1: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
2: \usepackage{graphics}
3: \newcommand\herw{\small HERWIG}
4: \newcommand\isajet{\small ISAJET}
5: \def \lsim
6: {\raisebox{-3pt}{$\>\stackrel{<}{\scriptstyle\sim}\>$}}
7: \def \gsim
8: {\raisebox{-3pt}{$\>\stackrel{>}{\scriptstyle\sim}\>$}}
9: \def \esim
10: {\raisebox{-3pt}{$\>\stackrel{-}{\scriptstyle\sim}\>$}}
11: \newcommand\smfrac[2]{{\textstyle{\frac{#1}{#2}}}}
12: \newcommand\hf{\smfrac12}
13: \newcommand\qt{\smfrac14}
14: \newcommand\ltgt{\raisebox{-.45ex}{\rlap{$>$}} \raisebox{.45ex}{$<$}}
15: \newcommand\ltap{\raisebox{-.45ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}}
16: \raisebox{.45ex}{$<$}}
17: \newcommand\gtap{\raisebox{-.45ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}}
18: \raisebox{.45ex}{$>$}}
19: \addtolength{\textwidth}{2cm}
20: \addtolength{\textheight}{2cm}
21: \addtolength{\oddsidemargin}{-1cm}
22: \addtolength{\evensidemargin}{-1cm}
23: \addtolength{\topmargin}{-1cm}
24: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1.}
25: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1.}
26: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.}
27: \setcounter{topnumber}{1}
28: \setcounter{bottomnumber}{1}
29: \setcounter{totalnumber}{2}
30: \begin{document}
31: \begin{titlepage}
32: \begin{flushright}
33: CERN-TH/2000-116\\
34: RAL-TR-2000-006 \\
35: UR-1602 \\
36: hep-ph/0004179
37: \end{flushright}
38: \par \vspace{10mm}
39: \begin{center}
40: {\Large \bf \sc
41: Jet Activity in $t\bar t$ Events \\[1ex]
42: and Top Mass Reconstruction\\[2ex]
43: at Hadron Colliders}
44: \end{center}
45: \par \vspace{2mm}
46: \begin{center}
47: {\bf G. Corcella $^{1}$, M.L. Mangano $^{2}$ and M.H. Seymour $^3$}\\
48: \vspace{2mm}
49: {$^1$ Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester,\\
50: Rochester, NY 14627, U.S.A.}\\
51: \vspace{2mm}
52: {$^2$ CERN, Theory Division,}\\
53: {CH--1211, Geneva 23, Switzerland\@.}\\
54: \vspace{2mm}
55: {$^3$ Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton,}\\
56: {Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0QX\@. U.K.}
57: \end{center}
58:
59: \par \vspace{2mm}
60: \begin{center} {\large \bf Abstract} \end{center}
61: \begin{quote}
62: \pretolerance 10000 We analyse the impact of matrix-element
63: corrections to top decays in \herw\ on several observables related
64: to the jet activity in $t\bar t$ events at the Tevatron and at the
65: LHC. In particular, we study the effects induced by the higher-order
66: corrections to top decays on the top mass reconstruction using the
67: recently proposed $J/\psi+\ell$ final states.
68: \end{quote}
69:
70: \vspace*{\fill}
71: \begin{flushleft}
72: CERN-TH/2000-116\\
73: UR-1602 \\
74: RAL-TR-2000-006 \\
75: April 2000
76: \end{flushleft}
77: \end{titlepage}
78:
79: \section{Introduction}
80: Top-quark and in general heavy-flavour production physics (see, for a
81: review,
82: [\ref{frixione}]) is currently one of the main fields of investigation
83: in both experimental and theoretical particle physics. At the next
84: Run~II of the Tevatron accelerator and, in the future, at the
85: LHC~[\ref{Beneke:2000hk}] and at $e^+e^-$ Linear
86: Colliders~[\ref{Accomando:1998wt}],
87: the production of a large amount of
88: $t\bar t$ pairs will allow accurate studies of the top quark
89: properties and an improved measurement of its mass.
90:
91: The measurement of these properties will rely by-and-large on the
92: accuracy of the theoretical modeling of the exclusive properties of
93: the final states, for example jet distributions. Use of inclusive
94: parton-level calculations, although resulting in the exact inclusion
95: of the next-to-leading-order (NLO)
96: contributions~[\ref{Mangano:1992jk}], is not sufficient to fully
97: describe the effects associated with the large logarithms
98: corresponding to soft or collinear parton emission. Calculations based
99: on the fragmentation function formalism~[\ref{Cacciari:1998it}], where
100: collinear logarithms can be resummed up to the NLO, are on the other
101: hand too inclusive to allow a complete study of the final states.
102: Monte Carlo event generators
103: [\ref{herwig},\ref{pythia},\ref{Paige:1981fb}] are the best possible
104: tool to perform the resummation of these enhanced logarithms, to
105: simulate multiple radiation in high energy processes, and to provide a
106: description of the hadronization transition leading to the final
107: observable particles.
108:
109: Inclusion of these higher-order corrections by the QCD event
110: generators is done however in the soft/collinear approximation.
111: Furthermore, the Monte Carlo evolution suppresses entirely emission of
112: radiation inside some regions of the physical phase space (`dead
113: zones') corresponding to hard and large-angle parton radiation. These
114: regions are unfortunately sometimes crucial from the experimental
115: point of view. Emission inside these dead zones can be performed using
116: the exact amplitudes by following the method discussed in
117: [\ref{sey1}]. This method has been applied in the past to jet
118: production in $e^+e^-$ annihilation [\ref{sey2}], in deep inelastic
119: scattering [\ref{sey3}] and, more recently, to the description of top
120: decays [\ref{corsey1}] and of Drell--Yan processes [\ref{corsey2}].
121: Alternative approaches have also been proposed in the literature, see
122: e.g. ref.~[\ref{mepapers}].
123:
124: In [\ref{corsey1}] a marked impact of matrix-element corrections to
125: top decays was found for $e^+e^-$ interactions slightly
126: above the threshold for $t\bar t$ production. In this paper we wish
127: to perform a similar analysis for top production and decay at hadron
128: colliders and investigate the effect of the implemented hard and
129: large-angle gluon radiation on jet observables and on the top mass
130: reconstruction. As far as the top mass is
131: concerned, we shall consider final states with leptons and $J/\psi$
132: since the LHC experimentalists claim it is a favourite channel, with a
133: systematic error no larger than 1 GeV [\ref{avto}], and we shall give
134: more details on the analysis and the preliminary results presented in
135: [\ref{corcella}].
136:
137: In Section 2 we briefly review the method applied in [\ref{corsey1}]
138: to implement matrix-element corrections to the \herw\ description of
139: top decays. In Section 3 we shall study
140: phenomenologically-relevant jet observables at the Tevatron and at the
141: LHC and investigate the impact of the improved treatment of top
142: decays. In Section 4 we shall discuss the method of reconstructing the
143: top mass by using final states with leptons and $J/\psi$ and
144: the effect of matrix-element corrections on the top mass measurement.
145: In Section 6 we shall make some concluding remarks and comments on
146: possible further improvements of the study here presented.
147:
148: \section{Matrix-element corrections to simulations of top decays}
149: In the \herw\ Monte Carlo event generator, the top quark decay $t\to
150: bW$ is performed in the top rest frame, as discussed in
151: [\ref{marweb1}]. The top quark cannot emit soft gluons in its decay
152: stage as it is at rest, while the $b$ quark is allowed to radiate in
153: the cone $0<\theta_g<\pi/2$, $\theta_g$ being the soft-gluon emission
154: angle
155: relative to the direction of the $b$ quark.
156: The subsequent parton shower is performed following the
157: prescription of the angular ordering [\ref{marweb2}]. The $W$
158: hemisphere, corresponding to $\pi/2<\theta_g<\pi$, is completely empty
159: and the soft phase space is not therefore entirely filled by the
160: \herw\ algorithm. In [\ref{marweb1}] the authors showed that
161: neglecting the `backward' gluon radiation correctly predicts the total
162: energy loss, however problems are to be expected when dealing with
163: angular
164: distributions.
165:
166: In [\ref{corsey1}] matrix-element corrections to the \herw\ simulation
167: of top decays have been implemented: the missing phase space is
168: populated according to a distribution obtained from the calculation of
169: the exact first-order matrix element (hard correction), the shower in
170: the already-populated region is corrected by using the exact
171: amplitude any time a hardest-so-far emission is encountered in the
172: evolution (soft correction).
173:
174: Since the \herw\ dead zone includes part of the soft singularity,
175: matrix-element corrections to top decays are not a straightforward
176: extension of the method applied in
177: [\ref{sey2},\ref{sey3},\ref{corsey2}]. The soft singularity has been
178: avoided by setting a cutoff on the energy of the gluons which are
179: radiated in the backward hemisphere by the $b$ quark. As shown in
180: [\ref{corsey1}], and discussed later on in this paper, the
181: sensitivity to this cutoff is however very small.
182:
183: In [\ref{corsey1}] $e^+e^-$ interactions at a centre-of-mass energy
184: $\sqrt{s}=360$~GeV, slightly above the threshold for $t\bar t$
185: production, were considered. This is an ideal phenomenological
186: environment to test the impact of the implemented corrections, with
187: most of the radiation being associated to the top-decay stage.
188: Three-jet events were analysed and a remarkable impact of
189: matrix-element corrections was found when comparing different versions
190: of \herw \footnote{The latest public version \herw\ 5.9 had some
191: errors in the treatment of top decays, which have been corrected in
192: the intermediate version 6.0. In order to estimate the impact of
193: matrix-element corrections, we therefore compare the versions 6.1
194: and 6.0}. The results of \herw\ 6.1~[\ref{herwig61}], the new
195: version which includes also the improved treatment of top decays, were
196: also compared to the ones obtained by the exact ${\cal O}(\alpha_S)$
197: matrix-element calculation of the process $e^+e^-\to t\bar t\to
198: (bW^+)(bW^-) (g)$~[\ref{orr}]. While the authors of [\ref{orr}] had
199: found serious discrepancies when comparing the exact ${\cal
200: O}(\alpha_s)$ results with the ones of \herw\ before matrix-element
201: corrections, good agreement was found in [\ref{corsey1}] after
202: matrix-element corrections in the region of large energies
203: and angles, where fixed-order calculations are reliable.
204:
205: In [\ref{corsey1}] it was also shown that, although the fraction of
206: events generated in the dead zone varies from about 2\% to 4\% when
207: the cutoff changes from 5 GeV to 1 GeV, the dependence of
208: phenomenological distributions on its chosen value is pretty
209: negligible after one applies typical experimental cuts on the jet
210: transverse energy $E_T>10$~GeV and on the invariant opening angle
211: between jets $\Delta R>0.7$. The value $E_{\mathrm{min}}=2$~GeV was
212: then chosen as the default value and this value will be kept throughout
213: this paper as well. In the following sections, we shall consider
214: hadronic production of $t\bar t$ pairs and analyse the effect of
215: matrix-element
216: corrections to top decays on jet observables and on the top mass
217: reconstruction at the Tevatron and at the
218: LHC.
219:
220: \section{Jet activity in dilepton \boldmath$t\bar t$ events}
221: We start our analysis by considering inclusive jet observables. To
222: emphasize the effect of the matrix element corrections to top decays,
223: we confine ourselves to the case of leptonic decays of both $W$'s in
224: each event. The most likely hard and well-separated jets are then
225: those from the $b$ and the $\bar b$. Extra radiation from either the
226: initial state (ISR) or the top decay may give rise to extra jets (final
227: state radiation from the produced $t\bar t$ pair tends to be small
228: because of the large top mass).
229: Interesting observables which may show the effects of the new \herw\
230: treatment of top decays are related to these extra jets, and in
231: particular to the one with the largest value of $E_T$, the `third jet'.
232:
233: We cluster jets according to the inclusive version of the $k_T$
234: algorithm [\ref{kt}], setting a radius parameter $R=0.5$ at the
235: Tevatron and $R=1$ at the LHC\footnote{Such a choice is due to the
236: relation between the $R$ parameter of the $k_T$ algorithm and the
237: radius $R_{\mathrm{cone}}$ of the cone algorithm
238: $R_{\mathrm{cone}}\approx
239: 0.75\times R$ [\ref{soper}] and to the fact that the
240: Tevatron experimentalist run a pure cone algorithm with
241: $R_{\mathrm{cone}}=0.4$. For the LHC we shall nevertheless stick
242: to
243: the recommended value $R=1$.}. We set a cutoff on the transverse
244: energy of the resolved jets $E_T>10$~GeV, and we study the following
245: inclusive distributions: transverse energy $E_T$ and rapidity $\eta_3$
246: of the third jet, the minimum invariant opening angle $\Delta R=
247: \sqrt{\Delta\phi^2+\Delta\eta^2}$ among the three hardest jets, the
248: threshold variable $d_3$ of the $k_T$ algorithm, according to which
249: all events are forced to be three-jet-like. Finally, we consider the
250: number of jets $n_{\mathrm{jets}}$ that pass the 10 GeV cut in
251: transverse energy.
252:
253: We start by comparing the Monte Carlo jet distributions before and
254: after matrix-element corrections. To make the comparison more
255: realistic, we normalize the plots to the expected integrated
256: luminosities (2~fb$^{-1}$ at $\sqrt{s}=2$~TeV for the Tevatron
257: Run~II,
258: and 10~fb$^{-1}$ for 1 year of LHC low-luminosity
259: running~\footnote{Using total cross-sections of 7~pb and 830~pb for
260: Tevatron and LHC~[\ref{bcmn}], and assuming a conservative 1\%
261: overall efficiency and BR for the dilepton final states, this
262: correponds to approximately 150 [\ref{cdf}] and 8$\times 10^{4}$
263: [\ref{atlas}] events, respectively.}), and smear the contents of a
264: given bin with $N$ events according to a Gaussian distribution
265: with average $N$ and standard deviation $\sqrt{N}$. Furthermore, to
266: partially account for detector effects we smear the value of the
267: reconstructed observables with a 10\% resolution. The final jet
268: distributions are plotted in Figs.~\ref{et}-\ref{njet}.
269: \footnote{With no smearing, the $\Delta R$ distributions at the
270: Tevatron and at the LHC would have shown a sharp cutoff for $\Delta
271: R=R$, as predicted by the $k_T$ algorithm we have been using, but
272: nevertheless the 10\% smearing allows a small fraction of the jet
273: events to have even $\Delta R<R$.}
274:
275: \begin{figure}
276: \centerline{\resizebox{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{cms1.ps}}%
277: \hfill%
278: \resizebox{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{cms2.ps}}}
279: \caption{Transverse energy distribution of the third hardest jet at
280: the
281: Tevatron (a) and at the LHC (b), according to \herw\ 6.1 (solid
282: line) and 6.0 (dotted).}
283: \label{et}
284: \end{figure}
285: \begin{figure}
286: \centerline{\resizebox{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{cms3.ps}}%
287: \hfill%
288: \resizebox{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{cms4.ps}}}
289: \caption{Distributions of the minimum invariant opening angle $\Delta
290: R$
291: among the three hardest jets at the Tevatron (a) and at the LHC
292: (b), according to \herw\ 6.1 (solid line) and 6.0 (dotted).}
293: \label{deltar}
294: \end{figure}
295: \begin{figure}
296: \centerline{\resizebox{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{cms5.ps}}%
297: \hfill%
298: \resizebox{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{cms6.ps}}}
299: \caption{Distributions of the threshold variable $d_3$ for three-jet
300: events
301: at the Tevatron (a) and at the LHC (b), according to \herw\ 6.1
302: (solid line) and 6.0 (dotted).}
303: \label{d3}
304: \end{figure}
305: \begin{figure}
306: \centerline{\resizebox{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{cms7.ps}}%
307: \hfill%
308: \resizebox{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{cms8.ps}}}
309: \caption{Distributions of the rapidity of the third hardest jet
310: at the Tevatron (a) and at the LHC (b), according to \herw\ 6.1
311: (solid line) and 6.0 (dotted).}
312: \label{rap}
313: \end{figure}
314: \begin{figure}
315: \centerline{\resizebox{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{cms9.ps}}%
316: \hfill%
317: \resizebox{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{cms10.ps}}}
318: \caption{Number of jets passing the 10 GeV cut in transverse energy
319: at the Tevatron (a) and at the LHC (b), according to \herw\ 6.1
320: (solid line) and 6.0 (dotted).}
321: \label{njet}
322: \end{figure}
323:
324: All observables show very small changes due to the matrix-element
325: corrections. To quantify the residual differences, we performed a
326: Kolmogorov--Smirnov test on the distributions, and evaluated the number
327: of events necessary to establish the difference between the 6.0 and
328: 6.1 distributions at 95\% CL. The results of this test are shown in
329: table \ref{kol}. We see that at both machines a number of events
330: of the order of $\approx 10^3-10^4$ is sufficient to see a difference
331: in
332: the shape of the two histograms. We therefore conclude that the effects
333: of
334: matrix-element corrections to top decays are in principle detectable
335: at the LHC, where about $8\times 10^4$ events per year are expected in
336: the dilepton channel, while the foreseen statistics are too low at the
337: Tevatron.
338:
339: \begin {table}
340: \begin{center}
341: \begin{tabular}{||l|r|r|r||}\hline
342: observable&Tevatron&LHC\\\hline
343: $E_T$&1000&1100\\\hline
344: $\log(d_3)$&3000&2700\\\hline
345: $\Delta R$&1100&4500\\\hline
346: $\eta_3$&5300&2500\\\hline
347: %$n_{\mathrm{jets}}$&800&1200\\\hline
348: \end{tabular}
349: \end{center}
350: \caption{Number of $t\bar t$ events for which, according to the
351: Kolmogorov
352: test, the jet distributions using \herw\ 6.0 and 6.1 are different
353: at the 95\% confidence level.\label{kol}}
354: \end{table}
355: We conclude this Section by pointing out that the small differences
356: detected in the case of inclusive third-jet observables are largely a
357: consequence of the small fraction of events for which the
358: matrix-element corrections are applied. We evaluated in fact that for
359: the Tevatron energy only approximately 7\% of events that contain a
360: third jet
361: required the evaluation of the matrix-element corrections to the top
362: decays (the number is 6\% for the LHC).
363: We expect that larger effects and differences will appear once the
364: matrix-element corrections to the $t\bar t$ production process is
365: included. This work is under way, along similar lines to vector boson
366: production [\ref{corsey2}].
367:
368: \section{Top mass reconstruction}
369: One observable for which the higher-order corrections described in
370: this paper may induce relevant changes is the invariant mass
371: distribution of $J/\psi+\ell$ pairs from $t\to b W$ decays, with the
372: $J/\psi$ coming from the decay of a $b$ hadron, and the isolated
373: lepton from the decay of the~$W$. This distribution was recently
374: suggested~[\ref{avto}] as a potential way of measuring the top mass
375: during the high-luminosity phase of the LHC with experimental
376: accuracies better than 1~GeV. The dominant source of experimental
377: uncertainty is the statistical one, due to the strong suppression from
378: the small branching ratios~\footnote{Ref.~[\ref{avto}] estimates a
379: sample of approximately $10^3$ events in one year of high
380: luminosity running at the LHC, ${\cal L} = 10^5$
381: ${\mathrm{pb}}^{-1}$,
382: for a production cross section $\sigma_{\mathrm{LHC}} (t\bar
383: t)=833$~pb and a total branching fraction $B=5.3\times 10^{-5}$,
384: using the current expectations for tracking and reconstruction
385: efficiencies.} . The shape of the $m_{J/\psi+\ell}$ distribution can
386: be compared with a template of shapes parametrised by the top mass,
387: and the value of $m_t$ can therefore be fitted. The Lorentz
388: invariance of the observable makes it completely independent of the
389: details of the $t\bar t$ production mechanism, and of the structure of
390: the ISR. Given that the spectrum of the leptons from the $W$ decay is
391: known very well, the dominant theoretical uncertainty comes therefore
392: from the predictions for the spectrum of the $J/\psi$. This is obtained
393: from the convolution of the energy spectrum of $b$ hadrons in the top
394: decay, with the spectrum of $J/\psi$'s in the $b$-hadron decay. In
395: principle
396: this second element can be measured with high accuracy over the next
397: few years at the $B$-factories~\footnote{Although small corrections
398: are expected to be needed for this application, due to the different
399: composition of $b$-hadrons in top decays relative to that in the
400: decays of the $\Upsilon(4S)$.}.
401:
402: We shall therefore concentrate here on the problem of the $b$-hadron
403: spectrum in top decays, and investigate how the top mass measurement
404: is affected by the matrix-element corrections to top decays in \herw.
405: For simplicity, we shall analyse the $m_{B\ell}$ spectra (instead of
406: the
407: $m_{J/\psi+\ell}$ ones) obtained by running \herw\ with and without
408: matrix-element corrections to top decays.
409:
410: The Tevatron statistics will be too low to use this channel as a probe
411: of the top mass. Nevertheless we shall present results for the
412: Tevatron as well, to show that indeed the details of the production
413: mechanism (which is mainly $q\bar q\to t\bar t$ at the Tevatron and
414: $gg\to t\bar t$ at the LHC) have no impact on the top mass
415: determination. Since in $q\bar q$ annihilation the $t\bar t$ pair is
416: always produced in a colour octet state, while in $gg$ fusion it may
417: come either in a colour singlet or colour octet state, this comparison
418: will indicate that non-perturbative corrections
419: to the $m_{B\ell}$ mass spectrum are very weakly dependent on the
420: details of the colour-neutralization model in the MC.
421:
422:
423: We generate $t\bar t$ samples using \herw\ 6.0 and 6.1 and plot
424: the $m_{B\ell}$ spectra for different values of $m_t$.
425: We then evaluate the average value and the standard
426: deviation of our distributions, the differences in the average
427: values $\langle m_{B\ell}\rangle$ and the corresponding statistical
428: errors. In
429: Fig.~\ref{mass} the $m_{B\ell}$ spectra are plotted for
430: $m_t=175$~GeV,
431: at the Tevatron and at the LHC, before and after matrix-element
432: corrections,
433: while in Fig.~\ref{mass19} one can find the distributions at the LHC,
434: according to \herw\ 6.1, for $m_t=171$~GeV and $m_t=179$~GeV.
435: In tables~\ref{masstev} and \ref{masslhc} we
436: summarize the results of our statistical analysis.
437: \begin{figure}
438: \centerline{\resizebox{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{tevmass.ps}}%
439: \hfill%
440: \resizebox{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{lhcmass.ps}}}
441: \caption{Invariant mass of the $B$-lepton system at the Tevatron (a)
442: and at the LHC (b) for $m_t=175$~GeV, according to \herw\ 6.0
443: (dotted) and 6.1 (solid).}
444: \label{mass}
445: \end{figure}
446: \begin{figure}
447: \centerline{\resizebox{0.65\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{mass19.ps}}}
448: \caption{Invariant mass distributions according to \herw\ 6.1 at the
449: LHC
450: for $m_t=171$~GeV (solid) and 179 GeV (dotted).}
451: \label{mass19}
452: \end{figure}%
453: \begin{table}
454: \begin{center}
455: \begin{tabular}{||l|r|r|r|r|r|r||}\hline
456: \ \ \ $m_t$\ \ \
457: &$\langle m_{B\ell}\rangle^{6.1}$&$\sigma(6.1)$&$\langle
458: m_{B\ell}\rangle^{6.0}$
459: &$\sigma(6.0)$&$\langle m_{B\ell}\rangle^{6.0}-\langle
460: m_{B\ell}\rangle^{6.1}$\\ \hline
461: 171 GeV&91.18 GeV&26.51 GeV&92.06 GeV&26.17 GeV&$(0.873\pm 0.037)$
462: GeV\\\hline
463: 173 GeV&92.31 GeV&26.90 GeV&93.22 GeV&26.58 GeV&$(0.912\pm 0.038)$
464: GeV\\\hline
465: 175 GeV&93.41 GeV&27.29 GeV&94.38 GeV&26.94 GeV&$(0.972\pm 0.038)$
466: GeV\\\hline
467: 177 GeV&94.65 GeV&27.73 GeV&95.45 GeV&27.33 GeV&$(0.801\pm 0.039)$
468: GeV\\\hline
469: 179 GeV&95.64 GeV&28.00 GeV&96.63 GeV&27.60 GeV&$(0.984\pm 0.039)$
470: GeV\\\hline
471: \end{tabular}
472: \end{center}
473: \caption{Results at the Tevatron
474: for different values of $m_t$.\label{masstev}}
475: \end{table}%
476: \begin {table}
477: \begin{center}
478: \begin{tabular}{||l|r|r|r|r|r|r||}\hline
479: \ \ \ $m_t$\ \ \
480: &$\langle m_{B\ell}\rangle^{6.1}$&$\sigma(6.1)$&
481: $\langle m_{B\ell}\rangle^{6.0}$&
482: $\sigma(6.1)$&$\langle m_{Bl}\rangle^{6.0}-\langle
483: m_{Bl}\rangle^{6.1}$\\ \hline
484: 171 GeV&91.13 GeV&26.57 GeV&92.02 GeV&26.24 GeV&$(0.891\pm 0.038)$
485: GeV\\\hline
486: 173 GeV&92.42 GeV&26.90 GeV&93.26 GeV&26.59 GeV&$(0.844\pm 0.038)$
487: GeV\\\hline
488: 175 GeV&93.54 GeV&27.29 GeV&94.38 GeV&27.02 GeV&$(0.843\pm 0.039)$
489: GeV\\\hline
490: 177 GeV&94.61 GeV&27.66 GeV&95.46 GeV&27.33 GeV&$(0.855\pm 0.039)$
491: GeV\\\hline
492: 179 GeV&95.72 GeV&28.04 GeV&96.51 GeV&27.67 GeV&$(0.792\pm 0.040)$
493: GeV\\\hline
494: \end{tabular}
495: \end{center}
496: \caption{As in table 1, but for the LHC.\label{masslhc}}
497: \end{table}%
498: We observe a systematic shift of about $800-900$~MeV towards lower
499: values of $\langle m_{B\ell}\rangle$ after matrix-element corrections
500: to
501: top decays. Furthermore, the results at the Tevatron are the same as
502: the ones at the LHC, to within 150~MeV.
503: Using the Kolmogorov--Smirnov test, we find that about
504: $N_{\mathrm{eff}}\simeq
505: 6000$ reconstructed final states are sufficient to verify that the
506: shapes of the 6.1 and the 6.0 distributions are different at the
507: confidence level of 95\%; one year of high-luminosity run would
508: nevertheless
509: allow one to distinguish the two distributions at 70\% confidence
510: level.
511: \begin {table}
512: \begin{tabular}{||l|r|r|r|r|r|r||}\hline
513: $m_t$&$\langle m_{B\ell}\rangle^{6.1}$&$\sigma (6.1)$&
514: $\langle m_{B\ell}\rangle^{6.0}$&$\sigma (6.0)$&
515: $\langle m_{B\ell}\rangle^{6.0}-\langle m_{B\ell}\rangle^{6.1}$\\
516: \hline
517: 171 GeV&95.98 GeV&22.22 GeV&96.43 GeV&22.22 GeV&$(0.476\pm 0.036)$
518: GeV\\\hline
519: 173 GeV&97.03 GeV&22.64 GeV&97.51 GeV&22.68 GeV&$(0.511\pm 0.034)$
520: GeV\\\hline
521: 175 GeV&98.08 GeV&23.15 GeV&98.59 GeV&23.11 GeV&$(0.514\pm 0.035)$
522: GeV\\\hline
523: 177 GeV&99.23 GeV&23.58 GeV&99.60 GeV&23.53 GeV&$(0.396\pm 0.035)$
524: GeV\\\hline
525: 179 GeV&100.13 GeV&23.93 GeV&100.63 GeV&23.90 GeV&$(0.560\pm 0.036)$
526: GeV\\\hline
527: \end{tabular}
528: \caption{Results for the invariant mass $m_{B\ell}$ at the Tevatron for
529: different values of $m_t$, once we select a sample with
530: $m_{B\ell}>50$~GeV.\label{tev50}}
531: \end{table}
532: \begin {table}
533: \begin{tabular}{||l|r|r|r|r|r|r||}\hline
534: $m_t$&$\langle m_{B\ell}\rangle^{6.1}$&$\sigma (6.1)$&
535: $\langle m_{B\ell}\rangle^{6.0}$&$\sigma (6.0)$&
536: $\langle m_{B\ell}^{6.0}\rangle-\langle m_{B\ell}^{6.1}\rangle$\\
537: \hline
538: 171 GeV&95.97 GeV&22.24 GeV&96.45 GeV&22.26 GeV&$(0.479\pm 0.036)$
539: GeV\\\hline
540: 173 GeV&97.09 GeV&22.69 GeV&97.56 GeV&22.68 GeV&$(0.479\pm 0.034)$
541: GeV\\\hline
542: 175 GeV&98.14 GeV&23.12 GeV&98.64 GeV&23.15 GeV&$(0.510\pm 0.035)$
543: GeV\\\hline
544: 177 GeV&99.16 GeV&23.54 GeV&99.62 GeV&23.52 GeV&$(0.466\pm 0.035)$
545: GeV\\\hline
546: 179 GeV&100.20 GeV&23.96 GeV&100.62 GeV&23.90 GeV&$(0.427\pm 0.036)$
547: GeV\\\hline
548: \end{tabular}
549: \caption{Results for the invariant mass $m_{B\ell}$ at the LHC for
550: different
551: values of $m_t$, once we select a sample with $m_{B\ell}>50$~GeV.
552: \label{lhc50}}
553: \end{table}
554: \par
555:
556: We studied the dependence of our results on the chosen infrared cutoff
557: for the energy of the gluons emitted in the dead zone, which was
558: discussed in Section 2. We find a negligible variation: at the LHC,
559: and for $m_t=175$~GeV, we find $\langle m_{B\ell}\rangle=93.78,\,
560: 93.54$ and 93.47~GeV for $E^{\rm cutoff}=1,\, 2$ and 5~GeV,
561: respectively.
562: The distributions in
563: Fig.~\ref{cutoff}, obtained for $m_t=175$~GeV and different values of
564: $E^{\rm cutoff}$, are essentially identical.
565: \begin{figure}
566: \centerline{\resizebox{0.65\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{cutoff.ps}}}
567: \caption{Invariant mass distributions according to \herw\ 6.1 for
568: $m_t=175$~GeV and a cutoff on the backward gluon energy equal to
569: 1 GeV (dotted line), 2 GeV (solid) and 5 GeV (dashed).}
570: \label{cutoff}
571: \end{figure}
572:
573: If we set a cut $m_{B\ell}>50$~GeV on the invariant mass, to reduce
574: the sensitivy to low-mass tails possibly affected by backgrounds, we
575: find the results summarized in tables~\ref{tev50} and \ref{lhc50} for
576: the Tevatron and the LHC respectively. Once we cut off part of the
577: spectrum, it is to be expected that we find higher values for $\langle
578: m_{B\ell}\rangle$ and lower values for the differences $\langle
579: m_{B\ell}\rangle^{6.0}-\langle m_{B\ell}\rangle^{6.1}$, which are
580: indeed now of
581: about $400-500$~MeV. Once again the shifts at the
582: Tevatron and at the LHC are of similar size, within 150~MeV.
583:
584: In order to evaluate the impact of the found discrepancies on the top
585: mass, we perform a linear fit of the $\langle m_{B\ell}\rangle$
586: distribution as a function of $m_t$, by means of the least square
587: method. We find, after considering all the $m_{B\ell}$ values:
588: \begin{eqnarray} 6.1\ :\;
589: \langle m_{B\ell}\rangle&=&0.563\ m_t-5.087\ {\mathrm{GeV}}\ ,\
590: \epsilon({\mathrm{GeV}})=0.046\
591: {\mathrm{(Tevatron)}}\ ;\\
592: 6.0\ :\;
593: \langle m_{B\ell}\rangle&=&0.568\ m_t-5.139\ {\mathrm{GeV}}\ ,\
594: \epsilon({\mathrm{GeV}})=0.023 \
595: {\mathrm{(Tevatron)}}\ ;\\
596: 6.1\ :\;
597: \langle m_{B\ell}\rangle&=&0.568\ m_t-\ 6.004\ {\mathrm{GeV}}\ ,\
598: \epsilon({\mathrm{GeV}})=0.057\
599: {\mathrm{(LHC)}}\ ;\\
600: 6.0\ :\;
601: \langle m_{B\ell}\rangle&=&0.559\ m_t-3.499\ {\mathrm{GeV}}\ ,\
602: \epsilon({\mathrm{GeV}})=0.052\
603: {\mathrm{(LHC)}}\ ;
604: \end{eqnarray}
605: where $\epsilon$ is the mean square deviation in the fit. We see that
606: the linear fit is very good, and well within the required accuracy.
607: The obtained fits are plotted in Figs.~\ref{fittev} and \ref{fitlhc}
608: at the Tevatron and at the LHC respectively. The error bars correspond
609: to the statistical errors found on $\langle
610: m_{B\ell}^{6.0}\rangle-\langle m_{B\ell}^{6.1}\rangle$, which, as can
611: be
612: seen from the figures, are significantly lower than the difference due
613: to the implementation of matrix-element corrections to top decays.
614: This means that the impact on the top mass is a physical effect and
615: not just the result of statistical fluctuations.
616:
617: Using these fits, and inverting the relation between $\langle
618: m_{B\ell}\rangle$ and $m_t$, we find that for a given value of $\langle
619: m_{B\ell}\rangle$ consistent with the range $171\lsim m_t \lsim 179$,
620: the
621: values of $m_t$ extracted using the two versions of \herw\ differ by
622: 1.5~GeV, both at the Tevatron and at the LHC. This is a rather large
623: value, competitive with the expected systematic error at the LHC,
624: indicating that such corrections are relevant, and must be applied.
625:
626: After setting a cut of 50 GeV on the $m_{Bl}$ spectra, we obtain the
627: following fits:
628: \begin{eqnarray} 6.1\ :\;
629: \langle m_{B\ell}\rangle&=&0.525\ m_t+6.125\ {\mathrm{GeV}}\ ,\
630: \epsilon({\mathrm{GeV}})=0.049\
631: {\mathrm{(Tevatron)}}\ ;\\
632: 6.0\ :\;
633: \langle m_{B\ell}\rangle&=&0.524\ m_t+6.765\ {\mathrm{GeV}}\ ,\
634: \epsilon({\mathrm{GeV}})=0.022\
635: {\mathrm{(Tevatron)}}\ ;\\
636: 6.1\ :\;
637: \langle m_{B\ell}\rangle&=&0.526\ m_t+5.974\ {\mathrm{GeV}}\ ,\
638: \epsilon({\mathrm{GeV}})=0.026\
639: {\mathrm{(LHC)}}\ ;\\
640: 6.0\ :\;
641: \langle m_{B\ell}\rangle&=&0.520\ m_t+7.578\ {\mathrm{GeV}}\ ,\
642: \epsilon({\mathrm{GeV}})=0.040\
643: {\mathrm{(LHC)}}\ .
644: \end{eqnarray}
645: The differences in the top mass extraction between the 6.0 and 6.1
646: versions from a given value of $\langle m_{B\ell}\rangle$ are now
647: reduced to 1~GeV, smaller than for the
648: fully inclusive distribution, but still significant relative to the
649: overall accuracy goal of 1~GeV.
650:
651: \begin{figure}
652: \centerline{\resizebox{0.65\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{tevfit.ps}}}
653: \caption{Results for the average invariant mass $\langle
654: m_{B\ell}\rangle$ as a function of $m_t$ at the Tevatron after a
655: fit
656: into a straight line. The solid and dashed lines refer to \herw\
657: 6.1 and \herw\ 6.0 respectively.}
658: \label{fittev}
659: \end{figure}
660: \begin{figure}
661: \centerline{\resizebox{0.65\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{lhcfit.ps}}}
662: \caption{Results for the average invariant mass $\langle
663: m_{Bl\ell}\rangle$ as a function of $m_t$ at the LHC after a fit
664: into
665: a straight line. The solid and dashed lines refer to \herw\ 6.1
666: and \herw\ 6.0 respectively.}
667: \label{fitlhc}
668: \end{figure}
669: \par
670:
671: To conclude our study, we wish to investigate the dependence of our
672: results on the hadronisation model used by \herw. We start by studying
673: the invariant mass distribution of the lepton with the $b$ quark, as
674: opposed to the $b$-hadron. We do this by considering the \herw\ final
675: state at the end of the perturbative evolution, just before the
676: non-perturbative gluon-splitting phase which precedes the formation of
677: the colour-singlet clusters, and the eventual hadronisation.
678:
679: In Fig.~\ref{masspl} we plot the 6.0 and 6.1 distributions of the
680: invariant mass of the $b$-lepton system for
681: $m_t=175$~GeV and the 6.1 ones at hadron- and parton-level.
682: The results at parton level for different values of the top mass can be
683: found in table~\ref{tabmbl}. We find that, at fixed $m_t$, the
684: average values of the parton-level invariant masses
685: $\langle m_{b\ell}\rangle$ are larger than
686: the ones after the hadronisation of the $b$ quark, with differences
687: between the 6.0 and the 6.1 version of the order about
688: $600-700$~MeV.
689:
690: After a linear fit, we find the following relations:
691: \begin{eqnarray}
692: 6.1\ :\;
693: \langle m_{b\ell}\rangle &=&0.640\ m_t-10.256\ {\mathrm{GeV}}\ ,\
694: \epsilon({\mathrm{GeV}})=0.050\ . \\
695: 6.0\ :\;
696: \langle m_{b\ell}\rangle &=&0.646\ m_t-10.528\ {\mathrm{GeV}}\ ,\
697: \epsilon({\mathrm{GeV}})=0.033
698: \end{eqnarray}
699: Given the values of the slopes, the shift in the extracted top mass
700: between
701: the two versions is now of about
702: 1.0~GeV, compared to the 1.5~GeV after hadronisation.
703:
704: As a whole, the non-perturbative contribution to
705: the shape of the $b$-hadron spectra is therefore pretty important,
706: as is already known in the case of $Z^0$ decays.
707: Confidence in the accurate description of the non-perturbative
708: phase should be gained from the study of the $B$-fragmentation function
709: in $Z^0$ decays. Our study of the impact of matrix element corrections
710: at the Tevatron and at the LHC suggests that non-perturbative
711: corrections do not depend significantly on the production
712: mechanism. This we also checked by performing a similar study in the
713: case of $e^+e^-$ production. We therefore expect that once a
714: tuning of the non-perturbative $b$ fragmentation function in \herw\ is
715: achieved, using for example the latest high-precision SLD
716: results~[\ref{SLD}], the results can be extended to the study of the
717: $B\ell$ mass spectrum in top decays. Given the size of the mass shift
718: induced by hadronisation (of the order of 8~GeV, as found by comparing
719: Table~\ref{tabmbl} and \ref{masslhc}), a control over the
720: fragmentation function at a level better than 5\% will have to be
721: achieved in order to maintain this contribution to the theoretical
722: systematics well below ${\cal O}$(1~GeV). This should be possible,
723: since
724: the current size of the experimental uncertainty on $\langle x_B
725: \rangle$ is at the level of $\sim 1$\%~[\ref{SLD}].
726:
727: \begin{figure}
728: \centerline{\resizebox{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{cmspl.ps}}%
729: \hfill%
730: \resizebox{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{hadpl.ps}}}
731: \caption{Distributions of the invariant mass of the $b$-lepton
732: system for $m_t=175$~GeV at the LHC according to \herw\ 6.1
733: (solid
734: line) and 6.0 (dotted) (a) and according to 6.1, but at
735: hadron-level
736: ($X=B$, solid) and parton level ($X=b$, dotted) (b).}
737: \label{masspl}
738: \end{figure}
739: \begin {table}
740: \begin{tabular}{||l|r|r|r|r|r|r||}\hline
741: $m_t$&$\langle m_{b\ell}\rangle^{6.1}$&$\sigma (6.1)$&$\langle
742: m_{b\ell}\rangle^{6.0}$&$\sigma (6.0)$& $\langle
743: m_{b\ell}\rangle^{6.0}-\langle m_{b\ell}\rangle^{6.1}$\\ \hline
744: 171 GeV&99.19 GeV&28.42 GeV&99.81 GeV&28.20 GeV&$(0.627\pm 0.040)$
745: GeV\\\hline
746: 173 GeV&100.47 GeV&28.84 GeV&101.17 GeV&28.43 GeV&$(0.701\pm 0.041)$
747: GeV\\\hline
748: 175 GeV&101.76 GeV&29.24 GeV&102.48 GeV&29.01 GeV&$(0.718\pm 0.041)$
749: GeV\\\hline
750: 177 GeV&102.93 GeV&29.67 GeV&103.72 GeV&29.43 GeV&$(0.791\pm 0.042)$
751: GeV\\\hline
752: 179 GeV&104.36 GeV&30.11 GeV&104.99 GeV&29.87 GeV&$(0.628\pm 0.043)$
753: GeV\\\hline
754: \end{tabular}
755: \caption{Results for the invariant mass $m_{b\ell}$ at the LHC for
756: different values of $m_t$.
757: \label{tabmbl}}
758: \end{table}
759: \section{Conclusions}
760: We have studied $t\bar t$ events in the dilepton channel at the
761: Tevatron and at the LHC using the new version of the \herw\ Monte
762: Carlo event generator, which includes matrix-element corrections to
763: the description of top decays. We considered observables involving
764: the third hardest jet in transverse energy, to enhance possible
765: effects of the implemented corrections.
766:
767: We have found that the distributions obtained before and after
768: matrix-element corrections are rather similar. A Kolmogorov test,
769: which compares the shapes of two distributions, allows however to
770: detect differences at the 95\%CL with the large statistics available
771: at the LHC. The statistics of the Run~II at the Tevatron are however
772: not sufficient.
773:
774: We have also investigated the reconstruction of the top mass by
775: looking at final states with leptons and a $J/\psi$. These final
776: states are an excellent candidate for an experimental determination of
777: the top mass with systematic errors in the range of 1~GeV. While
778: the main production mechanisms of top quarks are
779: different at the Tevatron and at the LHC, we found
780: equivalent results in the two cases, indicating
781: that this method of reconstruction of
782: the top mass is not sensitive to the details of the
783: colour-neutralisation model.
784:
785: We considered the spectra of the invariant mass $m_{B\ell}$, where the
786: $B$ meson comes from the hadronisation of the $b$ quark produced in
787: $t\to bW$ and $\ell$ is the charged lepton from the decay $W\to \ell\nu$,
788: for different values of $m_t$ and obtained that the implementation of
789: matrix-element corrections to top decays results in a shift of about
790: 1.5 GeV on the top mass if one is able to reconstruct the whole
791: $m_{B\ell}$ spectrum and of about 1 GeV after setting the cut
792: $m_{B\ell}>$~50 GeV. The shifts we found are physical effects
793: related to the inclusion of hard and large-angle gluon radiation in
794: the Monte Carlo shower, since they are much larger than the
795: statistical errors on them. Analyses at the parton level have shown an
796: impact of a similar magnitude.
797:
798: It will be now very interesting to compare the new \herw\ results for
799: the invariant-mass distributions with the ones obtained after
800: performing a next-to-leading order calculation of the process $t\to
801: bWg$, and convoluting the result with the fragmentation function for
802: the hadronisation of the $b$ quark into a $B$ meson taken from
803: LEP and SLD data. In order to perform such a comparison in detail, the
804: \herw\
805: cluster model used to simulate the hadronisation process will have to
806: be tuned to fit that data.
807:
808: Furthermore, although in this paper we have concentrated our analysis
809: on the top mass reconstruction in final states with leptons and
810: $J/\psi$, it will be worthwhile redoing the Tevatron analysis to
811: determine $m_t$ using the \herw\ parton shower model, provided with
812: matrix-element corrections.
813:
814: We finally recall that, though we feel safely confident that the new
815: version of \herw\ will be a trustworthy event generator for the
816: purpose top decays, top production is still performed in the
817: soft/collinear approximation, with dead zones in the phase space which
818: are needed to be filled. Matrix-element corrections to top production
819: are in progress and may have an impact on jet observables and on the
820: top mass measurement at the Tevatron as well.
821:
822: \section*{Acknowledgements}
823: We wish to acknowledge Bryan Webber for useful discussions on
824: these and related topics. We thank A. Kharchilava for several
825: discussions on the measurement of the top mass using the $\psi\ell$
826: final states.
827: G.C. is also grateful to the R.A.L. Theory
828: Group and to the CERN Theory Division for hospitality during some
829: of this work.
830:
831: \section*{References}
832: \begin{enumerate}
833: \addtolength{\itemsep}{-0.5ex}
834: \item\label{frixione}
835: S. Frixione, M.L. Mangano, P. Nason and G. Ridolfi, {\it Heavy
836: Quark Production}, hep-ph/9702287, in {\it Heavy Flavours II},
837: ed.\ A.J. Buras and M. Lindner, World Scientific, p.609; \\
838: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9702287;%%
839: S.~Frixione, M.~L.~Mangano, P.~Nason and G.~Ridolfi,
840: %``Charm and bottom production: Theoretical results versus experimental data,''
841: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B431} (1994) 453.
842: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B431,453;%%
843: %\cite{Beneke:2000hk}
844: \item\label{Beneke:2000hk}
845: M.~Beneke {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0003033,
846: to appear in Proceedings of 1999 CERN Workshop on
847: Standard Model Physics (and more) at the LHC, G. Altarelli and
848: M.L. Mangano eds.
849: %``Top quark physics,''
850: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003033;%%
851: %\cite{Accomando:1998wt}
852: \item\label{Accomando:1998wt}
853: E.~Accomando {\it et al.} [ECFA/DESY LC Physics Working Group
854: Collaboration],
855: %``Physics with e+ e- linear colliders,''
856: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 299}, 1 (1998)
857: [hep-ph/9705442].
858: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9705442;%%
859: \item\label{Mangano:1992jk}
860: M.~L.~Mangano, P.~Nason and G.~Ridolfi,
861: %``Heavy quark correlations in hadron collisions at next-to-leading =order,''
862: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B373}, 295 (1992); \\
863: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B373,295;%%
864: %\cite{Frixione:1995fj}
865: %\item\label{Frixione:1995fj}
866: S.~Frixione, M.~L.~Mangano, P.~Nason and G.~Ridolfi,
867: %``Top quark distributions in hadronic collisions,''
868: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B351}, 555 (1995)
869: [hep-ph/9503213].
870: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9503213;%%
871: %\cite{Cacciari:1998it}
872: \item\label{Cacciari:1998it}
873: M.~Cacciari, M.~Greco and P.~Nason,
874: %``The p(T) spectrum in heavy-flavour hadroproduction,''
875: JHEP {\bf 9805}, 007 (1998)
876: [hep-ph/9803400]; \\
877: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803400;%%
878: %\href{\wwwspires?eprint=HEP-PH/9803400}{SPIRES}
879: %\cite{Olness:1999yc}
880: %\bibitem{Olness:1999yc}
881: F.~I.~Olness, R.~J.~Scalise and W.~Tung,
882: %``Heavy quark hadroproduction in perturbative QCD,''
883: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D59}, 014506 (1999)
884: [hep-ph/9712494].
885: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712494;%%
886: %\href{\wwwspires?eprint=HEP-PH/9712494}{SPIRES}
887: \item\label{herwig}
888: G. Marchesini and B.R. Webber, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B310 (1988) 461.
889: G. Marchesini et al.,\ Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ 67 (1992) 465.
890: \item\label{pythia}
891: T. Sj\"ostrand, Comp.\ Phys.\ Comm.\ 46 (1987) 367.
892: \item\label{Paige:1981fb}
893: F.~E.~Paige and S.~D.~Protopopescu,
894: %``Isajet: A Monte Carlo Event Generator For Isabelle, Version 2,''
895: BNL-29777;
896: %\cite{Baer:1999sp}
897: %\bibitem{Baer:1999sp}
898: H.~Baer, F.~E.~Paige, S.~D.~Protopopescu and X.~Tata,
899: \isajet~7.48,
900: %``ISAJET 7.48: A Monte Carlo event generator for p p, anti-p p, and =e+ e- reactions,''
901: hep-ph/0001086.
902: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001086;%%
903: \item\label{sey1}
904: M.H. Seymour, Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ 90 (1995) 95.
905: \item\label{sey2}
906: M.H. Seymour, Z.\ Phys.\ C56 (1992) 161.
907: \item\label{sey3}
908: M.H. Seymour, {\it Matrix Element Corrections to Parton Shower
909: Simulation of Deep Inelastic Scattering}, contributed to 27th
910: International Conference on High Energy Physics (ICHEP), Glasgow,
911: 1994, Lund preprint LU-TP-94-12, unpublished.
912: \item\label{corsey1}
913: G. Corcella and M.H. Seymour, Phys.\ Lett.\ B442 (1998) 417.
914: \item\label{corsey2}
915: G. Corcella and M.H. Seymour, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B565 (2000) 227.
916: \item\label{mepapers}
917: J. Andr\'e and T. Sj\"ostrand, Phys.\ Lett.\ B442 (1998) 417\\
918: G. Miu and T. Sj\"ostrand, Phys.\ Lett.\ B449 (1999) 313.
919: \item\label{avto}
920: A. Kharchilava, Phys.\ Lett.\ B476 (2000) 73.
921: \item\label{corcella}
922: G. Corcella, hep-ph/9911447, {\it On the Top
923: Mass Reconstruction Using Leptons}, contributed to the U.K.
924: Phenomenology Workshop on Collider Physics, Durham, U. K., 19-24
925: September 1999.
926: \item\label{marweb1}
927: G.Marchesini and B.R. Webber, Nucl. Phys. B330 (1990) 261
928: % G. Marchesini and B.R. Webber, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B310 (1988) 461.
929: \item\label{marweb2}
930: G. Marchesini and B.R. Webber, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B238 (1984) 1.
931: \item\label{herwig61}
932: G. Corcella, I.G. Knowles, G. Marchesini, S. Moretti, K. Odagiri,
933: P. Richardson, M.H. Seymour, B.R. Webber, hep-ph/9912396.
934: \item\label{orr}
935: L.H. Orr, T. Stelzer and W.J. Stirling, Phys.\ Rev.\ D56 (1997) 446
936: \item\label{kt}
937: S. Catani, Yu.L. Dokshitzer, M.H. Seymour and B.R.
938: Webber, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B406 (1993) 187\\
939: M.H. Seymour, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B421 (1994) 545.
940: \item\label{soper}
941: S.D. Ellis and D.E. Soper, Phys.\ Rev.\ D48 (1993) 3160.
942: \item\label{bcmn}
943: R. Bonciani, S. Catani, M.L. Mangano and P. Nason,
944: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B529 (1998) 424.
945: \item\label{cdf}
946: The CDF II Detector, Technical Design Report,
947: FERMILAB-Pub-96/390-E.
948: \item\label{atlas}
949: ATLAS detector and physics performance, Technical
950: Design Report, Volume I, CERN LHCC 99-14.
951: \item\label{SLD}
952: %\cite{Abe:1999ki}
953: %\bibitem{Abe:1999ki}
954: K.~Abe {\it et al.} [SLD Collaboration],
955: %``Precise measurement of the b-quark fragmentation function in Z0 =boson decays,''
956: hep-ex/9912058.
957: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9912058;%%
958: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?eprint=HEP-EX/=9912058}{SPIRES}
959: \end{enumerate}
960: \end{document}
961: