1: \newcommand{\psgnM}{\ensuremath{P_{\rm sgn}}\xspace}
2: \newcommand{\pbkgM}{\ensuremath{P_{\rm bg}}\xspace}
3: \newcommand{\psgnD}{\ensuremath{P_{\rm sgn}}\xspace}
4: \newcommand{\pbkgD}{\ensuremath{P_{\rm bg}}\xspace}
5: \newcommand{\mmm}{\ensuremath{x_{\rm fit}}\xspace}
6: \newcommand{\barq}{\ensuremath{\bar{q}}\xspace}
7: \newcommand{\barb}{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}\xspace}
8:
9: \section{THE D0 DETECTOR}
10: \label{sec:detector}
11:
12: The Run II of the Fermilab Tevatron collider started in 2001 after
13: substantial detector upgrades following the first Tevatron collider
14: run in 1992-1996. The D0 Run II detector~\cite{run2det} consists of
15: a magnetic central tracking system,
16: composed of a silicon micro-strip tracker (SMT) and a central fiber
17: tracker (CFT), both located within a 2~T superconducting solenoidal
18: magnet. The SMT has approximately $800,000$ individual strips,
19: with typical pitch of $50-80$ $\mu$m, and a design optimized for
20: tracking and vertexing capabilities at pseudorapidities of $|\eta|<2.5$.
21: The system has a six-barrel longitudinal structure, each with a set
22: of four layers arranged axially around the beam pipe, and interspersed
23: with 16 radial disks. The CFT has eight thin coaxial barrels, each
24: supporting two doublets of overlapping scintillating fibers of 0.835~mm
25: diameter, one doublet being parallel to the beam axis, and the
26: other alternating by $\pm 3^{\circ}$ relative to the axis. Light signals
27: are transferred via clear fibers to solid-state photon counters (VLPCs)
28: that have $\approx 80$\% quantum efficiency.
29:
30: Central and forward preshower detectors located just outside of the superconducting coil (in front of the calorimetry) are constructed of several layers of extruded triangular scintillator strips that are read out using wavelength-shifting fibers and VLPCs.
31: The next layer of detection involves three liquid-argon/uranium calorimeters: a central section (CC) covering approximately $|\eta| < 1.1$, and two end calorimeters (EC) that extend coverage to $|\eta|\approx 4.2$, all housed in separate cryostats~\cite{run1det}.
32: The calorimeter consists of an electromagnetic (EM) section followed by fine and coarse hadronic sections with modules assembled in a projective geometry to the interaction region.
33: In addition to the preshower detectors, scintillators between the CC and EC cryostats provide sampling of developing showers for $1.1<|\eta|<1.4$.
34:
35: A muon system~\cite{run2muon} resides beyond the calorimetry and consists of a
36: layer of tracking detectors and scintillation trigger counters
37: before 1.8~T iron toroids, followed by two similar layers after
38: the toroids. Tracking for $|\eta|<1$ relies on 10~cm wide drift
39: tubes~\cite{run1det}, while 1~cm mini-drift tubes are used for
40: $1<|\eta|<2$.
41:
42: %Luminosity is measured using plastic scintillator arrays located in front
43: %of the EC cryostats, covering $2.7 < |\eta| < 4.4$.
44: %A forward-proton
45: %detector, situated in the Tevatron tunnel on either side of the
46: %interaction region, consists of a total of 18 Roman pots used for
47: %measuring high-momentum charged-particle trajectories close to the
48: %incident beam directions.
49: Trigger and data acquisition systems are designed to accommodate the high luminosities of Run II.
50: Based on preliminary information from tracking, calorimetry, and muon systems, the output of the first level of the trigger is used to limit the rate for accepted events to approximately $2$~kHz.
51: At the next trigger stage, with more refined information, the rate is reduced further to about 1~kHz.
52: These first two levels of triggering rely mainly on hardware and firmware.
53: The third and final level of the trigger, with access to all of the event information, uses software algorithms and a computing farm, and reduces the output rate to about 50~Hz, which is written to tape.
54:
55:
56: \section{EVENT RECONSTRUCTION}
57: \label{sec:reco}
58:
59: This section summarizes the offline event reconstruction. We
60: use a right-handed Cartesian coordinate system with the $z$ axis defined by the
61: direction of the proton beam, the $y$ axis pointing vertically upwards
62: and the $x$ axis pointing out from the center of the accelerator
63: ring. The origin is at the center of the detector.
64: The polar angle $\theta$ is defined with respect to the positive
65: $z$ axis and $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle from the $x$ axis in the transverse $xy$
66: plane. The pseudorapidity $\eta$ is defined as $\eta
67: \equiv -{\rm ln}({\rm tan}(\theta / 2))$.
68:
69: \subsection{Tracks and event vertex}
70: Tracks are reconstructed from the hit information in the SMT and CFT.
71: A Kalman filter \cite{kalman} is used to fit track candidates found by
72: a road-based algorithm or a technique searching for clusters of track
73: parameters formed by tracker hits.
74: Using a vertex search procedure \cite{btagxsecprd}, a list of
75: reconstructed primary vertices is returned.
76: The primary event vertex for the \ttbar reconstruction
77: is chosen from this list based on the $p_T$ spectrum of the tracks associated with a given vertex.
78: Only vertices with at least three tracks associated with them are considered.
79:
80: \subsection{Electrons}
81: \label{sec:electrons}
82: We reconstruct electrons using information from the calorimeter and
83: the central tracker.
84: Clusters of EM calorimeter cells (EM clusters) are built with a simple
85: cone algorithm using seeds of $E_T>1.5$~GeV and radius
86: $\Delta R \equiv \sqrt{(\Delta \eta)^2 + (\Delta \phi)^2} = 0.2$.
87: An ``extra-loose'' electron is defined as an EM cluster with 90\% of its energy from the EM part of the calorimeter and isolated from hadronic energy depositions.
88: Its longitudinal and transverse energy profiles have to be consistent with expectations from simulation.
89: In addition, the electrons used in the final event selection are
90: required to match a track reconstructed in the central tracker and to pass an electron likelihood cut.
91: The likelihood is built from seven variables containing tracking and calorimeter information and is optimized to discriminate between true electrons and background.
92:
93: \subsection{Muons}
94: \label{sec:muons}
95: Muons are reconstructed from the information in the muon system and
96: the central tracker.
97: We require a muon candidate to have hits in the muon detectors both inside and outside the toroid.
98: The timing information of the scintillator hits has to be consistent with that of a particle produced in a $p \bar p$ collision, thus rejecting cosmic muons.
99: The muon candidate track is then extrapolated to the point of closest
100: approach to the beam line, and matched to a track from the central
101: tracking system using a global track fit.
102: Muons must not be surrounded by activity in the tracker or calorimeter
103: and are required to be separated from reconstructed jets by $\Delta R>0.5$.
104:
105:
106: \subsection{Jet reconstruction and energy scale}
107: \label{sec:jet}
108: Jets are reconstructed from the calorimeter information using a cone
109: algorithm \cite{blazey} with radius $\Delta R = 0.5$. Only calorimeter cells with signal larger than $4\sigma$ above the average noise and adjacent cells with signal at least $2 \sigma$ above the noise are used.
110: The jets are required to be confirmed by independent calorimeter
111: trigger information and must be separated from an extra-loose electron by $\Delta R>0.5$.
112: The reconstructed jet energies $E^{\rm jet}_{\rm reco}$ are corrected
113: for an energy offset $E_{\rm off}$, energy response $R_{\rm cal}$, and out-of-cone
114: showering $C_{\rm cone}$, according to:
115: \begin{equation}
116: E^{\rm jet}_{\rm corr} = \frac{E^{\rm jet}_{\rm reco}
117: - E_{\rm off}}{R_{\rm cal} \cdot C_{\rm cone}} \,.
118: \end{equation}
119: The offset correction is determined from events taken with a zero bias
120: trigger during physics data taking and accounts for noise, multiple
121: interactions, and energy pile-up.
122: The response correction is derived from a high statistics
123: jet+photon sample by looking at the $p_T$ imbalance in these events.
124: The photon energy scale is assumed to be equivalent to the well-known
125: electron energy scale as calibrated from $Z\rightarrow ee$ events.
126: The showering correction accounts for energy that particles inside the
127: jet cone deposit outside the cone during the hadronic showering
128: process.
129: Transverse jet energy profiles are studied to determine this correction.
130: Jets containing a muon within the jet cone are further corrected for
131: the momentum carried by the muon and the associated neutrino.
132: Since the method to extract the top quark mass is calibrated with
133: respect to the Monte Carlo simulation, it is important to determine
134: the relative jet energy scale $\cal S$ between data and the Monte
135: Carlo simulation,
136: \begin{equation}
137: \label{eq:dat3}
138: {\cal S} = \left\langle \frac{p^{\rm jet}_T - p^\gamma_T}{p^\gamma_T} \right\rangle_{\rm data}
139: - \left\langle \frac{p^{\rm jet}_T - p^\gamma_T}{p^\gamma_T} \right\rangle_{\rm MC}.
140: \end{equation}
141: $\cal S$ is parameterized as a function of photon $p_T$ for several
142: bins in ($p_T$,$\eta$) space and is found to be flat within its uncertainties.
143: No corrections from this source are therefore applied.
144: Effects of a potential $p_T$ dependence are taken into account as a systematic uncertainty.
145: For the overall jet energy scale, a uniform factor, $\jes$, is
146: introduced as a free parameter in the analysis.
147: This factor is fitted in situ, simultaneously with the top quark mass
148: in data by using information from the invariant mass of the
149: hadronically decaying $W$~bosons.
150: For every event, this mass is constrained in the kinematic fit to be equal to the known value of the $W$ boson mass~\cite{PDG}.
151: The $\chi^2$ of the kinematic fit reflects the compatibility of the reconstructed jet energies with this constraint.
152: The likelihood is sensitive to the $\jes$ parameter through the $\chi^2$.
153: %Thus the $\chi^2$ of the kinematic fit provides sensitivity to
154: %the JES parameter in the likelihood.
155: The overall fit will give the maximum likelihood for the
156: value of $\jes$ which optimizes, on average, the
157: compatibility between the reconstructed and fitted jet energies.
158:
159:
160:
161: %The overall jet energy scaling factor $\jes$ affects which gives
162: %the best overall compatibility with this hypothesis is the corresponds to the jet energy for
163: %which this compatibility
164:
165: Apart from the $W$ boson mass information, no constraint on the
166: overall energy scale is used in the top quark mass fit.
167: The jet energy scale measured in situ is
168: consistent with the result obtained from photon+jet studies (Sec.~\ref{section:Xcheck}).
169:
170: %calibration
171: %is consistent with the Jet Energy Scale that is measured in situ.
172: %is used to estimate the residual
173: %systematic uncertainty on the top mass due to $p_T$ and $\eta$
174: %dependent variations due to non-uniform JES effects that are not
175: %absorbed by fitting an overall JES factor $\jes$ (see section xx).
176:
177: %To be consistent with the Matrix Element analysis, the measurement of
178: %the average difference ${\cal S} (p_T)$ is not used as a constraint in
179: %the fit.
180:
181: The analysis is calibrated such that in pseudo-experiments with Monte Carlo events the average fitted $\jes$ value is equal to one.
182: A fitted value $\jes <$ 1 means that the jet energies in the sample considered are underestimated with respect to the reference Monte Carlo scale described above ($\jes <$ 1 is equivalent to ${\cal S} < 0$ when fitting the data sample).
183:
184:
185: \subsection{Missing transverse energy}
186: We identify neutrinos indirectly from the energy imbalance in the event.
187: The imbalance is reconstructed from the vector sum of the transverse energies in the calorimeter cells and the reconstructed muons.
188: Energies from the cells in the coarse hadronic portion of the calorimeter are only added if associated with a reconstructed jet.
189: The missing transverse energy, \MET, is corrected for the energy scale calibration of jets and electrons.
190:
191: \subsection{$b$-jet identification}
192: We identify $b$ jets using a lifetime tagging algorithm (secondary
193: vertex tagger, SVT) based on the explicit reconstruction of a secondary vertex from the decay of a $b$-flavored hadron~\cite{SVT}.
194: We call $dca$ the distance of closest approach between a track and the beam line, with $\sigma(dca)$ being the uncertainty on $dca$.
195: After the reconstruction of the primary event vertex, we consider tracks with $dca/\sigma(dca)>3.5$ for the reconstruction of additional (secondary) vertices.
196: For a reconstructed secondary vertex, the transverse decay length
197: $L_{xy}$ with respect to the primary event vertex is computed.
198: A jet is tagged as a $b$ jet if a secondary vertex is reconstructed within $\Delta R<0.5$ of the jet with $L_{xy}/\sigma(L_{xy})>7.0$, where $\sigma(L_{xy})$ is the uncertainty on $L_{xy}$.
199: The $b$-jet tagging rate $\epsilon_b$ is measured in data using information from an independent $b$-tagging analysis that looks for the presence of a muon in the jet cone.
200:
201: Light quark jets can also be tagged when a fake secondary
202: vertex is reconstructed due to track mis-measurements
203: and random overlaps of tracks.
204: This light jet tagging rate $\epsilon_l$ is estimated from the rate
205: of secondary vertices with $L_{xy}/\sigma(L_{xy})<-7.0$ in a data
206: sample with predominantly light quark jets. Negative values of
207: $L_{xy}$ occur if the secondary vertex is on the opposite side of the
208: event vertex with respect to the jet and are a sign of
209: mis-measurement and resolution effects.
210: Misreconstructed vertices with negative and positive values of
211: $L_{xy}$ are expected to occur at the same rate.
212: Corrections for the contamination with heavy flavor and the presence of long lived particles are applied as determined from Monte Carlo simulation.
213: The $b$-jet and light-jet tagging rates are measured in data and are parametrized as a function of jet transverse momentum and pseudorapidity~\cite{btagxsecprd}.
214:
215: %The tagging rates and $b$ jet identification are used to improve the separation between signal and background events and to better distinguish between `correct' and `wrong' jet assignment hypotheses.
216: %Events with 0, 1, or $\geq 2$ $b$ tagged jets are all used in a combined fit in this analysis.
217:
218:
219: \section{DATA SAMPLES}
220: \label{sec:sample}
221: This paper describes the analysis of data collected between April 2002 and August 2004, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of approximately 425 pb$^{-1}$.
222: For this analysis, the data sample was selected by triggering on a lepton and at least one additional jet in the events.
223: The specific trigger requirements are described in more detail in Ref.~\cite{btagxsecprd}.
224:
225: The event selection requires an isolated lepton of transverse momentum $p_T > 20$~GeV, with a pseudorapidity $|\eta| < 1.1$ for electrons and $|\eta| < 2$ for muons.
226: Missing transverse energy \MET $> 20$~GeV is required as well as four or more jets with $p_T > 20$~GeV and $|\eta|<2.5$.
227: A $\Delta \phi$ cut between \MET and lepton momentum is imposed to exclude events where the transverse energy imbalance is caused by a poor measurement of the lepton energy.
228: The position of the event vertex along the beam direction has to be within 60 cm of the center of the detector.
229: We select 246 candidate events.
230:
231: %A QCD multijet background sample is also extracted from data by reversing the lepton isolation requirements in the selection.
232:
233: A QCD multijet background sample is also extracted from data by
234: reversing the final lepton quality requirement. Leaving all other
235: event
236: selection cuts unchanged, the candidate isolated muon must fail to
237: be isolated from activity in the tracker or calorimeter (Sec.~\ref{sec:muons})
238: in the muon+jets channel. Similarly, in the electron+jets channel the
239: candidate electron must not be matched to a track or fail to pass the
240: electron likelihood cut (Sec.~\ref{sec:electrons}).
241:
242:
243: \section{SIMULATION}
244: \label{sec:sim}
245: Monte Carlo event generators are used to create large samples of simulated signal and background events.
246: These samples are used for the calibration of the central mass value
247: and the estimate of the uncertainty.
248: We use \alpgen~1.3~\cite{ALPGEN} to generate signal and \wjets
249: background events.
250: The underlying event and hadronization is simulated using \pythia~6.2~\cite{PYTHIA}.
251: Signal \ttbar events are generated at nine mass points with masses ranging from 150~GeV to 200~GeV.
252: The factorization and renormalization scales are set to $Q=m_t$ for
253: the \ttbar simulation and $Q^2=M_W^2+\sum(p_T^{\rm jet})^2$ for \wjets.
254: All events are passed through a full \geant-based \cite{geant} D0 detector simulation and reconstructed with the same software as the collider data.
255: Events are accepted according to the probability that a simulated event would pass the trigger requirements.
256: This probability is typically between 0.9 and 1.0.
257: The same object and event selections as for the data samples are applied.
258: The simulation chain is tuned to reproduce resolutions of
259: reconstructed objects seen in the collider data.
260: %For the $W$+jets background sample we build the relative reconstructed jet flavor composition are shown in table \ref{tab:wjets}.
261:
262:
263:
264:
265: \section{KINEMATIC FIT AND FINAL EVENT SELECTION}
266: \label{sec:fit}
267:
268: The kinematics of the events, including the undetected neutrino from the $W$ boson decay, are
269: reconstructed using the same kinematic constrained fit that was developed for the
270: Run~I analysis~\cite{run1templmass}. The resolutions of
271: muons, electrons and jets were updated for Run~II~\cite{MEnew,Whel,Charge}.
272:
273: In events with more than four jets, only the four jets with highest $p_T$ are considered as
274: possible candidates to be a light quark or $b$ quark in the \ttbar
275: hypothesis used in the constrained fit.
276:
277: All twelve possible assignments of jets to quarks are considered.
278: As a starting point for the kinematic fit, the unmeasured component of the
279: neutrino momentum parallel to the beam, $p^{\nu}_z$, is chosen such that the two top
280: quarks are assigned equal mass. This yields a quadratic equation for $p^{\nu}_z$.
281: We use both solutions as input to the fit yielding twenty-four fit results per event.
282: Depending on the event kinematics and resolution effects, the
283: discriminant of the quadratic equation may be negative, in which case
284: the discriminant is forced to be zero.
285: Thus one or two solutions are always obtained.
286: If only one solution is available, we include the same fit result twice in the likelihood.
287: % replaced by above after comment by Greg L. 12/28/06
288: % When the event kinematics yield two
289: % solutions for the component of the neutrino momentum parallel to the
290: % beam, both solutions are used as a starting point for the fit, giving a
291: % maximum of 24 different fit solutions per event.
292:
293: For the kinematic fit, we relate the reconstructed jet energy to the unfragmented parton energy.
294: To this end, a jet-parton energy mapping is applied, which is the same in data and MC simulation.
295: The corrections depend on the flavor ($b$ quark or light quark) of the parent quark and therefore depend on the jet-to-parton assignment used.
296: To derive the mapping functions, we use MC events where the
297: jets are unambiguously matched to the partons of the \ttbar decay and compare the jet energy to the MC generated parton energy.
298: The jet-parton mapping functions contain the $\jes$ parameter as a uniform multiplicative factor.
299:
300: The kinematic fit is performed by minimizing a $\chi^2$
301: subject to the kinematic constraints:
302: $m(t\rightarrow \ell\nu b) = m(\bar t\rightarrow q\barq\barb)$, $m(\ell\nu)=M_W$, and $m(q\barq) = M_W$.
303: We use $M_W=80.4$~GeV~\cite{PDG}.
304: The minimization algorithm uses the method of Lagrange multipliers; the nonlinear constraint equations are solved using an iterative technique.
305: From the fit for each jet/neutrino solution $i$, we extract the mass $m_i$, the
306: estimated uncertainty on the fitted mass
307: $\sigma_i$, and the goodness of fit $\chi^2_i$. The fit is
308: repeated for different values of $JES$.
309: The JES parameter is varied in steps of 3\% in an interval of $\pm$15\% around
310: unity.
311: Only jet combinations for which the fit converges at all values of $\jes$ are used.
312: This requirement is needed to prevent
313: discontinuities as a function of $\jes$ in the event likelihood.
314: %As a final step in the event
315: %selection only event are kept for which at least one jet combination
316: %has a $\chi^2_i(\jes) < 10$, for $\jes = 1$.
317: The fitted mass
318: $m_i(\jes)$, estimated uncertainty $\sigma_i(\jes)$, and goodness of fit
319: $\chi^2_i(\jes)$ all depend on the JES parameter. In the following
320: this dependence is not shown explicitly, to improve readability.
321:
322: The final selection requirement is that at least one jet/neutrino
323: solution yields $\chi^2 < 10$ for the kinematic fit with
324: $\jes=1$. This cut reduces the number of events from 120 to 116 in the
325: electron+jets channel and from 126 to 114 in the muon+jets
326: channel. Most of the events removed by this cut are background events
327: or badly reconstructed \ttbar events that do not satisfy the \ttbar fit
328: hypothesis and do not carry useful information about the top quark
329: mass. The algorithmic efficiency of the kinematic fit is
330: excellent, as listed in Table~\ref{tab:efficiencies}.
331:
332:
333: \begin{table}[h]
334: \begin{center}
335: \caption{\rm The numbers of events and efficiencies for the electron+jets
336: ($e$) and muon+jets ($\mu$) channel having at least one jet
337: combination for which the fit converges at $\jes = 1$, without and with the
338: requirement on the maximum value of the $\chi^2$. Each
339: column shows the relative efficiency with respect to the previous column. }
340: \begin{tabular}{rcr@{}lr@{}lr@{}l}
341: \hline \hline
342: \multicolumn{8}{l}{Convergence of the kinematic fit:} \\
343: & before \hspace{.5cm}
344: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{converges, \hspace{5mm}}
345: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\chi^2 < 10$ \hspace{5mm}}
346: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{converges, \hspace{5mm}} \\
347: & fit
348: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\jes = 1$ \hspace{5mm} }
349: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\jes = 1$ \hspace{5mm} }
350: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{all $\jes^*$ \hspace{5mm}} \\
351: \hline
352: \ttbar \hfill $e$ & 9452 & 100. & 0\% & 97. & 7\% & 100. & 0\% \\
353: $\mu$ & 9265 & 99. & 8\% & 94. & 4\% & 100. & 0\% \\
354: \wjets \hfill $e$ & 5163 & 100. & 0\% & 94. & 2\% & 100. & 0\% \\
355: $\mu$ & 5820 & 99. & 7\% & 89. & 9\% & 100. & 0\% \\
356: data \hfill $e$ & 120 & 100. & 0\% & 97. & 0\% & 100. & 0\% \\
357: $\mu$ & 126 & 100. & 0\% & 91. & 0\% & 100. & 0\% \\
358: \multicolumn{8}{l}{$^*$ for all values of $\jes$ in the fit range $0.85 < \jes < 1.15$}\\
359: \hline \hline
360: \end{tabular}
361: \label{tab:efficiencies}
362:
363: \end{center}
364: \end{table}
365:
366:
367:
368:
369: \section{SAMPLE COMPOSITION}
370: \label{sec:disc}
371:
372: In order to obtain a good separation between \ttbar signal and background events (mainly $W$+jets), a likelihood discriminant based on the `low-bias'
373: topological discriminant $D_{\rm LB}$, developed in
374: Run~I~\cite{run1templmass}, is used.
375: The $D_{\rm LB}$ discriminant was designed to have minimal correlation
376: with the top mass and is based on the following four
377: topological variables: \met, aplanarity, $H'_{T2}$, and $K'_{T \rm min}$.
378: %
379: Aplanarity is defined as the smallest eigenvalue of the normalized laboratory-frame momentum tensor of the jets and the $W$ boson.
380: %
381: $H'_{T2} \equiv \frac{H_{T2}}{H_{\parallel}}$ measures the event
382: centrality, where $H_{T2}$ is the scalar sum of the transverse momenta
383: of the jets excluding the leading jet and $H_{\parallel}$ is the sum of
384: the magnitudes of the momentum components parallel to the beamline of
385: the jets, isolated lepton and neutrino. In this case the neutrino momentum
386: parallel to the beam is estimated requiring that the mass computed
387: from the measured lepton momentum, \met and unknown neutrino momentum
388: parallel to the beam is equal to the $W$ boson mass. If more than one
389: solution is found, the one smallest in absolute value is used.
390: %
391: The variable $K'_{T \rm min} \equiv \frac{\Delta R^{\rm min}_{ij} \cdot E_{T}^{{\rm lesser}\
392: j}}{E_{T}^{W}}$ is a measure of the jet separation normalized by the transverse energy of the reconstructed $W$ boson.
393: $\Delta R^{\rm min}_{ij}$ is the smallest distance in $\eta-\phi$ space between any
394: two of the four leading jets.
395: $E_{T}^{{\rm lesser}\ j}$ is the smaller of the two jet $E_T$s.
396: The transverse energy of the $W$ boson is defined as
397: $E^{W}_{T} \equiv \left|p_{T}^{\rm lepton}\right| + \left| \met \right|$.
398: %
399: These four variables are combined in a single discriminant variable
400: $D_{\rm LB}$ using the likelihood ratio procedure described in Ref.~\cite{run1templmass}.
401:
402: For the analysis presented here, the low-bias discriminant $D_{\rm LB}$
403: ($\equiv x_1$) was combined with a new variable called ``$p_T$-fraction''
404: and the number of $b$ tags to build a combined discriminant $D$.
405: %
406: %
407: The $p_T$-fraction, defined as $ x_2 = (\sum_{\rm tracks\ in\ jets} p_T)/(\sum_{\rm all\ tracks} p_T)$, is the
408: $p_T$-weighted fraction of all tracks in the event that point to an
409: energy deposit defining a jet (with jet $p_T>$20~GeV with $|\eta| < 2.5$).
410: Only those tracks were considered that have a distance of closest
411: approach of less than 1 cm along the beam direction with respect to at least one of the primary vertices in the event.
412: In order to be included in the $p_T$ sum over tracks in a jet, a track was required to be within $\Delta R < 0.5$ from the jet axis.
413: This variable distinguishes clean events with nicely collimated jets from
414: events with broader jets and significant underlying hadronic activity.
415: Finally, $x_3$ is the number of $b$ tags.
416: For each variable $x_i$, we use Monte Carlo simulation to determine
417: the probability density functions
418: $s_i$, for \ttbar signal, and $b_i$, for \wjets background.
419: To a good approximation, these three
420: variables $x_i$ are uncorrelated, and the combined likelihood discriminant is
421: derived as
422: \begin{equation}
423: \label{eq:dat2}
424: D = \frac{\Pi_i s_i(x_i)/b_i(x_i)}{\Pi_i
425: s_i(x_i)/b_i(x_i) + 1},
426: \end{equation}
427: thus combining event topology with a tracking-based jet shape and $b$ tag
428: information. This combined likelihood discriminant offers a much better
429: discrimination between \ttbar and background than does the low-bias
430: topological variable $D_{\rm LB}$ by itself, while maintaining its low
431: level of correlation with the fitted top quark mass (and therefore with the
432: jet energy scale).
433:
434: \begin{figure*}
435: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figuresid/triplediscpaper.eps}
436: \caption{\label{fig:PurClosure} {Combined likelihood discriminant $D$
437: in data and MC simulation in the electron+jets channel (left) and muon+jets channel
438: (right). The \ttbar, \wjets and multijet contributions are normalized
439: according to the fitted fractions.}}
440: \end{figure*}
441:
442: Figure~\ref{fig:PurClosure} shows the distribution of the combined
443: discriminant $D$ obtained in the electron+jets and muon+jets channels.
444: The distribution observed in data is compared to a model consisting of simulated \ttbar
445: and \wjets events and the QCD multijets sample obtained
446: from data (Sec.~\ref{sec:sample}).
447: %obtained from data by inverting the
448: %lepton isolation cut in the event selection.
449: A likelihood fit is performed to determine the estimated fraction of \ttbar
450: events.
451: The fit results are shown in Table~\ref{tab:selection}.
452: In the fit, the ratio between the number of QCD and \wjets events was kept
453: fixed at a value based on the estimate used in Refs.~\cite{topological,MEnew}.
454:
455: %likelihood fit to \ttbar and W+jets.
456: %The closure plots all look good, showing no sign of
457: %correlations spoiling that assumption.
458:
459: \begin{table}[h]
460: \begin{center}
461: \caption{ Composition of the 425 pb$^{-1}$
462: data sample as determined by the likelihood fit. }
463: \begin{tabular}{lr@{ }lr@{ }l}
464: \hline \hline
465: %%% \multicolumn{3}{l}{estimated composition:} \\
466: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{electron+jets} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{muon+jets}
467: %no. of events observed in data & 116 & 114 \\
468: %\hline
469: \\ \hline
470: %\multicolumn{3}{l}{estimated sample composition:} \\
471: \ttbar & \hspace*{3mm}61.5 & $ \pm$ 7.9 & \hspace*{1mm} 45.6 & $\pm$ 7.5 \vspace{.15cm}\\
472: \wjets & 35.6 & $\pm$ 5.2 & 63.0 & $\pm$ 6.9 \vspace{.15cm}\\
473: QCD multijet & 18.9 & $\pm$ 2.7 & 5.4 & $\pm$ 0.6 \vspace{.15cm}\\
474: % \hline
475: Total observed & \multicolumn{2}{c}{116} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{114} \\
476: \hline \hline
477: \end{tabular}
478: \label{tab:selection}
479:
480: \end{center}
481: \end{table}
482: %
483: