1: \section{The Ideogram Method}
2:
3:
4: \label{sec:ID}
5: %
6: %In this section the measurement of the top quark mass with the ideogram method is described.
7: %The approach is very similar to a technique, which was used by the
8: %DELPHI experiment~\cite{DELPHI} to extract the mass of the $W$~boson at
9: %LEP. As in the Matrix Element analysis~\cite{ME} a likelihood is calculated for
10: %%%each event as a function of the assumed top quark mass and jet energy
11: %scale taking into account all possible jet assignments and the
12: %probability that the event was signal or background. As in the Matrix
13: %Element method
14: %the likelihood is described as a convolution of a
15: %physics function and the detector resolution. The difference, however,
16: %is that in the Ideogram method a kinematic constrained fit is used to
17: %describe the detector resolution, and the physics function is
18: %simplified to a relativistic Breit-Wigner describing the average of
19: %the invariant masses of the supposed top and anti-top quark that were
20: %produced in the event.
21:
22: To maximize the statistical information on the top quark mass
23: extracted from the event sample, a likelihood to observe the
24: event is calculated for each event as a function of the assumed top
25: quark mass \mtop, the jet energy scale parameter $\jes$, and the fraction of \ttbar events in the event sample, \ftop.
26: The likelihood is composed of two terms, describing the
27: hypotheses that the event is \ttbar signal or background:
28: %
29: %The probabilities from all events in the sample are then combined to
30: %obtain the sample probability as a function of assumed mass and jet
31: %energy scale, and the top quark mass measurement is extracted from
32: %this sample probability.
33: %
34: %two processes, \ttbar production and \wjets events, and can be written
35: %as:
36: \begin{multline}
37: \label{eq:idevlik}
38: {\cal L}_{\rm evt}\left(x;\mtop,\jes,\ftop\right) =
39: \ftop \cdot \psgn\left(x;\,\mtop,\jes\right)
40: \\ + \left(1-\ftop\right) \cdot \pbkg\left(x;\,\jes\right) \,.
41: \end{multline}
42: %
43: Here, $x$ denotes the full set of observables that characterizes the event, \ftop is the
44: signal fraction of the event sample, and \psgn and \pbkg are the
45: probabilities for \ttbar and \wjets production, respectively.
46: %
47: %\begin{equation}
48: % \label{eq:idevlik}
49: % {\cal L}_{\rm evt}\left(x; m_{t},\jes\right) =
50: % =
51: % N_s \cdot {\cal L}_{\rm sig} \left(x;\,\mtop,\jes\right)
52: % + N_b \cdot {\cal L}_{\rm bckg}\left(x;\,\jes\right)
53: % \ .
54: %\end{equation}
55: %
56: %Here, $x$ denotes the kinematic variables of the event, $N_s$ and $N_b$ are the
57: %number of signal and background events in the sample, and \psgn and \pbkg are the
58: %probabilities for \ttbar and \wjets, respectively.
59: %
60: The contribution from QCD multijet events is comparatively small and expected to have a fitted mass shape very similar to that of \wjets events.
61: Therefore no explicit QCD multijet term is included in the likelihood.
62: %
63: The event observables $x$ can be divided into two groups.
64: One set is chosen to provide good separation between signal and background events while
65: minimizing the correlation with the mass information in the event.
66: These variables (topological variables and $b$ tagging) are used to construct a low-bias combined
67: discriminant $D$, as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:disc}.
68: The other event information used is the mass information \mmm from the constrained
69: kinematic fit, which provides the sensitivity to the top quark mass and jet
70: energy scale.
71: To good approximation $D$ is uncorrelated with \mmm and
72: with the jet energy scale. Thus the probabilities \psgn and
73: \pbkg can be written as the product of a probability to
74: observe a value $D$ and a probability to observe \mmm, as
75: %\begin{equation}
76: % \label{eq:idfactorised}
77: % P_{evt}\left(D,\m;\,\mtop,\jes,\ftop\right)
78: % =
79: % \ftop \cdot \psgn\left(D\right)\psgn\left(\m;\,\mtop,\jes\right)
80: % + \left(1-\ftop\right) \cdot \pbkg\left(D\right)\pbkg\left(\m;\,\jes\right)
81: % \ .
82: %\end{equation}
83: \begin{equation}
84: \label{eq:idsigfactorised}
85: \psgn\left(x;\,\mtop,\jes\right) \equiv \psgn\left(D\right) \cdot \psgn\left(\mmm;\,\mtop,\jes\right)
86: \end{equation}
87: and
88: \begin{equation}
89: \label{eq:idbgfactorised}
90: \pbkg\left(x;\,\jes\right) \equiv \pbkg\left(D\right) \cdot \pbkg\left(\mmm;\,\jes\right)
91: \end{equation}
92: %
93: where $D$ is calculated for a JES parameter equal to 1. The normalized
94: probability distributions of the discriminant $D$ for signal
95: $\psgn\left(D\right)$ and
96: background $\pbkg\left(D\right)$ are assumed to be independent of
97: $JES$ and are obtained from Monte Carlo
98: simulation as discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:disc}. They correspond to
99: parameterized versions of the Monte Carlo templates shown in
100: Fig.~\ref{fig:PurClosure}. The reconstruction
101: of the signal and background probabilities for the mass information
102: \mmm is explained in Sec.~\ref{sec:psig}. The mass information in the event \mmm
103: consists of all fitted masses $m_i(\jes)$, estimated uncertainties $\sigma_i(\jes)$, and goodnesses-of-fit $\chi^2_i(\jes)$ obtained from the
104: kinematic fit.
105:
106: \subsection{Calculation of signal and background probability}
107: \label{sec:psig}
108: %
109: The signal and background probabilities are calculated as a sum over all twenty-four possible jet/neutrino solutions.
110: Without $b$ tagging, the relative probability for each of the solutions $i$ to be correct depends only on the $\chi^2_i$ for the corresponding fit and is proportional to ${\rm exp}(-\frac{1}{2} \chi^2_i)$.
111: To further improve the separation between correct and incorrect jet
112: assignments, $b$ tagging is used.
113: If one or more jets in the event are $b$ tagged, an additional relative
114: weight $w_{{\rm btag},i}$ is assigned, representing the probability that
115: the observed $b$ tags are compatible with the jet assignment assumed for that
116: particular jet permutation:
117: \begin{equation}
118: \label{eq:id1}
119: w_{{\rm btag},i} = \prod_{j=1,n_{\rm jet}} p_i^j ,
120: \end{equation}
121: where $p_i^j$ can either be $\varepsilon_l$, (1-$\varepsilon_l$), $\varepsilon_b$,
122: or (1-$\varepsilon_b$), depending on the assumed flavor of the jet
123: (light or $b$) and whether or not that particular jet is tagged.
124: For this purpose the jets from the hadronic W boson decay are
125: always assumed to be light quark ($u$, $d$, $s$) jets. In the calibration of
126: the analysis (see Sec.~\ref{section:MC}), however, the fraction of $W \rightarrow
127: c\bar{s}$ decays and the higher tagging rate for $c$ quark jets are
128: taken into account. The tagging rates for light and $b$ quark jets $\varepsilon_l$ and
129: $\varepsilon_b$ are used as parameterized functions of jet
130: $p_T$ and $\eta$.
131: The jet $p_T$ is based on the reconstructed jet energy for $\jes = 1$, consistent with the jet energy scale for which the tagging rate functions are derived from data~\cite{SVT}.
132: Thus, the weight assigned to each jet combination becomes
133: \begin{equation}
134: \label{eq:id2}
135: w_i = {\rm exp}(-\frac{1}{2} \chi^2_i) \cdot w_{{\rm btag},i} .
136: \end{equation}
137: The mass-dependent signal probability in Eq.~\ref{eq:idsigfactorised} is calculated as
138: \begin{multline}
139: \label{eq:id3}
140: \psgn\left(\mmm;\,\mtop,\jes\right) \equiv \\ \sum^{24}_{i=1} w_i \Biggl[
141: f^{\rm ntag}_{\rm correct} \cdot \int^{m_{\rm min}}_{m_{\rm max}}
142: {\bf G}(m_i,m',\sigma_i) \cdot {\bf BW}(m',m_{t}) dm'
143: \\ + (1-f^{\rm ntag}_{\rm correct})\cdot {S^{\rm
144: ntag}_{wrong}}(m_i,m_{t}) \Biggr] .
145: \end{multline}
146: %
147: The signal term consists of two parts: one part describes the
148: compatibility of the solution with a certain value of
149: the top quark mass, assuming that it is the correct solution. It takes
150: into account the estimated mass resolution $\sigma_i$ for each jet
151: permutation.
152: The second part of the signal term describes the expected
153: shape of the mass spectrum for the ``wrong'' jet assignments, which also
154: depends on the top quark mass.
155: %
156: The ``correct'' solution part is given by a convolution of a Gaussian
157: resolution function ${\bf G}(m_i,m',\sigma_i)$ and a relativistic
158: Breit-Wigner ${\bf BW}(m',m_{t})$. The
159: Gaussian function describes the experimental resolution.
160: The relativistic Breit-Wigner represents the expected distribution of
161: the average invariant mass $m'$ of the top and anti-top quark
162: in the event for a given top quark mass $m_{t}$. The width of the
163: Breit-Wigner is set to the standard model value of the top decay
164: width~\cite{PDG}.
165: The ``wrong'' permutation signal
166: shape ${S^{\rm ntag}_{wrong}}(m_i,m_{t})$ is obtained from MC simulation
167: using a procedure described in Sec.~\ref{section:combi}.
168: These two terms are assigned relative weights depending on
169: $f^{\rm ntag}_{\rm correct}$, which represents the relative
170: probability that the weight is assigned to the correct jet
171: permutation. For well-reconstructed events with exactly 4 jets,
172: this probability is approximately 39\% if $b$ tagging is
173: not used.
174: For 4-jet events with 0, 1, or $\geq 2$ tagged jets, the values $f^0_{\rm correct}$=0.45, $f^1_{\rm correct}$=0.55, and
175: $f^2_{\rm correct}$=0.65 are used.
176: For 5-jet events smaller fractions are used: 0.15, 0.30, and 0.40 for events
177: with 0, 1, or $\geq 2$ $b$ tagged jets respectively. Ensemble tests
178: (see Sec.~\ref{section:MC}) confirm that these values result in a pull width for the
179: mass close to unity for the different tagging multiplicities.
180:
181: \begin{figure*}
182: \centerline{
183: % \includegraphics[width=8.cm]{figuresid/Ideo_bg_shape_el.eps}
184: % \includegraphics[width=8.cm]{figuresid/Ideo_bg_shape_mu.eps}}
185: % \includegraphics[width=8.cm]{figuresid/newbgel.eps}
186: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figuresid/paperbg.eps}}
187: \caption{
188: \label{fig:bgshape}
189: Histograms showing the background shape from a weighted sum (see text) of all twenty-four masses from each
190: event from the {\wjets} background sample (points with error bars), for the electron+jets
191: channel (left) and muon+jets (right).
192: The histograms show the shapes that are used in the likelihood.
193: To reduce statistical fluctuations, the shapes are calculated as the average value
194: in a sliding window of $\pm$5~GeV around each fitted mass.}
195: \end{figure*}
196:
197:
198: The background term in Eq.~\ref{eq:idbgfactorised} is calculated as:
199: \begin{equation}
200: \label{eq:id4}
201: \pbkg\left(\mmm;\,\jes\right) \equiv \sum^{24}_{i=1} w_i \cdot BG(m_i) ,
202: \end{equation}
203: where the background shape $BG(m)$ is the shape of the fitted mass spectrum for \wjets events.
204: To obtain $BG(m)$, the kinematic fit (with $\jes$ equal to unity) is applied to simulated
205: \wjets events and the fitted masses $m_i$ for all possible jet/neutrino solutions $i$ are plotted.
206: All entries are weighted according to the permutation weight $w_i$ defined in
207: Eq.~\ref{eq:id2}.
208: The shapes of $BG(m)$ used in the analysis are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bgshape}.
209:
210: The Breit-Wigner and ``wrong'' permutation signal shape are normalized to unity within
211: the integration interval of $m_{\rm min}=100$~GeV to $m_{\rm max}=300$~GeV.
212: This interval is chosen to be large enough so as not to bias the mass in the region of
213: interest.
214: %
215: %The normalization of the background
216: %shape $BG(m)$ is calibrated to
217: %minimize the offset in the fitted purity, in the region of interest around the
218: %expected signal fraction of 0.45.
219:
220: The normalization of the background shape $BG(m)$
221: is chosen such that the fitted signal fraction \ftop reproduces
222: the true \ttbar fraction in ensemble tests (see Sec.~\ref{section:MC}) containing \ttbar and
223: \wjets events. The mass fit tends to underestimate \ftop, due to
224: the presence of \ttbar events that are misreconstructed or affected by
225: energetic gluon radiation and resemble \wjets events in the fact that
226: their topology does not conform to the \ttbar hypothesis in the kinematic fit.
227: A constant normalization factor of 1.15 is found to reduce the offset
228: in \ftop to less than 1\% both in the electron+jets and the muon+jets channel.
229: %
230: %%%%The event purity is $P_{\rm evt} = \frac {\ftop \cdot \frac{P_s}{P_b}}{1 + \ftop \cdot \frac{P_s}{P_b}}$.
231: %
232: The jet energy scale parameter is varied before performing the constrained fit by
233: scaling all jet energies by a constant factor.
234: The event likelihoods are recalculated for each different value of the JES parameter.
235: Since the constrained fit uses a $W$~boson mass constraint,
236: the $\chi^2$ in the fit will be best when the invariant mass of the
237: jets from the hadronically decaying $W$~boson is closest (on average) to the
238: known $W$~boson mass.
239: Additional sensitivity to the jet energy scale comes
240: from the shape of the fitted mass distribution in background events. For the proper
241: jet energy scale the spectrum will agree best with the background
242: shape included in the background term in the likelihood.
243:
244:
245: \subsection{Determination of the wrong-permutation signal shape}
246: \label{section:combi}
247:
248: The convolution of Gaussian detector resolution and a Breit-Wigner,
249: used in the signal term of the likelihood, implicitly assumes that the
250: correct jet assignment is chosen.
251: To describe the contribution from wrong jet assignments, a separate term is added to the signal part of the likelihood.
252: %Since the 'wrong' combinations of jet assignments to the \ttbar decay partons do
253: %not contain the correct information of the measured quantities, these
254: %combinations are treated separately in the likelihood.
255: To obtain the fitted mass spectrum of the wrong permutation signal, samples of parton-matched
256: \ttbar events are used in which all quarks are matched to jets.
257: The fitted mass spectrum is plotted including all jet permutations {\em except}
258: the correct solution (excluding both neutrino solutions corresponding
259: to the correct jet permutation). Each entry is weighted according to
260: the permutation weight assigned in the Ideogram likelihood.
261: Samples of different generated top quark masses are used.
262: %For each mass, the weighted sum of the correct and wrong solutions was normalized to a fixed number,
263: %while the ratio of correct and wrong solutions was maintained.
264: For each mass, the weighted sum of wrong solutions is fitted with a double
265: Gaussian.
266: %As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:combi1} this gives a reasonable description at all masses.
267: %As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:combi2} the correct solutions can be fitted with single Gaussians.
268: The fitted parameters for correct solutions and for the wrong
269: permutation signal show a linear behavior as a function of the
270: top quark mass. The fitted parameters are given in
271: Table~\ref{tab:combishapes}. Since the permutation weights change
272: when $b$ tagging is included, this exercise is repeated for events
273: with 0 tags, 1 tag, and 2 or more tags.
274:
275: %, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:combi3}, which also shows the linear dependences
276: %fitted.
277: %This procedure was repeated for each value of the JES scaling factor
278: %used (ranging from 0.85 to 1.15 in steps of 0.03).
279: %As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:combijes} the bias and slope of the linear fits mentioned before show a nice linear dependence as function of the JES factor.
280:
281: The linear fits are used to construct a 2-dimensional
282: wrong-permutation signal shape as a function of the fit mass and generated top
283: quark mass
284: ${S^{\rm ntag}_{wrong}}(m_i,m_{t})$.
285: For each value of the
286: generated top quark mass, the shape as a function of fitted mass is described as the
287: sum of two Gaussians.
288: The resulting parameterizations are displayed as the
289: wrong-permutation shapes in Fig.~\ref{fig:combi_vs_ntag} and~\ref{fig:combi_vs_mass}.
290: %\begin{figure}[htb]
291: % \includegraphics[width=16.cm]{figuresid/CombiShape.eps}
292: %\caption{\label{fig:combi1} {The weighted sum of the fitted masses
293: %of all 'wrong' jet permutations, for MC samples with different
294: %generated top masses varying from 150 GeV (top left) to 200 GeV
295: %(bottom right) with default Jet Energy Scale (= 100\%). Events both from the e+jets and mu+jets channel are
296: %included. At each top mass the shape is fitted with a double Gaussian.}}
297: %\end{figure}
298: Also shown are the shapes of the correct jet assignments, determined in
299: a similar fashion from parton-matched events using a single Gaussian. A linear
300: dependence of the parameters is found as a function of generated top quark
301: mass. The sum of the correct solutions and wrong solutions
302: is compared to a weighted histogram of all fitted masses in \ttbar simulation.
303: %The wrong
304: %solution shape is described by the double Gaussian with parameters
305: %shown in Table~\ref{tab:combishapes} while the correct solution shape
306: %was parametrized separately as a single Gaussian with parameters
307: %changing linearly as a function of the generated top quark mass.
308: The parametrized functions give an adequate description of the overall
309: (wrong + correct) signal shape.
310: In Fig.~\ref{fig:combi_vs_ntag}, the corresponding distributions are shown for events
311: with 0, 1, or 2 tags. It is clearly visible how the fraction of the
312: weight given to the correct solution improves when including $b$ tag
313: information in the permutation weights.
314: In Fig.~\ref{fig:combi_vs_mass}, the nine distributions are shown for generated top
315: quark masses ranging from 150~GeV to 200~GeV.
316:
317: \begin{table*}[htb]
318: \begin{center}
319: \caption{Parameters used to describe the background shapes
320: (arbitrary normalization). For
321: each case, the shape is described by the sum of two Gaussians $G(m_{\rm fit}$) $=
322: a \cdot
323: {\rm exp}\left[-({\rm \mu}-m_{\rm fit})^2/2\sigma^2\right]$, where the three
324: parameters $a$, $\mu$, and $\sigma$ evolve linearly as a function of the
325: generated top quark mass $m_t$ as $p0 + p1 \cdot (m_t - 175$ GeV$)$.}
326: \begin{tabular}{crrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr}
327: \hline \hline
328: & \multicolumn{6}{c}{ 0 tags } & \multicolumn{6}{c}{1 tag} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{$\geq$2 tags}\\
329: & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Gaussian 1} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Gaussian 2}
330: & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Gaussian 1} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Gaussian 2}
331: & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Gaussian 1} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Gaussian 2}\\
332: Parameter & $p0$ & $p1$ && $p0$ & $p1$ && $p0$ & $p1$ && $p0$ & $p1$ && $p0$ & $p1$ && $p0$ & $p1$ \\
333: \hline
334: $a$ &284.9&$-1.722$ && 51.72 &$-0.4199$ &\hglue 1.5cm &267.5 &$-1.0700$ &&68.08 & $-0.7129$ &\hglue 1.5cm & 235.5 & $-0.1662$ && 75.86 &$ -0.0415$ \\
335: $\mu$ & 161.7 &0.7383 &&223.1 & 1.242 && 162.6& 0.7859 &&220.1 & 1.400 && 166.2 & 0.6416 && 229.4 & 0.7454 \\
336: $\sigma$ &23.55 & 0.2392&& 22.94 &$ -0.2528$ &&23.27 & 0.2737 && 23.97 & $-0.4551$ && 25.80 & 0.1165 && 21.78 &$-0.2828$ \\
337: \hline \hline
338: \end{tabular} \\
339: \label{tab:combishapes}
340: \end{center}
341: \end{table*}
342:
343:
344: \begin{figure}
345: \ifthenelse{\lengthtest{\linewidth < 10cm}}
346: { \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figuresid/all_shapes_0tag.eps}\\
347: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figuresid/all_shapes_1tag.eps}\\
348: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figuresid/all_shapes_2tag.eps}
349: }
350: { \includegraphics[width=10cm]{figuresid/all_shapes_0tag.eps}\\
351: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{figuresid/all_shapes_1tag.eps}\\
352: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{figuresid/all_shapes_2tag.eps}
353: }
354: \caption{\label{fig:combi_vs_ntag} {Prediction of the shapes of the fitted
355: mass distribution for the wrong and the correct permutations
356: (hatched) and the sum of the two
357: (black line) using the fitted parameters
358: shown in Table~\ref{tab:combishapes}. The sum of the two is
359: compared to
360: the simulated data
361: containing a weighted sum of all solutions (correct and wrong),
362: for the default jet energy scale and a generated top quark mass of
363: 175~GeV for events with 0 (upper), 1 (middle), or more than 1 (lower) $b$ tags. }}
364: \end{figure}
365:
366: \begin{figure*}
367: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figuresid/CombiAllNoTag.eps} %\hglue -.5cm
368: \caption{\label{fig:combi_vs_mass} {Same as
369: Fig.~\ref{fig:combi_vs_ntag}, for different values of the
370: generated top quark mass, combining all events irrespective of the
371: number of $b$ tags.}}
372: \end{figure*}
373:
374:
375: \subsection{Determination of JES offset correction}
376: \label{section:JESbias}
377:
378: %The Ideogram likelihood described in the previous sections counts
379: %on the kinematic fit to return the lowest $\chi^2$ (= best fit) when
380: %the invariant mass of the jets from the supposed $W$ boson in the
381: %%event, scaled according to the overall
382: %$\jes$ parameter, agrees best with the $W$
383: %boson mass used (=80.4 \GeV) in the fit (averaged over all
384: %events). This is expected to work fine for well-reconstructed \ttbar
385: %events when the correct jet assigment is used. For wrong jet
386: %assignments, misreconstructed \ttbar events, or backgrounds from other
387: %physics processes there is no reason to assume that the fit procedure
388: %will yield an unbiased measurement of the $\jes$ parameter. Therefore,
389:
390: The likelihood fit relies on the invariant mass of the hadronically
391: decaying $W$~boson in the \ttbar events to set the jet energy
392: scale. It is designed to give an unbiased fit of the $\jes$
393: parameter in well-reconstructed \ttbar events when the correct jet
394: assignment is used. However, in a significant fraction of the events, the jets that are presumed to originate from the $W$~boson may not really come from a $W$~boson.
395: Such cases include events other than \ttbar, as well as \ttbar events
396: that are mis-reconstructed. In the presence of such events we can
397: expect an offset in the fitted JES parameter.
398: The slope of the JES calibration curve (fitted JES parameter
399: as a function of the ``true'' JES) may also differ from unity.
400: %Such effects are carefully investigated and corrected for.
401:
402: Using the MC calibration procedure described in Sec.~\ref{section:MC}, we find that the presence of wrong jet
403: assignments and background events causes an offset of several percent
404: in the fitted JES parameter. A breakdown
405: of the different contributions to the JES offset and slope is shown in
406: Table~\ref{tab:JESslope}.
407: \begin{table}[h]
408: \begin{center}
409: \caption{The JES calibration slope and offset for different
410: event samples are shown. The offset increases and the calibration slope
411: becomes smaller when mis-reconstructed signal events or
412: background events are added. The offset correction at the likelihood level (see
413: text) fixes the JES offset but further reduces the JES calibration
414: slope. }
415: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
416: \hline \hline
417: & JES slope & JES offset & $\delta$\mtop(*) \\
418: \hline
419: parton-matched \ttbar only & 0.96 & +0.026 & \\
420: \ttbar only & 0.88 & +0.050 & \\
421: all events & 0.80 & +0.076 & 4.30 GeV\\
422: \hline
423: all, 50\% offset correction & 0.72 & +0.036 & 4.10 GeV\\
424: all, 100\% offset correction & 0.63 & +0.000 & 4.01 GeV \\
425: \hline \hline
426: \end{tabular}
427: (*) expected mass uncertainty after full calibration
428: \label{tab:JESslope}
429: \end{center}
430: \end{table}
431:
432: The JES offset and slope turn out to be independent of the
433: generated top quark mass (see Fig.~\ref{fig:JesCal}).
434: Therefore we apply a straightforward mass-independent correction. A normalization factor $f_{\rm
435: JES}(\jes, \ftop) = {\rm exp}(a \cdot \jes)$ is introduced which
436: corrects for the offset without changing
437: the statistical uncertainty estimated from the likelihood (in case
438: the final sample likelihood is Gaussian):
439: \begin{multline}
440: \label{eq:id6}
441: {\cal L}^{\rm corr}_{\rm evt}(m_{t},\jes,\ftop) = \\ f_{\rm JES}(\jes,\ftop) \cdot {\cal L}_{\rm
442: evt}(m_{t},\jes,\ftop) .
443: \end{multline}
444: Since background events on average cause a larger bias than signal events, $a$
445: is defined to be dependent on the measured signal fraction \ftop: $a =
446: 2.63 + 0.56(1-\ftop)$.
447: The value of the correction constant is tuned using MC simulation to give an
448: unbiased measurement of the JES at the reference scale $\jes$ = 1.
449: As shown in Table~\ref{tab:JESslope}, the application of this offset
450: correction removes the JES offset, but it further reduces the JES
451: calibration slope. Table~\ref{tab:JESslope} also shows that after full calibration
452: (described in the next section), the expected statistical uncertainty
453: on the top quark mass improves slightly when applying the
454: corrections. For illustrative purposes we also include a 50\% offset
455: correction in the table, where $0.5 \cdot a$ is used instead of $a$.
456:
457: The correction described above ensures that the fit is well-behaved
458: and that, for values of the JES parameter near 1, the fit results will stay
459: well within the range for which the ($\jes$, $m_t$) likelihood is
460: calculated. It does not, however, provide a full calibration of the analysis, which is described in Sec.~\ref{section:MC}.
461:
462: \subsection{Combined likelihood fit}
463:
464: Since each event is independent, the combined likelihood for the entire sample is calculated as the product of the single event likelihood curves:
465: \begin{equation}
466: \label{eq:id5}
467: {\cal L}_{\rm samp}(m_{t},\jes,\ftop) = \prod_j {\cal L}^{\rm corr}_{{\rm evt} j}(m_{t},\jes,\ftop) .
468: \end{equation}
469: This likelihood is maximized with respect to the top quark mass
470: $m_{t}$, the jet energy scale parameter $\jes$, and the estimated fraction of signal in the sample \ftop.
471:
472:
473: \subsection{Calibration using Monte Carlo simulation}
474: \label{section:MC}
475:
476: The analysis is calibrated using Monte Carlo simulation.
477: Both the bias on the measured mass and the correctness of the estimated
478: statistical uncertainty are studied using ensemble tests,
479: in which many simulated experiments (pseudoexperiments) are created,
480: each matching the size of the observed data sample.
481: %where each ensemble corresponds to a simulated experiment matching the
482: %size of the observed data sample.
483: Thousands of pseudoexperiments are constructed, combining \ttbar and \wjets
484: events from MC simulation.
485: %(with Higgs tuning)
486: %and QCD events from the data skim with reversed lepton isolation
487: %cuts.
488: The event fractions for \ttbar and \wjets
489: %and QCD
490: are allowed to fluctuate according to binomial statistics around the estimated fractions in
491: the actual data sample.
492: The fractions used are those listed in Table~\ref{tab:selection}.
493: In the pseudoexperiments, the QCD multijets contribution is replaced by \wjets events.
494: This deviation in QCD multijet fraction
495: is treated as a systematic uncertainty (see Sec.~\ref{sec:systuncs}).
496: The total sample size is fixed to the observed number of events in data (116 in electron+jets and 114 in
497: muon+jets).
498: To make optimal use of the available MC statistics, standard resampling techniques are used,
499: allowing for the multiple use of MC events when constructing the pseudoexperiments~\cite{Jackknife}.
500: \begin{figure*}
501: \includegraphics[width=5.9cm]{figuresid/cal_vs_mass.2djesrawminusbw.eps}
502: \includegraphics[width=5.9cm]{figuresid/cal_vs_mass.2djesrawcentralbw.eps}
503: \includegraphics[width=5.9cm]{figuresid/cal_vs_mass.2djesrawplusbw.eps}
504: \caption{\label{fig:JesCal} {The mean fitted $\jes$ and pull width as
505: a function of the generated top quark mass $M_{\rm gen}$ for a ``true'' $\jes$ of 0.97
506: (left), 1.00 (middle), and 1.03 (right), for the lepton+jets
507: channel ($e$ + $\mu$ combined).
508: The fitted $\jes$ is stable as a function of generated
509: top quark mass.}}
510: \end{figure*}
511: \begin{figure*}
512: \includegraphics[width=5.9cm]{figuresid/cal_vs_mass.2drawminusbw.eps}
513: \includegraphics[width=5.9cm]{figuresid/cal_vs_mass.2drawcentralbw.eps}
514: \includegraphics[width=5.9cm]{figuresid/cal_vs_mass.2drawplusbw.eps}
515: \caption{\label{fig:MassCal} {The difference between the mean fitted mass
516: $M_{\rm fit}$ and the generated top quark mass $M_{\rm gen}$ as
517: a function of the generated top quark mass for a ``true'' $\jes$ of 0.97
518: (left), 1.00 (middle), and 1.03 (right), for the lepton+jets
519: channel ($e$ + $\mu$ combined).
520: At a generated mass of 175~GeV, the mass bias changes by 1 GeV when the true $\jes$ is varied by $\pm$3\%.}}
521: \end{figure*}
522: For every pseudoexperiment the mass is fitted and the deviation of this mass
523: from the mean of all pseudoexperiment masses is divided by the fitted
524: uncertainty. This quantity is referred to as the ``pull.''
525: The pull distribution for all pseudoexperiments is fitted with a Gaussian to extract the width, which we call the ``pull width.''
526: The corresponding pull and pull width for the fitted $\jes$ are also determined.
527:
528: Figure~\ref{fig:JesCal} shows how the mean fitted $\jes$ and its pull
529: width behave as a function
530: of the top quark mass for different values of the true jet energy
531: scale. The fitted JES parameter is independent of the top quark mass over the full range
532: considered. The plots also show that the fitted $\jes$ changes
533: linearly as a function of the true $\jes$ with a slope of 0.63 (see
534: discussion in Sec.~\ref{section:JESbias}).
535: Figure~\ref{fig:MassCal} shows the change in the fitted top
536: quark mass and the width of the pull as a function of the
537: generated top quark mass for different values of the true $\jes$.
538: Using these plots
539: a full two-dimensional calibration is performed, describing the
540: fitted $\jes$ and top quark mass as a function of the ``true'' $\jes$ and top
541: quark mass generated in the MC simulation. The estimated statistical
542: uncertainties are corrected for the width of the pull and error
543: propagation is used to take into account the effect of the
544: two-dimensional calibration including the correlation between the JES
545: parameter and the offset in measured mass.
546:
547: \subsection{Alternative JES fitting strategies}
548: \label{section:alternative}
549:
550: \begin{figure*}
551: \includegraphics[width=5.9cm]{figuresid/err_vs_mass.cal0.eps}
552: \includegraphics[width=5.9cm]{figuresid/err_vs_mass.cal1.eps}
553: \includegraphics[width=5.9cm]{figuresid/err_vs_mass.cal2.eps}
554: \caption{\label{fig:Mass3Scenarios} {The expected
555: statistical uncertainty from ensemble tests is shown as
556: a function of the generated top quark mass for three scenarios: with
557: the JES parameter fixed to 1 (left), allowing the JES parameter
558: to float freely in the fit, but only calibrating the mass fit for
559: a true $\jes=1$ (middle), allowing the JES parameter to float
560: freely in the fit and applying the full calibration as a function
561: of true top quark mass and true $\jes$ (right). In each plot the
562: width of the band indicates the estimated uncertainty. }}
563: \end{figure*}
564:
565: Including the uniform JES parameter as a free parameter in the fit
566: reduces the systematic uncertainty due to the jet energy scale, at the
567: cost of a larger statistical uncertainty. As a comparison, in
568: Fig.~\ref{fig:Mass3Scenarios} the expected statistical uncertainties
569: on the top quark mass are shown for three different fitting
570: scenarios. When fixing the JES parameter in the fit to 1, the
571: statistical uncertainty is smallest: 2.59~GeV at a generated top quark mass
572: of 175~GeV. When allowing the JES parameter to
573: float freely in the fit, without correcting for the JES slope (=0.63)
574: in the calibration, part of the sensitivity to the overall JES scale
575: is reduced and absorbed in the statistical uncertainty, leading to an
576: expected statistical uncertainty of 3.34~GeV at a top quark mass of
577: 175~GeV.
578: Fully calibrating the
579: analysis as a function of fitted mass and $\jes$ (the default approach),
580: allows an unbiased top
581: quark mass measurement for any value of the ``true'' $\jes$, at the cost of a larger statistical uncertainty: 4.01~GeV at a generated top quark mass
582: of 175~GeV.
583:
584: In order to be consistent with the approach used by the
585: Matrix Element analysis~\cite{MEnew}, thus facilitating a combination
586: of results, and to
587: minimize the dependence on the external JES constraint from jet+photon
588: studies, the third scenario is presented here as the main analysis
589: result, applying the full calibration as a function of fitted top
590: quark mass and $\jes$. Results using the other two JES fitting strategies are quoted as a
591: cross-check in Sec.~\ref{section:Xcheck}.
592:
593: \section{RESULTS WITH DATA}
594: \label{sec:data}
595: The overall likelihood curves obtained for data are shown in
596: Fig.~\ref{fig:LikEl}.
597: \begin{figure*}
598: % \includegraphics[width=6.3cm]{figuresid/plot2djes.ejets.eps} \hglue -.7cm
599: % \includegraphics[width=6.3cm]{figuresid/plot2djes.mujets.eps} \hglue -.7cm
600: % \includegraphics[width=6.3cm]{figuresid/plot2djes.merged.eps} \\
601: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figuresid/plot2djesbw.eps}\\
602: % \vglue -.6cm
603: % \includegraphics[width=6.3cm]{figuresid/plot1djes.ejets.eps} \hglue -.7cm
604: % \includegraphics[width=6.3cm]{figuresid/plot1djes.mujets.eps} \hglue -.7cm
605: % \includegraphics[width=6.3cm]{figuresid/plot1djes.merged.eps}
606: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figuresid/plot1djesbw.eps}\\
607: \caption{\label{fig:LikEl} {Overall likelihood curves for
608: the events observed in data, in the electron+jets channel (left), muon+jets
609: (middle), and both channels combined (right).
610: The top plots show the full 2-dimensional likelihood as a function of the jet energy scale parameter ($\jes$) and top quark mass.
611: Each contour, $n$, corresponds to a difference in likelihood of
612: $\Delta \ln({\cal L}) = -n^2/2$ with respect to the maximum likelihood.
613: %
614: %$\sqrt{2\cdot\text{ln(max~likelihood)}-2\cdot\text{ln(likelihood)}}$.
615: %
616: The fitted value of the JES parameter as a function of the top quark mass is plotted as the gray
617: line superimposed on the 2D likelihoods.
618: The bottom plots show the likelihood as a function of the top quark mass along the gray line from the upper plots.
619: The fitted values from these distributions have to be corrected for the calibration from MC simulation to obtain the final results. }}
620: \end{figure*}
621: \begin{figure*}
622: \includegraphics[width=16cm]{figuresid/error.2dmerged.eps}
623: \caption{\label{fig:Error} {
624: Distribution of the estimated statistical uncertainty on the top
625: quark mass measurement (left) and JES measurement (right) for the fully
626: calibrated analysis, in the combined lepton+jets
627: channel. The values observed in data are indicated by the arrows.}}
628: \end{figure*}
629: The 2D likelihoods show the actual likelihood values in bins of 1~GeV in mass and 3\% in $\jes$.
630: The jagged appearance of the ellipses is caused by the large bin size
631: in the $\jes$ direction.
632: To extract the mass and statistical error, a Gaussian
633: fit is applied to the three bins closest to the minimum in the
634: one-dimensional negative log likelihood curves. The fitted values are
635: corrected according to the calibration derived in Sec.~\ref{section:MC}. The measured top quark mass is:
636: \begin{align}
637: m_{t} &= 173.7 \pm 4.4 \text{ (stat + JES) GeV} \notag \\
638: \text{with } \notag \\ \jes &=
639: 0.989 \pm 0.029 \text{ (stat)}\notag .
640: \end{align}
641: All uncertainties shown are statistical.
642: The fitted \ttbar signal fraction is $\ftop = 0.453 \pm 0.032$. If
643: the JES parameter is kept fixed to 1 in the fit, the estimated statistical
644: uncertainty is 2.93~GeV. Hence
645: the 4.43~GeV (stat+JES) uncertainty of the 2D fit can be interpreted
646: as a combination of an intrinsic mass uncertainty of
647: 2.93~GeV (stat) and an additional uncertainty of 3.32~GeV (JES) due to
648: fitting the JES parameter.
649: As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Error}, the observed statistical uncertainties are slightly larger than the average uncertainties expected from Monte Carlo ensemble tests, but they fall well within the distribution.
650: %%Only statistical uncertainties are shown here.
651: The fitted $\jes$ of 0.989$\pm$0.029 is in good agreement with the reference
652: scale 1 (or ${\cal S}$=0), corresponding to the hypothesis that
653: after all jet corrections the JES in data and MC are the same.
654:
655: One can also compare the in-situ fitted JES parameter with the scale
656: obtained in jet+photon studies. When correcting all jets in MC events for the
657: jet-$p_T$ dependent difference between data and MC, ${\cal S}$, and redoing the ensemble tests in
658: MC simulation, the mean fitted $\jes$ is $0.962^{+0.021}_{-0.023}$, where the
659: uncertainties correspond to the combined statistical and systematic bounds from the
660: jet+photon studies. This is consistent with the value of
661: $0.989\pm 0.029$ measured in situ.
662:
663: %Finally, as an illustration, Fig.~\ref{fig:likmax} shows the
664: %distributions of the top quark mass and the $\jes$
665: %parameter for which the event likelihood has its maximum per event.
666: %Only events are included for which the combined
667: %discriminant $D$ has a value larger than 0.3. The distribution in data
668: %is compared to the expectation from MC simulation for a true \jes=1.0
669: %%and a generated top quark mass of 175~GeV, showing good agreement. Note that
670: %these plots only show one number per event and do not convey the
671: %full information that is taken into account in the actual likelihood fit.
672:
673: %\begin{figure}
674: % \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figuresid/mtopmaxlik.eps} \\
675: % \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figuresid/jesmaxlik.eps}
676: %%\hglue -.7cm
677: %% \includegraphics[width=6.3cm]{figuresid/jesmaxlikoverflow.eps} \\
678: %\caption{\label{fig:likmax} {
679: % The top quark mass (top, for \jes=1.0) and
680: % JES factor (bottom, for \mtop = 175~GeV) that maximize the event likelihood
681: % are plotted for every event with a combined discriminant $D>0.3$.
682: %%In the case of the $\jes$ parameter a significant fraction
683: %% of the events has maximum likelihood value outside the window for
684: %% which the likelihood is calculated. The middle and right plot
685: %% therefore show the \jes distribution without and with
686: %% underflow/overflow bins.
687: %Note that
688: %these plots only show one number per event and do not convey the
689: %full information that is taken into account in the actual likelihood fit.}}
690: %\end{figure}
691:
692:
693: %Finally, as a cross-check the $\jes$ parameter in the fit is fixed to 1.0
694: %and the jet+photon calibration result is
695:
696: %It is also in good agreement with the value fitted with the Run II
697: %Matrix Element analysis~\cite{MEnew} on the same data:
698: %1.044$\pm$0.034.
699:
700: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
701:
702: %\begin{thebibliography}{100}
703: %\bibitem{DELPHI} DELPHI Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C \textbf{2}(1998)
704: % 581; DELPHI Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{462} (1999) 410;
705: % DELPHI DELPHI Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{511} (2001) 159;
706: %M. Mulders (DELPHI Collaboration), Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 16S1A (2001) 284;
707: %M. Mulders, Ph.D. thesis (FOM, Amsterdam \& Amsterdam U.), Sep 2001, 226pp.
708: %\bibitem{cs} {Measurement of the \ttbar cross section at $\sqrt{s}$ = 1.96 TeV, The D0 Top Production
709: %Working Group - S. Anderson et. All, D0 Note XXX}
710:
711: %\bibitem{prd}{\textit{Direct Measurement of the Top Quark Mass by the D0
712: % Collaboration}, PDF, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{58}, 052001 (1998)}
713:
714: %\bibitem{run1templmass}
715: %Abbott et al, PRD 58, 052001 (1998)
716: %Abachi, PRL 79, 1197 (1997)
717:
718: %\bibitem{SVT} D0 Collaboration, Phys.Lett. B \textbf{626} (2005) 35-44; D0
719: % Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{72} (2005) 011104.
720:
721: %\bibitem{discfunc}
722: %Additional transformations to the $x_i$s before the fit were done for
723: %the functions to be better approximated by polynomials:
724: %$x_1'=exp[-(max(0,\sqrt{\frac{3(x_1/(1 \mathrm GeV)-5)}{2})]}$, $x_2'=\exp(-11x_2)$, $x_3' = \ln(x_3)$, $x_4'=\sqrt{x_4}$.
725:
726: %\end{thebibliography}
727:
728:
729: