I}})
234: \end{eqnarray}
235: where $f$ is a function of the overlap volume of the two strings, which
236: depends on W-pair kinematics varying with $\rs$.
237: The default value of $k_{\rm{I}}$ is 0.6~\cite{sjost},
238: which corresponds
239: to a reconnection probability of about 30\% at $\rs$=189 \GeV.
240: This analysis is performed with three different values of
241: $k_{\rm{I}}$: 0.6, 3 and 1000, corresponding to reconnection probabilities
242: at $\rs$=189 \GeV\ of about 30\%, 66\% and nearly 100\%, respectively.
243:
244: In the type II model (SKII) the strings have no lateral extent
245: and the reconnection occurs, with unit probability, when they cross. The
246: fraction of reconnected events in this model is of the order of 30\%
247: at $\rs$=189 \GeV.
248:
249: The CR model implemented in ARIADNE is based on reconnection
250: of coloured dipoles before the string fragmentation takes place~\cite{arcr}.
251: In the AR2 scheme, which is investigated here, reconnections are allowed
252: if they reduce the string length. While reconnections within a W are
253: allowed at all scales, those between W's are only allowed after the parton
254: showers have evolved down to gluon energies less than 2 \GeV.
255: At $\rs=$189 \GeV\ they affect about 55\% of the events.
256:
257: The CR scheme implemented in HERWIG is, as for the string fragmentation, a local
258: phenomenon since the cluster fragmentation process follows the space-time
259: development. In this model~\cite{hwcr} the clusters are rearranged if their space-time
260: extension is reduced. This rearrangement occurs with a probability equal
261: to 1/$N^{2}_{\rm{colour}}$, with default value $N_{\rm{colour}}$ = 3, giving
262: about 23\% of reconnected events.
263:
264: All probabilities discussed above are derived as fraction of events where at
265: least one reconnection occurs either within the same W or between two W's.
266:
267: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
268:
269:
270: \section{Event Selection}
271:
272: The energy measured
273: in the electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters and in the tracking chamber
274: is used to select $\ee\rightarrow\WW\rightarrow hadrons$ events.
275: The total visible energy
276: (${E_{\mathrm{vis}}}$) and the energy imbalance parallel (${E_{\parallel}}$)
277: and perpendicular (${E_{\perp}}$) to the beam direction are measured.
278: The number of clusters, defined as objects obtained from a non-linear
279: combination of charged tracks with a transverse momentum greater than 100 \MeV\
280: and calorimetric clusters
281: with a minimum energy of 100 \MeV, is denoted by
282: ${N_{\mathrm{cluster}}}$.
283: The selection criteria are:
284: \vspace*{-0.1cm}
285: \begin{center}
286: ${E_{\mathrm{vis}}}/ \rs > 0.7$;
287: \hspace*{1cm} ${E_{\perp} / E_{\mathrm{vis}}} < 0.2$;
288: \hspace*{1cm} ${|E_{\parallel}| / E_{\mathrm{vis}}} < 0.2$;
289: \hspace*{1cm} ${N_{\mathrm{cluster}}} \geq 40 $.
290: \end{center}
291: In addition the events must have 4 jets reconstructed with the Durham algorithm~\cite{kt}
292: with $y_{\rm{cut}}$ = 0.01.
293: To reduce the contamination from
294: semileptonic W decays, events with energetic $\mu$ or $\rm{e}$ are rejected.
295: Events with hard initial state radiation (ISR) are rejected as described in
296: Reference~\citen{qcdlep2}.
297: Additional criteria select events with nearly perfect quark-jet association,
298: necessary for the study of particle and energy flow between jets.
299: The two largest interjet angles are required to be between $100^{\circ}$ and $140^{\circ}$ and
300: not adjacent.
301: The two other interjet angles must be less than $100^{\circ}$.
302: This selection guarantees
303: similar sharing of energy between the four primary partons with the two strings
304: evolving back-to-back and similar interjet regions between the two W's.
305: The above cuts are optimized by studying MC $\WW$ events at $\rs$=189
306: \GeV\ using the KORALW~\cite{koralw} MC generator interfaced with the PYTHIA
307: fragmentation model without CR.
308: Relaxing the angular criteria increases the efficiency
309: but gives lower probability to have correct
310: W-jet pairing due to the more complicated event topology.
311:
312: The number of selected events, the number of expected events, the selection
313: efficiency and the percentage of correct pairing are given in
314: Table~\ref{tab:selflow}.
315: After applying all the cuts the full sample contains
316: 666 events with an average efficiency of 12\% and a purity of about 85\%
317: for $\ee\rightarrow\WW\rightarrow hadrons$.
318: The average probability to have the correct pairing between the W bosons and their
319: associated jets is estimated to be 91\%.
320:
321: The background is composed of $\qq (\gamma)$ events
322: and Z-pair production events, in similar amounts. Background from semileptonic W pair decays
323: is found to be negligible (less than 0.3\%). The $\qq (\gamma)$
324: process is modeled with the KK2F MC program~\cite{kk2f}, interfaced
325: with JETSET~\cite{jetset} routines to describe the QCD processes, and
326: the background from Z-pair production is simulated with PYTHIA.
327: For CR studies W-pair events are simulated with PYTHIA.
328: All MC samples are passed through a realistic detector simulation~\cite{l3-simul}
329: which takes into account time dependent detector effects and inefficiencies.
330:
331:
332:
333: \section{Particle- and Energy-Flow Distributions}
334: The algorithm to build the particle- and energy-flow distributions~\cite{crdom}
335: (Figure~\ref{fig:plane}) starts by
336: defining the plane spanned by the most energetic jet (jet 1) and
337: the closest jet making an angle with jet 1 greater than $100^{\circ}$
338: which is most likely associated to the same W (jet 2).
339: For each event, the momentum vector direction of each particle is then
340: projected on to this plane.
341: The particle and energy flows are measured as a function of the angle, $\phi$,
342: between
343: jet 1 and the projected momentum vector for the particles located between jets 1 and 2.
344: In order to take into account the fact that the W-pair events are not planar
345: a new plane is defined for each remaining pair of adjacent jets.
346: In this four-plane configuration the angle $\phi$ is defined as increasing from jet 1 toward jet
347: 2, then to the closest jet from the other W (jet 3) toward the
348: remaining jet (jet 4) and back to jet 1.
349: The angle $\phi_{j,i}$ of a particle $i$ having a projected momentum vector located
350: between jets $j$ and $j+1$
351: is calculated in the plane spanned by these two jets.
352: A particle $i$ making an angle $\phi_{i}$ with respect to jet 1 adds an entry equal to 1
353: in the particle-flow distribution and adds an entry equal to its energy, normalised
354: to the total event energy,
355: in the energy-flow distribution for the corresponding $\phi$ bin.
356:
357: The distributions are calculated using, for the particle definition,
358: the clusters defined in the previous section.
359:
360: Figure~\ref{fig:flow2} shows the particle- and energy-flow distributions obtained
361: for the data and the MC
362: predictions at detector level by using only the first plane for projecting all the
363: particles.
364: The data and MC distributions agree over the full angular range in both cases.
365:
366: In order to compare the interjet regions
367: the angles in the planes are rescaled by the angle between the two closest jets.
368: For a particle $i$ located between jets $j$ and $j+1$ the rescaled
369: angle is
370: \begin{eqnarray}
371: \phi_{i}^{\mathrm{resc}} = j - 1 +\frac{\phi_{j,i}}{\psi_{j,j+1}}
372: \end{eqnarray}
373: where $\phi_{j,i}$ is the angle between jet $j$ and particle $i$ and $\psi_{j,j+1}$
374: is the angle between jets $j$ and $j+1$.
375: With this definition the four jets have fixed rescaled angle values
376: equal to 0, 1, 2 and 3.
377:
378: Figure~\ref{fig:flow3}a shows the rescaled particle-flow distribution normalised to the
379: number of events
380: after a bin-by-bin background
381: subtraction for the data and MC predictions
382: without CR and for the SKI model with $k_{\rm{I}}$=1000, later referred to as SKI 100\%.
383: As expected, the latter shows some depletion in the number of particles in
384: the intra-W regions spanned by the two W bosons (regions A and B)
385: and some particle enhancement in the two inter-W regions (regions C and D)
386: when compared to the model without CR (no-CR).
387:
388: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
389: To improve the sensitivity to CR effects the particle flows in regions A and B
390: are averaged as are the particle flows in regions C and D.
391: The results are shown in
392: Figures~\ref{fig:flow3}b and \ref{fig:flow3}c where the angle is redefined to be in the range [0,1].
393: MC studies at particle level
394: with particles having a momentum greater than 100 \MeV\
395: show that the CR effects are consistent with the detector level results
396: and have similar magnitudes.
397:
398: The ratio of the particle flow between the quarks from the
399: same W to that between quarks from different W's
400: is found to be a sensitive observable to
401: cross-talk effects as predicted by the SKI model.
402: These ratios, computed from the particle- and energy-flow distributions at
403: detector level, are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:flowrat} for the data,
404: the PYTHIA prediction without CR, the SKI model with
405: $k_{\rm{I}}$=3 and SKI 100\%.
406:
407: The differences between the models with and without CR
408: are larger in the middle of the interjet regions.
409: Therefore, in order to quantify the CR effects the
410: ratio $R$ is computed
411: in an interval, 0.2 $< \phi_{\mathrm{resc}} <$ 0.8, optimized with respect to the
412: sensitivity to SKI 100\%.
413: The corresponding variables for
414: particle and energy flow are defined as follows:
415:
416: \begin{eqnarray}
417: R_{\rm{N}}= \int_{0.2}^{0.8}{f_{\rm{N}}^{\rm{A+B}}}
418: \hspace*{0.3cm}{\rm{d}}\phi \left/\ \int_{0.2}^{0.8}{f_{\rm{N}}^{\rm{C+D}}}
419: \hspace*{0.3cm}{\rm{d}}\phi
420: \hspace*{0.3cm}\mathrm{ and}\hspace*{0.3cm}
421: R_{\rm{E}}= \int_{0.2}^{0.8}{f_{\rm{E}}^{\rm{A+B}}}
422: \hspace*{0.3cm}{\rm{d}}\phi \right/\ \int_{0.2}^{0.8}{f_{\rm{E}}^{\rm{C+D}}}
423: \hspace*{0.3cm}{\rm{d}}\phi
424: \end{eqnarray}
425: where, in a region $i$,
426: \begin{eqnarray}
427: f_{\rm{N}}^{i}= \frac{1}{N_{\rm{evt}}}\frac{{\rm{d}}n}{{\rm{d}}\phi}
428: \hspace*{0.3cm}\mathrm{ and}\hspace*{0.3cm}
429: f_{\rm{E}}^{i} = \frac{1}{E}\frac{{\rm{d}}E}{{\rm{d}}\phi}
430: \end{eqnarray}
431:
432: The measured values of $R_{\mathrm{N}}$ and $R_{\mathrm{E}}$ obtained at each centre-of-mass
433: energy are summarised in
434: Table~\ref{tab:result}. Correlations
435: in the particle rates between the four interjet regions are
436: taken into account by constructing the full covariance matrix.
437: This results in an increase of about 20\% of the statistical uncertainty.
438: The values obtained with the complete data sample are:
439: \begin{eqnarray*}
440: R_{\rm{N}} = 0.911 \pm 0.023\hspace*{0.1cm}(\rm{stat.})\\
441: R_{\rm{E}} = 0.719 \pm 0.035\hspace*{0.1cm}(\rm{stat.})
442: \end{eqnarray*}
443: An estimate of the sensitivity to the SKI 100\% model, shows that $R_{\rm{N}}$
444: is 2.6 times more sensitive than $R_{\rm{E}}$.
445: Accordingly, the following results and discussion are only based on $R_{\rm{N}}$.
446:
447: Figure~\ref{fig:ratio} shows the measured $R_{\rm{N}}$ as a function of
448: $\rs$ together with PYTHIA no-CR and SKI model predictions.
449: The energy dependence originating from the
450: different pairing purities
451: and jet configurations is in agreement with the model predictions.
452: For the PYTHIA SKI predictions,
453: the ratio decreases with the reconnection probability over the whole
454: energy range with similar magnitude.
455: The data indicate little or no CR.
456:
457: \section{Semileptonic Decays}
458: To verify the quality of the MC simulation of the $\mathrm{W}\rightarrow\qq$
459: fragmentation process and the possible biases
460: which may arise when determining the particle yields between reconstructed jets in the detector,
461: the particle- and energy-flow distributions are investigated in
462: $\ee\rightarrow\WW\rightarrow\qq l\nu$ where $l=\mathrm{e},\mu$.
463: For this analysis events are selected with high multiplicity,
464: large missing momentum and a high energy electron or muon.
465: The missing momentum is considered as a fictitious particle in order to apply the Durham
466: jet algorithm to select 4-jet events with $y_{\rm{cut}}$=0.01.
467:
468: The same angular criteria on the four interjet angles
469: as applied in the fully hadronic channel are used here.
470: The purity obtained after selection is about 96\% and the efficiency
471: is about 12\%. The number of selected semileptonic
472: events is 315 with an expectation of 314.5 events.
473: Particle- and energy-flow distributions are built in a similar way as
474: in the fully hadronic channel with the additional requirement that
475: the charged lepton should be in jet 3 or 4.
476: Figure~\ref{fig:flowlept}a
477: shows the corresponding particle-flow distribution projected on to the plane of
478: jets 1 and 2 for the data
479: and the KORALW MC prediction. There is good agreement between data and MC
480: over the whole distribution.
481: Figure~\ref{fig:flowlept}b shows the rescaled particle-flow distribution where
482: the structure of
483: the two different W's is clearly visible.
484: The region between jet 1 and jet 2 corresponds to the hadronically decaying W ($W_{1}$) and
485: the region between jet 3 and jet 4 corresponds to the W decaying semileptonically ($W_{2}$).
486: The activity in the $W_{2}$ region
487: is mainly due to low energy fragments from the hadronic decay of the first W.
488: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
489: A comparison of data and MC for the particle flow obtained by summing the regions
490: $W_{1}$ and $W_{2}$ is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:flowlept2}a.
491: The ratio between the data and the MC distributions is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:flowlept2}b.
492: This ratio is consistent with unity over the whole range.
493: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
494: This result gives additional confidence in the correctness of the
495: modelling of the fragmentation process of quark pairs according to the
496: fragmentation parameters used in KORALW and PYTHIA
497: as well as the particle flow definition and reconstruction.
498:
499: In the absence of CR effects, the activity found in regions A+B of a
500: fully hadronic event should be equivalent to twice the particle activity in the
501: regions $W_{1}$+$W_{2}$ of the distribution for a semileptonic event. Figure~\ref{fig:flowlept2}c
502: shows the ratio of the particle flow in four-quark events divided by twice the particle flow
503: in semileptonic events for the data and the predictions from no-CR PYTHIA MC and
504: the SKI 100\% model. The CR model shows the expected deficit in the hadronic
505: channel compared to the semileptonic one. The data are consistent with the no-CR scheme but the
506: large statistical uncertainty prevents a quantitative
507: statement based on this model-independent comparison.
508:
509: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
510: \section{Systematic Uncertainties}
511:
512: Several sources of systematic uncertainties are investigated.
513: The first important test is whether the
514: result depends on the definition of the particles. The analysis is
515: repeated using calorimetric clusters only.
516: Half the difference between the two analyses is assigned as the uncertainty due
517: to this effect. This is found to be the dominant
518: systematic uncertainty.
519:
520: The second source of systematic uncertainty
521: is the limited knowledge of quark fragmentation modelling.
522: The systematic effect in the $\qq (\gamma)$ background
523: is estimated by comparing results using
524: the JETSET and HERWIG MC programs. The corresponding uncertainty is
525: assigned to be half the difference between the two models.
526:
527: The systematic uncertainty from quark fragmentation modelling in W-pair events
528: is estimated by comparing results using
529: PYTHIA, HERWIG and ARIADNE MC samples without CR. The uncertainty is assigned as
530: the RMS between the $R_{\mathrm{N}}$ values obtained with the three fragmentation models.
531: Such comparisons between different models test also possible effects
532: of different fragmentation schemes
533: which are not taken into account when varying only fragmentation parameters
534: within one particular model.
535:
536: Another source associated with fragmentation modelling is
537: the effect of Bose-Einstein correlations (BEC) in hadronic
538: W decays. This effect is estimated by repeating the analysis using
539: a MC sample with BEC only between particles originating
540: from the same W. An uncertainty is assigned equal to half the
541: difference with the default MC which includes full BEC simulation (BE32 option)~\cite{be32}
542: in W pairs.
543: The sensitivity of the $R_{\rm{N}}$ variable to BEC is found to be small.
544:
545: The third main source of systematic uncertainty is the background estimation.
546: The $\qq (\gamma)$ background which is subtracted corresponds mainly to QCD four-jet
547: events for which the rate is not well modelled by parton shower programs. PYTHIA underestimates,
548: by about 10\%, the four-jet rate in the selected phase space region~\cite{4jetlep}.
549: A systematic uncertainty is
550: estimated by varying the $\qq (\gamma)$ cross section by $\pm$ 5\% after correcting
551: the corresponding background by +5\%.
552: This correction increases the value of $R_{\rm{N}}$
553: by 0.004.
554:
555: A last and small systematic uncertainty is associated with Z-pair production.
556: It is estimated by varying the corresponding cross section by $\pm$ 10\%.
557: This variation takes into account all possible uncertainties pertaining to
558: the hadronic channel, from final state interaction effects to the theoretical
559: knowledge of the hadronic cross section.
560:
561: A summary of the different contributions to the systematic uncertainty is given
562: in Table~\ref{tab:syst}.
563:
564: The ratio obtained by taking into account the systematic uncertainties is then:
565: \begin{eqnarray*}
566: R_{\rm{N}} = 0.915 \pm 0.023 \hspace*{0.1cm} (\rm{stat.}) \pm 0.021 \hspace*{0.1cm}(\rm{syst.})
567: \end{eqnarray*}
568:
569:
570: \section{Comparison with Models}
571:
572: The $R_{\rm{N}}$ values predicted by the PYTHIA no-CR, SKI, SKII, ARIADNE no-CR,
573: AR2, HERWIG no-CR and HERWIG CR models are given in Table~\ref{tab:model}.
574:
575: The data disfavour extreme scenarios of CR.
576: A comparison with ARIADNE and HERWIG shows that
577: the CR schemes implemented in these two models
578: do not modify significantly the interjet particle activity in the hadronic W-pair decay events.
579: Thus it is not possible to constrain either of these models in the present analysis.
580:
581: The dependence of $R_{\rm{N}}$
582: on the reconnection probability is investigated with the SKI model.
583: For this, four MC samples are used: the no-CR sample and those
584: with $k_{\rm{I}}$=0.6, 3 and 1000.
585: In the SKI model the fraction of reconnected events is controlled by the $k_{\rm{I}}$
586: parameter and the dependence of $R_{\rm{N}}$ on $k_{\rm{I}}$ is parametrized as
587: $R_{\rm{N}}(k_{\rm{I}}) = p_{1} (1-{\rm{exp}}(-p_{2} k_{\rm{I}}))+p_{3}$ where
588: $p_{i}$ are free parameters.
589: A $\chi^{2}$ fit to the data is performed.
590: The $\chi^{2}$ minimum is at $k_{\rm{I}}=0.08$. This value corresponds to about 6\%
591: reconnection probability at $\rs$=189 \GeV. Within the
592: large uncertainty the result is also consistent with no CR effect.
593:
594: The upper limits on $k_{\rm{I}}$ at 68\% and 95\% confidence level are derived
595: as 1.1 and 2.1 respectively.
596: The corresponding reconnection probabilities at $\rs$ = 189 \GeV\ are 45\% and 64\%.
597: The extreme SKI scenario, in which CR
598: occurs in essentially all events, is disfavoured by 4.9 $\sigma$.
599:
600:
601:
602: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
603: %
604: %\clearpage
605: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
606: % Bibliography
607: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
608: %
609: % Style file to use with mcite.
610: % Use l3style with just cite.
611: % \bibliographystyle{/l3/paper/biblio/l3stylem}
612: % \bibliography{l3at183}
613: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
614:
615: \bibitem{gusta} G. Gustafson, U. Pettersson and P. Zerwas,
616: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 209} (1988) 90.
617:
618: \bibitem{sjost} T. Sj\"ostrand and V.A. Khoze, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 72} (1994) 28;
619: Z. Phys. {\bf C 62} (1994) 281;
620: V.A. Khoze and T. Sj\"ostrand, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C 6} (1999) 271.
621:
622: \bibitem{gh} G. Gustafson and J. H\"akkinen, Z. Phys. {\bf C 64} (1994) 659.
623:
624: \bibitem{yellow} A. Ballestrero et al.\ in ``Physics at LEP2'',
625: eds. G. Altarelli et al., CERN 96-01 (1996) 141.
626:
627: \bibitem{lepnchcr}
628: OPAL Collab., K. Ackerstaff \etal, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C 1} (1998) 395;
629: G. Abbiendi \etal, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 453} (1999) 153;\\
630: DELPHI Collab., P. Abreu \etal, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C 18} (2000) 203;
631: Erratum {\em ibid.} {\bf C 25} (2002) 493.
632:
633: \bibitem{crdom}
634: D. Duchesneau, preprint LAPP-EXP 2000-02, (2000)\\
635: available at http://wwwlapp.in2p3.fr/preplapp/psexp/lappexp0002.ps.gz
636:
637: \bibitem{l3detect} L3 Collab, B. Adeva \etal, Nucl. Instr. and Meth.
638: {\bf A 289} (1990) 35; \\
639: M. Chemarin \etal, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. {\bf A 349} (1994) 345; \\
640: M. Acciarri \etal, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. {\bf A 351} (1994) 300; \\
641: G. Basti \etal, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. {\bf A 374} (1996) 293; \\
642: I. C. Brock \etal, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. {\bf A 381} (1996) 236; \\
643: A. Adam \etal, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. {\bf A 383} (1996) 342.
644:
645: \bibitem{geiger}
646: J. Ellis and K. Geiger, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 54} (1996) 1967.
647:
648: \bibitem{arcr}
649: L. L\"onnblad, Z. Phys. {\bf C 70} (1996) 107.
650:
651: \bibitem{hwcr}
652: B. Webber, J. Phys. {\bf G 24} (1998) 287.
653:
654: \bibitem{rathsman}
655: J. Rathsman, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 452} (1999) 364.
656:
657: \bibitem{pythia}
658: PYTHIA 6.1 Monte Carlo Program:\\
659: T. Sj\"ostrand \etal, Comp. Phys. Comm. {\bf 135} (2001) 238.
660:
661: \bibitem{ariadne}
662: ARIADNE 4.08 Monte Carlo Program: \\
663: L. L\"onnblad, Comp. Phys. Comm. {\bf 71} (1992) 15.
664:
665: \bibitem{herwig}
666: HERWIG 6.2 Monte Carlo Program: \\
667: G. Corcella \etal, JHEP {\bf 01} (2001) 010;\\
668: G. Marchesini \etal, Comp. Phys. Commun. {\bf 67} (1992) 465.
669:
670: \bibitem{kt}
671: S. Catani \etal, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 269} (1991) 432; \\
672: N. Brown and W.J. Stirling, Z. Phys. {\bf C 53} (1992) 629; \\
673: S. Bethke \etal, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 370} (1992) 310; erratum: ibid. {\bf B 523} (1998) 681.
674:
675: \bibitem{qcdlep2}
676: L3 Collab., P. Achard \etal, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 536} (2002) 217.
677:
678: \bibitem{koralw}
679: KORALW 1.42 Monte Carlo Program:\\
680: S. Jadach \etal, Comp. Phys. Comm. {\bf 119} (1999) 272.
681:
682: \bibitem{kk2f}
683: KK2F 4.14 Monte Carlo Program:\\
684: S. Jadach, B. F. L. Ward and Z. W\c{a}s, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 449} (1999) 97.
685:
686: \bibitem{jetset}
687: JETSET 7.4 Monte Carlo Program: \\
688: T. Sj\"ostrand, preprint CERN-TH-7112/93 (1993), revised 1995;\\
689: T. Sj\"ostrand, Comp. Phys. Comm. {\bf 82} (1994) 74.
690:
691: \bibitem{l3-simul}
692: The L3 detector simulation is based on GEANT Version 3.15.\\
693: R. Brun \etal, preprint CERN-DD/EE/84-1 (1984), revised 1987.\\
694: The GHEISHA program (H. Fesefeldt, RWTH Aachen Report PITHA 85/02
695: (1985)) is used to simulate hadronic interactions.
696:
697: \bibitem{be32}
698: L. L\"onnblad and T. Sj\"ostrand, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C 2} (1998) 165.
699:
700: \bibitem{4jetlep}
701: A. Ballestrero \etal, preprint hep-ph/0006259 (2000).
702:
703: \end{thebibliography}
704:
705: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
706: % The author list
707: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
708: %
709: \newpage
710: %\section*{Author List}
711: \input namelist266.tex
712: \newpage
713: %%
714: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
715: % TABLES
716: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
717: \begin{table}[htb]
718: \begin{center}
719: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
720: \hline
721: $\langle\rs\rangle$ (GeV) & $ {\cal{L}} (\rm{pb}^{-1})$ & $N_{\rm{events}}$ & $N_{\rm{MC}}$ & $\epsilon$ & $\pi$ \\
722: \hline
723: \hline
724: 188.6 & 176.7 & 208 & 226.0 & 14.2\% & 88\%\\
725: \hline
726: 191.6 & \phantom{1}29.7 & \phantom{1}38 & \phantom{1}37.9 & 14.3\% & 90\%\\
727: \hline
728: 195.5 & \phantom{1}83.7 & 104 & 101.0 & 13.4\% & 92\%\\
729: \hline
730: 199.5 & \phantom{1}84.3 & \phantom{1}97 & \phantom{1}91.9 & 12.2\% & 93\%\\
731: \hline
732: 201.7 & \phantom{1}35.5 & \phantom{1}36 & \phantom{1}37.2 & 11.3\% & 93\%\\
733: \hline
734: 205.1 & \phantom{1}77.8 & \phantom{1}75 & \phantom{1}74.8 & 10.3\% & 93\%\\
735: \hline
736: 206.6 & 138.9 & 108 & 120.8 & \phantom{0}8.9\% & 91\%\\
737: \hline
738: \hline
739: 198.2 & 626.6 & 666 & 689.6 & 12.0\% & 91\%\\
740: \hline
741: \end{tabular}
742: \caption[]{Average centre-of-mass energies, integrated luminosities (${\cal{L}}$), number of selected
743: events ($N_{\rm{events}}$), number of expected events ($N_{\rm{MC}}$), selection efficiency ($\epsilon$)
744: and percentage of
745: correct jet pairing ($\pi$) for the particle flow analysis. The combined figures are given in
746: the last row.}
747: \label{tab:selflow}
748: \end{center}
749: \end{table}
750:
751: \begin{table}[htb]
752: \begin{center}
753: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
754: \hline
755: $\langle\rs\rangle$ (GeV) & $ R_{\rm{N}}$ & $R_{\rm{E}}$ \\
756: \hline
757: \hline
758: 188.6 & 0.820 $\pm$ 0.037 & 0.610 $\pm$ 0.047\\
759: \hline
760: 191.6 & 0.929 $\pm$ 0.093 & 0.822 $\pm$ 0.133 \\
761: \hline
762: 195.5 & 0.948 $\pm$ 0.059 & 0.774 $\pm$ 0.077 \\
763: \hline
764: 199.5 & 1.004 $\pm$ 0.067 & 0.871 $\pm$ 0.095 \\
765: \hline
766: 201.7 & 0.770 $\pm$ 0.086 & 0.626 $\pm$ 0.130 \\
767: \hline
768: 205.1 & 1.033 $\pm$ 0.083 & 0.756 $\pm$ 0.111 \\
769: \hline
770: 206.6 & 0.958 $\pm$ 0.068 & 0.781 $\pm$ 0.096 \\
771: \hline
772: \end{tabular}
773: \caption[]{Measured $R_{\rm{N}}$ and $R_{\rm{E}}$ values as a function of energy with
774: their statistical uncertainties.}
775: \label{tab:result}
776: \end{center}
777: \end{table}
778:
779: \begin{table}[htb]
780: \begin{center}
781: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
782: \hline
783: Source & $\sigma_{R_{\rm{N}}}$ \\
784: \hline
785: \hline
786: Energy flow objects & 0.016\\
787: \hline
788: $\qq$ fragmentation & 0.009\\
789: \hline
790: WW fragmentation & 0.008 \\
791: \hline
792: BEC & 0.003\\
793: \hline
794: 4-jet background rate & 0.004\\
795: \hline
796: ZZ background & 0.002\\
797: \hline
798: \hline
799: Total & 0.021\\
800: \hline
801: \end{tabular}
802: \caption[]{Contributions to the systematic uncertainties on $R_{\rm{N}}$.}
803: \label{tab:syst}
804: \end{center}
805: \end{table}
806:
807: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
808: \begin{table}[htb]
809: \begin{center}
810: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
811: \hline
812: & $R_{\rm{N}}$ \\
813: \hline
814: \hline
815: Data & 0.915 $\pm$ 0.023 $\pm$ 0.021 \\
816: \hline
817: \hline
818: PYTHIA no-CR & 0.918 $\pm$ 0.003 \\
819: \hline
820: SKI ($k_{\rm{I}}$=0.6) & 0.896 $\pm$ 0.003 \\
821: \hline
822: SKI ($k_{\rm{I}}$=3.0) & 0.843 $\pm$ 0.003 \\
823: \hline
824: SKI 100\% & 0.762 $\pm$ 0.003 \\
825: \hline
826: SKII & 0.916 $\pm$ 0.003 \\
827: \hline
828: ARIADNE no-CR & 0.929 $\pm$ 0.003 \\
829: \hline
830: AR2 & 0.919 $\pm$ 0.003 \\
831: \hline
832: HERWIG no-CR & 0.948 $\pm$ 0.005 \\
833: \hline
834: HERWIG CR & 0.946 $\pm$ 0.005 \\
835: \hline
836: \end{tabular}
837: \caption[]{Measured value of $R_{\rm{N}}$ and model predictions.}
838: \label{tab:model}
839: \end{center}
840: \end{table}
841:
842:
843:
844: \clearpage
845: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
846: % FIGURES
847: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
848: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
849:
850: \begin{figure}[htbp]
851: \begin{center}
852: \includegraphics*[width=14cm]{fig1_paper.eps}
853: \end{center}
854: \caption[]{Determination of the $\phi_{i}$ angle for the particle $i$.}
855: \label{fig:plane}
856: \end{figure}
857: \begin{figure}[htbp]
858: \begin{center}
859: \includegraphics*[width=8.2cm]{fig2a_paper.eps}
860: \includegraphics*[width=8.2cm]{fig2b_paper.eps}
861: \end{center}
862: \caption[]{a) Particle- and b) energy-flow distributions
863: at $\sqrt{s} = 189-209 \GeV$ for data and MC predictions.}
864: \label{fig:flow2}
865: \end{figure}
866: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
867: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
868: \begin{figure}[htbp]
869: \begin{center}
870: \includegraphics*[width=12.5cm]{fig3_paper.eps}
871: \end{center}
872: \vspace*{-1cm}
873: \caption[]{a) Particle-flow distribution as a function of the rescaled angle
874: for data and for PYTHIA MC predictions without CR, and
875: with the SKI 100\% model. Distributions of b) combined intra-W particle flow and
876: c) combined inter-W particle flow.}
877: \label{fig:flow3}
878: \end{figure}
879: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
880: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
881: \begin{figure}[htbp]
882: \begin{center}
883: \includegraphics*[width=8.cm]{fig4a_paper.eps}
884: \includegraphics*[width=8.cm]{fig4b_paper.eps}
885: \end{center}
886: \caption[]{ Ratio of a) particle- and b) energy-flow distributions (Equation 4) in regions A+B
887: to that in
888: regions C+D. Statistical uncertainties are shown.
889: }
890: \label{fig:flowrat}
891: \end{figure}
892: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
893:
894: \begin{figure}[htbp]
895: \begin{center}
896: % \includegraphics*[width=12.cm]{rnrootsyst_col.eps}
897: \includegraphics*[width=12.cm]{fig5_paper.eps}
898: \end{center}
899: \caption[]{The ratio $R_{\rm{N}}$ as a function of $\rs$ at detector level
900: for data and PYTHIA no-CR and SKI model predictions.
901: The parametrisation of the energy dependence is obtained by fitting a second order
902: polynomial function to
903: the predicted MC dependence.
904: The parametrisation obtained with PYTHIA no-CR gives
905: $R_{\rm{N}}(\rs)/R_{\rm{N}}$(189 {\rm{GeV}}) = $-3.07 \times 10^{-4} s + 0.1297 \rs -12.56$.
906: The dependence obtained with the SKI model ($k_{\rm{I}}$= 3) leads to a
907: 2.3\% change in the average rescaled $R_{\rm{N}}$ value at 189 \GeV.
908: }
909:
910: \label{fig:ratio}
911: \end{figure}
912: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
913: \begin{figure}[htbp]
914: \begin{center}
915: \includegraphics*[width=8.2cm]{fig6a_paper.eps}
916: \includegraphics*[width=8.2cm]{fig6b_paper.eps}
917: \end{center}
918: \vspace*{-1.0cm}
919: \caption[]{Particle-flow distributions a) before and b) after angle rescaling
920: for the semileptonic W decays for
921: data and KORALW prediction.}
922: \label{fig:flowlept}
923: \end{figure}
924:
925: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
926: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
927: \begin{figure}[htbp]
928: \begin{center}
929: \includegraphics*[width=8.cm]{fig7_paper.eps}
930: \end{center}
931: \vspace*{-1.0cm}
932: \caption[]{a) Particle-flow distributions as a function of the rescaled angle
933: for the semileptonic W decays for
934: data and the KORALW prediction.
935: b) Ratio of data and MC as a function of the rescaled angle. c)
936: Ratio $R$ of the particle flow in hadronic events
937: divided by twice the particle flow in semileptonic events.}
938: \label{fig:flowlept2}
939: \end{figure}
940: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
941: \end{document}
942:
943:
944: