1: %
2: % TeX'ing this file requires that you have AMS-LaTeX 2.0 installed
3: % as well as the rest of the prerequisites for REVTeX 4.0
4: %
5: % See the REVTeX 4 README file
6: % It also requires running BibTeX. The commands are as follows:
7: %
8: % 1) latex apssamp.tex
9: % 2) bibtex apssamp
10: % 3) latex apssamp.tex
11: % 4) latex apssamp.tex
12: %
13:
14: %\documentclass[aps,showpacs,twocolumn,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
15:
16: \documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
17:
18: \topmargin 0.1in
19: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
20: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
21: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
22: \usepackage{epsfig}
23: \usepackage{longtable}
24:
25: \font\eightit=cmti8
26:
27: \def\r#1{\ignorespaces $^{#1}$}
28:
29: %\nofiles
30:
31: % in nb
32: \def\TOTXSECBR{ 240 \pm 1 (stat) ^{+21}_{-19} (syst)}
33: % microbarns
34: \def\TOTXSEC{ 4.08 \pm 0.02 (stat)^{+0.36}_{-0.33} (syst)}
35: % nb
36: \def\XSECGTFIVE{ 18.1 \pm 0.1 (stat) \pm 1.5 (syst)}
37: % nb
38: \def\XSECGTFIVEETA{ 16.3 \pm 0.1 (stat)^{+1.4}_{-1.3} (syst)}
39: % nb
40: \def\BXSECBR{ 19.4 \pm 0.3 (stat)^{+2.1}_{-1.9} (syst)}
41:
42: % nb
43: \def\BXSECBRFIVEGEV{ 3.06 \pm 0.04 (stat) \pm 0.22 (syst)}
44:
45: % nb for eta<0.6
46:
47: \def\BXSECBRFIVEETA{ 2.75 \pm 0.04 (stat) \pm 0.20 (syst)}
48:
49: % microbarns
50:
51: \def\BXSEC{ 0.330 \pm 0.005 (stat) ^{+0.036}_{-0.033} (syst)}
52:
53: % microbarns
54: \def\TOTXSECB{ 17.6 \pm 0.4 (stat)^{+2.5}_{-2.3} (syst)}
55: % nb
56:
57: \def\PROMPTXSECBR{168 \pm 1(stat) ^{+20}_{-26} (syst)}
58:
59: % microbarns
60: \def\PROMPTXSEC{2.86 \pm 0.01(stat)^{+0.34}_{-0.45} (syst)}
61:
62:
63: \begin{document}
64:
65: %\preprint{\vbox{\hbox{CDF/ANAL/BOTTOM/CDFR/7037 \hfill}
66: % \hbox{Version 3.0, \today \hfill}}}
67:
68: \preprint{\vbox{\hbox{FERMILAB-PUB-04-440-E\hfill}
69: \hbox{Submitted to PRD, December 23, 2004\hfill}}}
70:
71:
72: \title{Measurement of the \boldmath{$J/\psi$} Meson
73: and \boldmath{$b$}-Hadron Production Cross Sections
74: in \boldmath{$p\bar{p}$} Collisions at \boldmath{$\sqrt{s}=1960$}\,GeV}
75:
76: \input{authors_cdf.tex}
77:
78: \noaffiliation
79:
80: %\date{\today}% It is always \today, today,
81: % but any date may be explicitly specified
82:
83: \begin{abstract}
84: %\input{abstract.tex}
85: We present a new measurement of the inclusive and differential
86: production cross sections of $J/\psi$ mesons and $b$-hadrons in
87: proton-antiproton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=1960$\,GeV. The data
88: correspond to an integrated luminosity of $39.7$ pb$^{-1}$ collected
89: by the CDF Run II detector. We find the integrated cross section for
90: inclusive $J/\psi$ production for all transverse momenta from 0 to
91: 20\,GeV/$c$ in the rapidity range $|y|<0.6$ to
92: be $\TOTXSEC \ \mu {\rm b}$. We
93: separate the fraction of $J/\psi$ events from the decay of the
94: long-lived $b$-hadrons using the lifetime distribution in all events with
95: $p_T(J/\psi) > 1.25$\,GeV/$c$.
96: %We find the cross section
97: %of $J/\psi$ decays from prompt charmonium production for all $J/\psi$
98: %with transverse momenta greater than $1.25$\,GeV/$c$ in the rapidity
99: %range $|y(J/\psi)|<0.6$ to be $\PROMPTXSEC \ \mu {\rm b}$.
100: We find the total cross section for $b$-hadrons, including both hadrons and
101: anti-hadrons, decaying to $J/\psi$ with transverse momenta greater
102: than $1.25$\,GeV/$c$ in the rapidity range $|y(J/\psi)|<0.6$,
103: is $\BXSEC~\mu{\rm b}$.
104: %where we have corrected for the branching fraction of
105: %$b$-hadrons decaying to $J/\psi$.
106: Using a Monte Carlo simulation of
107: the decay kinematics of $b$-hadrons to all final states containing a
108: $J/\psi$, we extract the first measurement of the total single
109: $b$-hadron cross section down to zero transverse momentum at
110: $\sqrt{s}=1960$\,GeV. We find the total
111: single $b$-hadron cross section
112: integrated over all transverse momenta
113: for $b$-hadrons in the rapidity
114: range $|y|<0.6$ to be $\TOTXSECB \
115: \mu{\rm b}$.
116: %This is the cross section of either $b$-hadrons or anti-hadrons.
117:
118: \end{abstract}
119:
120: \pacs{13.85.Qk, 13.20.Gd, 14.40.Gx, 12.38.Qk}
121: %\keywords{Suggested keywords}%Use showkeys class option if keyword
122: %display desired
123: \baselineskip12pt %for drafts
124:
125: \maketitle
126: \baselineskip24pt %for draft
127: \section{Introduction}
128:
129: %\input{sections/intro.tex}
130:
131: %The production of both charmonium mesons and bottom-flavored
132: %hadrons (notated as $H_b$ in this paper)
133: %in proton-antiproton colliders has been poorly
134: %understood for several years.
135: The production of both charmonium mesons and bottom-flavored
136: hadrons (referred to as $b$-hadrons or $H_b$ in this paper)
137: in proton-antiproton colliders has sustained continued interest over the
138: last several years.
139: There are three major sources of the
140: $J/\psi$ mesons: directly produced $J/\psi$, prompt decays of heavier
141: charmonium states such as $^3P_1$ state $\chi_{\rm c1}$ and $^3P_2$ state
142: $\chi_{c2}$,
143: and decays of $b$-hadrons. Early hadroproduction models of
144: quarkonium states could not describe the cross section of directly
145: produced $J/\psi$ mesons. These models under-predicted
146: the measurements by a factor of approximately 50, and did not
147: adequately describe the cross-section shape~\cite{RUNIPSI}. With the
148: advent of the effective field theory,
149: nonrelativistic QCD (NRQCD)~\cite{NRQCD}, better theoretical
150: descriptions of quarkonium production became possible. Within the
151: NRQCD factorization formalism, the color-octet model provides a means to
152: bring theory into better agreement with data~\cite{Leibovich, ONIA1}.
153: The fundamental idea of this model is that while a $(c
154: \overline{c} )$ meson has to be in a color-singlet state, the
155: initially produced quark-antiquark pair does not. One can produce,
156: for example, a $(c \overline{c} )$ pair in a color-octet $^3P$ state
157: which can then produce a color singlet $^3S_1$ $J/\psi$ meson by
158: single-gluon emission. This is done at the cost of adding a small
159: number of parameters to the theory that currently must be determined
160: by experiment. While the color-octet model can accommodate a large
161: cross section, strictly speaking it does not predict it.
162: There are other deficiencies of the NRQCD formalism; for example, NRQCD
163: expects that the spin alignment to be predominantly in the transverse
164: state
165: %relative to the $J/\psi$ momentum
166: for the prompt $J/\psi$ mesons with large transverse momenta,
167: a prediction that is not in agreement with
168: subsequent measurement~\cite{Jpsi_pol}.
169: %There are other deficiencies of the NRQCD formalism; for example, NRQCD
170: %expects that at large transverse momenta, the spin
171: %alignment of the prompt $J/\psi$ to be 100$\%$ transverse, a prediction
172: %that is not in agreement with subsequent measurement~\cite{Jpsi_pol}.
173:
174: Previous prompt, direct, and inclusive $J/\psi$ cross-section
175: measurements~\cite{RUNIPSI}
176: from CDF required a minimum transverse momentum
177: of 5\,GeV/$c$ on the $J/\psi$ although greater than 90$\%$ of the cross section has been
178: expected to lie below this point. In this paper we present the
179: first measurement of the inclusive central $J/\psi$ cross section over
180: a much larger range of transverse momenta from zero to 20\,GeV/$c$. The
181: $J/\psi$ mesons are reconstructed from the decay channel
182: $J/\psi \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$.
183: The measurement was made possible by improving the CDF di-muon
184: trigger capability to be sensitive to $J/\psi$ with
185: zero transverse momenta.
186:
187:
188:
189: %\input{sections/intro_b.tex}
190:
191: A significant fraction of $J/\psi$ mesons produced at the Tevatron come
192: from the decays of $b$-hadrons. In this experiment, we use the
193: large sample of $H_b \rightarrow J/\psi X$ events to measure the inclusive
194: $b$-hadron cross section. The previous Tevatron measurements
195: \cite{CDFBXsec1, CDFBXsec2, CDFBXsec3, CDFBXsec4, D0BXsec1, D0BXsec2,
196: D0BXsec3} of the $b$-hadron cross section in proton-antiproton
197: collisions at $\sqrt{s}=1800$\,GeV were substantially larger (by a factor
198: of two to three) than that predicted by next-to-leading order (NLO) QCD
199: calculations~\cite{BTHEORY1a,BTHEORY1b,Krey}. This was particularly
200: puzzling since the UA1 measurements at $\sqrt{s}=630$\,GeV~\cite{UA1BXsec}
201: did not show such a marked departure from the
202: NLO QCD calculations. Several theoretical explanations were suggested:
203: higher-order corrections are large, intrinsic $k_T$ effects
204: are large~\cite{BTHEORY5}, extreme values of the renormalization
205: scales are needed, or new methods of resummation and fragmentation are
206: required~\cite{BTHEORY2, BTHEORY3, BTHEORY4}. Theories of new and
207: exotic sources of $b$-hadrons have also been proposed~\cite{SBOTTOM}.
208: Since the earlier Tevatron results covered only 10-13\%
209: of the inclusive $p_T$ spectrum,
210: % which lay above the $p_T$ trigger threshold of a few\,GeV.
211: it was not evident whether the excess was due to an overall increase
212: in the $b$-hadron production rate or a shift in the
213: spectrum toward higher $p_T$.
214:
215: An inclusive measurement of $b$-hadron production over all transverse
216: momenta can help resolve this problem. Bottom hadrons have long
217: lifetimes, on the order of picoseconds~\cite{PDG}, which correspond to
218: flight distances of several hundred microns at CDF. We
219: use the measured distance between the $J/\psi$ decay point and the beamline to
220: separate prompt production of charmonium from $b$-hadron decays.
221: The single $b$-hadron cross section is then extracted from
222: the measurement of the cross section of $J/\psi$ mesons
223: from long-lived $b$-hadrons where single differentiates the cross section
224: from the $b$-hadron cross section
225: referring to $b$ and $\bar{b}$ hadrons which is a factor of two
226: bigger. In this paper, we present the first measurement of the inclusive single $b$-hadron
227: cross section at $\sqrt{s}=1960$\,GeV measured over all transverse
228: momenta in the rapidity range $|y|<0.6$.
229:
230:
231: \section{Description of the Experiment}
232: \subsection{The Tevatron}
233:
234: %\input{sections/tevatron.tex}
235:
236: The Fermilab Tevatron is a 1~km radius superconducting synchrotron.
237: Thirty-six bunches of 980\,GeV protons and antiprotons counter-circulate
238: %on helical orbits
239: in a single ring and collide at
240: two interaction points (where the CDF and D0 detectors are located)
241: every 396~ns.
242: The transverse profile of the interaction region can be
243: approximately
244: described by a circular Gaussian distribution with a typical RMS width
245: of 30~$\mu \rm{m}$. The longitudinal profile is also approximately
246: Gaussian with a typical RMS of 30\,cm.
247:
248: %The interaction volume is approximately 30~$\mu \rm{m}$
249: %in radius and 60\,cm long, transverse and parallel to the
250: %beam direction respectively.
251:
252: For the data used in this analysis, instantaneous luminosities were in
253: the range $0.5$ to $2.0 \times 10^{31}$~$\rm{cm^{-2} s^{-1}}$. At
254: these luminosities, typically there was only a single collision
255: in a triggered event.
256:
257:
258: \subsection{The CDF Detector}
259:
260: %\input{sections/detector.tex}
261:
262: In the CDF detector~\cite{CDFNIM1, CDFII}, a silicon
263: vertex detector (SVX II)~\cite{SVX2Ref}, located immediately
264: outside the beam pipe, provides
265: precise three-dimensional track reconstruction and is used to identify
266: displaced vertices associated with $b$ and $c$ hadron decays. The
267: momentum of charged particles is measured precisely in the central
268: outer tracker (COT)~\cite{COT}, a multi-wire drift chamber that sits
269: inside a 1.4 T superconducting solenoidal magnet. Outside the COT are
270: electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters arranged in a
271: projective-tower geometry, covering the
272: pseudo-rapidity region $|\eta|< 3.5$.
273: %pseudo-rapidity region $|\eta|< 3.5$~\cite{Phi}.
274: Drift chambers and scintillator counters in the
275: region $|\eta| < 1.5$ provide muon identification outside the
276: calorimeters.
277: In the CDF coordinate system, $\theta$ and $\phi$ are the polar
278: and azimuthal angles, respectively, defined with respect to the proton beam
279: direction, $z$. The pseudorapidity $\eta$ is defined as $- \ln
280: \tan(\theta/2)$. The transverse momentum of a
281: particle is $p_T = p \sin (\theta)$.
282:
283:
284:
285:
286: %\input{sections/svxii.tex}
287: The portion of the silicon detector systems used in this analysis is
288: the SVX II detector. The SVX II consists of double-sided micro-strip
289: sensors arranged in five concentric cylindrical shells with radii
290: between 2.5 and 10.6\,cm. The detector is divided into 3 contiguous
291: five-layer sections along the beam direction for a total $z$ coverage
292: of 90~\,cm. Each barrel is divided into
293: twelve azimuthal wedges of $30^{\circ}$ each. Each of the five
294: layers in a wedge is further divided into two electrically independent
295: modules called ladders.
296: There are a total of 360 ladders in the SVX II detector.
297: %not all of which were functioning during the period
298: %in which these data were taken.
299: The fraction of functioning ladders was increasing from
300: 78$\%$ to 94$\%$ during the period between February 2002 and July 2002
301: in which the data used in this paper were taken while the SVX detector
302: was being commissioned.
303:
304: %Between February 2002 and July 2002 the fraction of functioning ladders varied
305: %between 78 and 93$\%$ and the SVX~II coverage varied accordingly.
306:
307:
308: %\input{sections/cotdet.tex}
309:
310: The COT is the main tracking chamber in CDF. It is a cylindrical drift
311: chamber segmented into eight concentric superlayers filled with a
312: mixture of 50\% Argon and 50\% Ethane. The active volume covers
313: $|z|<155$\,cm and 40 to 140\,cm in radius. Each superlayer is sectioned
314: in $\phi$ into separate cells. A cell is defined as one sense plane
315: with two adjacent grounded field sheets. The sense plane is
316: composed of 40 $\mu$m gold-plated tungsten wires, twelve of which are
317: sense wires.
318: %In the center of the detector, mechanical spacers are
319: %used to support the COT wire planes.
320: In the middle of the sense planes, a mechanical spacer made of
321: polyester/fiber glass rod is epoxied to each wire to limit
322: the stepping of wires out of the plane due to electrostatic forces.
323: The main body of the field sheets
324: is 10 $\mu$m gold-coated mylar.
325: %The
326: %mylar is stretched and supported by two 12 mil stainless steel wires,
327: %which are epoxied in a parabolic shape along the each side of the
328: %field sheet.
329: The field sheets approximate true grounded wire planes much better than
330: the arrays of wires which have often been used in wire chambers including the
331: predecessor to the COT. Use of the field sheet also results in a smaller
332: amount of material within the tracking volume, and allows the COT to
333: operate at a much higher drift field than is possible with an array of
334: wires. The eight superlayers of the COT alternate between stereo and
335: axial, beginning with superlayer 1, which is a stereo layer. In an
336: axial layer, the wires and field sheets are parallel to the $z$ axis,
337: and thus provide only $r$-$\phi$ information. In stereo layers, the
338: wires and field sheets are arranged with a stereo angle of $\pm 2
339: ^{\circ}$ and provide $z$ information in addition to $r$-$\phi$.
340:
341: %\input{sections/muondet.tex}
342:
343: The CDF central muon detector (CMU)~\cite{CMU} is located around the
344: outside of the central hadron calorimeter at a radius of 347\,cm from
345: the beam axis. The calorimeter is formed from 48 wedges, 24 on the east
346: (positive $z$), and 24 on the west (negative $z$), each wedge covering
347: 15$^\circ$ in $\phi$. The calorimeter thickness is about 5.5 interaction
348: lengths for hadron attenuation. The muon drift cells with seven wires
349: parallel to the beamline are 226\,cm long and
350: cover 12.6$^\circ$ in $\phi$.
351: There is a 2.4$^\circ$ gap between drift cell arrays, giving a $\phi$
352: coverage of 84\%. The pseudorapidity coverage relative to the center of
353: the beam-beam interaction volume is $0.03<|\eta|<0.63$. Each wedge is
354: further segmented azimuthally into three 4.2$^\circ$ modules. Each
355: module consists of four layers of four rectangular drift cells. The
356: sense wires in alternating layers are offset by 2 mm for ambiguity
357: resolution. The smallest unit in the CMU, called a stack,
358: covers about $1.2^\circ$ and includes
359: four drift cells, one from each layer. Adjacent
360: pairs of stacks are combined together to form a two-stack unit called a
361: tower. A track segment detected in these chambers is called a CMU stub.
362:
363: A second set of muon drift chambers is located behind an additional
364: 60\,cm of steel (3.3 interaction lengths). The chambers are 640\,cm
365: long and are arranged axially to form a box around the central
366: detector. This system is called the CMP, and muons which register a
367: stub in both the CMU and the CMP
368: %and have a smaller contamination from hadronic punch-through than CMU alone,
369: are called CMUP muons.
370:
371:
372:
373: %\input{sections/lumidet.tex}
374: Luminosity is measured using low-mass
375: gaseous Cherenkov luminosity counters (CLC)~\cite{LUMI1, LUMI2}. There are
376: two CLC modules in the CDF detector installed at small angles in the
377: proton and antiproton directions. Each module consists of 48 long,
378: thin conical counters filled with isobutane gas and arranged in
379: three concentric layers around the beam pipe.
380:
381: \subsection{Muon Reconstruction}
382: %\input{sections/muonreco.tex}
383:
384: The starting point for the selection of $J/\psi \rightarrow \mu^+
385: \mu^-$ candidates is the reconstruction of two oppositely charged muons.
386: Muons are reconstructed from tracks measured in the tracking chambers
387: matched to the stub positions in the muon detectors.
388:
389: \subsubsection{Charged Particle Tracking \label{sec_track}}
390: %\input{sections/track.tex}
391: Track reconstruction begins in the COT. The first step in the pattern
392: recognition is the formation of line segments from hits in each
393: superlayer. Line segments from the axial layers that are tangent to a
394: common circle are linked together to form a track candidate and the
395: hit positions are fit to a circle. Line segments in stereo layers are
396: then linked to the 2-dimensional track and a helix fit is performed. The
397: transverse momentum resolution of the COT is measured using cosmic ray
398: events to be
399: \begin{equation}
400: \frac{\sigma({p_T})}{p_T^2} = 0.0017 \ [{\rm GeV/}c]^{-1}.
401: \end{equation}
402: The next step is to extrapolate each COT track into the SVX~II and add
403: hits that are consistent with the track. A window around the
404: track is established based on the errors on the COT track
405: parameters. If a hit in the outer SVX~II layer lies within the window,
406: it is added to the track. A new track fit is then performed, resulting
407: in a new error matrix and a new window. This window is then used to
408: add hits from the next SVX~II layer, and the procedure is repeated
409: over all layers. If no hit is found within the search window, the
410: algorithm proceeds to the next layer. There may be multiple track
411: candidates with different combinations of SVX~II hits associated with
412: one COT track. In this case, the track with the largest number of SVX
413: II layers with hits is chosen. A COT-SVX~II track is formed only if at
414: least three $r$-$\phi$ hits in the SVX~II are associated with the original COT
415: track. An averaged impact parameter resolution of 34~$\mu{\rm m}$ is
416: achieved using hit information measured in SVX~II for
417: muon tracks with $p_T$ around 1.5\,GeV/$c$.
418:
419:
420: \subsubsection{Muon Identification}
421: %\input{sections/muon.tex}
422: In the first stage of muon identification, the measured drift times for
423: hits in the muon chamber drift cells are converted to drift distances. Hits
424: in alternate layers that are within 7.5\,cm of each other are used to form
425: linear track segments. This distance corresponds to a maximum angle
426: relative to the radial direction in the chamber of $65^\circ$. The
427: remaining pair of layers is then searched for hits within 0.5\,cm of
428: the line segment. The procedure is iterated and the optimal set of
429: hits is found. The segment resulting from a least-square fit to these
430: hits is called a ``stub". Hits are required in at least 3 of the 4 layers
431: to form a stub.
432:
433: %An initial line segment is formed from the hits on the first pair of two
434: %alternating layers that are within 7.5\,cm of each other in a
435: %tower.
436: %The line parameters are used to search for hits on the two
437: %remaining layers within 0.5\,cm. If at least one more hit is found, the
438: %procedure is repeated to identify a final set of hits to use. A total
439: %of three out of four possible hits in the four layers is required in
440: %the offline muon reconstruction. An iterative least-squares fit to the
441: %final hit set is performed to form a muon stub.
442:
443: Stubs reconstructed in the CMU are matched to tracks with a minimal
444: $p_T$ of 1.3~$\rm{GeV/c}$.
445: % and measured impact parameters to the beamline of less than 6\,cm.
446: The tracks are extrapolated to the CMU after
447: using a simplified geometry model to track the muon candidate's
448: motion in the non-uniform magnetic field of the calorimeter.
449: The distance, $\Delta r\phi$, in the $r$-$\phi$ plane between the track
450: projected to the muon chambers and the muon stub is
451: required to be less than 30\,cm. The track is required to point to the
452: same side (east or west) of the detector that the stub is in unless
453: the muon candidate track is within 20cm of the center of the detector.
454:
455:
456:
457: \subsection{Triggers}
458: %\input{sections/trigger_intro.tex}
459: CDF uses a three-level trigger system~\cite{CDFII}. At Level 1, data
460: from every beam crossing is stored in a pipeline capable of buffering
461: data from 42 beam-crossings.
462: The Level 1 trigger either rejects the event or copies the data into one
463: of four Level 2 buffers. During the data-taking period for this
464: analysis, the global Level 1 accept rate was approximately 10~kHz
465: corresponding to a rate reduction factor of approximately 170.
466:
467: At Level 2, a substantial fraction of the event data is available
468: for analysis by the trigger processors which require approximately
469: 25~${\rm \mu s}$ per event.
470: During the period the data for this analysis were taken, the L2 accept
471: rate was approximately 200~Hz, for a rejection factor of
472: approximately 50.
473:
474: Events that pass the Level 1 and Level 2 selection criteria are then
475: sent to the Level 3 trigger~\cite{LEVEL3}, a cluster of computers running a
476: speed-optimized reconstruction code.
477: Events selected by Level 3 are
478: written to permanent mass storage. During the period the data for
479: this analysis were taken, the global Level 3 accept rate was
480: approximately 40~Hz, for a rejection factor of approximately 5.
481:
482: %\input{sections/L1_trigger.tex}
483:
484: For the cross-section measurement, we require events with two muon
485: candidates identified by the Level 1 trigger.
486: In Level 1, track
487: reconstruction is done by the eXtremely Fast Tracker
488: (XFT)~\cite{XFTcitation}. The XFT examines COT hits from the
489: four axial superlayers and provides $r$-$\phi$ tracking information.
490: The line segments are identified in each superlayer and linked using
491: predetermined patterns.
492: The XFT requires that each line segment contains hits found
493: on at least ten of a possible twelve anode wires in each axial superlayer.
494: The XFT finds tracks with
495: $p_T>1.5$\,GeV/$c$. It subdivides the COT into azimuthal sections of
496: $1.25^\circ$ each and places a track into a given section based on
497: its $\phi$ position at superlayer 6 ($r$ = 105.575\,cm). If more than
498: one track candidate is found within a given section, the XFT return
499: the track with the highest $p_T$. The XFT passes the tracks it finds to the
500: eXTRaPolation unit (XTRP). The XTRP extrapolates an XFT track's
501: trajectory to the CMU where a stub should be found if it
502: is a muon, taking into account the path of the track in the
503: magnetic field and the multiple scattering of
504: muon in the calorimeter.
505: The XTRP then passes the search window to the
506: muon trigger crate, which looks for CMU stubs within
507: the search window. A Level 1 CMU stub requires that there be hits
508: on both even layers or both odd layers of one $1.05^\circ$ stack of
509: the CMU with a drift time difference $\Delta t$ less than 396 ns.
510: %Two adjacent CMU stacks are then or-ed together form a
511: The twelve stacks in each $15^\circ$ wedge of the CMU are mapped in
512: pairs to six trigger towers to match the granularity of the XTRP
513: extrapolation. If a muon stub is found within the search
514: window, it is considered a Level 1 muon. In order to fire the
515: di-muon trigger, two muon candidates must be found, separated by at least
516: two CMU trigger towers. There is no requirement that the muons have
517: opposite charge at Level 1.
518: During the data taking period in which the di-muon sample used for this
519: analysis was obtained, there is no additional selection imposed on muons
520: at Level 2 and event is passed to Level 3 directly from Level 1.
521:
522: %\input{sections/L3_trigger.tex}
523:
524: %Events with two muon candidates identified by the Level 1 di-muon
525: %triggers are required to be reconstructed by the Level 3
526: %reconstruction software.
527:
528: At Level 3, the muons are required to have opposite charge,
529: and to have an invariant mass between 2.7 and 4.0\,GeV/$c^2$.
530: In addition, both muon tracks are required to be within
531: 5~\,cm in $z_0$, where $z_0$ is
532: the $z$ coordinate of the muon track at its distance of the closest approach
533: in the $r$-$\phi$ plane to the beam axis.
534: For a portion of the data sample considered in
535: this analysis, there is a requirement that the opening angle in
536: $r$-$\phi$ between the di-muons be less than $130^{\circ}$.
537:
538:
539: %The Level 3 $J/\psi$ trigger
540: %reconstructs offline muons from events acquired via the Level 1 di-muon
541: %trigger path.
542:
543: \subsection{Luminosity}
544:
545: %\input{sections/lumi.tex}
546: The CLC counters monitor the average number of inelastic $p\bar{p}$
547: interactions in each bunch crossing. The inelastic $p\bar{p}$ cross
548: section has been measured to be $\sigma_{\rm in}\sim 60 $ mb by several
549: experiments at $\sqrt{s}=1800$\,GeV~\cite{PPXSEC1, PPXSEC2,
550: PPXSEC3}. The inelastic $p\bar{p}$ cross section at $\sqrt{s}=1960$\,GeV is
551: scaled from previous measurements using the calculations in~\cite{BLOCK}.
552: The rate of inelastic $p\bar{p}$
553: interactions is given by
554: \begin{equation}
555: \mu \cdot f_{\rm BC} = \sigma_{in} \cdot {\cal L},
556: \label{eqn_lumi}
557: \end{equation}
558: where ${\cal L}$ is the instantaneous luminosity, $\mu$ is the average number
559: of inelastic $p\bar{p}$ interactions per bunch crossing, and $f_{\rm BC}$ is the
560: rate of bunch crossings. In this paper, we use data from the beginning
561: of the CDF Run~II operation where the average instantaneous luminosities
562: were relatively low.
563:
564: The number of $p\bar{p}$ interactions in a bunch crossing follows
565: Poisson statistics where the probability of empty
566: crossings is given by $\mathcal{P}_0(\mu) = e^{-\mu}$.
567: % We measure the luminosity by
568: % counting the number of empty bunch crossings where there is little
569: % activity above threshold in the CLC counters in both modules in
570: % coincidence.
571: An empty crossing is observed when there are fewer than two counters with
572: signals above threshold in either module of the CLC. The measured
573: fraction of empty bunch crossings is corrected for the CLC acceptance
574: and the value of $\mu$ is calculated. The measured value of $\mu$ is
575: combined with the inelastic $p\bar{p}$ cross section to determine the
576: instantaneous luminosity using Equation~\ref{eqn_lumi}.
577: Because this method depends only weakly on
578: the CLC thresholds, it functions particularly well at low
579: luminosities where the probability of empty bunch crossings is large.
580: %The CLC detectors have performed well during the first
581: %part of the CDF Run~II data taking as demonstrated in~\cite{LUMI3}.
582: %The systematic error on the luminosity
583: %measurement
584: %is dominated by three main contributions; the uncertainty
585: %on the $p\bar{p}$ cross section ($\sim 4\%$), the CLC acceptance
586: %($\sim 4\%$), and the time dependence of the CLC acceptance ($\sim 2\%$).
587: %The total uncertainty on luminosity is therefore
588: %estimated to be $6\%$.
589: The systematic error on the luminosity measurement is estimated to be $6\%$.
590:
591:
592: %A run is defined as a period of stable operation of the Tevatron and
593: %CDF detector with proton-antiproton collisions for several hours.
594: In CDF Run~II, only runs with greater than 10~nb$^{-1}$
595: integrated luminosity are considered for analysis.
596: Runs with good operating conditions in the detector
597: are tagged by the online shift crews.
598: Data from those runs are examined to exclude ones with COT,
599: muon or trigger hardware problems.
600: For the measurement presented in this paper, the data
601: collected from February to July 2002 was used.
602: % which corresponds to an operating period with the stable and
603: %high efficiency Level 1 muon and tracking triggers.
604: This sample corresponds to a total
605: integrated luminosity of $39.7 \pm 2.3$ pb$^{-1}$.
606:
607: For $J/\psi$ candidates with transverse momenta in the range 0 to 2
608: \,GeV/$c$, we use $14.8 \pm 0.9$ pb$^{-1}$ of our data sample, which
609: corresponds to that fraction of the data collected when no cut on the
610: di-muon opening angle in the Level 3 trigger was used.
611: %For transverse
612: %momenta greater than 2\,GeV/$c$. we use the whole data sample under
613: %consideration, namely $39.7 \pm 2.3$ pb$^{-1}$.
614:
615: \section{Data Selection and Reconstruction}
616: \subsection{Data selection}
617: %\input{sections/runselect.tex}
618: The events selected by the $J/\psi$ trigger are reconstructed offline, taking
619: advantage of the most refined constants and algorithms.
620: We reconstruct $J/\psi \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$ decays by selecting
621: events with two oppositely charged muon candidates reconstructed in the
622: COT and CMU detectors. The $J/\psi \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$ sample
623: used for this analysis was collected using the CMU di-muon
624: triggers. Events are required to have satisfied the Level 1 and Level
625: 3 di-muon trigger criteria.
626: %For the di-muon triggers, Level 2 performs an auto-accept of Level 1.
627:
628: %The performance of the COT and CMU detectors is carefully examined
629: %offline to exclude data where detector performance is compromised. All
630: %COT superlayers are required to be operational during data taking to be
631: %considered for offline analysis.
632: %Only runs with greater than $10$
633: %nb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity are considered good COT runs. The
634: %The average hit efficiency in each channel of the COT in each run is
635: %examined. Data runs are excluded if greater than 1\% of channels have
636: %lower than expected occupancy. The CMU offline validation requires
637: %all 48 wedges to be fully operational during data-taking. The hit
638: %efficiency in each wedge during each run is examined offline and is
639: %required to be high with low noise levels. Only runs that have also
640: %passed the COT offline validation requirements are considered good CMU
641: %runs.
642:
643: %\input{sections/sample.tex}
644:
645: In addition to the default muon selection criteria outlined
646: earlier, we require a $p_T$ independent track-stub matching criterion
647: $\chi^2({\Delta r\phi})<9$.
648: A track-stub matching quality criterion $\chi^2({\Delta r\phi})$ with a one
649: degree of freedom is
650: calculated from $\Delta{r\phi}$ and the expected multiple scattering
651: for a track of given $p_T$ obtained from a GEANT simulation~\cite{GEANT} of
652: the CDF Run II detector material.
653: We require both muons to have transverse
654: momenta $p_T>1.5~{\rm\,GeV}/c$ as measured offline.
655: %We correct the muon momentum for energy loss in the silicon detector
656: %using a GEANT simulation of the detector.
657: The trigger requirements are verified for the offline-reconstructed
658: candidates.
659: %Each muon stub is required
660: %to match a triggered muon stub reconstructed by the Level 1 muon
661: %trigger algorithm. Each muon track is required to match a
662: %corresponding XFT track reconstructed by the tracking trigger
663: %online.
664: In addition, each CMU stub matched to a triggered stub must
665: lie within the XTRP search window set by the Level 1
666: triggered track.
667: %Furthermore, each event with two confirmed triggered
668: %muons at Level 1, is required to be have triggered the Level 3
669: %$J/\psi\rightarrow \mu \mu$ trigger.
670: Furthermore, track momentum is corrected for
671: energy loss due to specific ionization and multiple scattering
672: according to our accounting of the detector materials.
673: We calculate the $J/\psi$ candidate invariant mass from the
674: four-momenta of the two muons.
675: %The invariant mass is
676: %required to be between 2.7 and 3.5\,GeV/$c^{2}$.
677: For a portion of the data sample under consideration, a temporary
678: hardware problem with the
679: di-muon logic caused the trigger to exclude $J/\psi$ events where
680: both muon stubs fell in the $\phi$ range of
681: $240-270^\circ$. Therefore, we exclude $J/\psi$ events where both
682: muons fall in that $\phi$ region and account for this in the detector
683: acceptance.
684: %For tracks that pass within $1.5$\,cm of the center of the
685: %COT wire plane in any of the four axial superlayers, we find that the
686: %Level 1 tracking trigger efficiency is lower than 50 \%
687: %and is not well modeled. This is due to the lower hit efficiency caused by the
688: %distortion of the electric field due to mechanical spacers near the
689: %center of the COT wire plane.
690: We also reject $J/\psi$ candidates if one of
691: the tracks passes within 1.5~\,cm of the center of any
692: COT wire planes, where the trigger efficiency is difficult to model
693: because of the distortion of the electric field due to the mechanical spacers.
694: This exclusion is accounted for in the acceptance
695: calculation. The muon reconstruction efficiency is measured in each of
696: the 48 CMU detector wedges. We find that the hit efficiency in the CMU
697: wedge on the west side of the detector covering the region $240^\circ<
698: \phi< 255^\circ$ is lower due to a known hardware problem and
699: exclude $J/\psi$ events
700: where either muon stub is reconstructed in this wedge.
701: As shown in Fig.~\ref{jpsi-rawmass.eps},
702: there are $299800\pm 800$ $J/\psi$ events that
703: passed these selection conditions.
704:
705:
706: %Figure~\ref{jpsi-rawmass.eps} shows the di-muon invariant mass
707: %distribution for all the selected events in the range $2.8<M(\mu \mu)
708: %< 3.4$\,GeV/$c^2$. We model the $J/\psi$ signal by the sum of two
709: %Gaussian distributions and the background by a first order polynomial
710: %and find the total number of $J/\psi$ events reconstructed is $299800\pm800$
711: %with an average reconstructed mass of $3.09391\pm0.00008$\,GeV/$c^2$
712: %obtained after energy loss corrections and an average width of $0.020\pm0.001$
713: %\,GeV/$c^2$ mainly due to detector resolution.
714: %The uncertainties here are statistical only.
715:
716: \begin{figure}[!h]
717: \centerline{\psfig{figure=figures/dimumasscorr.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}}
718: \caption{Mass distribution of reconstructed di-muon
719: $J/\psi$ candidates. The points are data.
720: %with error bars are data.
721: The solid line is the fit to the signal approximated
722: as a double Gaussian and a linear fit for the background. The hatched region
723: is the fitted background.
724: The fit gives a signal of $299800\pm 800$ $J/\psi$ events with an averaged
725: mass of $3.09391\pm0.00008$\,GeV/$c^2$ obtained
726: and an average width of $0.020\pm0.001$\,GeV/$c^2$ mainly due to
727: detector resolution. The uncertainties here are statistical only.
728: }
729: \label{jpsi-rawmass.eps}
730: \end{figure}
731:
732: %The reconstructed $J/\psi$ invariant mass is 3 MeV/$c^2$ lower than
733: %the current world average of $3.09688 \pm 0.00004$\,GeV/$c^2$
734: %~\cite{PDG}. This has been attributed to an underestimation of the
735: %energy loss in the silicon detector due to an incomplete accounting of
736: %the material. A systematic error of $+0.1\%$ on the momentum scale in
737: %each $J/\psi$ $p_T$ bin is added to account for the underestimation of the
738: %energy loss in the tracking chambers.
739:
740: %\input{sections/yield.tex}
741:
742: To determine the yield in each $J/\psi$ $p_T$ bin, the di-muon
743: invariant mass distributions are fitted
744: using invariant mass line shapes including the radiative tail from internal
745: bremsstrahlung obtained from a tuned hit-level COT simulation.
746: The simulated $J/\psi$ events
747: are decayed using the $J/\psi$ radiative decay model in the QQ decay
748: package~\cite{QQ}. The COT hit multiplicity per track is tuned to
749: match the data as closely as possible. The COT hit resolution is then
750: tuned to find the best $\chi^2$ in a binned fit to the data
751: using the Monte Carlo invariant mass line shape for the signal and a
752: polynomial shape for the background. Finally, energy loss and multiple
753: scattering in material encountered before the COT are modeled.
754: The energy loss in the silicon
755: material is scaled until the peaks of the di-muon invariant mass
756: distribution in different $p_T$ ranges in data and from the simulation
757: match.
758: %The uncertainty on Monte Carlo statistics used to model the
759: %invariant mass line shape is included in the fit.
760: The order of the
761: background polynomial used varies with the background shape in each
762: $J/\psi$ $p_T$ range. A third-order polynomial is used for the
763: momentum range 0-0.25\,GeV/$c$, a second-order polynomial is used for
764: the range 0.25-2.25\,GeV/$c$, and a
765: first-order polynomial (linear background) for
766: transverse momenta greater than $2.25$\,GeV/$c$.
767: The fits to the invariant mass distributions in
768: four $J/\psi$ $p_T$ ranges are shown in
769: Figs.~\ref{fig_mass1a} - ~\ref{fig_mass1c}.
770: The $J/\psi$ yields and the statistical uncertainties obtained from the fits
771: in each $p_T$ range are listed in the first column of
772: Table~\ref{tab_xsecsum}.
773: The mass fitting qualities over the whole $p_T$ bins are
774: good as indicated from the fit probability shown in these Figures.
775: We also examined the differences between counting the event numbers
776: in the $J/\psi$ signal region ( $3.02 \rightarrow 3.15$\,GeV/$c^2$)
777: to that predicted from the fitting functions of signal and background.
778: %We also examined the differences between counting the event numbers
779: %in the $J/\psi$ signal region ( $3.02 \rightarrow 3.15$\,GeV/$c^2$) over the
780: %background to that predicted from the fitting functions.
781: The differences ranging from +9$\%$ in the
782: lowest $p_T$ bin to -1.3$\%$ in the high $p_T$ bin are used
783: very conservatively as the systematic uncertainties
784: from the mass fitting.
785:
786:
787:
788: %\input{tables/incsumtab}
789: \begingroup
790: \squeezetable
791: \begin{table*}
792: \caption{
793: %\scriptsize
794: Summary of the inclusive $J/\psi$ cross-section analysis components. The values of the
795: yield and statistical uncertainty from the fits are listed in the 2nd
796: column. The acceptance values and the combined systematic and
797: statistical uncertainties on the acceptance are listed in the 3rd
798: column. In the 4th and 5th columns the trigger and track-stub
799: matching efficiencies obtained from the mean of the distribution in
800: each bin and the corresponding systematic
801: uncertainties are listed. The sixth column lists the
802: integrated luminosity used for each measurement.
803: %The reconstruction efficiency common to all bins is
804: %$\epsilon_{\mathrm reco}=95.5^{+2.1}_{-2.7}\%$.
805: %The average cross section in every $p_T$ bin of size
806: %$\Delta^i$ is given by $\langle \sigma^i \rangle \approx N^i/(
807: %\epsilon_{reco} \mathcal{L}^i \epsilon_{L1}^i
808: %\epsilon_{\chi^2}^i \mathcal{A}^i \Delta^i)$. The exact
809: %cross section is obtained using an event-by-event weighting method
810: %described in the text and listed in Table ~\ref{tab_xsec}.
811: }
812: \begin{center}
813: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
814: \hline \hline
815: $P_t$ range & Yield & Acceptance & Level 1 Trigger & Track-stub matching & Luminosity\\
816: \,GeV/$c$ & ($N^i$) & ($\mathcal{A}^i$) & Efficiency
817: ($\epsilon_{L1}^i$) &
818: Efficiency($\epsilon_{\chi^2}^i$) & ($\mathcal{L}^i$) nb$^{-1}$\\ \hline
819: $0.0-0.25$ &$365\pm 25$ & $ 0.0153 \pm 0.0007 $ & $ 0.857 \pm 0.013 $ &$ 0.9963 \pm 0.0009$ & $14830 \pm 870$ \\
820: $0.25-0.5$ &$605\pm 30$ & $ 0.0069 \pm 0.0004 $ & $ 0.860 \pm 0.013 $ &$ 0.9963 \pm 0.0009$ & " \\
821: $0.5-0.75$ &$962\pm 38$ & $ 0.0070 \pm 0.0004 $ & $ 0.865 \pm 0.013 $ &$ 0.9962 \pm 0.0009$ & " \\
822: $0.75-1.0$ &$1592\pm 49$ & $ 0.0087 \pm 0.0005 $ & $ 0.871 \pm 0.014 $ &$ 0.9961 \pm 0.0009$ & " \\
823: $1.0-1.25$ &$2500\pm 62$ & $ 0.0116 \pm 0.0006 $ & $ 0.877 \pm 0.014 $ &$ 0.9960 \pm 0.0009$ & " \\
824: $1.25-1.5$ &$3549\pm 74$ & $ 0.0151 \pm 0.0008 $ & $ 0.885 \pm 0.014 $ &$ 0.9957 \pm 0.0009$ & " \\
825: $1.5-1.75$ &$4517\pm 84$ & $ 0.0190 \pm 0.0009 $ & $ 0.892 \pm 0.014 $ &$ 0.9955 \pm 0.0009$ & " \\
826: $1.75-2.0$ &$5442\pm 93$ & $ 0.0232 \pm 0.0011 $ & $ 0.899 \pm 0.015 $ &$ 0.9953 \pm 0.0009$ & " \\
827: $2.0-2.25$ &$16059\pm 167$ & $ 0.0271 \pm 0.0013 $ & $ 0.905 \pm 0.015 $ &$ 0.9960 \pm 0.0009$ & $39700 \pm 2300 $ \\
828: $2.25-2.5$ &$18534\pm 252$ & $ 0.0317 \pm 0.0015 $ & $ 0.911 \pm 0.015 $ &$ 0.9946 \pm 0.0009$ & " \\
829: $2.5-2.75$ &$18437\pm 253$ & $ 0.0367 \pm 0.0017 $ & $ 0.916 \pm 0.015 $ &$ 0.9943 \pm 0.0009$ & " \\
830: $2.75-3.0$ &$18858\pm 259$ & $ 0.0415 \pm 0.0019 $ & $ 0.920 \pm 0.015 $ &$ 0.9939 \pm 0.0009$ & " \\
831: $3.0-3.25$ &$18101\pm 253$ & $ 0.0467 \pm 0.0021 $ & $ 0.924 \pm 0.015 $ &$ 0.9935 \pm 0.0009$ & " \\
832: $3.25-3.5$ &$17597\pm 250$ & $ 0.0532 \pm 0.0024 $ & $ 0.927 \pm 0.015 $ &$ 0.9931 \pm 0.0009$ & " \\
833: $3.5-3.75$ &$16400\pm 241$ & $ 0.0576 \pm 0.0025 $ & $ 0.930 \pm 0.015 $ &$ 0.9927 \pm 0.0009$ & " \\
834: $3.75-4.0$ &$14863\pm 226$ & $ 0.0628 \pm 0.0029 $ & $ 0.932 \pm 0.015 $ &$ 0.9923 \pm 0.0009$ & " \\
835: $4.0-4.25$ &$14056\pm 218$ & $ 0.0694 \pm 0.0031 $ & $ 0.934 \pm 0.015 $ &$ 0.9918 \pm 0.0010$ & " \\
836: $4.25-4.5$ &$12719\pm 212$ & $ 0.0768 \pm 0.0034 $ & $ 0.936 \pm 0.015 $ &$ 0.9913 \pm 0.0010$ & " \\
837: $4.5-4.75$ &$12136\pm 201$ & $ 0.0840 \pm 0.0037 $ & $ 0.937 \pm 0.014 $ &$ 0.9909 \pm 0.0010$ & " \\
838: $4.75-5.0$ &$10772\pm 188$ & $ 0.0904 \pm 0.0039 $ & $ 0.939 \pm 0.014 $ &$ 0.9904 \pm 0.0010$ & " \\
839: $5.0-5.5$ &$18478\pm 241$ & $ 0.1006 \pm 0.0042 $ & $ 0.940 \pm 0.014 $ &$ 0.9897 \pm 0.0010$ & " \\
840: $5.5-6.0$ &$14616\pm 210$ & $ 0.1130 \pm 0.0046 $ & $ 0.942 \pm 0.014 $ &$ 0.9887 \pm 0.0011$ & " \\
841: $6.0-6.5$ &$11388\pm 180$ & $ 0.1257 \pm 0.0051 $ & $ 0.946 \pm 0.014 $ &$ 0.9876 \pm 0.0011$ & " \\
842: $6.5-7.0$ &$8687\pm 154$ & $ 0.1397 \pm 0.0055 $ & $ 0.945 \pm 0.014 $ &$ 0.9865 \pm 0.0012$ & " \\
843: $7.0-8.0$ &$12409\pm 139$ & $ 0.1561 \pm 0.0068 $ & $ 0.946 \pm 0.014 $ &$ 0.9850 \pm 0.0012$ & " \\
844: $8.0-9.0$ &$6939\pm 107$ & $ 0.1723 \pm 0.0075 $ & $ 0.947 \pm 0.014 $ &$ 0.9827 \pm 0.0013$ & " \\
845: $9.0-10.0$ &$3973\pm 78$ & $ 0.1807 \pm 0.0079 $ & $ 0.948 \pm 0.014 $ &$ 0.9804 \pm 0.0014$ & " \\
846: $10.0-12.0$ &$3806\pm 74$ & $ 0.1938 \pm 0.0074 $ & $ 0.949 \pm 0.014 $ &$ 0.9772 \pm 0.0016$ & " \\
847: $12.0-14.0$ &$1566\pm 49$ & $ 0.2163 \pm 0.0081 $ & $ 0.960 \pm 0.014 $ &$ 0.9726 \pm 0.0017$ & " \\
848: $14.0-17.0$ &$935\pm 40$ & $ 0.238 \pm 0.011 $ & $ 0.951 \pm 0.014 $ &$ 0.9671 \pm 0.0018$ & " \\
849: $17.0-20.0$ &$350\pm 25$ & $ 0.247 \pm 0.012 $ & $ 0.951 \pm 0.014 $ &$ 0.9600 \pm 0.0020$ & " \\
850: \hline \hline
851: \end{tabular}
852: \label{tab_xsecsum}
853: \end{center}
854: \end{table*}
855: \endgroup
856:
857:
858:
859: \begin{figure}[!h]
860: \centerline{
861: \psfig{figure=figures/mass_bin1_pub.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}}
862: \caption{Invariant mass distribution of reconstructed $J/\psi
863: \rightarrow \mu \mu$ events in the range $p_T(\mu\mu)<0.25$\,GeV/$c$. The points with error bars are data. The solid line is
864: the fit to the signal shape from the simulation and a third order
865: polynomial for the background. The shaded histogram is the
866: fitted background shape. The number of signal events and the fit
867: probability of the binned $\chi^2$ fitting are also provided.}
868: \label{fig_mass1a}
869: \end{figure}
870: \begin{figure}[!h]
871: \centerline{
872: \psfig{figure=figures/mass_bin6_pub.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}}
873: \caption{Invariant mass distribution of reconstructed $J/\psi
874: \rightarrow \mu \mu$ events in the range $1.25<p_T(\mu\mu)<1.5$\,GeV/$c$. The points with error bars are data. The solid line is
875: the fit to the signal shape from the simulation and a second order
876: polynomial for the background. The shaded histogram is the
877: fitted background shape.}
878: \label{fig_mass1d}
879: \end{figure}
880: \begin{figure}[!h]
881: \centerline{
882: \psfig{figure=figures/mass_bin21_pub.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
883: }
884: \caption{Invariant mass distribution of reconstructed $J/\psi
885: \rightarrow \mu \mu$ events in the range $5.0<p_T(\mu\mu)<5.5$\,GeV/$c$. The points with error bars are data. The solid line is
886: the fit to the signal shape from the simulation and a linear
887: background. The shaded histogram is the
888: fitted background shape.}
889: \label{fig_mass1b}
890: \end{figure}
891: \begin{figure}[!h]
892: \centerline{
893: \psfig{figure=figures/mass_bin29_pub.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
894: }
895: \caption{Invariant mass distribution of reconstructed $J/\psi
896: \rightarrow \mu \mu$ events in the range $12.0<p_T(\mu\mu)<14.0$\,GeV/$c$. The points with error bars are data. The solid line is
897: the fit to the signal shape from the simulation and a linear background.
898: The shaded histogram is the fitted background shape.}
899: \label{fig_mass1c}
900: \end{figure}
901: %The fit probabilities ($\chi^2$) in each invariant mass distributions
902: %are examined and indicates that the invariant mass fit in most bins is good.
903:
904:
905:
906:
907: %To estimate the goodness-of-fit in the mass fittings,
908: %a quality factor $R$ is defined as
909: %\begin{equation}
910: %R = \sum_i(N_i^{data}-N_i^{fit}),
911: %\end{equation}
912: %where $N_i^{\rm data}$ is the number of data events inside
913: %the $i^{th}$ bin of the invariant mass distribution and
914: %$N_i^{\rm fit}$ is the fit prediction.
915: %The summation is performed over bins in the signal
916: %region from 3.02 to 3.15\,GeV/$c^2$ where the $J/\psi$ signal is
917: %much larger than the background.
918: %For perfect fits, this factor should have a value of zero.
919: %Deviations from zero indicate a discrepancy in the yield
920: %that is a good estimate of the systematic error associated with the
921: %fitting technique.
922: %We assume that $R$, the total
923: %difference in the number of events in the fit as compared to the data,
924: %could all be attributed to the $J/\psi$ signal yield and not the
925: %background under the signal peak.
926: %The largest discrepancies are in the
927: %bins from 0 to 2\,GeV/$c$ where the background function is rapidly
928: %changing under the signal peak.
929: %The ratio of $R/$yield is taken as the fractional systematic
930: %uncertainty on the yield due to the mass fitting method.
931: %The uncertainty is found to be range of 9$\%$ for
932: %$J/\psi$ with $p_T$ below 0.25\,GeV/$c$, 1.3$\%$
933: %for $J/\psi$ with $p_T$ between 1.75 to 2.0\,GeV/$c$,
934: %less than 1$\%$ for $J/\psi$ with $p_T$ between 2.0 and 17.0\,GeV/$c$
935: %and about $2.3\%$ for $J/\psi$ with $p_T>17$\,GeV/$c$.
936:
937:
938: \section{Acceptance and Efficiency}
939: \subsection{Monte Carlo Description \label{sec_mc}}
940: %\input{sections/mc.tex}
941:
942: We use the $\small {\rm GEANT}$~\cite{GEANT} Monte Carlo simulation software to
943: estimate the geometric and kinematic acceptances. The variation of
944: detector conditions in the simulation is set to match the data.
945: $J/\psi$ events are generated starting with a kinematic
946: distribution that is flat in rapidity and with a $p_T$ distribution
947: selected to best match the reconstructed data. The events are fully
948: simulated. After the differential cross section is measured, we iterate
949: and recalculate the acceptance and the central value of the
950: cross section using the measured $p_T$ distribution.
951: The $\small {\rm GEANT}$ simulation is validated by comparing the
952: resulting distributions of
953: various kinematic quantities such as $\eta$, $p_T$,
954: the track-stub matching distance, and
955: the $z$ vertex distribution in reconstructed
956: data and reconstructed Monte Carlo events. Differences in the data and
957: Monte Carlo distributions are used to estimate the systematic
958: uncertainties on the modeling of the CDF detector geometry in the
959: simulation.
960:
961: \subsection{Acceptance}
962: %\input{sections/accept.tex}
963:
964: %Only a fraction of the $J/\psi$ events produced in $p \bar{p}$
965: %collisions are collected and reconstructed by CDF due to its geometry,
966: % incomplete kinematic acceptances and limited trigger and
967: %reconstruction efficiencies. We correct the observed number of events
968: %by the acceptances and efficiencies obtained using the following methods.
969:
970: We correct the observed number of $J/\psi$ events for the detector acceptance
971: and efficiency.
972: The CMU muon detector covers the pseudo-rapidity range of
973: $\mid \eta \mid<0.6$.
974: % and is segmented in $\phi$ into 48 $12.6^0$ wedges
975: %with a $2.4^0$ separation between each wedge ~\cite{TDR}. There are 24
976: %wedges on each of the east and west sides of the detector.
977: In this
978: region the coverage of the COT is complete and
979: the CDF detector acceptance is driven by the muon detector geometry
980: and kinematic reach. The calorimeter acts as an absorber for the CMU
981: detector which is therefore sensitive only to muons with $p_T > 1.35$
982: \,GeV/$c$. The arrangement of the four sense wires within the CMU chambers
983: allows a lower bound on the transverse momentum of the muon to be
984: calculated from the difference in drift times in sense wires on
985: alternating layers. The $\Delta t \leq 396$ ns timing window is
986: selected to be fully efficient for muons with $p_T>1.5$\,GeV/$c$.
987: %but CMU acceptance for muons with $1.5<p_T<1.7\,GeV/$c$. is reduced due to
988: %range out in the calorimeter material.
989:
990: %To accurately model the acceptance of the CMU detector, firstly, the
991: %fiducial coverage needs to be modeled accurately, secondly, active
992: %regions of the detector with known hardware problems or low
993: %efficiencies need to be identified and modeled, and, thirdly, the
994: %range out of the muon track in the calorimeter material needs to be
995: %correctly modeled to determine the kinematic acceptance for low
996: %momentum muons.
997:
998: %The acceptance is calculated separately for events from the two Level 3
999: %trigger paths with different cuts on the opening angle of the
1000: %muon pairs.
1001:
1002: The acceptance is modeled as a function of both the
1003: reconstructed $p_T(J/\psi)$ and rapidity $y(J/\psi)$ and
1004: is defined as the ratio between the number of generated events $N^{gen}$
1005: and recontructed events $N^{rec}$,
1006: \begin{equation}
1007: {\mathcal{A}}(p_T,y) =
1008: \frac{N^{rec} (p_T(J/\psi),|y(J/\psi)|<0.6) }
1009: {N^{gen}(p_T'(J/\psi),|y'(J/\psi)|<0.6)},
1010: \end{equation}
1011: where $p_T'(J/\psi)$ and $y'$ are the generated true values of the
1012: $J/\psi$ momentum and rapidity.
1013: The acceptance as a function of $p_T$ and $y$ is shown in
1014: Fig.~\ref{fig_491acc2}.
1015: \begin{figure}[!h]
1016: \psfig{figure=figures/accept_p013_pt.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
1017: \psfig{figure=figures/accept_mbot435_y.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
1018: \caption{ Acceptance of $J/\psi \rightarrow \mu \mu$ events
1019: determined from a GEANT simulation of the CDF detector. The
1020: acceptance is shown as a function of $p_T(J/\psi)$ and
1021: $y(J/\psi)$. The acceptance as a function of $p_T(J/\psi)$ is measured
1022: integrated over $|y|<0.6$ and the acceptance as a function of $y$ is
1023: shown integrated over all $p_T$.
1024: %The spin alignment parameter value of
1025: %$\alpha=0.13$ is used for the central value.
1026: }
1027: \label{fig_491acc2}
1028: \end{figure}
1029:
1030: The acceptance increases rapidly from 0.7$\%$ at $p_T = 0.25$\,GeV/$c$ to
1031: 10$\%$ at 5\,GeV/$c$ and 25$\%$ at 20\,GeV/$c$.
1032: The acceptance in the range 0.0-0.25\,GeV/$c$ is rapidly
1033: varying as a function of $p_T(J/\psi)$
1034: and increases with decreasing momenta from 0.7$\%$ at $p_T(J/\psi)
1035: =0.25$\,GeV/$c$ to 4\% for $J/\psi$ mesons almost at rest
1036: ($p_T < 50~$MeV/$c$). The muon transverse momentum is required to be greater
1037: than or equal to 1.5\,GeV/$c$, which is close to one-half of the
1038: $J/\psi$ mass, therefore when the $J/\psi$ is at rest both muons are
1039: likely to be above the $p_T$ threshold. As soon as the $J/\psi$
1040: receives a small boost, the probability is greater that at least one
1041: muon will be below the $p_T$ acceptance threshold and the acceptance
1042: starts to decrease until the $J/\psi$ transverse momentum exceeds 0.25\,GeV/$c$.
1043:
1044:
1045: There is a small but
1046: non-zero acceptance at $|y| = 0.6$ due to detector resolution and the
1047: size of the interaction region. $J/\psi$ Monte Carlo events
1048: generated with a
1049: flat rapidity distribution in the range $|y|_{\rm gen}<1.0$ and a $p_T$
1050: distribution as described in Section~\ref{sec_mc}
1051: are simulated. The relative acceptance of events
1052: generated with $|y|_{\rm \rm gen}>0.6$ and reconstructed with
1053: $|y|_{\rm \rm reco}<0.6$, ${\mathcal{A}}'$, is calculated thus:
1054: \begin{equation}
1055: {\mathcal{A}}' = \frac{N^{\rm rec}(|y|_{\rm gen}>0.6,|y|_{\rm
1056: rec}<0.6)} {N^{gen} (|y|_{\rm gen}<0.6)},
1057: \label{eqn_ysmear}
1058: \end{equation}
1059: where $ N^{\rm rec}(|y|_{\rm gen}>0.6,|y|_{\rm rec}<0.6)$ is the
1060: number of $J/\psi$ events in the Monte Carlo sample with reconstructed $|y|_{\rm \rm
1061: reco} < 0.6$ and generated $|y|_{\rm gen} > 0.6$ and $N^{gen} (|y|_{\rm
1062: gen}<0.6)$ is the total number of events generated with $|y|<0.6$.
1063: The value of ${\mathcal{A}}'$ is found to be
1064: very small: ${\mathcal{A}}' = 0.00071
1065: \pm 0.00006(stat)$. A correction factor of $(1-{\mathcal{A}}') =
1066: 99.93\%$ is applied to the $J/\psi$ yield calculated in each
1067: $p_T(J/\psi)$ bin.
1068:
1069:
1070:
1071: %We will use a two-dimensional parameterization using $p_T$ and rapidity
1072: %$y$ is used to model the acceptance.
1073:
1074:
1075: %\input{sections/acceptsyst.tex}
1076: A 2-dimensional acceptance function was used for an
1077: event-by-event correction during the cross section calculation process.
1078: In Table~\ref{tab_xsecsum}, the averaged acceptance values and
1079: the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties for
1080: each $p_T$ bin are given.
1081: Sources of systematic uncertainties studied are
1082: $J/\psi$ spin alignment, $p_T$ spectrum, CMU simulation and
1083: detector material description in GEANT simulation.
1084:
1085:
1086: Kinematic acceptance as a function of $p_T$ depends on the $J/\psi$
1087: spin alignment. The normalized alignment distribution is given by
1088: \begin{equation}
1089: I(\theta) = \frac{3}{2(\alpha+3)} (1 +
1090: \alpha \cos^2\theta),
1091: \end{equation}
1092: where $\theta$ is the angle between the muon in the $J/\psi$ rest
1093: frame and the direction of the $J/\psi$ in the lab
1094: frame~\cite{Jpsi_pol} and $\alpha$ quantifies the spin alignment. The
1095: parameter $\alpha$ must lie in the range -1 to 1 and $\alpha=0$
1096: %indicates unpolarized production.
1097: indicates no preferred spin alignment.
1098: The previous CDF measurements of
1099: the $J/\psi$ spin alignment parameter~\cite{Jpsi_pol} are consistent
1100: with zero but could also be as large as $50\%$ in some $p_T$
1101: regions. The weighted mean of $\alpha$ measured in different $p_T$
1102: ranges in~\cite{Jpsi_pol} is used to determine the central value of
1103: the parameter $\alpha$ to be used for the acceptance. The value of
1104: $\alpha=0.13 \pm 0.15$ is used for the final acceptance values where
1105: the uncertainty is chosen to accommodate the variation in the previous
1106: CDF measurements and the extrapolation to $p_T=0$ where $\alpha$ is
1107: expected to be zero. The uncertainty on acceptance
1108: due to spin alignment is largest
1109: in the lower momentum bins and decreases with increasing transverse
1110: momentum. We find the uncertainty is $\sim 5\%$ near $p_T=0$ and $2\%$
1111: in the region $17<p_T<20$\,GeV/$c$.
1112:
1113: To estimate the uncertainty from variations of the input
1114: transverse momentum spectrum, the acceptance is recalculated using
1115: a Monte Carlo sample generated using a flat distribution.
1116: The flat distribution is an extreme alternative from
1117: the nominal spectrum which is a fast falling function of $p_T$.
1118: The fractional change in acceptance is taken
1119: as the uncertainty on the input transverse momentum
1120: distribution. The uncertainty is about 3\%
1121: in the lowest momentum bin,
1122: less than $1\%$ in the 0.25 to 3\,GeV/$c$ bins,
1123: 1-2$\%$ in the 3 to 4\,GeV/$c$ bins,
1124: and 2-4$\%$ in the 4 to 20 GeV/$c$ bins.
1125:
1126:
1127:
1128: A systematic error of $1.0\%$ from uncertainties related to the CMU
1129: chamber simulation is estimated by comparing event
1130: distributions in data and in Monte Carlo.
1131: The modeling of the CMU coverage in $r$-$z$ plane,
1132: the wire efficiency differences between wedges in east and west
1133: and in different $\phi$ sections, and beam position in $z$ are found to be
1134: the major sources of the simulation uncertainties.
1135:
1136:
1137: There is a gap in CMU coverage in the central region of the
1138: detector in the $r$-$z$ plane. The gap in coverage is approximately $\pm
1139: 11$\,cm, measured at a radius of $347$\,cm.
1140: The fraction of muons falling in the gap region but still accepted by
1141: the CMU due to multiple scattering is compared between data and Monte
1142: Carlo. The deviation between the ratios in data and Monte Carlo is
1143: taken as the uncertainty in the modeling of the CMU fiducial volume
1144: in the center of the CDF detector. The uncertainty is found to be
1145: $0.20\%$.
1146:
1147:
1148: %Several factors contribute to the difference in the number of observed
1149: %muons from $J/\psi$ decays in the opposite halves of the
1150: %detector along $z$.
1151:
1152: Several factors contribute to the difference in the numbers of $J/\psi$ mesons
1153: with decay vertex in the opposite halves of the detector along $z$.
1154: These include the shift in the average primary vertex location
1155: towards positive $z$ (east), the exclusion of the low efficiency wedge on the
1156: west side of the detector, and the uncertainty in the modeling of
1157: the $z$ extent of the CMU detector, as well as the differences in the
1158: east and west chambers. We found a difference of $0.80\%$ between data
1159: and Monte Carlo on the east-west asymmetry in the number of reconstructed
1160: $J/\psi$ events.
1161:
1162: The $\phi$ acceptance of the CMU detector obtained from the GEANT
1163: simulation does not include the differences in gain and
1164: efficiencies between wedges. The number of events reconstructed in
1165: each wedge in data and Monte Carlo is examined and the total number of
1166: events in Monte Carlo is normalized to match the data. The standard
1167: deviation of the difference between the number of events reconstructed in
1168: each wedge between data and Monte Carlo is taken as the uncertainty on the
1169: CMU $\phi$ acceptance. We find an uncertainty of
1170: $0.55\%$ due to this source.
1171:
1172: Muons from $J/\psi$ are required to have the $z_0$ position
1173: to be within 90~\,cm of the center of the detector,
1174: $|z_0| < 90$~\,cm.
1175: %The $z_0$ position is the $z$ coordinate of a track's intersection
1176: %point with the beam axis in the $r$-$z$ plane.
1177: There is a small disagreement
1178: between the data and the Monte Carlo in the
1179: $z_0(\mu)$ distributions due to inadequate modeling of the
1180: interaction region. This contribution to
1181: the systematic error is estimated from the difference between the ratios of
1182: data and Monte Carlo tracks with $|z_0|<90$\,cm compared to all
1183: muons. We find an uncertainty of $0.28\%$.
1184:
1185:
1186: The material description of the CDF detector in GEANT
1187: determines the amount of energy loss from a muon track when it travels
1188: through the detector.
1189: Inside the tracking volume, the material description of the new
1190: silicon detector has the biggest impact on muon tracks in the
1191: low momentum range which is of special interest to this analysis.
1192: To estimate the systematic error on the acceptance from uncertainty of
1193: the detector material description, the SVX II
1194: material used in the simulation was varied by 10~$\%$ to 20$\%$.
1195: The systematic uncertainty is taken as the difference between the
1196: acceptance values measured with different material scale factors and
1197: the nominal. The uncertainty is largest in the low momentum bins
1198: where it is around 5\%.
1199:
1200: The systematic uncertainties on acceptance are summarized
1201: in Table~\ref{tab_syst}. The size of the uncertainties from $J/\psi$ spin
1202: alignment, $J/\psi$ $p_T$ spectrum and detector material
1203: description depends on the muon $p_T$ range as
1204: expected while the uncertainty from muon detector simulation
1205: is same for all $p_T$ ranges of interests in the analysis.
1206:
1207: \subsection{Data Quality}
1208: %\input{sections/dataval.tex}
1209:
1210: %To monitor the detector performance and response over time, the
1211: %$J/\psi$ yield and the mean and width of the signal distribution are
1212: %determined for each data run using a single Gaussian fit to the
1213: %dimuon invariant-mass distribution with a first order polynomial for
1214: %the background.
1215: The yield, mean, and resolution of the $J/\psi$ invariant mass peak were
1216: monitored over the period of the data taking to evaluate the detector
1217: performance.
1218: The number of $J/\psi$ mesons reconstructed is
1219: normalized by the integrated luminosity of each run.
1220: % Yields, reconstructed mass and width of $J/\psi$ from runs that
1221: % passed the COT and CMU offline validation requirements were
1222: % carefully examined.
1223: We identify outlying runs
1224: which may have additional hardware or trigger problems that have been
1225: undetected by the standard offline validation procedures. Runs with
1226: $J/\psi$ yields different by $4 \sigma$ from the average, where
1227: $\sigma$ is the standard deviation of the yields in a given run range,
1228: are considered outliers. Two such runs were found out of 457
1229: considered. The integrated luminosities of these two runs are 14.3
1230: nb$^{-1}$ and 258.3 nb$^{-1}$. Further investigations of online
1231: operational conditions during these runs revealed no obvious hardware
1232: or trigger malfunctions. Since the probability is 1\% that a data
1233: subsample of 258.3 nb$^{-1}$ out of a total sample of $39.7$ pb$^{-1}$
1234: would have a yield different by $>4 \sigma$, both runs are included in
1235: the baseline cross-section measurement. The measurement is repeated
1236: without the outlier runs included and a systematic uncertainty
1237: assigned from the difference in the measurements. We find the
1238: uncertainty on the total cross section to be less than $1\%$.
1239:
1240: \subsection{Trigger Efficiency}
1241: %\input{sections/trigeff.tex}
1242:
1243: For our measurement of the Level 1 di-muon trigger efficiency, we used
1244: $J/\psi$ events that were taken with a high-$p_T$ single-muon trigger.
1245: At Level 1, this trigger requires a muon with $p_T$ greater than
1246: $4.0$\,GeV/$c$.
1247: %At Level 1, this trigger requires an XFT track with $p_T $ greater than
1248: %$4.0$\,GeV/$c$ to be extrapolated to both a CMU stub and a CMP stub.
1249: % The muon trigger
1250: % crate determines a match to the CMP by extrapolating a found CMP stub
1251: % back to the CMU, and then looking for a fired CMU stub in the CMP
1252: %stub's extrapolation window.
1253: In Level 3, a $J/\psi$ is reconstructed using the triggered
1254: high-$p_T$ muon
1255: and a second muon which is not required to pass the Level 1
1256: requirements. This second muon is then used to measure the Level 1
1257: single-muon efficiency.
1258: The denominator of the efficiency measurement
1259: is the number of $J/\psi$ reconstructed using the
1260: Level 3 track and muon information.
1261: These $J/\psi$ candidates must
1262: have a mass between 2.7 and 3.6~GeV/$c^{2}$, a di-muon opening angle of
1263: $\Delta\phi_0< 130^\circ$, and a separation in $z_0$
1264: of less than 5\,cm between the candidate's tracks. The probe-muon
1265: track must have at least 20 COT axial-layer hits and 16 COT
1266: stereo-layer hits, a CMU $r$-$\phi$ match of $\chi^2(\Delta r\phi) < 9$,
1267: and a track $|z_0| < 90$\,cm. Tracks are excluded if they pass within
1268: 1.5\,cm of the center of any of the COT wire planes in
1269: any of the axial layers in order to avoid the inefficient region
1270: caused by wire supports. For the probe muon to pass
1271: the Level 1 trigger, the associated Level 3 track must be matched
1272: to an XFT track and the Level 3 CMU stub must be matched to a Level 1
1273: CMU stub that lies within XTRP window.
1274: %The Level 1 single CMU muon
1275: %trigger efficiency is measured versus Level 3 reconstructed muons that
1276: %are matched to an offline reconstructed track.
1277: %This efficiency is
1278: %found to be a function of only $p_T(\mu)$ when tracks passing within
1279: %1.5 \,cm of the center of the COT wire planes in any of the axial layers
1280: %are excluded.
1281: The resulting Level 1 muon-finding efficiency is shown in
1282: Fig.~\ref{fig_trigsys1}.
1283: \begin{figure}[!h]
1284: \centerline{\psfig{figure=figures/trigeffsyst_2.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
1285: }
1286: \caption{ The Level 1 CMU trigger efficiency as a function of
1287: muon $p_T$. Points with error bars are measurement points. The solid line is
1288: the fitting result using the function described in the text. The
1289: dashed lines are range used to
1290: determine the uncertainty.
1291: }
1292: \label{fig_trigsys1}
1293: \end{figure}
1294: The distribution is fit to the following function:
1295: \begin{equation}
1296: \epsilon_{\rm L1}^{\mu}(p_T^{\mu}) = E \cdot {\rm freq} \left( \frac{A -
1297: 1/p_T}{R} \right),
1298: \label{eqn_l1trig}
1299: \end{equation}
1300: where freq is the normal frequency function:
1301: \begin{equation}
1302: {\rm freq}(x) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int_{\rm -\infty}^{x} e^{-\frac{1}{2}
1303: t^2} dt,
1304: \end{equation}
1305: $E$ is the plateau efficiency, $A$ is associated with the $p_T$ at
1306: which the efficiency is half the peak value, and $R$ is the effective
1307: Gaussian resolution. We find $E = 0.977\pm0.002$,
1308: $A=1.1\pm0.1$~$(\rm\,GeV/c)^{-1}$, and $R=0.28\pm0.06$~$(\rm\,GeV/c)^{-1}$.
1309:
1310: To determine the uncertainty in the Level 1 trigger efficiency, while also
1311: taking into account the data fluctuations around the central fit as
1312: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_trigsys1}, the range of the
1313: uppermost and lowermost fluctuations supported by the data are
1314: computed as follows:
1315: $x'(p_T) = \bar{x} \pm ( |x-\bar{x}| + 1\sigma)$
1316: where $x$ is the data value, $\bar{x}$ is the value returned by the
1317: fit and $\sigma$ is the uncertainty on the data. The $x'(p_T)$
1318: distribution is refit using the function in Equation~\ref{eqn_l1trig}.
1319: The results are shown as dashed lines in Fig.~\ref{fig_trigsys1}.
1320: %The single muon
1321: %Level 1 trigger efficiency measurement with systematic uncertainties
1322: %is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_trigsys1}.
1323: The di-muon Level 1 trigger efficiency is calculated on an
1324: event-by-event basis to take into account $\mu$-$\mu$ correlations. For
1325: each $J/\psi$ candidate, the Level 1 $J/\psi$ reconstruction
1326: efficiency is given by:
1327: \begin{equation}
1328: \epsilon_{\rm L1}^{J/\psi}(p_T^{J/\psi})
1329: = \epsilon_{\rm L1}^{\mu}(p_T^{\mu_1}) \cdot \epsilon_{L1}^{\mu}(p_T^{\mu_2}),
1330: \end{equation}
1331: where $\epsilon_{\rm L1}^{\mu}(p_T^{\mu})$ is the single muon Level 1
1332: trigger efficiency given by Equation~\ref{eqn_l1trig}, and
1333: $p_T^{\mu_{\rm 1,2}}$ are the transverse momenta of the two muon
1334: candidates. The trigger's exclusion of pairs with nearby stubs is
1335: included as part of the geometric acceptance.
1336: The mean of the Level 1 di-muon trigger efficiency distribution in
1337: each $J/\psi$ transverse momentum bin is listed in
1338: Table ~\ref{tab_xsecsum}. The maximum difference from varying
1339: the trigger efficiencies by one standard deviation independently
1340: for the two muons is listed as the uncertainty on the di-muon trigger
1341: in Table ~\ref{tab_xsecsum}. We find that the variation is within
1342: $\pm 1.5\%$ in all bins.
1343:
1344: The Level 3 reconstruction efficiency is dominated by the difference
1345: between the online and offline tracking efficiency. A fast
1346: tracking algorithm is used for pattern recognition in the
1347: COT in Level 3. In the offline reconstruction a more accurate tracking
1348: algorithm is combined with the result of the Level 3
1349: algorithm to give a higher overall COT tracking
1350: efficiency. The Level 3 single-muon reconstruction efficiency as
1351: measured versus the offline reconstruction
1352: algorithm is found to be constant for $p_T(\mu)>1.5$\,GeV/$c$ and is
1353: \begin{equation}
1354: \epsilon_{\rm L3/Offline}^{\mu} = 0.997 \pm 0.001(stat) \pm 0.002
1355: (syst).
1356: \end{equation}
1357: In the Level 3 trigger, the muons are required to be separated in
1358: $z_0$ by less than 5\,cm. The efficiency $\epsilon_{\rm \Delta z_0}$
1359: of this cut is measured using $J/\psi$ candidates reconstructed
1360: in single-muon-trigger data samples where a Level 3 di-muon trigger was
1361: not required to acquire the data. The numbers of events that passed
1362: the $z_0$-separation criterion in the mass signal and sideband regions
1363: are examined. The cut is found to be 100\% efficient with an
1364: uncertainty of 0.1\%. The uncertainty is driven by the statistical
1365: limitations of the small data samples obtained from the single-muon
1366: triggers.
1367:
1368:
1369: \subsection{Reconstruction Efficiencies}
1370: %\input{sections/reco.tex}
1371:
1372: The COT tracking efficiency was measured using a Monte Carlo track
1373: embedding technique. Hits from simulated muon tracks are
1374: embedded into CDF Run II di-muon events. The distance resolution
1375: and hit-merging distance are adjusted so the embedded track has
1376: residuals and hit distributions matched to muon tracks in
1377: $J/\psi$ data events. The efficiency of COT track reconstruction in
1378: di-muon events is found to be
1379: \begin{equation}
1380: \epsilon_{\rm COT}(p_T^\mu>1.5 {\rm\,GeV/}c) =
1381: 0.9961\pm0.0002(stat)^{+0.0034}_{\rm -0.0091}(syst).
1382: \end{equation}
1383:
1384: The absolute offline reconstruction efficiency of muons including stub
1385: reconstruction and matching stubs to tracks is measured using
1386: $J/\psi$ events from single-muon trigger samples where the $J/\psi$ invariant
1387: mass is reconstructed from a triggered, fully-reconstructed muon and a
1388: second track. Tracks from the di-muon-mass signal region are projected to
1389: the muon chambers, and the efficiency of finding a matched stub is
1390: measured. For muons in the CMU fiducial
1391: region with $p_T(\mu)>1.5$\,GeV/$c$, the
1392: offline reconstruction efficiency is found to be independent of $p_T$
1393: and is measured to be:
1394: \begin{equation}
1395: \epsilon_{\rm CMU}^{\mu}= 0.986 \pm 0.003 \pm 0.010.
1396: \end{equation}
1397:
1398: To select clean CMU muons, the track-stub matching in the $r$-$\phi$
1399: plane is required to have $\chi^2(\Delta r\phi) < 9$. The
1400: efficiency of this cut is found to have a weak dependence on $p_T^{\mu}$:
1401: \begin{equation}
1402: \epsilon_{\rm \chi^2} = (1.0018\pm0.0003) - (0.0024\pm
1403: 0.0001) p_T^{\mu}.
1404: \label{eqn_chisq}
1405: \end{equation}
1406: The efficiency of the track-stub matching criterion
1407: ($\chi^2(\Delta r\phi) < 9$) as a function of $J/\psi$ transverse
1408: momentum, obtained using an event-by-event weighting is listed in
1409: Table~\ref{tab_xsecsum}. The systematic uncertainty on the weighted-average
1410: matching-cut efficiency is obtained by varying the normalization and
1411: slope in Equation~\ref{eqn_chisq} by one standard deviation. The
1412: change in the weighted average efficiency in each $J/\psi$ transverse momentum
1413: bin is found to be $\leq 0.2\%$.
1414:
1415: Since the two muons originate from a common decay point, the efficiency of the
1416: track $z_0$ cut is fully correlated for the two muons and is counted only once.
1417: The combined $p_T$ independent COT-tracking, muon and Level 3
1418: reconstruction efficiencies for $J/\psi$ mesons is calculated to be
1419: \begin{equation}
1420: \epsilon_{\rm rec} = \epsilon_{L3}^2 \cdot \epsilon_{COT}^2 \cdot
1421: \epsilon_{\rm CMU}^2 \cdot \epsilon_{z_0} \cdot
1422: \epsilon_{\rm \Delta_{z_0}} = 95.5 \pm 2.7 \%.
1423: \end{equation}
1424: Table~\ref{tab_effsum} summarizes the $p_T$-independent
1425: reconstruction efficiencies and those of the various muon
1426: selection cuts.
1427: %\input{tables/recoefftab.tex}
1428: \begin{table*}
1429: \caption{Summary of $J/\psi$ reconstruction efficiencies.}
1430: \begin{tabular}{|cc|}
1431: \hline \hline
1432: $J/\psi$ Selection & Efficiency \\ \hline
1433: Level 3 muon reconstruction
1434: & $\epsilon_{L3} = 0.997 \pm 0.001 \pm 0.002 $ \\
1435: COT offline tracking
1436: & $\epsilon_{COT} = 0.9961\pm0.0002^{+0.0034}_{-0.0091}$ \\
1437: Muon offline reconstruction
1438: & $\epsilon_{CMU}= 0.986 \pm 0.003 \pm 0.010 $\\
1439: Muon $z_0$ position less than $\pm 90$\,cm
1440: & $\epsilon_{z_0} = 0.9943 \pm 0.0016$ \\
1441: Di-muon $z_0$ separation less than $5$\,cm
1442: & $\epsilon_{\Delta z_0} = 1.0 \pm 0.001$ \\
1443: \hline
1444: Total reconstruction
1445: & $\epsilon_{rec} = \epsilon_{L3}^2 \cdot \epsilon_{COT}^2 \cdot \epsilon_{CMU}^2 \cdot \epsilon_{z_0} \cdot
1446: \epsilon_{\Delta z_0} = 95.5 \pm 2.7\%$ \\ \hline \hline
1447: \end{tabular}
1448: \label{tab_effsum}
1449: \end{table*}
1450:
1451: \section{\boldmath $J/\psi$ Cross Section}
1452: %\input{sections/xsec.tex}
1453:
1454: An event-by-event weighting is used to determine the $J/\psi$ yield
1455: in each $p_T$ bin. Each event is weighted using the Level 1 single muon
1456: efficiency $\epsilon_{\rm L1} (p_T^{\mu})$ and the efficiency of the
1457: track-stub matching criterion $ \epsilon_{\rm \chi^2} (p_T^{\mu})$ applied
1458: to each of the two muons. The event is then corrected for the
1459: acceptance ${\mathcal{A}}(p_T^{J/\psi},y^{J/\psi})$. The weight of
1460: each candidate event is given by:
1461: \begin{eqnarray}
1462: \nonumber
1463: 1/w_i = && \epsilon_{\rm L1} (p_T^{\mu1}) \cdot \epsilon_{L1} (p_T^{\mu2}) \cdot \\
1464: && \epsilon_{\rm \chi^2} (p_T^{\mu1}) \cdot \epsilon_{\chi^2} (p_T^{\mu2}) \cdot
1465: {\mathcal{A}}(p_T^{J/\psi},y^{J/\psi}).
1466: \end{eqnarray}
1467: We fit the invariant mass distributions of the weighted events, using
1468: the same shapes for signal and background as
1469: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_mass1a}, ~\ref{fig_mass1d},~\ref{fig_mass1b}
1470: and \ref{fig_mass1c}. The number
1471: of signal events in each transverse momentum bin is determined from
1472: the area under the signal mass peak. The error on the corrected yield from
1473: the mass template fit, $N(p_T)_{\rm corrected}$ is given by:
1474: \begin{equation}
1475: \delta (N(p_T)_{\rm corrected}) = \sqrt{ \sum_{i=0}^{i=N_s} \left( {w_i}
1476: \right)^2},
1477: \end{equation}
1478: where $N_s$ is the raw number of signal events in each momentum bin
1479: before weighting. In a similar fashion, the di-muon $p_T$ distribution
1480: in each bin is weighted. The weighed $p_T$ distribution of the mass
1481: sideband subtracted events in the $J/\psi$ mass signal region is used to
1482: determine the mean $p_T$ value for each transverse momentum bin.
1483:
1484: The $J/\psi$ differential cross section is then calculated as follows:
1485: \begin{equation}
1486: { d\sigma
1487: \over dp_T} \cdot Br(J/\psi \rightarrow \mu \mu)
1488: = {N(p_T)_{\rm corrected} \cdot (1-{\mathcal{A}'}) \over
1489: \epsilon_{\rm rec} \cdot
1490: \int{ {\cal L}} dt
1491: \cdot \Delta p_T},
1492: \end{equation}
1493: where $d\sigma/dp_T$ is the average cross section of inclusive $J/\psi$ in
1494: that $p_T$ bin integrated over $\mid y (J/\psi) \mid < 0.6$,
1495: ${\mathcal{A}'}$ is the correction factor for $y$ smearing defined by
1496: Equation~\ref{eqn_ysmear},
1497: $\epsilon_{\rm rec}$ is the combined Level 3 and offline tracking and muon
1498: reconstruction efficiency, $\int{ {\cal L} dt}$ is the integrated
1499: luminosity, and $\Delta p_T$ is the size of the $p_T$ bin.
1500:
1501: The cross-section values obtained with statistical and $p_T$-dependent
1502: uncertainties are listed
1503: in Table~\ref{tab_xsec}.
1504:
1505: %\input{tables/incxsectab}
1506: \begingroup
1507: \squeezetable
1508: \begin{table*}
1509: \caption{
1510: %\scriptsize
1511: The differential $J/\psi$ cross section times the
1512: branching fraction $Br \equiv Br(J/\psi \rightarrow \mu \mu)$
1513: as a function of $p_T$ for $|y(J/\psi)|<0.6$. For each measurement,
1514: the first uncertainty is
1515: statistical and the second uncertainty is systematic. The
1516: systematic uncertainties shown are the $p_T$ dependent uncertainties
1517: only. The fully correlated $p_T$ independent systematic uncertainty in
1518: each bin is $7\%$.}
1519: \begin{center}
1520: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
1521: \hline \hline
1522: $p_T(J/\psi)$ (\,GeV/$c$) & Mean $p_T$ & Mean $p_T^2$ & $\frac{d\sigma}{dp_T}
1523: \cdot Br$ (nb/(\,GeV/$c$)) & $\frac{d\sigma}{dp_T^2} \cdot Br$ (nb/(\,GeV/{\it{c}}$^{2}$)) \\ \hline
1524: $0.0-0.25$ & $ 0.15 $&$0.027$&$ 9.13 \pm 0.6 { (stat)} ^{+1.1}_{-0.7}
1525: { (syst)} $&$36.5 \pm 2.4 { (stat)} ^{+4.2}_{-2.6} { (syst)} $\\
1526: $0.25-0.5$ & $ 0.39 $&$0.16 $&$ 28.1 \pm 1.5 ^{+2.4}_{-1.6} $&$37.4 \pm 2.0^{+3.1}_{-2.0} $\\
1527: $0.5-0.75$ & $ 0.64 $&$0.42 $&$ 45.3 \pm 1.9 ^{+3.0}_{-2.1} $&$36.2 \pm 1.5^{+2.5}_{-1.8} $\\
1528: $0.75-1.0$ & $ 0.89 $&$0.79 $&$ 59.3 \pm 2.0 ^{+4.0}_{-2.9} $&$33.9 \pm 1.1^{+2.3}_{-1.6} $\\
1529: $1.0-1.25$ & $ 1.13 $&$1.29 $&$ 69.6 \pm 1.9 ^{+3.6}_{-3.2} $&$31.0 \pm 0.8^{+1.7}_{-1.5} $\\
1530: $1.25-1.5$ & $ 1.38 $&$1.91 $&$ 73.4 \pm 1.7 ^{+3.9}_{-3.5} $&$26.7 \pm 0.6^{+1.4}_{-1.3} $\\
1531: $1.5-1.75$ & $ 1.63 $&$2.66 $&$ 75.2 \pm 1.6 ^{+3.8}_{-3.3} $&$23.2 \pm 0.5^{+1.2}_{-1.0} $\\
1532: $1.75-2.0$ & $ 1.87 $&$3.52 $&$ 72.9 \pm 1.4 ^{+3.7 }_{-3.3} $&$19.4 \pm 0.4^{+0.9}_{-0.8} $\\
1533: $2.0-2.25$ & $ 2.13 $&$4.53 $&$ 69.1 \pm 0.8 ^{+3.3 }_{-2.9} $&$16.3 \pm 0.2^{+0.8}_{-0.7} $\\
1534: $2.25-2.5$ & $ 2.38 $&$5.65 $&$ 67.3 \pm 1.0 ^{+3.1 }_{-2.8} $&$14.2 \pm 0.2^{+0.7}_{-0.6} $\\
1535: $2.5-2.75$ & $ 2.62 $&$6.89 $&$ 57.6 \pm 0.9 \pm 2.6 $&$11.0 \pm 0.2 \pm 0.5 $\\
1536: $2.75-3.0$ & $ 2.87 $&$8.26 $&$ 52.0 \pm 0.8 \pm 2.4 $&$9.04 \pm 0.13 \pm 0.41 $\\
1537: $3.0-3.25$ & $ 3.12 $&$9.76 $&$ 43.6 \pm 0.7 \pm 1.9 $&$6.97 \pm 0.10 \pm 0.31 $\\
1538: $3.25-3.5$ & $ 3.38 $&$11.4 $&$ 37.3 \pm 0.6 \pm 1.6 $&$5.53 \pm 0.08 \pm 0.24 $\\
1539: $3.5-3.75$ & $ 3.62 $&$13.1 $&$ 31.5 \pm 0.5 \pm 1.3 $&$4.34 \pm 0.07 \pm 0.18 $\\
1540: $3.75-4.0$ & $ 3.87 $&$15.0 $&$ 26.2 \pm 0.4 \pm 1.2 $&$3.38 \pm 0.05 \pm 0.15 $\\
1541: $4.0-4.25$ & $ 4.12 $&$17.0 $&$ 22.5 \pm 0.4 \pm 1.0 $&$2.72 \pm 0.05 \pm 0.12 $\\
1542: $4.25-4.5$ & $ 4.38 $&$19.2 $&$ 18.7 \pm 0.3 \pm 0.8 $&$2.13 \pm 0.04 \pm 0.09 $\\
1543: $4.5-4.75$ & $ 4.62 $&$21.4 $&$ 16.1 \pm 0.3 \pm 0.7 $&$1.74 \pm 0.03 \pm 0.08 $\\
1544: $4.75-5.0$ & $ 4.88 $&$23.8 $&$ 13.3 \pm 0.3 \pm 0.6 $&$1.37 \pm 0.03 \pm 0.06 $\\
1545: $5.0-5.5$ & $ 5.24 $&$27.5 $&$ 10.3 \pm 0.15 \pm 0.42 $&$0.984 \pm 0.014 \pm 0.040 $\\
1546: $5.5-6.0$ & $ 5.74 $&$33.0 $&$ 7.28 \pm 0.12 \pm 0.29 $&$0.633 \pm 0.010 \pm 0.025 $\\
1547: $6.0-6.5$ & $ 6.24 $&$38.9 $&$ 5.11 \pm 0.09 \pm 0.20 $&$0.408 \pm 0.0069 \pm 0.016 $\\
1548: $6.5-7.0$ & $ 6.74 $&$45.5 $&$ 3.54 \pm 0.07 \pm 0.14 $&$0.262 \pm 0.0052 \pm 0.010 $\\
1549: $7.0-8.0$ & $ 7.45 $&$55.7 $&$ 2.27 \pm 0.03 \pm 0.10 $&$0.151 \pm 0.0019 \pm 0.006 $\\
1550: $8.0-9.0$ & $ 8.46 $&$71.6 $&$ 1.14 \pm 0.02 \pm 0.05 $&$0.0668 \pm 0.0011 \pm 0.0028 $\\
1551: $9.0-10.0$ & $ 9.46 $&$89.5 $&$0.622 \pm 0.013 \pm 0.025 $&$0.0327 \pm 0.0007 \pm 0.0013 $\\
1552: $10.0-12.0$ & $ 10.8 $&$118 $&$0.278 \pm 0.006 \pm 0.011 $&$0.0126 \pm 0.0003 \pm 0.0005 $\\
1553: $12.0-14.0$ & $ 12.8 $&$165 $&$0.103 \pm 0.003 \pm 0.004 $&$0.00398 \pm 0.00013 \pm 0.00015 $\\
1554: $14.0-17.0$ & $ 15.2 $&$233 $&$0.037 \pm 0.002 \pm 0.002 $&$0.00120 \pm 0.00005 \pm 0.00006 $\\
1555: $17.0-20.0$ & $ 18.3 $&$336 $&$0.014 \pm 0.001 \pm 0.001 $&$0.00037 \pm 0.00004 \pm 0.00002 $\\
1556: \hline \hline
1557: \end{tabular}
1558: \end{center}
1559: \label{tab_xsec}
1560: \end{table*}
1561: \endgroup
1562:
1563:
1564:
1565: An uncertainty of +0.1$\%$ on the momentum scale is extracted by
1566: comparing the reconstructed $J/\psi$ mass as shown in
1567: Fig.~\ref{jpsi-rawmass.eps} to the world averaged value
1568: of $3.09688 \pm 0.00004$\,GeV/$c^2$~\cite{PDG}.
1569: The 3 MeV/$c^2$ difference is attributed to an underestimation of
1570: the energy loss in the silicon detector due to an incomplete
1571: accounting of the material at the time the data sample used in this analysis
1572: was processed.
1573: The $+0.1\%$ uncertainty from the momentum
1574: scale corresponds to an uncertainty on the differential cross section
1575: as $ d(d\sigma/dp_T)/dp_T \times 0.1\%$.
1576: Using the values in Table~\ref{tab_xsec}, the first derivative of the
1577: differential cross section is calculated and the momentum scale
1578: uncertainty on the cross section in each bin estimated. The effect was
1579: found to be small, the largest negative deviation being $-0.08\%$ and
1580: the largest positive deviation being $+0.7\%$.
1581:
1582: Table~\ref{tab_syst} summarizes the different contributions to the
1583: systematic errors applied to the cross-section measurement from
1584: acceptance calculations using a Monte Carlo simulation, the mass line
1585: shapes used to determine the yield, the trigger and reconstruction
1586: efficiencies, and the luminosity measurement.
1587:
1588: %\input{tables/incsysttab}
1589: \begin{table}[!ht]
1590: \caption{Summary of systematic uncertainties in the inclusive $J/\psi$
1591: cross-section measurement. The $p_T$ dependent uncertainties are listed in
1592: the top section of the table. In general, the $p_T$ dependent
1593: uncertainties increase with decreasing $p_T$. The total is calculated from
1594: the $p_T$ independent sources only.
1595: }
1596: \begin{center}
1597: \begin{tabular}{|ccc|}
1598: \hline \hline
1599: & Source & Size \\ \hline
1600: Acceptance & $ J/\psi$ spin alignment &$\pm (2\rightarrow5)\%$ ($p_T$) \\
1601: Acceptance & $p_T$ spectrum & $\pm (0\rightarrow5)\%$ ($p_T$)\\
1602: Acceptance & Detector material & $\pm (0.4\rightarrow 5)\%$ ($p_T$)\\
1603: Yield & Mass fits & $ (-1.3 \rightarrow +9)\%$ ($p_T$) \\
1604: Yield & Momentum scale & $ (-0.1 \rightarrow +0.7)\%$ ($p_T$) \\ \hline
1605: Luminosity & CLC & $\pm 6.0\%$ \\
1606: Reconstruction & Table~\ref{tab_effsum} & $\pm 2.8\%$ \\
1607: Acceptance & CMU simulation & $\pm 1.0\%$ \\
1608: Yield & Data quality & $\pm 1.0\%$ \\
1609: L1 trigger efficiency & Table~\ref{tab_xsecsum} & $\pm 1.5\%$ \\ \hline
1610: Total & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{ $\pm 6.9\% \oplus \delta(p_T)$}
1611: \\ \hline \hline
1612: \end{tabular}
1613: \end{center}
1614: \label{tab_syst}
1615: \end{table}
1616:
1617: The differential cross-section results with systematic and statistical
1618: uncertainties are displayed in Fig.~\ref{Jpsi_xsec_syst.eps}.
1619: \begin{figure}[!h]
1620: \centerline{\psfig{figure=figures/xsec_pub.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
1621: }
1622: \caption{Inclusive $J/\psi$ cross section,
1623: $d\sigma/dp_T \cdot Br(J/\psi \rightarrow \mu \mu)$,
1624: as a function of $J/\psi$
1625: $p_T$ integrated over the rapidity range $|y|<0.6$. The differential
1626: cross section with systematic and statistical uncertainties added is
1627: plotted. This includes correlated uncertainties. }
1628: \label{Jpsi_xsec_syst.eps}
1629: \end{figure}
1630: The invariant cross section,
1631: $d\sigma/dp_T^2 \cdot Br(J/\psi \rightarrow \mu \mu) $, with systematic errors is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_ptsqr}.
1632: %The mass sideband subtracted $p_T^2$ distribution is
1633: %examined in each $p_T$ bin; the mean of the distribution is used as
1634: %the central value of $p_T^2$ in that range.
1635: The results are also listed
1636: in Table~\ref{tab_xsec}.
1637: \begin{figure}[!h]
1638: \centerline{\psfig{figure=figures/xsec_ptsqr_pub.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
1639: }
1640: \caption{The invariant $J/\psi$ cross section,
1641: $d\sigma/dp_T^2 \cdot Br(J/\psi \rightarrow \mu \mu)$,
1642: as a function of $p_T^2 (J/\psi)$.
1643: The differential cross section
1644: is plotted. This includes correlated uncertainties. }
1645: \label{fig_ptsqr}
1646: \end{figure}
1647:
1648: We integrate the
1649: differential cross section to find the total
1650: $J/\psi$ production cross section:
1651: \begin{eqnarray}
1652: \nonumber
1653: && \sigma(p \overline{p} \rightarrow J/\psi X,\mid y (J/\psi) \mid <
1654: 0.6) \cdot Br(J/\psi \rightarrow \mu \mu) \\
1655: && = \TOTXSECBR \ {\rm nb}.
1656: \end{eqnarray}
1657: %The statistical errors are added in quadrature.
1658: The $p_T$-dependent systematic uncertainties are summed and then
1659: added in quadrature with the fully-correlated uncertainty of 6.9\%:
1660: \begin{eqnarray}
1661: \delta_{\rm tot \ \sigma \cdot {rm Br} }^{stat} &=& \sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm bins}}
1662: (\delta_i^{stat})^2} = 1 \ {\rm nb} \\ \nonumber
1663: \delta_{\rm tot \ \sigma \cdot {rm Br} }^{syst} &=& \left\{ \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm bins}}
1664: \delta_i^{syst} (p_T) \right\} \oplus \pm 16 \ {\rm nb} \\
1665: & = & ^{+21}_{\rm -19} \ {\rm nb},
1666: \end{eqnarray}
1667: where $N_{\rm bins}$ is the total number of $p_T$ bins,
1668: $\delta_i^{stat}$ is the statistical uncertainty in the cross-section
1669: measurement in the $i^{th}$ bin, $\delta_i^{syst} (p_T)$ is the
1670: systematic uncertainty on the measurement in each $p_T$ bin
1671: independent of the correlated systematic uncertainty of 6.9\%, and
1672: $\oplus$ denotes addition in quadrature. After correcting for the
1673: $Br(J/\psi
1674: \rightarrow \mu \mu) = 5.88 \pm 0.10 \%$~\cite{PDG}, we find
1675: \begin{eqnarray}
1676: \nonumber
1677: && \sigma(p \overline{p} \rightarrow J/\psi X,\mid y (J/\psi) \mid < 0.6) \\
1678: && = \TOTXSEC \ \mu{\rm b}.
1679: \end{eqnarray}
1680:
1681:
1682: To compare with prior measurements where only the portion of the cross
1683: section for $p_T(J/\psi)$ exceeding 5\,GeV/$c$ was
1684: measured~\cite{RUNIPSI}, we also measure the integrated cross section of
1685: inclusive $J/\psi$ with $p_T>5$\,GeV/$c$ and $|\eta|<0.6$ at
1686: $\sqrt{s}=1960$\,GeV. We find the cross section is
1687: %The cross section with $|y|<0.6$
1688: %is 10\% higher than the cross section over the same $p_T$ range but
1689: %for $|\eta|<0.6$. Therefore this measurement for $p_T>5$\,GeV/$c$.
1690: %integrated over $|\eta|<0.6$ is:
1691: \begin{eqnarray}
1692: \nonumber
1693: && \sigma( p \overline{p} \rightarrow J/\psi X,
1694: p_T (J/\psi)>5.0 \ {\rm\,GeV/}c, \mid \eta (J/\psi) \mid <
1695: 0.6) \cdot Br(J/\psi \rightarrow \mu \mu) \\
1696: && = \XSECGTFIVEETA \ {\rm nb}.
1697: \label{eqn_incgt5}
1698: \end{eqnarray}
1699: %where we have not corrected for the $J/\psi \rightarrow \mu \mu$
1700: %branching fraction.
1701: We discuss the comparison of this result with earlier data in
1702: Section~\ref{sec_discuss}.
1703:
1704: \section{\boldmath $H_b \rightarrow J/\psi$ Fraction and the $b$-hadron Cross Section}
1705: %\input{sections/bfracintro.tex}
1706: In general, the inclusive $J/\psi$ cross section contains
1707: contributions from various sources: prompt production of charmonium;
1708: decays of excited charmonium states such as $\psi(2S),
1709: \ \chi_{\rm c1}$ and $\chi_{c2}$; and decays of $b$-hadrons. The
1710: charmonium states decay immediately. In contrast, $b$-hadrons have
1711: long lifetimes that are on the order of picoseconds.
1712: This implies that $J/\psi$ events from the decays of $b$-hadrons are
1713: likely to be displaced from the beamline.
1714: We exploit this feature to separate $J/\psi$ of decay products of
1715: $b$-hadrons from that of prompt charmonium in the $p_T$ bins used in the
1716: inclusive $J/\psi$ cross section calculation.
1717:
1718:
1719: To measure the fraction of $J/\psi$ events that are from displaced decay
1720: vertices, we use the subset of the $J/\psi$ sample that includes
1721: those events for which both muon tracks from the
1722: $J/\psi$ satisfy high quality COT-SVX II track requirements.
1723: The track
1724: extrapolation from the path formed by the trajectory in the COT into
1725: the SVX II is described in Section~\ref{sec_track}. The total number
1726: of hits expected in the five layers of the SVX II is determined from
1727: the number of functioning and powered silicon sensors intersected by
1728: the COT muon track. Tracks missing more than one expected hit in the
1729: SVX II are rejected. Both tracks are required to have a hit in the
1730: innermost layer of the SVX II and a hit in the second layer if the
1731: sensor intersected by the COT track is functioning.
1732: Corrections for energy loss in the SVX II are applied to the candidate
1733: muons based on a GEANT simulation of the material. The two muon
1734: tracks are constrained to come from a common space point. The
1735: $\chi^2$ probability of this 3-dimensional vertex fit is required
1736: to exceed 0.001. We find that $139200 \pm 500$ events, or about half of the
1737: total $J/\psi$ data sample, pass these criteria. While the data sample
1738: is reduced by the SVX II requirements, the momentum, angle, and vertex
1739: resolutions are substantially improved.
1740:
1741: The primary vertex, taken as the beam position in the $r$-$\phi$ plane,
1742: is assumed as the point where $b$-hadrons are produced.
1743: It is calculated on a run-by-run basis from a data sample taken using
1744: the inclusive jet trigger which has
1745: negligible contributions from charm and
1746: bottom decays so the beamline position can be calculated with no bias
1747: from detached decay vertices.
1748: %The average $r$-$\phi$ resolution is
1749: %$\sim 30~\mu$m for the measured beamline position.
1750: The resolution of the primary vertex in the $r$-$\phi$ plane is limited
1751: by the $\sim 30~\mu$m RMS spread in the size of the beam envelope.
1752:
1753: \subsection{\boldmath Measurement of the Fraction of $J/\psi$ Events from $b$-hadrons}
1754: %\input{sections/bfrac.tex}
1755:
1756: The $J/\psi$ from the decay of $H_b \rightarrow J/\psi X $ is likely to be
1757: displaced from the primary vertex where $b$-hadrons are assumed to be
1758: produced.
1759: The signed projection of the flight distance of $J/\psi$ on its
1760: transverse momentum, $L_{\rm xy}$, is a good measurement of the
1761: displaced vertex and can be used as a variable to separate
1762: $J/\psi$ of the $H_b$ decay products from that of prompt decays.
1763: This method works well for events with high $J/\psi$ $p_T$ where the
1764: flight direction aligns well with that of the $b$-hadron.
1765: For events with very low $J/\psi$ $p_T$, the non-negligible
1766: amount of $J/\psi$ with large opening angle between its flight direction
1767: and that of the $b$-hadron will impair the separation ability.
1768: Monte Carlo simulation shows that a reliable $b$-fraction can be extracted
1769: using this method for events with $J/\psi$ $p_T$ greater than 1.25\,GeV/$c$.
1770:
1771: The $L_{\rm xy}$ is calculated as
1772: \begin{equation}
1773: L_{\rm xy}(J/\psi) = \vec{L} \cdot \vec{p}_T(J/\psi) / |p_T(J/\psi)|,
1774: \end{equation}
1775: where $\vec{L}$ is the vector from the primary vertex to the $J/\psi$
1776: decay vertex in the $r$-$\phi$ plane and $\vec{p}_T(J/\psi)$ is the
1777: transverse momentum vector.
1778: To reduce the dependence on the $J/\psi$ transverse momentum bin size
1779: and placement, a new variable $x$, called pseudo-proper decay time,
1780: is used instead of $L_{\rm xy}$,
1781: \begin{equation}
1782: x=L_{\rm xy}(J/\psi)\cdot M(J/\psi)/p_T(J/\psi),
1783: \label{eqn_xdef}
1784: \end{equation}
1785: where the $M(J/\psi)$ is taken as the known $J/\psi$ mass~\cite{PDG}.
1786: A Monte Carlo simulation is needed to model the
1787: distribution of $x(J/\psi)$ from $b$-hadron events. The Monte Carlo
1788: templates of the $x$ distributions
1789: $\mathcal{X}_{\rm mc}(x,p_T^{\rm J/\psi})$ are generated for all $J/\psi$
1790: transverse momentum ranges and are directly convoluted with the value
1791: of the $x$ resolution function measured in the data without allowing
1792: any of the parameters governing the shape of the Monte Carlo
1793: distributions to vary.
1794:
1795:
1796:
1797:
1798:
1799: \subsubsection{The Likelihood Function}
1800:
1801: An unbinned maximum likelihood fit is used to extract the
1802: $b$-fraction, $f_B$, from the data. The $J/\psi$ pseudo-proper decay time $x$,
1803: its error $\sigma$, and the mass of the di-muon pair $m_{\rm\mu\mu}$ are
1804: the input variables. A simultaneous mass and lifetime
1805: fit is performed using a log-likelihood function ($\ln
1806: \mathcal{L}$) given by:
1807: \begin{equation}
1808: \ln {\cal L} = \sum_{\rm i=1}^{N} \ln {\cal F}(x,m_{\mu\mu}),
1809: \end{equation}
1810: where $N$ is the total number of events in the mass range
1811: $2.85<m_{\rm \mu\mu}<3.35 $\,GeV/$c^2$.
1812:
1813: The mass and pseudo-proper decay time distribution is described
1814: by the following function,
1815: \begin{eqnarray}
1816: \nonumber
1817: {\cal F}(x,m_{\rm \mu\mu}) &=& f_{\rm Sig}\times
1818: {\cal F}_{\rm Sig} (x) \times {\cal M}_{\rm Sig}(m_{\mu\mu}) \\
1819: &+& (1-f_{\rm Sig})
1820: \times {\cal F}_{\rm Bkg}(x)
1821: \times {\cal M}_{\rm Bkg}(m_{\mu\mu}),
1822: \end{eqnarray}
1823: where $f_{\rm Sig}$ is the fraction of signal $J/\psi$ events in the mass
1824: region, ${\cal F}_{Sig}$ and ${\cal F}_{Bkg}$ are the
1825: functional forms describing the $J/\psi$ pseudo-proper decay time distribution
1826: for the signal and background events respectively,
1827: and ${\cal M}_{\rm Sig}$ and ${\cal M}_{\rm Bkg}$
1828: are the functional forms describing the invariant mass
1829: distributions for the signal and background events respectively. We now
1830: describe these components of the likelihood fit in more detail.
1831:
1832: %\begin{description}
1833:
1834: %\item[The pseudo-proper decay time Signal Function:]
1835: The function for modeling the $J/\psi$ pseudo-proper decay time
1836: signal distribution consists of two parts, the $H_b\rightarrow J/\psi X$ decay
1837: and prompt decay functions labeled ${\cal F}_B(x)$ and ${\cal F}_P(x)$
1838: respectively:
1839: \begin{equation}
1840: {\cal F}_{\rm Sig}(x) = \left[f_B \cdot {\cal F}_B(x) + (1-f_B)
1841: \cdot {\cal F}_P(x)\right],
1842: \end{equation}
1843: where $f_B$ is the fraction of $J/\psi$ mesons originating
1844: in $b$-hadron decays. We use the $x$ distributions ${\mathcal{X}}_{\rm mc}$ of
1845: accepted events from a Monte Carlo simulation as templates for the $x$
1846: distribution of $b$-hadron events in data. The generated distributions
1847: are convoluted with a resolution function $ R (x'-x, s\sigma)$ such
1848: that the $H_b
1849: \rightarrow J/\psi X $ signal shape is given by
1850: \begin{equation}
1851: {\cal F}_B(x) = R (x'-x, s\sigma) \otimes {\mathcal{X}}_{\rm mc}(x'),
1852: \end{equation}
1853: where $s$ is an overall error scale factor which represents the
1854: possible errors in determining the lifetime resolution and $\otimes$
1855: denotes a convolution. Prompt $J/\psi$ mesons are produced at the primary vertex,
1856: therefore their observed displacement
1857: is described only by the resolution function ${\cal F}_P =
1858: R(x,s\sigma)$. We find that $ R (x'-x, s\sigma)$ is best described by
1859: a sum of two Gaussian distributions centered at $x=0$.
1860:
1861: %\item[The pseudo-proper decay time Background Function:]
1862: The background requires
1863: a more complicated
1864: parameterization to obtain a good fit to the data outside the $J/\psi$
1865: signal region. The pseudo-proper decay time background function is composed of
1866: four parts: the zero lifetime component, a positive slope exponential
1867: function, a negative slope exponential function, and a symmetric
1868: exponential function with both positive and negative slopes. The
1869: positive slope exponential function is chosen to model the background
1870: from other long lived $b$-hadron events that produce opposite sign
1871: muons such as $b\rightarrow c \mu^- \bar{\nu} X, c \rightarrow \mu^+ \nu
1872: X$. The zero lifetime component is chosen to be the same shape as the
1873: resolution function. The symmetric and negative slope exponential
1874: functions are added to parameterize the remaining components of the
1875: background pseudo-proper decay time distributions which are from unknown
1876: sources. The background exponential tails are also convoluted with the
1877: resolution function.
1878:
1879: The background functional form is parameterized as follows:
1880: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
1881: &{\cal F}_{\rm Bkg}(x)=&(1-f_{+}-f_{-} -f_{\rm sym}) R(x,s \sigma)\\ \nonumber
1882: && +{f_{\rm +} \over \lambda_{+}} \exp(-{x' \over \lambda_{+}}) \theta(x')
1883: \otimes R (x'-x, s\sigma)\\ \nonumber
1884: && +{f_{\rm -} \over \lambda_{-}} \exp({x' \over \lambda_{-}}) \theta(-x')
1885: \otimes R (x'-x, s\sigma) \\ \nonumber
1886: && +{f_{\rm sym} \over 2\lambda_{sym}} \exp(-{x'\over\lambda_{sym}}) \theta(x')
1887: \otimes R (x'-x, s\sigma) \\
1888: && +{f_{\rm sym} \over 2\lambda_{sym}}\exp({x'\over \lambda_{sym}}) \theta(-x')
1889: \otimes R (x'-x, s\sigma),
1890: \end{eqnarray}
1891: where $f_{\rm \pm,~\rm{sym}}$ is the fraction of the background distribution
1892: in the positive, negative and symmetric exponential tails
1893: respectively, $\lambda_{\rm \pm,sym}$ are the corresponding
1894: exponential slopes, and $\theta (x)$ is the step function defined as
1895: $\theta (x) = 1 $ for $x \geq 0$ and $\theta (x) = 0$ for $x < 0$. It should
1896: be kept in mind that the background
1897: strongly depends on $p_T$ and $m_{\rm \mu\mu}$, and that the likelihood
1898: function incorporates a global fit over the full mass window shown in
1899: Fig.~\ref{fig_mass1a} to Fig.~\ref{fig_mass1c}, including the $J/\psi$
1900: peak and mass sidebands.
1901:
1902: %\item[The Mass Signal Function:]
1903: The mass resolution used in the
1904: likelihood fit is better than that shown in Figs.~3 - 5 because
1905: of the addition of SVX II hits to the tracks. For the likelihood fit,
1906: the di-muon mass shape ${\cal M}_{\rm Sig}$ is chosen to be simply
1907: the sum of two Gaussian distributions.
1908: %to better parameterize the $m_{\rm \mu\mu}$ distribution at low invariant
1909: %mass due to radiative decays of $J/\psi\rightarrow \mu \mu \gamma$.
1910: The means of the Gaussian distributions are allowed to
1911: float independently:
1912: \begin{eqnarray}
1913: \nonumber
1914: {\cal M}_{\rm Sig}(m_{\mu\mu}) & = & G_1(m_{\mu\mu}-M, \sigma_M) \\
1915: &+& f_2 \cdot G_2(m_{\rm \mu\mu}-(M+D), r_2 \sigma_M).
1916: \end{eqnarray}
1917: The mass fit parameters are the mean $M$ of the mass
1918: distribution, the width $\sigma_M$ of the first Gaussian distribution,
1919: the fraction $f_2$ of the second Gaussian distribution, the shift $D$
1920: in the mean of the
1921: second Gaussian distribution, and the ratio $r_2$ of the widths of the two
1922: Gaussian distributions.
1923: %\item[The Mass Background Function:]
1924: The mass background is modeled using a linear distribution. This fit
1925: is adequate for the SVX~II
1926: constrained di-muon mass. The function used, normalized to unity over
1927: the mass range $m^{min}$ to $m^{max}$ is:
1928: \begin{eqnarray}
1929: \nonumber
1930: {\cal M}_{\rm Bkg}(m_{\mu\mu}) & = &
1931: \frac{1}{m_{\rm \mu\mu}^{max}-m_{\mu\mu}^{min}} \\
1932: &+& M_{\rm slope} (m_{\mu\mu} - \frac{m_{\mu\mu}^{max}+m_{\mu\mu}^{min}}{2}),
1933: \end{eqnarray}
1934: where $M_{\rm slope}$ is the slope of the mass background
1935: distribution. The only fit parameter is $M_{\rm slope}$.
1936:
1937: %\end{description}
1938:
1939: \subsubsection{The Fits and Systematic Uncertainties}
1940:
1941: \begin{figure}[!h]
1942: \centerline{
1943: \psfig{figure=figures/fit_bin24_pctau_fonll_lxy1_allct.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
1944: }
1945: \caption{Fits to the $J/\psi$ pseudo-proper decay time in the range
1946: $1.25<p_T(\mu\mu)<1.5$\,GeV/$c$ to extract the fraction of events from
1947: long-lived $b$-hadron decays. The solid line is the fit to all the
1948: events in the mass window of 2.85 to 3.35\,GeV/$c^2$, the dashed line
1949: is the fit to all signal events, the solid histogram is the fit to the
1950: portion of the signal events that are from $b$-hadron decays and the
1951: dot-dashed line is the fit to background events including events in
1952: the invariant mass sidebands.}
1953: \label{fig_bfracfita}
1954: \end{figure}
1955: \begin{figure}[!h]
1956: \centerline{
1957: \psfig{figure=figures/fit_bin13_pctau_fonll_expf_lxy1_allct.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
1958: }
1959: \caption{Fits to the $J/\psi$ pseudo-proper decay time in the range
1960: $5.0<p_T(\mu\mu)<5.5$\,GeV/$c$ to extract the fraction of events from
1961: long-lived $b$-hadron decays. The solid line is the fit to all the
1962: events in the mass window, the dashed line is the fit to all signal
1963: events, the solid histogram is the fit to the portion of the signal
1964: events that are from $b$-hadron decays and the dot-dashed line is the
1965: fit to background events. }
1966: \label{fig_bfracfitb}
1967: \end{figure}
1968: \begin{figure}[!h]
1969: \centerline{
1970: \psfig{figure=figures/fit_bin21_pctau_fonll_expf_lxy1_allct.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
1971: }
1972: \caption{Fits to the $J/\psi$ pseudo-proper decay time in the range
1973: $12.0<p_T(\mu\mu)<14.0$\,GeV/$c$ to extract the fraction of events from
1974: long-lived $b$-hadron decays. The solid line is the fit to all the
1975: events in the mass window, the dashed line is the fit to all signal
1976: events, the solid histogram is the fit to the portion of the signal
1977: events that are from $b$-hadron decays and the dot-dashed line is the
1978: fit to background events. }
1979: \label{fig_bfracfitc}
1980: \end{figure}
1981:
1982: \begin{figure}[!h]
1983: \centerline{\psfig{figure=figures/bfraction_pub.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}}
1984: \caption{Fraction of $J/\psi$ from $b$-hadron decays in the inclusive
1985: $J/\psi$ events of Run-II data as a function of $J/\psi$ transverse momentum.
1986: Error bars include both statistical and systematic errors. }
1987: \label{fig_bfracbless}
1988: \end{figure}
1989: The fits to the $J/\psi$ pseudo-proper decay time in three sample $p_T$ ranges
1990: are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_bfracfita}, Fig.~\ref{fig_bfracfitb} and
1991: Fig.~\ref{fig_bfracfitc}. These data correspond to a subset of the data in
1992: the mass plots shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_mass1a} to Fig.~\ref{fig_mass1c}
1993: which satisfy the SVX II tracking requirements.
1994: The values of the $b$-fractions from the fits with statistical and systematic
1995: uncertainties for events with $J/\psi$ transverse
1996: momenta of 1.25\,GeV/$c$ to 20.0\,GeV/$c$ are listed
1997: in Table~\ref{tab_accsystb}, and the
1998: distribution is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_bfracbless}.
1999: %The Run II measurement has been
2000: %extended to a minimum $J/\psi$ transverse momenta of 1.25\,GeV/$c$.
2001: This measurement of the $b$-fraction is used in
2002: Section~\ref{sec_bxsec}, in conjunction with the measurement of the
2003: inclusive $J/\psi$ cross section, to calculate the inclusive
2004: $b$-hadron cross section.
2005:
2006: %\input{polar}
2007:
2008: %\input{tables/bjpsiacctab}
2009: \begingroup
2010: \squeezetable
2011: \begin{table*}
2012: \caption{
2013: %\scriptsize
2014: The fraction of $J/\psi$ events from decays of $b$-hadrons
2015: and the corresponding acceptance. The first uncertainty on
2016: the $b$-fraction is the statistical uncertainty from the unbinned likelihood
2017: fit and the second uncertainty is the combined systematic uncertainties
2018: on the measurement of the $b$-fraction. The uncertainty on the
2019: acceptance is the combined statistical uncertainty from Monte Carlo
2020: statistics and the systematic uncertainty on the acceptance measurement. }
2021: \begin{center}
2022: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
2023: \hline \hline
2024: $p_T(J/\psi)$ & Fraction from & Acceptance \\
2025: \,GeV/$c$ & $b$-hadrons & $H_b\rightarrow J/\psi X$ \\ \hline
2026: $1.25-1.5$ & $0.094 \pm 0.010 \pm 0.012$&
2027: $0.01579\pm 0.00037$\\
2028: $1.5-1.75$ & $0.092 \pm 0.006 \pm 0.010$& $0.01981\pm 0.00029$\\
2029: $1.75-2.0$ & $0.085 \pm 0.006 \pm 0.009$& $0.02433\pm 0.00034$\\
2030: $2.0-2.25$ & $0.100 \pm 0.005 \pm 0.011$& $0.02842\pm 0.00032$\\
2031: $2.25-2.5$ & $0.091 \pm 0.005 \pm 0.010$& $0.03335\pm 0.00038$\\
2032: $2.5-2.75$ & $0.101 \pm 0.005 \pm 0.009$& $0.03864\pm 0.00059$\\
2033: $2.75-3.0$ & $0.099 \pm 0.005 \pm 0.008$& $0.04376\pm 0.00072$\\
2034: $3.0-3.25$ & $0.109 \pm 0.005 \pm 0.007$& $0.04940\pm 0.00081$\\
2035: $3.25-3.5$ & $0.112 \pm 0.005 \pm 0.008$& $0.05619\pm 0.00093$\\
2036: $3.5-3.75$ & $0.113 \pm 0.005 \pm 0.007$& $0.0611 \pm 0.0010$\\
2037: $3.75-4.0$ & $0.133 \pm 0.005 \pm 0.007$& $0.0666 \pm 0.0016$\\
2038: $4.0-4.25$ & $0.116 \pm 0.005 \pm 0.007$& $0.0736 \pm 0.0018$\\
2039: $4.25-4.5$ & $0.126 \pm 0.006 \pm 0.007$& $0.0815 \pm 0.0020$\\
2040: $4.5-4.75$ & $0.131 \pm 0.006 \pm 0.007$& $0.0891 \pm 0.0022$\\
2041: $4.75-5.0$ & $0.147 \pm 0.007 \pm 0.008$& $0.0960 \pm 0.0024$\\
2042: $5.0-5.5$ & $0.141 \pm 0.005 \pm 0.006$& $0.1065 \pm 0.0025$\\
2043: $5.5-6.0$ & $0.156 \pm 0.006 \pm 0.007$& $0.1198 \pm 0.0029 $\\
2044: $6.0-6.5$ & $0.169 \pm 0.007 \pm 0.007$& $0.1330 \pm 0.0032 $\\
2045: $6.5-7.0$ & $0.182 \pm 0.007 \pm 0.008$& $0.1476 \pm 0.0037 $\\
2046: $7.0-8.0$ & $0.208 \pm 0.006 \pm 0.009$& $0.1647 \pm 0.0055 $\\
2047: $8.0-9.0$ & $0.227 \pm 0.009 \pm 0.007$& $0.1813 \pm 0.0062 $\\
2048: $9.0-10.0$ & $0.250 \pm 0.011 \pm 0.008$& $0.1893 \pm 0.0068 $\\
2049: $10.0-12.0$ & $0.279 \pm 0.012 \pm 0.008$& $0.2022 \pm 0.0064 $\\
2050: $12.0-14.0$ & $0.337 \pm 0.019 \pm 0.009$& $0.2247 \pm 0.0072 $\\
2051: $14.0-17.0$ & $0.397 \pm 0.025 \pm 0.009$& $0.2462 \pm 0.011 $\\
2052: $17.0-20.0$ & $0.464 \pm 0.045^{+0.017}_{-0.011}$& $0.2538 \pm 0.0093 $\\
2053: \hline \hline
2054: \end{tabular}
2055: \end{center}
2056: \label{tab_accsystb}
2057: \end{table*}
2058: \endgroup
2059:
2060:
2061:
2062:
2063:
2064:
2065:
2066:
2067:
2068: %\input{sections/bfracsyst.tex}
2069:
2070: The uncertainties on the $b$-fractions are summarized in
2071: Table~\ref{tab_systb}. In the table, percentage errors on the absolute
2072: value of $b$-fraction are listed.
2073: Now we discuss the estimation of systematic
2074: uncertainties on the $b$-fraction in detail.
2075: %\input{tables/bfrsysttab.tex}
2076: \begin{table}[!ht]
2077: \caption{Sources of systematic uncertainties on the measurement of
2078: the $b$-hadron fraction in inclusive $J/\psi$ decays as percentages of
2079: the absolute value. In general, the $p_T$ dependent
2080: uncertainties increase with decreasing $p_T$.}
2081:
2082: \begin{center}
2083: \begin{tabular}{lc}
2084: \hline \hline
2085: Source & Systematic uncertainty \\ \hline
2086: Resolution function model & $\pm (0.5-8)\%$ \\
2087: Background function model & $\pm (0-2)\%$ \\
2088: Fit bias & $\pm (0-2)\%$ \\
2089: MC production spectrum & $\pm (2-7)\%$ \\
2090: MC decay spectrum & $\pm (0.5-3)\%$ \\
2091: MC inclusive $H_b$ lifetime & $\pm (0.5-4)\%$ \\ \hline
2092: Total & $\pm (3-13)\%$ \\ \hline \hline
2093: \end{tabular}
2094: \end{center}
2095: \label{tab_systb}
2096: \end{table}
2097:
2098:
2099: We have performed various tests to assess the accuracy of the
2100: likelihood procedure. The fit shapes for signal and background are
2101: histogramed into bins and compared to the binned data distributions. A
2102: Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test~\cite{KS} is used to compare the fit and data
2103: distributions to estimate the quality of the fit. The distribution of K-S
2104: probability values for each fit in the different transverse momentum
2105: ranges is compared to the K-S probability distributions in a sample of
2106: Monte Carlo experiments. The distributions are found to be
2107: consistent. In addition to the K-S tests, the normalized residual,
2108: defined as the difference between the data and fit projection in the unit of
2109: one standard deviation of statistical error,
2110: is compared in every transverse momentum
2111: range. Firstly, the data and fit projections are histogrammed using
2112: an unequal pseudo-proper decay time bin size so that the number of data
2113: events in each bin is more than $20$ events to reduce statistical fluctuation.
2114: %to ensure Gaussian statistical errors.
2115: Secondly, the normalized residual distributions are examined.
2116: The means and widths of the distributions in all transverse momentum ranges
2117: are examined. We find no obvious discrepancies between the fit projection
2118: and data distributions.
2119:
2120: Monte Carlo samples are also used to determine the potential bias on
2121: the $b$-fraction from the fitting procedure.
2122: The pseudo-proper decay time distributions and the invariant mass
2123: distributions from signal and background are used to
2124: generate a set of 500 statistically independent
2125: samples for each of the four $p_T$ bins of 1.25-1.5\,GeV/$c$,
2126: 2.0-2.25\,GeV/$c$, 5.0-5.5\,GeV/$c$ and 10.0-12.0\,GeV/$c$.
2127: Five different values of the $b$-fraction, 5$\%$ to $13\%$, are assumed
2128: and the number of events in each $p_T$ bin is chosen to match the data.
2129: The fitted values of $b$-fractions are found to agree with
2130: the generated values within 2$\%$ over the
2131: whole $p_T$ bins.
2132: Thus the systematic uncertainties on the
2133: $b$-fraction measurements due to fit bias are found to be less than 2$\%$.
2134:
2135:
2136: %A Monte Carlo is also used to determine the reliability of
2137: %the $b$-fraction value extracted from the fit.
2138: %The signal, background and invariant mass data distributions
2139: %in the 1.25 -1.5\,GeV/$c$ bin are used
2140: %to generate 500 statistically independent Monte Carlo samples with matching
2141: %distributions. The number of events generated is chosen to match the
2142: %data with the same signal fraction $f_{\rm Sig}$. The $b$ lifetime
2143: %generated is smeared by the resolution function for each bin to
2144: %simulate the pseudo-proper decay time distribution
2145: %in the data. The uncertainty
2146: %on the $x$ measurement used in the Monte Carlo samples is taken from the data
2147: %distributions of $\sigma(x)$. Five different values of the
2148: %$b$-fraction - $5\%, 7\%, 9\%, 11\%$, and $13\%$ - are generated. The
2149: %average reconstructed values of the $b$-fractions from each set of 100
2150: %tests are compared to the generated value and are found to be in good
2151: %agreement. The mean of the
2152: %$ \frac{{\rm Value_{\rm fit} -Value_{\rm generated}}}{\sigma_{\rm fit}}$
2153: %from all 500 tests is found to be
2154: %$0.10\pm0.04$ and the width is $0.97\pm0.03$
2155:
2156: %In a similar fashion, the fit parameters in three other representative
2157: %transverse momentum ranges of 2.0-2.25\,GeV/$c$, 5.0-5.5\,GeV/$c$ and
2158: %$10.0-12.0\,GeV/$c$ are used
2159: %to generate Monte Carlo events with the same invariant mass and
2160: %pseudo-proper decay time distributions as the data. In each test bin, 500
2161: %statistically independent Monte Carlo samples are generated. The
2162: %distribution of
2163: %$\frac{{\rm Value_{\rm fit} -Value_{\rm generated}}}{\sigma_{\rm fit}}$ for the $b$-fraction is
2164: %examined. A small but significant bias in the $b$-fractions extracted
2165: %is evident at low momentum. The bias is about
2166: %$0.3\sigma \approx 0.3 \cdot 0.006 = 0.002$,
2167: %%$about $0.3\sigma \sim 0.002$,
2168: %where $\sigma$ is the statistical error on the $b$-fraction fitting results.
2169: %The bias is included as a systematic uncertainty on
2170: %the $b$-fraction measurement in these and neighboring bins. Using the
2171: %signal and background shape parameters extracted from the
2172: %data in the $2.0-2.25$\,GeV/$c$ bin, the $b$-fraction in Monte Carlo
2173: %simulation is varied and the fit is performed on the Monte Carlo sample.
2174: % The reconstructed values are consistent with the
2175: %generated values within statistical errors. A straight line fit to the
2176: %reconstructed versus generated values is found to have a slope of
2177: %$1.060 \pm 0.045$ and a $\chi^2/D.O.F = 0.7$.
2178:
2179:
2180:
2181: The resolution function for the pseudo-proper decay time,
2182: $R(x'-x,s\sigma)$, is modeled by a double Gaussian function
2183: where the dominant Gaussian width is allowed to float and is
2184: determined by the fit to the data in each $p_T(J/\psi)$ bin.
2185: Other parameters in the function are fixed to
2186: the values obtained from a binned fit to $L_{\rm xy}/\sigma(L_{\rm xy})$
2187: averaged over all $p_T(J/\psi)$. The double Gaussian resolution
2188: function is not an exact description of the resolution function shape
2189: but only an approximate parameterization of many different resolution
2190: effects. Therefore, to estimate the systematic uncertainty due to the
2191: resolution function modeling, the maximum range of values for the
2192: ratios of areas and widths of the two Gaussians supported by the data
2193: are estimated. We find that the ratios of the second Gaussian
2194: to the dominant Gaussian vary from $1.5$ to $2.5$ in width
2195: and 0.05 to 0.15 in area.
2196: The systematic uncertainty on the $b$-fraction from this source
2197: is largest in the lowest momentum bin, where the percentage
2198: error is as large as 8$\%$,
2199: and decreases with increasing $p_T(J/\psi)$.
2200:
2201: In the $J/\psi$ pseudo-proper decay time signal region, events are observed in
2202: the distribution at long positive and negative lifetimes that are not
2203: well described by the double Gaussian description of the resolution
2204: function. The source of these long lived ``tails'' is unknown. To
2205: estimate the systematic uncertainty on the long lived tails not
2206: modeled by the prompt signal double Gaussian, a box shaped function is
2207: added to the prompt $J/\psi$ $x$ signal distribution in the range -2500
2208: to 2500~$\mu$m. The height of the box is fixed in the fit using the number
2209: of events in the data that are in excess of the fit projection. The
2210: $b$-fraction values returned from the fit with the box function are
2211: used to estimate the systematic uncertainty from the tails that are
2212: not modeled properly. We find the $b$-fraction values decrease by
2213: about 5$\%$ in the lowest momentum bins when the box shape is added to
2214: the prompt $J/\psi$ distribution. The excess modeled by the box can
2215: also be assigned to the $b$-hadron signal which causes a systematic
2216: increase. The change in the $b$-fraction decreases in the higher
2217: transverse momentum bins.
2218: %Since there are correlations between the
2219: %systematic uncertainties from the shape of the resolution function and
2220: %the negative tails, the maximum positive and negative deviation from
2221: %the central value of the $b$-fraction is used as the systematic
2222: %uncertainty on the resolution function parameterization.
2223:
2224: The fit was repeated with the background shape changed such that only
2225: a positive and negative exponential is used with no symmetric
2226: exponential. The differences in the $b$-fractions observed are
2227: negligible. The background parameters are extracted from a fit to the
2228: sideband data distributions only, where the sidebands are chosen such
2229: that no significant contribution is expected from the radiative
2230: $J/\psi$ tail. The fit is repeated in each bin with the values of the
2231: background parameters fixed to the values obtained from the sideband
2232: fit. No significant difference between the value of the parameters
2233: extracted is observed. The difference in the $b$-fraction extracted
2234: using the parameters obtained from the sideband fit is taken as a
2235: systematic uncertainty. In the lowest and highest momentum bin the
2236: percentage difference on $b$-fraction value extracted
2237: is $2$-$3\%$. The differences are less than $1\%$ in all other bins.
2238:
2239: To study the dependence of the $b$-fractions on the modeling
2240: of the $b$-hadron spectrum used in the Monte Carlo, a flat
2241: distribution in $p_T$ and $y$ of the $b$ production spectrum is used
2242: to regenerate the $x$ distributions and the fits were repeated. The
2243: differences in the value of the $b$-fractions extracted from the
2244: direct fit to Monte Carlo templates of $x$ produced from an input spectrum
2245: that is uniform in $p_T(b)$ and $y(b)$ are examined. The variation in the
2246: $b$-fractions extracted in the range $1.25$ to $2.0$\,GeV/$c$ are the
2247: largest, the maximum variation being an increase of 18$\%$ in the bin
2248: $1.5$ to $1.75$\,GeV/$c$. The uniform input spectrum is
2249: unrealistic, therefore the systematic uncertainty is taken as one-half of
2250: the size of the variation observed in the $b$-fraction when the flat
2251: model is used. We assign systematic uncertainties of $7\%$, $3\%$
2252: and $2\%$ for measurements in the transverse momentum ranges of
2253: 1.25-3.0\,GeV/$c$, 3.0-8.0\,GeV/$c$ and 8.0-20.0\,GeV/$c$ respectively.
2254:
2255: In addition, we examine the change in the $b$-fraction extracted when
2256: varying the $H_b\rightarrow J/\psi X$ decay momentum spectrum
2257: while keeping the $H_b$ production momentum spectrum fixed. Two
2258: decay spectrums, $H_b\rightarrow J/\psi({\rm direct}) X $ and
2259: $H_b\rightarrow J/\psi({\rm inclusive}) X$~\cite{CLEOPSI}, are used for this.
2260: The percentage difference is found to be 2-4$\%$ in the
2261: lowest momentum bins and $< 1\%$ for $p_T(J/\psi)>2.5$\,GeV/c.
2262:
2263: The mix of hadrons and their respective lifetimes is a contributing
2264: factor to the shape of the $J/\psi$ pseudo-proper decay time distributions. To
2265: assess the systematic uncertainty due to the uncertainty on the
2266: $b$-hadron average lifetime, we vary the average lifetime in the Monte
2267: Carlo by $11~\mu$m which is the size of the systematic uncertainty on
2268: the average $b$-hadron lifetime measured at CDF in Run II. We find that
2269: the measured $b$-fraction decreases in all transverse momentum bins
2270: when the lifetime is increased. The fractional decrease is $4\%$ in
2271: the lowest momentum bin and less than
2272: $1\%$ for bins with $p_T(J/\psi) > 12$\,GeV/$c$.
2273: The variation in the $b$-fraction observed when the
2274: average $b$-hadron lifetime is varied by $\pm 11 \ \mu$m is taken as a
2275: systematic uncertainty on the $b$-fraction measurement.
2276: Table~\ref{tab_systb} summarizes the sources of systematic uncertainties on
2277: the measurement of the $b$-hadron fraction as percentages of the absolute
2278: values.
2279:
2280:
2281: \subsection{\boldmath Measurement of the Inclusive $b$-hadron
2282: Cross Section ~\label{sec_bxsec}}
2283: %\input{sections/bxsec.tex}
2284: Since $J/\psi$ mesons from decays of bottom hadrons have a
2285: different average spin alignment than an inclusive sample of $J/\psi$
2286: mesons, we need to apply an acceptance correction to account for this
2287: difference. In previous CDF measurements, the effective value of the
2288: spin alignment parameter $\alpha_{\rm eff}$ of $J/\psi$ from $b$-hadron
2289: decays was measured to be $\alpha_{\rm eff}(p_T(J/\psi) > 4.0 \ {\rm
2290: \,GeV/}c ) = -0.09 \pm 0.10$~\cite{Jpsi_pol}, where $\alpha_{\rm eff}$ is
2291: obtained by fitting $ \cos \theta_{\rm J/\psi}$, the angle between the
2292: muon direction in the $J/\psi$ rest frame and the $J/\psi$ direction
2293: in the lab frame, to the functional form $1+ \alpha_{\rm eff} \cdot \cos^2
2294: \theta_{\rm J/\psi}$. More recent measurement on the spin alignment was
2295: done using $B\rightarrow J/\psi X$ events collected at the $\Upsilon(4S)$
2296: resonance. The BaBar experiment measured
2297: $\alpha_B=-0.196\pm0.044$ for $ p^*<1.1$\,GeV/$c$
2298: and $\alpha_B=-0.592\pm0.032$ for $p^*>1.1$\,GeV/$c$~\cite{Babar}.
2299: Here the decay angle of the $J/\psi$ is measured in the
2300: $\Upsilon(4S)$ rest frame and $p^*$ is the total $J/\psi$ momentum
2301: measured in the $\Upsilon(4S)$ rest frame.
2302:
2303: %We opt to use the more precise
2304: %result from the BaBar experiment in the acceptance calculations for
2305: %$H_b \rightarrow J/\psi X$ events assuming it is applicable to
2306: %the CDF environment where $b$-hadrons are produced in fragmentation
2307: %instead of at a fixed momentum as in $\Upsilon$ decays~\cite{Krey}.
2308: We opt to use the more precise
2309: result from the BaBar experiment in the acceptance calculations for
2310: $H_b \rightarrow J/\psi X$ events assuming it is applicable to
2311: the CDF environment where $b$-hadrons are produced in fragmentation
2312: with a large momentum range instead of produced at a fixed momentum
2313: as in $\Upsilon$ decays~\cite{Krey}.
2314: First, Monte Carlo events are generated to have the $J/\psi$ helicity
2315: angle distributions in the $b$-hadron rest frame predicted from
2316: $\alpha_B$ values according to their $p^*$ values. Then, values of the
2317: spin alignment parameter $\alpha_{\rm eff}$ for events in
2318: each $J/\psi$ $p_T$ bin
2319: are obtained from fitting the $ \cos \theta_{\rm J/\psi}$ distributions of
2320: these Monte Carlo events.
2321: The systematic errors on $\alpha_{\rm eff}$ are obtained by
2322: varying the input values of $\alpha_B$ in the process
2323: according to measurement errors.
2324: This process gives a result consistent with previous CDF measurement,
2325: albeit with smaller uncertainties.
2326: For example, a new and more precise value of
2327: $\alpha_{\rm eff} = -0.13 \pm 0.01$ for the $J/\psi$ events with
2328: $p_T(J/\psi)> 4.0 \ {\rm\,GeV/}c$ is obtained from this process.
2329: Finally, the acceptance values, as listed in
2330: Table~\ref{tab_accsystb}, are calculated from the Monte Carlo
2331: events generated with the derived spin alignment parameters
2332: in each $J/\psi$ $p_T$ bin.
2333:
2334: The differential $b$-hadron cross sections are calculated in a similar
2335: way as that for the inclusive $J/\psi$.
2336: The $J/\psi$ yields in each $p_T$ bin listed
2337: in Table~\ref{tab_xsecsum} are multiplied with the
2338: $b$-fractions to obtain the corresponding $H_b \rightarrow J/\psi$ yields.
2339: The new acceptance values listed in Table~\ref{tab_accsystb} are
2340: used while the $J/\psi$ reconstruction efficiencies and luminosity value
2341: stay the same. Most of the systematic uncertainties in the inclusive $J/\psi$
2342: cross-section calculation carry over here without change except for those from
2343: the $J/\psi$ spin alignment on the acceptance which are
2344: estimated using errors on $\alpha_{\rm eff}$. In addition, the
2345: uncertainties from the $b$-fractions are also included in the
2346: systematic errors.
2347: The $J/\psi$ from $b$-hadron inclusive cross-section results with
2348: statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown in
2349: Table~\ref{tab_bxsec}. The differential cross section with all
2350: statistical and systematic errors added is plotted
2351: in Fig.~\ref{fig_bxsec}. A recent QCD theoretical calculation using a fixed
2352: order (FO) calculation with resummation of next-to-leading
2353: logs (NLL)~\cite{MLM} is overlaid. We discuss further the comparison with
2354: theoretical calculations in Section~\ref{sec_discuss}.
2355: \begin{figure}[!h]
2356: \centerline{\psfig{figure=figures/bjpsi_xsec_pub.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}}
2357: \caption{Differential cross-section distribution of $J/\psi$ events
2358: from the decays of $b$-hadrons as a function of $J/\psi$ transverse
2359: momentum integrated over the rapidity range $|y|<0.6$. The crosses
2360: with error bars are the data with systematic and statistical
2361: uncertainties added including correlated uncertainties. The solid line
2362: is the central theoretical values using the FONLL calculations
2363: outlined in~\cite{MLM}, the dashed line is the theoretical
2364: uncertainty.}
2365: \label{fig_bxsec}
2366: \end{figure}
2367:
2368: %\input{tables/xsecbjpsitab}
2369: \begingroup
2370: \squeezetable
2371: \begin{table*}
2372: \caption{
2373: %\scriptsize
2374: The inclusive $H_b \rightarrow J/\psi X$ and prompt $J/\psi$ differential
2375: cross sections as a function of transverse momentum of the $J/\psi$
2376: with statistical and $p_T$ dependent systematic uncertainties. The
2377: cross section in each $p_T$ bin is integrated over the rapidity range
2378: $|y(J/\psi)| < 0.6$ The fully correlated systematic uncertainty,
2379: $syst_{fc}=6.9\%$, from the measurement of the inclusive $J/\psi$ cross
2380: section needs to combined with the $p_T$ dependent systematic uncertainties.}
2381: \begin{center}
2382: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
2383: \hline \hline
2384: $p_T(J/\psi)$ & $\langle p_T(J/\psi)\rangle$ & $\frac{d\sigma}{dp_T} \cdot Br$ (nb/\,GeV/$c$) & $\frac{d\sigma}{dp_T} \cdot Br$ (nb/\,GeV/$c$) \\
2385: (\,GeV/$c$) & (\,GeV/$c$) & $J/\psi$ from $b$ & Prompt $J/\psi$\\ \hline
2386: $1.25-1.5$ & $ 1.38 $& $ 6.60 \pm 0.70(stat)^{+0.77}_{-0.67} (syst_{p_T})$ & $ 66.8 \pm 1.5(stat)^{+9.2}_{-9.1} (syst_{p_T})$\\
2387: $1.5-1.75$ & $ 1.63 $& $ 6.62 \pm 0.44^{+0.71}_{-0.62} $ & $ 68.6 \pm 1.5^{+8.2}_{-8.0} $\\
2388: $1.75-2.0$ & $ 1.87 $& $ 5.93 \pm 0.38^{+0.62}_{-0.56} $ & $ 67.0 \pm 1.3^{+7.9}_{-7.7} $\\
2389: $2.0-2.25$ & $ 2.13 $& $ 6.58 \pm 0.34^{+0.67}_{-0.56} $ & $ 62.5 \pm 0.7^{+7.5}_{-7.4} $\\
2390: $2.25-2.5$ & $ 2.38 $& $ 5.83 \pm 0.30^{+0.57}_{-0.50} $ & $ 61.5 \pm 0.9^{+7.3}_{-7.2} $\\
2391: $2.5-2.75$ & $ 2.62 $& $ 5.50 \pm 0.26^{+0.51}_{-0.45} $ & $ 52.1 \pm 0.8 \pm {5.2} $\\
2392: $2.75-3.0$ & $ 2.87 $& $ 4.86 \pm 0.23^{+0.44}_{-0.38} $ & $ 47.1 \pm 0.7 \pm {4.4} $\\
2393: $3.0-3.25$ & $ 3.12 $& $ 4.50 \pm 0.20^{+0.25}_{-0.21} $ & $ 39.1 \pm 0.6 \pm {3.0} $\\
2394: $3.25-3.5$ & $ 3.38 $& $ 3.94 \pm 0.17^{+0.23}_{-0.18} $ & $ 33.4 \pm 0.5 \pm 2.8 $\\
2395: $3.5-3.75$ & $ 3.62 $& $ 3.34 \pm 0.15^{+0.21}_{-0.16} $ & $ 28.2 \pm 0.4 \pm 2.1 $\\
2396: $3.75-4.0$ & $ 3.87 $& $ 3.28 \pm 0.14 \pm 0.16 $ & $ 22.9 \pm 0.3 \pm 1.6 $\\
2397: $4.0-4.25$ & $ 4.12 $& $ 2.45 \pm 0.11 \pm 0.15 $ & $ 20.1 \pm 0.4 \pm 1.5$\\
2398: $4.25-4.5$ & $ 4.38 $& $ 2.22 \pm 0.10 \pm 0.11 $ & $ 16.5 \pm 0.3 \pm 1.2 $\\
2399: $4.5-4.75$ & $ 4.62 $& $ 1.99 \pm 0.09 \pm 0.10 $ & $ 14.1 \pm 0.3 \pm 1.0 $\\
2400: $4.75-5.0$ & $ 4.88 $& $ 1.84 \pm 0.08 \pm 0.10 $ & $ 11.5 \pm 0.3\pm 0.8 $\\
2401: $5.0-5.5$ & $ 5.24 $& $ 1.38 \pm0.05 \pm 0.06 $ & $ 8.92 \pm 0.13\pm 0.52 $\\
2402: $5.5-6.0$ & $ 5.74 $& $ 1.07 \pm0.04 \pm 0.05 $ & $ 6.21 \pm 0.10\pm 0.37 $\\
2403: $6.0-6.5$ & $ 6.24 $& $ 0.817 \pm0.031 \pm 0.038$ & $ 4.29 \pm 0.07\pm 0.24 $\\
2404: $6.5-7.0$ & $ 6.74 $& $ 0.610 \pm0.025 \pm 0.026$ & $ 2.93 \pm 0.06\pm 0.17 $\\
2405: $7.0-8.0$ & $ 7.45 $& $ 0.447 \pm0.014 \pm 0.022$ & $ 1.82 \pm 0.02\pm 0.11 $\\
2406: $8.0-9.0$ & $ 8.46 $& $ 0.246 \pm0.009 \pm 0.010$ & $ 0.894 \pm 0.015\pm 0.047 $\\
2407: $9.0-10.0$ & $ 9.46 $& $ 0.149 \pm0.007 \pm 0.006$ & $ 0.473 \pm 0.010\pm 0.024 $\\
2408: $10.0-12.0$ & $ 10.8 $& $ 0.074 \pm0.003 \pm 0.003$ & $ 0.204 \pm 0.004\pm 0.010 $\\
2409: $12.0-14.0$ & $ 12.8 $& $ 0.034 \pm0.002 \pm 0.001$ & $ 0.069 \pm 0.002\pm 0.003 $\\
2410: $14.0-17.0$ & $ 15.4 $& $ 0.0143\pm0.0009 \pm 0.0007 $ & $ 0.023 \pm 0.001\pm 0.001 $\\
2411: $17.0-20.0$ & $ 18.3 $& $ 0.0062\pm0.0006 \pm 0.0004 $ & $ 0.0078 \pm 0.0006\pm 0.0006 $\\
2412: \hline \hline
2413: \end{tabular}
2414: \end{center}
2415: \label{tab_bxsec}
2416: \end{table*}
2417: \endgroup
2418:
2419:
2420:
2421: An integration of the differential $b$-hadron cross-section results in
2422: Table~\ref{tab_bxsec} gives the total cross section
2423: \begin{eqnarray}
2424: \nonumber
2425: \sigma(p\bar{p}\rightarrow H_b X, p_T(J/\psi) > 1.25~{\rm GeV}/c,
2426: |y(J/\psi)|<0.6) \\ \nonumber
2427: \cdot Br(H_b \rightarrow J/\psi X) \cdot Br(J/\psi
2428: \rightarrow \mu \mu) \\
2429: = \BXSECBR \ {\rm nb}.
2430: \end{eqnarray}
2431: The systematic uncertainty
2432: quoted includes the fully correlated uncertainty of $6.9\%$ obtained
2433: from the inclusive $J/\psi$ cross-section measurement. We correct
2434: the integrated cross section extracted above
2435: for the branching fraction
2436: %$Br(H_b\rightarrow J/\psi X) =1.16\pm 0.10 \%$ and
2437: $Br(J/\psi \rightarrow \mu \mu) = 5.88 \pm
2438: 0.10\%$~\cite{PDG} to obtain
2439: \begin{eqnarray}
2440: \nonumber
2441: \sigma(p\bar{p}\rightarrow H_b, ~H_b \rightarrow J/\psi,
2442: p_T(J/\psi) > 1.25 {\rm \ \,GeV}/c,|y(J/\psi)|<0.6) \\
2443: = \BXSEC \ \mu{\rm b}.
2444: \end{eqnarray}
2445:
2446: We also extract the prompt $J/\psi$ cross section by subtracting the
2447: cross section of $H_b \rightarrow J/\psi X$ from the inclusive $J/\psi$
2448: cross section. This calculation is applied to all $J/\psi$ with
2449: $p_T>1.25$\,GeV/c where we are able to extract the $b$-fraction. The
2450: results are shown in Table~\ref{tab_bxsec} and in
2451: Fig.~\ref{fig_xsecall}. The systematic uncertainties on the prompt
2452: $J/\psi$ cross section are taken to be the uncertainties on the
2453: inclusive cross section added in quadrature with the uncertainties on the
2454: measured $b$-fractions.
2455: \begin{figure}[!h]
2456: \centerline{\psfig{figure=figures/xsec_all_pub.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
2457: }
2458: \caption{The inclusive $J/\psi$ cross section as a function of $J/\psi$
2459: $p_T$ integrated over the rapidity range $|y|<0.6$ is plotted as
2460: points with error bars where all uncertainties have been added.
2461: The hatched histogram indicates the contribution to the cross section
2462: from prompt charmonium production. The cross-hatched histogram is the
2463: contribution from decays of $b$-hadrons.}
2464: \label{fig_xsecall}
2465: \end{figure}
2466: We find the integrated cross section of prompt $J/\psi$ to be:
2467: \begin{eqnarray}
2468: \nonumber
2469: \sigma (p\bar{p}\rightarrow J/\psi_{p} X, p_T(J/\psi) > 1.25 {\rm \ \,GeV}/c,
2470: |y(J/\psi)|<0.6) \\
2471: = \PROMPTXSEC \ \mu{\rm b},
2472: \end{eqnarray}
2473: where $J/\psi_{p}$ denotes a prompt $J/\psi$ and where we have
2474: corrected for the $J/\psi \rightarrow \mu \mu$ branching fraction.
2475:
2476: The differential $b$-hadron cross section as a function of $p_T(H_b)$
2477: is extracted from the measured differential cross sections of $H_b
2478: \rightarrow J/\psi X$ by utilizing the decay kinematics of charmonium
2479: produced in $b$-hadron decays.
2480: %The spectrum of inclusive charmonium from $B$ mesons produced
2481: %almost at rest in the $\Upsilon(4S)$ decays
2482: %has been well measured by the CLEO~\cite{CLEOPSI} and
2483: %BaBar~\cite{Babar} collaborations.
2484:
2485: The procedure starts with the calculation of contributions to the
2486: cross section of $b$-hadrons in a given $p_T(H_b)$ bin from $J/\psi$
2487: events in the range $1.25 <p_T(J/\psi)<20$\,GeV/$c$, where we measured
2488: the fractions of $J/\psi$ mesons from $b$ decays.
2489: Since $b$-hadrons with as little as zero momenta
2490: produce $J/\psi$ mesons with momenta as large
2491: as 2\,GeV/$c$, the measured cross section in this $p_T(J/\psi)$ range
2492: is sensitive to the complete $p_T (H_b)$ spectrum.
2493: %Since $b$-hadrons at rest produce $J/\psi$ mesons with momenta
2494: %as large as almost 2\,GeV/$c$, the measured cross section is
2495: %sensitive to the complete $p_T (H_b)$ spectrum.
2496: The total contribution to the cross section in
2497: the $i^{th}$ bin in $p_T(H_b)$ from events in the accessible
2498: $p_T(J/\psi)$ range, labeled as the raw cross section $\sigma_i (raw)$, is
2499: given by
2500: \begin{equation}
2501: \sigma_i (raw) = \sum_{\rm j=1}^{N} w_{ij} \sigma_j (J/\psi),
2502: \end{equation}
2503: where $\sigma_j (J/\psi)$ is the cross section of
2504: $J/\psi$ mesons from $H_b$ in the $j^{th}$ $p_T(J/\psi)$ bin and $w_{ij}$ is
2505: the fraction of $H_b$ events in the $i^{th}$ $p_T(H_b)$ bin relative to the
2506: total in the $j^{th}$ $p_T(J/\psi)$ bin.
2507: The sum of the weights $w_{ij}$ in each $p_T(J/\psi)$ bin is
2508: normalized to 1.
2509: The raw cross section is corrected for the acceptance due to the
2510: limited $J/\psi$ $p_T$ range to obtain
2511: the differential $b$-hadron cross section, $\sigma_i(H_b)$, in
2512: the $i^{th}$ $p_T(H_b)$ bin,
2513: \begin{equation}
2514: \sigma_i (H_b) = \frac{\sigma_i (raw)}{ f_{\rm \sigma}^i }
2515: =\frac{\sum_{\rm j=1}^{N} w_{\rm ij} \sigma_j (J/\psi) }
2516: {f_{\rm \sigma}^i},
2517: \end{equation}
2518: where $f_{\rm \sigma}^i$ is the fraction of bottom hadrons in
2519: the $i^{th}$ $p_T(H_b)$ bin that give rise to a $J/\psi$ with a transverse
2520: momentum in the range 1.25 to 20\,GeV/$c$ and rapidity in the range
2521: $|y(J/\psi)| < 0.6$. Monte Carlo simulations are used to calculate
2522: the weighting factors, $w_{ij}$, and acceptance correction
2523: factors, $f_{\rm \sigma}^i$. In the simulation, the decay
2524: spectrum of $H_b\rightarrow J/\psi X$ obtained from
2525: references~\cite{CLEOPSI} and \cite{Babar} is used.
2526: The calculation is repeated in an iteration process:
2527: at each pass the input production spectrum used in the
2528: Monte Carlo is the spectrum measured in the previous iteration and
2529: a $\chi^2$ comparison is made between the input and output spectrums.
2530: The process terminates when the $\chi^2$ comparison reach the precision limit.
2531: This procedure is found to be insensitive to the initial production
2532: spectrum shape.
2533:
2534: The statistical uncertainty in each $p_T(H_b)$ bin is given by:
2535: \begin{equation}
2536: \delta_{\rm stat}(\sigma_i(H_b)) = \frac{1}{f_{\rm \sigma}^i}
2537: \sqrt{ \sum_{j=1}^{N} w_{ij}
2538: \delta_{\rm stat}^2(\sigma_j(J/\psi))}.
2539: \end{equation}
2540: The systematic uncertainties are taken as just the simple weighted
2541: sum of the systematic errors from the differential $H_b
2542: \rightarrow J/\psi$ cross-sections measurements,
2543: \begin{equation}
2544: \delta_{\rm syst}(\sigma_i(H_b)) = \frac{1}{f_{\rm \sigma}^i}\sum_{j=1}^{N} w_{ij} \delta_{\rm syst}(\sigma_j(J/\psi)).
2545: \end{equation}
2546:
2547: The extracted differential cross section of $b$-hadrons over the
2548: transverse momentum range from 0 to 25\,GeV/$c$ is shown in
2549: Fig.~\ref{fig_bxsec5}. The cross section has been corrected for the
2550: branching fractions, $Br(H_b\rightarrow J/\psi X) = 1.16\pm 0.10 \%$
2551: and $Br(J/\psi \rightarrow \mu \mu) = 5.88 \pm 0.10 \%$~\cite{PDG}, and
2552: divided by two to obtain the single $b$-hadron differential cross
2553: section. We integrate the differential cross section extracted above
2554: to obtain the single $b$-hadron inclusive cross section. We find
2555: the total inclusive single $b$-hadron cross section is
2556: \begin{equation}
2557: \sigma(p\bar{p}\rightarrow H_b X, |y|<0.6) = \TOTXSECB \ \mu{\rm b}.
2558: \end{equation}
2559:
2560: \begin{figure}[!h]
2561: \centerline{\psfig{figure=figures/bjpsi_pthb_xsec_pub.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}}
2562: \caption{Differential cross-section distribution of
2563: $b$-hadron production as a function of $b$-hadron transverse
2564: momenta. The crosses with error bars are the data with systematic and
2565: statistical uncertainties added, including correlated
2566: uncertainties. The solid line is the central theoretical values using
2567: the FONLL calculations outlined in~\cite{MLM}, the dashed line is the
2568: theoretical uncertainty.}
2569: \label{fig_bxsec5}
2570: \end{figure}
2571:
2572: %This value is an agreement with one that would be obtained by
2573: %simply taking the measured $b \rightarrow J/\psi + X$ cross section
2574: %in each bin of $J/\psi$ transverse momentum and extrapolating.
2575:
2576: \section{Discussion \label{sec_discuss}}
2577: %\input{sections/discuss.tex}
2578: We have measured the inclusive $J/\psi$ and $b$-hadron cross sections in
2579: $p\bar{p}$ interactions at $\sqrt{s} = 1960$\,GeV in the central
2580: rapidity region of $|y|<0.6$. For the first time, the cross section
2581: has been measured over the full transverse momentum range (0-20
2582: \,GeV/$c$).
2583:
2584:
2585: For comparison to Run~I measurements at
2586: $\sqrt{s}=1800$\,GeV ~\cite{RUNIPSI}, we consider the cross-section
2587: measurements in the range $p_T (J/\psi)>5.0$\,GeV/$c$ and pseudo-rapidity
2588: $|\eta(J/\psi)|< 0.6$. We measure the inclusive $J/\psi$ cross section
2589: at $\sqrt{s}=1960$\,GeV to be
2590: \begin{eqnarray}
2591: \nonumber
2592: \sigma(p \overline{p} \rightarrow
2593: J/\psi X)_{1960} \cdot Br(J/\psi \rightarrow \mu \mu) && \\
2594: = \XSECGTFIVEETA \ {\rm nb}. &&
2595: \end{eqnarray}
2596: The CDF Run I measurement at $\sqrt{s}=1800$\,GeV
2597: was found to be
2598: \begin{eqnarray}
2599: \nonumber
2600: \sigma(p \overline{p} \rightarrow J/\psi X)_{1800} \cdot
2601: Br(J/\psi \rightarrow \mu \mu) \\
2602: = 17.4 \pm 0.1(stat)^{+2.6}_{\rm -2.8} (syst) \ {\rm nb}.
2603: \end{eqnarray}
2604: %where $Br$ is the branching fraction of $J/\psi \rightarrow \mu \mu$.
2605:
2606: We measure the cross section of $J/\psi$ events from $H_b$ decays with
2607: $p_T(J/\psi) > 5$\,GeV/$c$ and $|\eta(J/\psi)| < 0.6$ to be
2608: \begin{eqnarray}
2609: \nonumber
2610: \sigma(p \bar{p} \rightarrow H_b X)_{1960} \cdot Br(H_b
2611: \rightarrow J/\psi X) \cdot Br(J/\psi \rightarrow \mu \mu) \\
2612: =\BXSECBRFIVEETA \ {\rm nb}.
2613: %2.80 \pm 0.04(stat) \pm 0.23(syst) \ {\rm nb}.
2614: \end{eqnarray}
2615: The equivalent Run I measurement
2616: ~\cite{RUNIPSI} was found to be
2617: \begin{eqnarray}
2618: \nonumber
2619: \sigma(p \bar{p} \rightarrow H_b
2620: X)_{1800} \cdot Br(H_b
2621: \rightarrow J/\psi X) \cdot Br(J/\psi \rightarrow \mu \mu) \\
2622: = 3.23 \pm 0.05(stat) ^{+0.28}_{\rm -0.31}(syst) \ {\rm nb}.
2623: \end{eqnarray}
2624: %where $Br$ is the branching fraction of $J/\psi \rightarrow \mu \mu$
2625: %multipied by the inclusive branching fraction of $b$-hadron decays to
2626: %$J/\psi$.
2627: Although the Run II $J/\psi$ and $b$-hadron cross sections are
2628: measured at a higher center-of-mass energy, and it is expected that
2629: the production cross sections increase by approximately $10\%$, the
2630: Run I and Run II measurements are consistent within measurement
2631: uncertainties. The ratio of the Run II to Run I differential
2632: $b$-hadron cross-section measurements as a function of $p_T(J/\psi)$
2633: is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_comp1}. No difference in the shape of the
2634: cross section is observed.
2635: \begin{figure}[!h]
2636: \centerline{\psfig{figure=figures/bjpsi_runI_vs_runII.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}}
2637: \caption{Ratio of the differential cross-section distributions of $J/\psi$ events
2638: from the decays of $b$-hadrons as a function of $J/\psi$ transverse
2639: momentum from CDF Run I and Run II. }
2640: \label{fig_comp1}
2641: \end{figure}
2642:
2643: In Fig.~\ref{fig_comp2}, the $B^+$ differential cross section
2644: previously measured by CDF at $\sqrt{s}=1800$\,GeV for $|y|<1.0$
2645: ~\cite{CDFBXsec4} is compared with our newer measurement of the inclusive
2646: $b$-hadron differential cross section at $\sqrt{s}=1960$\,GeV
2647: extracted from the measurement of the cross section of $J/\psi$ events
2648: from $b$-hadron decays. For the purpose of this comparison, the CDF
2649: Run II inclusive $b$-hadron cross section is multiplied by the
2650: fragmentation fraction of $B^+$ mesons, where the result from LEP
2651: experiments is used~\cite{BFRAG}.
2652: %where the most recent measurement is given by
2653: %$f(B^+)=40.96 \pm 0.81(stat) \pm 1.14 (syst)\%$ ~\cite{BFRAG}.
2654: In addition, the Run II $b$-hadron inclusive cross
2655: section is scaled up by a factor of 1.67 to extend the measurement
2656: to $|y|<1.0$ where we have assumed the rapidity distribution is uniform
2657: in the region $|y|<1.0$.
2658: \begin{figure}[!h]
2659: \centerline{\psfig{figure=figures/bxsec_runI_vs_runII.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}}
2660: \caption{The differential cross-section distributions of $b$-hadrons
2661: as a function of $b$-hadron momentum from the measurement of the $B^+$
2662: meson cross section in CDF Run I ~\cite{CDFBXsec4} and $b$-hadron
2663: inclusive cross section extracted in this analysis (Run II). The
2664: differential cross sections showed are integrated over the rapidity
2665: range $|y(H_b)|< 1.0$.}
2666: \label{fig_comp2}
2667: \end{figure}
2668: As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_comp2}, we find good agreement between
2669: the Run II extracted measurement of the $b$-hadron cross section and
2670: the direct measurement of the $B^+$ cross section in Run I.
2671:
2672: %Several recent theoretical QCD calculations are compared with the
2673: %CDF Run II measurement of the $b$-hadron inclusive cross section in
2674: %the central rapidity region $|y|<0.6$. The calculation of the parton
2675: %level QCD cross sections has remained unchanged and is described in
2676: %reference ~\cite{BTHEORY1a}.
2677: %New data on proton structure functions and
2678: %the $b$-hadron fragmentation function has lead to different results
2679: %from the QCD calculations of the $b$-hadron cross section.
2680: In Fig.~\ref{fig_bxsec} and Fig.~\ref{fig_bxsec5}, we compare our
2681: measurement to a QCD calculation of the $b$-hadron cross section
2682: by Cacciari {\it et al.}~\cite{MLM}. This
2683: calculation uses a fixed-order approach
2684: with a next-to-leading-log resummation and a new technique to extract
2685: the $b$-hadron fragmentation function from LEP data~\cite{BTHEORY4,MLM}. The
2686: single $b$-hadron cross section from this
2687: FONLL calculation using the CTEQ6M parton distribution
2688: functions~\cite{CTEQ} is
2689: $\sigma^{FONLL}_{\rm (|y|<0.6)}=16.8^{+7.0}_{-5.0}~\mu{\rm b}$ which is in good agreement with our measurement of $\TOTXSECB \ \mu{\rm b}$.
2690:
2691: We also compare this result to the QCD calculation described in
2692: reference ~\cite{BTHEORY3}. This calculation employs a factorization
2693: scheme where the mass of the quark is considered negligible and a
2694: different treatment of the $b$-hadron fragmentation function is
2695: used. The cross-section calculation in \cite{BTHEORY3} is repeated
2696: using $\sqrt{s} = 1960$\,GeV/$c$ and the MRST2001 parton
2697: distribution functions~\cite{MRST}. The central value of the
2698: calculated cross section integrated over the rapidity range $|y|<0.6$
2699: and $p_T(J/\psi)> 5.0$\,GeV/$c$ is $\sigma(p\bar{p}
2700: \rightarrow H_b X,|y|<0.6) \cdot Br(H_b \rightarrow J/\psi X) \cdot
2701: Br(J/\psi \rightarrow \mu \mu) = 3.2 \ {\rm nb}$~\cite{BERNDT} which
2702: is in good agreement with our result of $\BXSECBRFIVEGEV~{\rm nb}$
2703:
2704: A more complete discussion of the changes in QCD calculations can be
2705: found in references ~\cite{BTHEORY4, MLM, BTHEORY2}. Updated
2706: determinations of proton parton densities and bottom quark
2707: fragmentation functions have brought the QCD calculations into better
2708: agreement with the CDF measurements of the total $b$-hadron cross
2709: section and the $b$-hadron $p_T$ distribution.
2710:
2711: %For the first time an accurate comparison with the cross-section
2712: %shapes predicted by theory is possible. The production spectrum in
2713: %data is found to be softer than the central theory prediction in
2714: %~\cite{MLM} although both shapes are still consistent within
2715: %theoretical uncertainties.
2716:
2717:
2718: \section{Summary}
2719: %\input{sections/conclusion.tex}
2720: We have measured the inclusive central $J/\psi$ cross section in
2721: $p\bar{p}$ interactions at $\sqrt{s} = 1960$\,GeV. The cross section
2722: has been measured over the full transverse momentum range.
2723: for the first time. We find the integrated inclusive $J/\psi$ cross
2724: section in the central rapidity range to be
2725: \begin{eqnarray}
2726: \nonumber
2727: \sigma(p
2728: \overline{p} \rightarrow J/\psi X,\mid y(J/\psi) \mid < 0.6) \\
2729: = \TOTXSEC \ \mu{\rm b},
2730: \end{eqnarray}
2731: after correcting for
2732: $Br(J/\psi \rightarrow \mu \mu) = 5.88 \pm 0.10 \%$ ~\cite{PDG}.
2733:
2734: Using the long lifetime of $b$-hadrons to separate that portion of
2735: the $J/\psi$ cross section that is from decays of $b$-hadrons, we have
2736: measured the cross section of $J/\psi$ mesons from $b$-hadron decays
2737: for $J/\psi$ transverse momenta greater than $1.25$\,GeV/$c$. The
2738: integrated $H_b \rightarrow J/\psi X$ cross section, including both
2739: hadron and anti-hadron states, is
2740: \begin{eqnarray}
2741: \nonumber
2742: \sigma(p\bar{p}\rightarrow H_b, ~H_b \rightarrow J/\psi X, p_T(J/\psi)
2743: > 1.25 {\rm \ \,GeV}/c,
2744: |y(J/\psi)|<0.6) \\ = \BXSEC \ \mu {\rm b},
2745: \end{eqnarray}
2746: after correcting for the
2747: branching fraction
2748: %s $Br(H_b\rightarrow J/\psi X) = 1.16\pm 0.10\%$ and
2749: $Br(J/\psi \rightarrow \mu \mu) = 5.88 \pm 0.10\%$~\cite{PDG}.
2750: %This result includes a $9\%$ systematic uncertainty from
2751: %the branching fraction measurements.
2752:
2753: The measurement of the $J/\psi$ cross section from $b$-hadron decays
2754: probes $b$-hadron transverse momenta down to zero. We have extracted
2755: the first measurement of the total central $b$-hadron cross section in
2756: $p\bar{p}$ collisions from the measurement of the $b$-hadron cross
2757: section with $J/\psi$ transverse momenta greater than
2758: $ 1.25$\,GeV/$c$ using Monte
2759: Carlo models. We find the total single $b$-hadron
2760: cross section integrated over all transverse momenta to be
2761: \begin{equation}
2762: \sigma(p\bar{p}\rightarrow H_b X, |y|<0.6) =
2763: \TOTXSECB \ \mu{\rm b}.
2764: \end{equation}
2765:
2766:
2767: %where we have divided by two such that
2768: %$b$ denotes either hadron or anti-hadron states.
2769:
2770: %From the measurement of the cross section of $J/\psi$ mesons from $b$-hadron
2771: %decays, we extract the measurement of the prompt $J/\psi$ cross
2772: %section by subtracting the measurement of the cross section of $H_b
2773: %\rightarrow J/\psi X$ from the inclusive $J/\psi$ cross section.
2774: %We find the integrated cross section of prompt $J/\psi$ to be:
2775: %\begin{eqnarray*}
2776: %\nonumber
2777: % \sigma(p\bar{p}\rightarrow J/\psi_{p} X, p_T(J/\psi) > 1.25 {\rm \ \,GeV }/c,
2778: %|y(J/\psi)|<0.6|) \\ \nonumber
2779: %= \PROMPTXSEC \ \mu{\rm b} \\
2780: %\end{eqnarray*}
2781: %where $J/\psi_{p}$ denotes a prompt $J/\psi$ and where we have
2782: %corrected for the $J/\psi \rightarrow \mu \mu$ branching fraction.
2783:
2784: %The differential cross sections of inclusive $J/\psi$ and the prompt
2785: %and $b$-hadron components are plotted in Fig. ~\ref{fig_xsecall}
2786: %\begin{figure}[!h]
2787: %\centerline{\psfig{figure=figures/xsec_all_pub.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
2788: %}
2789: %\caption{The inclusive $J/\psi$ cross section as a function of $J/\psi$
2790: %$p_T$ integrated over the rapidity range $|y|<0.6$ is plotted as
2791: %points with error bars where all uncertainties have been added.
2792: %The solid
2793: %histogram indicates the contribution to the cross section
2794: %from prompt charmonium production. The dashed histogram is the
2795: %contribution from decays of $b$-hadrons.}
2796: %\label{fig_xsecall}
2797: %\end{figure}
2798:
2799: %Acknowledgments
2800: %\input{sections/ack.tex}
2801: \begin{acknowledgments}
2802: We thank the Fermilab staff and the technical staffs of the participating
2803: institutions for their vital contributions. This work was supported by
2804: the U.S. Department of Energy and National Science Foundation; the Italian
2805: Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare; the Ministry of Education, Culture,
2806: Sports, Science and Technology of Japan; the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; the National Science Council of the Republic
2807: of China; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the A.P. Sloan
2808: Foundation; the Bundesministerium fuer Bildung und Forschung, Germany; the
2809: Korean Science and Engineering Foundation and the Korean Research
2810: Foundation; the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council and
2811: the Royal Society, UK; the Russian Foundation for Basic Research; the
2812: Commision Interministerial de Ciencia y Tecnologia, Spain; and in part
2813: by the European Community's Human Potential Programme under
2814: contract HPRN-CT-2002-00292, Probe for New Physics.
2815:
2816: \end{acknowledgments}
2817:
2818: %bibliography
2819: %\input{sections/biblio.tex}
2820: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
2821:
2822: \bibitem{RUNIPSI}
2823: F.~Abe {\it et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 79}, 572 (1997).
2824:
2825: F.~Abe {\it et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 79}, 578 (1997).
2826:
2827: T. Daniels, PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute
2828: of Technology, 1997 (unpublished).
2829:
2830:
2831: %\bibitem{CSM}
2832: %E.W.N. Glover, Alan D. Martin, W.James Stirling,
2833: %Z. Phys. {\bf C 38}, 473 (1988) Erratum-ibid. {\bf C 49}, 526 (1991).
2834: %M.~Cacciari and M.~Greco, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73},
2835: %1586(1994); E. Braaten {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 333), 548
2836: %(1994); D.P. Roy and K Sridhar, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 339}, 141(1994).
2837: %\bibitem{Cacciari} M.~Cacciari, M.~Greco, P.~Nason, JHEP {\bf 9805}, 007 (1998).
2838: %F.~Abe {\it et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69}, 3704 (1992).
2839:
2840: \bibitem{NRQCD}
2841: G.T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, and G.P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 51}
2842: 1125 (1995); {\bf 55}, 5853(E) (1997).
2843:
2844: \bibitem{Leibovich}
2845: P. Cho and A. K. Leibovich, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 53}, 150 (1996).
2846:
2847: \bibitem{ONIA1} A. K. Leibovich, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. {\bf 93} 182 (2001).
2848:
2849: \bibitem{Jpsi_pol}
2850: T. Affolder {\it et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 85}, 2886 (2000).
2851:
2852:
2853: \bibitem{CDFBXsec1} F.~Abe {\it et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys.\ Rev.\ D\ {\bf 50}, 4252 (1994).
2854:
2855: \bibitem{CDFBXsec2} F.~Abe {\it et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 75}, 1451 (1995).
2856:
2857: \bibitem{CDFBXsec3} F.~Abe {\it et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys.\ Rev.\ D\ {\bf 53}, 1051 (1996).
2858:
2859:
2860: \bibitem{CDFBXsec4} D.~Acosta {\it et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 052005 (2002).
2861:
2862: \bibitem{D0BXsec1} S.~Abachi {\it et al.} (D0 Collaboration), Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 74}, 3548 (1995).
2863:
2864: \bibitem{D0BXsec2} B.~Abbott {\it et al.} (D0 Collaboration), Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 487}, 264 (2000).
2865:
2866: \bibitem{D0BXsec3} B.~Abbott {\it et al.} (D0 Collaboration), Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 85}, 5068 (2000).
2867:
2868: %\bibitem{BTHEORY1a}
2869: %P. Nason, S. Dawson and R. K. Ellis, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 303}, 607 (1988).\\
2870: %P. Nason {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 327},
2871: %49 (1989), erratum-ibid {\bf B 335} 260 (1989). \\
2872:
2873: \bibitem{BTHEORY1a}
2874: P. Nason, S. Dawson and R. K. Ellis, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 303}, 607 (1988).
2875:
2876: P. Nason, S. Dawson and R. K. Ellis, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 327}, 49 (1989);
2877: {\bf B 335}, 260(E) (1989).
2878:
2879: \bibitem{BTHEORY1b} W. Beenakker {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 351}, 507 (1991).
2880:
2881: \bibitem{Krey}
2882: V. Krey and K. R. S. Balaji, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 054011 (2003).
2883:
2884: \bibitem{UA1BXsec} C.~Albajar {\it et al.} (UA1 Collaboration), Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 61}, 41 (1994).
2885:
2886:
2887: %\bibitem{ISAJET} F. Paige and S. Protopopescu, Brookhaven National
2888: %Laboratory Report No. BNL-38034, 1986 (unpublished).
2889:
2890: %\bibitem{NDE-tot} P.~Nason, S.~Dawson and R.~K.~Ellis,
2891: %%``The Total Cross-Section For The Production Of Heavy Quarks In Hadronic Collisions,''
2892: %Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 303} 607 (1988).
2893:
2894: %\bibitem{MRSA} A.~D.~Martin, R.~G.~Roberts and W.~J.~Stirling,
2895: %Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 354}, 155 (1995).
2896:
2897: %\bibitem{MRST} A.~D.~Martin, R.~G.~Roberts, W.~J.~Stirling and R.~S.~Thorne,
2898: %Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 4}, 463 (1998).
2899:
2900: %\bibitem{CDFfrag} F.~Abe {\it et al.} Phys.\ Rev.\ D\ {\bf 60}, 092005 (1999).
2901:
2902: \bibitem{BTHEORY5} H.~Jung, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 034015 (2002).
2903:
2904: \bibitem{BTHEORY2} J. Binnewies, B. A. Kniehl, and G. Kramer,
2905: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58}, 034016 (1998).
2906:
2907: \bibitem{BTHEORY3} B. A. Kniehl, and G. Kramer,
2908: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60}, 014006 (1999).
2909:
2910: \bibitem{BTHEORY4} M. Cacciari and P. Nason, Phys. Rev. Lett.~{\bf 89} 122003 (2002).
2911:
2912: \bibitem{SBOTTOM} E.~L.~Berger, B.~W.~Harris, D.~E.~Kaplan,
2913: Z.~Sullivan, T.~M.~Tait and C.~E.~Wagner,
2914: %``Low energy supersymmetry and the Tevatron bottom-quark cross section,''
2915: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86}, 4231 (2001).
2916:
2917: \bibitem{PDG}
2918: S. Eidelman {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 592}, 1 (2004).
2919:
2920: %K. Hagiwara {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66}, 010001 (2002).
2921:
2922: %\bibitem{Peterson} C.~Peterson {\it et al.},
2923: %Phys.\ Rev.\ D\ {\bf 27}, 105 (1983).
2924:
2925: \bibitem{CDFNIM1} F.~Abe {\it et al.},
2926: Nucl.\ Inst.\ Meth. \ A {\bf 271}, 387 (1988).
2927:
2928: %\bibitem{CDFNIM2}
2929: % F.~Abe {\it et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. {\bf D 50}, 2966 (1994).
2930:
2931: \bibitem{CDFII} R.~Blair {\it et al.} (CDF Collaboration),
2932: FERMILAB-Pub-96/390-E (1996).
2933:
2934: \bibitem{SVX2Ref} A.~Sill {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Inst.\ Meth. \ A {\bf 447}, 1(2000).
2935:
2936: \bibitem{COT} T.~Affolder {\it et al.},
2937: Nucl.\ Inst.\ Meth.\ A {\bf 526}, 249 (2004).
2938:
2939: %\bibitem{Phi} In the CDF coordinate system, $\theta$ and $\phi$ are the polar
2940: %and azimuthal angles, respectively, defined with respect to the proton beam
2941: %direction, $z$. The pseudorapidity $\eta$ is defined as $- \ln
2942: %\tan(\theta/2)$.
2943: %The transverse momentum of a particle is $p_T = p \sin (\theta)$.
2944:
2945: \bibitem{CMU} G. Ascoli {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Inst.\ Meth. A {\bf 268}, 33
2946: (1988).
2947:
2948: \bibitem{LUMI1}
2949: J. Elias {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Inst.\ Meth. A {\bf 441}, 366 (2000).
2950:
2951: \bibitem{LUMI2}
2952: D. Acosta {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Inst.\ Meth. A {\bf 461}, 540 (2001).
2953:
2954: %\bibitem{CMP} CMP reference goes here
2955:
2956:
2957: \bibitem{LEVEL3}K. Anikeev {\it et al.}, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. {\bf 47}, 65 (2000).
2958:
2959: \bibitem{XFTcitation} E.J. Thomson {\it et al.},
2960: IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. {\bf 49}, 1063 (2002).
2961:
2962:
2963: \bibitem{PPXSEC1}
2964: F.~Abe {\it et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D {\bf 50}, 5550 (1994).
2965: \bibitem{PPXSEC2}
2966: N.~Amos {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 68}, 2433 (1992).
2967: \bibitem{PPXSEC3}
2968: C.~Avila {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 445}, 419 (1999).
2969: \bibitem{BLOCK}
2970: M.M. Block and R. N. Cahn, Rev. Mod. Phys {\bf 57}, 563(1985).
2971:
2972: \bibitem{LUMI3}
2973: D. Acosta, {\it et al.}, Nucl. \ Inst. \ Meth. A {\bf 494}, 57 (2002).
2974:
2975: \bibitem{GEANT} R. Brun {\it et al.}, CERN-DD-78-2-REV (unpublished).
2976:
2977:
2978: %\bibitem{TAYLOR}
2979: %J. R. Taylor, `` An Introduction to Error Analysis ``. University
2980: %Science Books, 1982
2981:
2982:
2983: \bibitem{QQ} P. Avery, K. Read, and G. Trahern, CLEO Report No. CSN-212 1985, (unpublished).
2984:
2985: %\bibitem{RUNIPSI}
2986: %F.~Abe {\it et al.}, Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 79}, 572 (1997).
2987:
2988: \bibitem{KS}
2989: Chakravarti, Laha, and Roy, ``Handbook of Method of
2990: Applied Statistics'', Volume I, John Wiley and Sons, pp. 392-394 (1967).
2991: %\bibitem{GEANT} The geant reference goes here
2992:
2993: %\bibitem{CLEOPSI}S. Anderson {\it et al.}, hep-ex/0207059 (2002).
2994:
2995: \bibitem{CLEOPSI}S. Anderson {\it et al.} (CLEO Collaboration),
2996: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 282001 (2002).
2997:
2998: \bibitem{Babar} B. Aubert {\it et al.} (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67}, 032002 (2003).
2999:
3000: \bibitem{MLM}
3001: %M. Cacciari, S. Frixone, M.L. Mangano,
3002: %P. Nason. G. Ridolfi, CERN-TH-2003-298 (2003). hep-ph/0312132.
3003: M. Cacciari, S. Frixone, M.L. Mangano, P. Nason and
3004: G. Ridolfi, JHEP 0407:033, 2004.
3005:
3006: %\bibitem{MLM2} Private communication with M.L. Mangano.
3007:
3008:
3009: \bibitem{BFRAG}
3010: %E. Ben-Haim, hep-ph/0310009 (2003).
3011:
3012: %E.~Ben-Haim {\it et al.} Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 580}, 108 (2004).
3013:
3014: %E. Ben-Haim, hep-ph/0310009 (2003).
3015:
3016: Y. Kwon, Phys. Lett {\bf B592}, 712 (2004).
3017:
3018: \bibitem{CTEQ}
3019: J. Pumplin, D.R. Stump and W. L. Tung, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 014011
3020: (2002);
3021:
3022: D. R. Stump {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 014012 (2002);
3023:
3024: J. Pumplin {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 014013 (2002).
3025:
3026: \bibitem{BERNDT} Private communication with Berndt Kniehl.
3027:
3028: \bibitem{MRST}
3029: A. D. Martin, R. G. Roberts, W. J. Stirling and R. S. Thorne,
3030: Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 23}, 73 (2002) and arXiv:hep-ph/0308087 (2003).
3031:
3032:
3033: \end{thebibliography}
3034:
3035:
3036: \end{document}
3037:
3038:
3039: