1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2:
3: \usepackage{epsfig,rotating}
4: \usepackage{cite}
5:
6: \textheight=23.0cm
7: \textwidth=15.0cm
8: \topmargin=-1.0cm
9: \oddsidemargin =-0.3cm
10: \evensidemargin =-0.3cm
11: \headsep=0.4cm
12:
13: \def\baselinestretch{1.3}
14:
15: %
16: \newcommand{\PR}{Phys. Rev.\ }
17: \newcommand{\PRL}{Phys. Rev. Lett.\ }
18: \newcommand{\PL}{Phys. Lett.\ }
19: \newcommand{\NP}{Nucl. Phys.\ }
20: \newcommand{\ZP}{Z. Phys.\ }
21: \newcommand{\AP}{Ann. Phys.\ }
22: \newcommand{\Coll}{Collaboration}
23: \newcommand{\CPC}{Comp. Phys. Comm.\ }
24: \newcommand{\EPJ}{Eur. Phys. J.\ }
25:
26:
27: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
28: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation} }
29: \newcommand{\la}{\langle}
30: \newcommand{\ra}{\rangle}
31: \def\simgr{^>\hskip -2.5mm_\sim}
32: \def\simkl{^<\hskip -2.5mm_\sim}
33:
34:
35: \def\E{\mbox{e}^+\mbox{e}^-}
36: \def\pp{\mbox{p}\mbox{p}}
37: \def\ppb{\mbox{p}\overline{\mbox{p}}}
38: \def\p+p{\pi^\pm \mbox{p}}
39: \def\K+p{\mbox{K}^{+}\mbox{p}}
40: \def\m+p{\mu ^{+}\mbox{p}}
41: \def\np{\nu\mbox{p}}
42: \def\bnp{\overline{\nu}\mbox{p}}
43: \def\ep{\mbox{e}^+\mbox{p}}
44:
45:
46: \newcommand{\Wp}{\mbox{w}^+}
47: \newcommand{\Wn}{\mbox{w}^-}
48: \newcommand{\W}{\mbox{w}}
49: \newcommand{\WW}{\mbox{ww}}
50:
51: \begin{document}
52: \clearpage
53: \pagestyle{empty}
54: \setcounter{footnote}{0}\setcounter{page}{0}%
55: \thispagestyle{empty}\pagestyle{plain}\pagenumbering{arabic}%
56:
57:
58: \vspace{2.0cm}
59:
60: \begin{center}
61:
62: \vskip 0.8in plus 2in
63:
64: \hfill ANL-HEP-PR-02-4
65:
66: \hfill August, 2002
67:
68: \vspace{3.0cm}
69:
70:
71: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
72: % 2002 %
73: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
74: {\Large\bf Uncertainties on the measurements of the \\
75: top mass at a future $e^+e^-$ collider \\[-1cm]}
76: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
77:
78: \vspace{3.0cm}
79:
80: {\large S.~V.~Chekanov
81: \footnote[1]{On leave from
82: Institute of Physics, AS of Belarus,
83: Skaryna av.70, Minsk 220072, Belarus.}
84: }
85:
86: \small
87: HEP division, Argonne National Laboratory,
88: 9700 S. Cass Avenue, \\
89: Argonne, IL 60439
90: USA
91:
92:
93: \begin{abstract}
94: \noindent
95: The uncertainties due to limited knowledge of
96: the multi-hadron final state on the measurements of
97: the top mass at future linear colliders are discussed.
98: The study is performed for $e^+e^-\to t\bar{t}$ annihilation
99: events at the centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV
100: using Monte Carlo models tuned to LEP experiments.
101: The uncertainties are determined for
102: the all hadronic top-decay mode
103: as well as for the lepton-plus-jets channel.
104: \end{abstract}
105:
106: \end{center}
107:
108: \newpage
109: \setcounter{page}{1}
110: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
111: \section{Introduction}
112: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
113: According to the Standard Model (SM), the top quark is
114: the heaviest quark known,
115: which has a mass intriguingly close to the scale of electroweak
116: symmetry breaking.
117: The mass of the top quark, $m_t$, being one of the most fundamental parameter
118: of the SM, allows to test consistency of the SM and can be used
119: to predict unknown SM parameters. For example,
120: with a precise measurement of the top mass,
121: together with an accurate determination of the $W$ boson mass, $M_W$,
122: an indirect constraint on the mass of the Higgs boson can be obtained.
123:
124: Several properties of the top quarks have already been measured at the
125: Tevatron. In particular, the combined result from the Tevatron
126: experiments gave $m_t=174.3\pm 3.2(stat)\pm 4.0(syst)$ GeV \cite{tevat}.
127: At the LHC experiments, the measurements of $m_t$
128: are expected to be feasible with a precision of better than 2 GeV \cite{lhc},
129: although there are indications that for some statistically
130: non-dominant decay channels the measurements
131: might have a systematic uncertainty of $\sim 1$ GeV \cite{jpsi}.
132:
133:
134: The top physics
135: will be one of the main interests at future
136: linear $e^+e^-$ colliders.
137: Clean experimental conditions
138: of the process $e^+e^- \to t\bar{t}$ would allow to determine the top mass
139: and its width with unprecedented precision.
140: With the large rate of top events anticipated
141: (about $150000$ $t \bar{t}$ pairs for
142: a linear collider operating at $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV with an
143: integrated luminosity of $\sim 200$ fb$^{-1}$ per year), the uncertainty
144: on the reconstructed mass will be dominated by
145: theoretical and experimental systematical errors.
146:
147:
148: A detailed assessment of theoretical errors has to take into
149: account the uncertainties due to different methods used in the
150: next-to-next-to-leading order QCD correction calculations. Such
151: uncertainties can lead to an error on the $\overline{MS}$ top mass of
152: $\sim 100$ MeV \cite{hoang1}.
153: The top-mass measurements based on the reconstruction of the
154: invariant mass of jets originating from top quarks should be
155: considered as determinations of the top-quark pole mass.
156: The latter mass definition, which is currently
157: used in Monte Carlo (MC) models,
158: has a limitation on the accuracy; the extraction of the top-quark pole
159: mass has a theoretical uncertainty of around 300 MeV \cite{hoang1} and cannot
160: be determined with a precision better than
161: ${\cal O} (\Lambda_{QCD})$ \cite{hoang1,hoang2}.
162: Moreover, when the multi-hadronic final state is used in the
163: reconstruction of the top quarks,
164: such a precision on the pole mass may not be achievable due
165: to limited knowledge
166: on high-order QCD gluon radiations, determining
167: the gluon activity in events used in the reconstruction,
168: assumptions concerning
169: the non-perturbative region of QCD, where the gluons and quarks
170: are transformed into hadrons,
171: as well as due to other hadronic final-state phenomena
172: to be discussed below.
173:
174: In this paper we study the precision on the top-quark pole mass
175: attainable at future linear $e^+e^-$ colliders operating at
176: $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV, concentrating on the multi-particle QCD
177: aspects of the top decays. Presently, the multi-hadron production
178: phenomena cannot be derived solely from perturbative QCD theory without
179: additional model-dependent assumptions.
180: Therefore, this analysis is based
181: on Monte Carlo models, which are the only tools
182: which allow to study
183: the multi-hadronic phenomena and their impact on the reconstructed
184: observables in a systematic way, since these models
185: provide a complete and detailed description of all known stages
186: of the multiparticle production.
187:
188:
189: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
190: \section{Multihadronic aspects of top decays}
191: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
192:
193:
194: The top quarks decay almost exclusively via $t\to Wb$,
195: thus the final-state topology of $t\bar{t}$ events essentially
196: depends on the decay
197: modes of the $W$ bosons, which can decay either hadronically
198: ($W^\pm \to q_1\bar{q}_2$) or via the leptonic channel
199: ($W^\pm \to l^\pm \nu$).
200: In this paper we analyse the following statistically
201: dominant at $e^+e^-$ colliders top decays:
202: \begin{eqnarray}
203: e^+e^- \to t\bar{t} & \to & b\bar{b}W^+W^- \to
204: b\bar{b} q_1\bar{q}_2q_3\bar{q}_4 \to 6 \;\hbox{\rm jets},
205: \label{1t}
206: \\[-0.1cm]
207: e^+e^- \to t\bar{t} & \to & b\bar{b}W^+W^- \to
208: b\bar{b} l\nu q_1\bar{q}_2 \to \hbox{\rm lepton} + 4 \;\hbox{\rm jets}.
209: \label{2t}
210: \end{eqnarray}
211: The first process arises in $44.4\%$ of all $t\bar{t}$ decays,
212: and is characterised
213: by the presence of six jets in the final state ("fully hadronic" or
214: "the all-hadronic" channel).
215: This decay suffers from a background from QCD multi-jet
216: events, which can be rather large at the LHC experiments.
217: For $e^+e^-$ annihilation events, this problem is expected to be
218: less actual for an efficient double $b$-tagging.
219: The Tevatron experiments have shown that it is possible to
220: isolate $t\bar{t}$ production in this decay mode, despite the very complicated
221: hadronic final state of $p\bar{p}$ collisions.
222:
223: The second process (\ref{2t}) is characterised by the
224: presence of a high $p_T$ lepton, 4 hadronic jets
225: and the missing momentum of an unmeasured neutrino
226: produced in the leptonic $W$ decay ("semi-leptonic" or "lepton-plus-jets" channel).
227: For such events, the neutrinos from the decay
228: $W^\pm \to l^\pm \nu$ can be reconstructed
229: using the energy-momentum conservation,
230: since the $t\bar{t}$ decays are kinematically constrained.
231: This decay channel has lower statistics ($29.6\%$
232: of all $t\bar{t}$ decays), however, because of the well-reconstructed
233: high $p_T$ lepton, one could significantly
234: suppress the multi-jet QCD background.
235:
236:
237: In this paper, we study the impact of
238: various, not well understood effects related to
239: the multi-hadronic final state
240: on the direct measurements of $m_t$ in processes
241: (\ref{1t}) and (\ref{2t}).
242:
243:
244: \subsection{Multiple gluon radiations} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
245:
246: Soft partons resulting from the hard subprocess undergo successive branchings.
247: Such emissions play a significant role in building up the event
248: structure. At present, however, complete perturbative calculations are not
249: available, and only the parton-shower approach implemented in various MC models
250: allows to describe an arbitrary number of
251: gluon branchings by simplifying the underlying dynamics of the multiple-gluon
252: radiations.
253: There are a few approaches to deal with this stage
254: within the framework of MC
255: models, which can have different implementations of the
256: ordering in the coherent gluon emissions.
257: The HERWIG model \cite{her}
258: orders the emissions in angle, while the PYTHIA
259: model \cite{pyt} orders them in decreasing
260: invariant mass with an additional constraint to ensure the angular ordering.
261: The ARIADNE model \cite{ard} orders the parton
262: emissions in the transverse momentum.
263:
264: It is not possible at this moment to say which approach is the best;
265: they all reflect different aspects of the QCD multi-parton dynamics
266: in the parton-shower approximation.
267: Experimentally, the major features of $e^+e^-$ events are rather similar
268: for all well-tuned MC models \cite{lep2}.
269: However, insignificant discrepancies between these models
270: for the LEP experiments could have a dramatic effect on the
271: future high-precision measurements at a larger centre-of-mass
272: energy of $e^+e^-$ collisions, which obviously implies a stronger contribution from
273: the gluon showering at the perturbative QCD stage.
274:
275: The reconstruction of jets in the processes (\ref{1t}) and (\ref{2t})
276: requires the use of jet finding algorithms, which are at present
277: indispensable tools in organizing the sprays of hadrons (partons)
278: into a some number of jets.
279: For the identification of the massive particles, they
280: help to reconstruct the momenta of the initial
281: quarks originating from the hard subprocesses and allow
282: a separation of perturbative and non-perturbative QCD
283: regions. Since an exact definition of resolvable jet is needed not only
284: on the experimental (hadronic) level, but also on the theoretical
285: (partonic) level, it is mandatory to consider the theoretical approaches
286: to the multiple parton radiation together with a particular definition
287: of the jet algorithm.
288: Jet algorithms use different criteria for combining
289: particles into jets, thus
290: they all suffer from misclusterings in a different degree.
291: This introduces an additional uncertainty on
292: the determination of the top mass.
293:
294: In this paper, a few most popular
295: jet clustering algorithms are used: DURHAM \cite{durham}, JADE \cite{jade}
296: and LUCLUS \cite{luclus}.
297: At present, there is no a unique criterion for the best algorithm;
298: they all perform
299: comparably well for a large distance measure.
300: The success of the JADE algorithm in the reconstruction
301: of multi-jet events and the $W$ mass is less evident than for
302: the algorithms based on an $p_T$ distance measure \cite{algor},
303: nevertheless, we will include the results
304: with the JADE algorithm for a completeness.
305:
306: \subsection{Jet fragmentation and related non-perturbative effects} %%%%%%%
307:
308: The subsequent parton cascade
309: is followed by a soft fragmentation process. The latter occurs
310: with small momentum transfers which may be considered
311: to extend to a value $Q_0$, which is
312: a QCD cut-off above which perturbative methods can be applied.
313: Note that this unnatural cut-off used in Monte Carlo
314: models could produce non-perturbative model-dependent distortions
315: already for the parton predictions (the so-called "parton-level")
316: of these models.
317:
318: The hadronisation stage itself is not well understood from
319: the first principles, and thus it is a subject of important uncertainties.
320: The hadronisation mechanism can be simulated using the Lund string model
321: as implemented in PYTHIA/JETSET \cite{pyt} and ARIADNE \cite{ard}.
322: In HERWIG, the hadronisation is
323: described by the cluster fragmentation model \cite{cluster}.
324:
325: Further, when heavy particles like $t$-quarks are produced in pairs
326: and decay, the hadronic systems overlap during
327: the fragmentation process.
328: This occurs because the typical decay distance,
329: determined by the decay width of these particles, is smaller than
330: the typical hadronic scale $\mu \sim 1$ fm$^{-1}$. Therefore,
331: a high-precision
332: reconstruction of the $t$ masses
333: is non-trivial as it requires the understanding of non-perturbative,
334: long-distance QCD effects caused by a large overlap between the hadronic
335: decay products of $W$ and $t$-quarks. For example,
336: it is well known that the color reconnection (CR) \cite{cr1,cr2,cr3,cr4} and
337: the Bose-Einstein (BE) effect \cite{be1,be2} can produce
338: systematic uncertainties on the $W$ and $t$ mass measurements when
339: the hadronic final state is used in the reconstruction.
340:
341: While the results from the LEP2 experiments are not conclusive
342: with respect to the significance
343: of these two effects \cite{cr_coll,cr_rev},
344: at a future linear collider the situation may change.
345: Considering that the future experiments will study
346: the $e^+e^-$ annihilation events
347: with a significantly larger luminosity,
348: aiming to study the $W$ and $t$-masses with a high precision,
349: it is important to understand how strongly
350: such measurements could be
351: affected by the CR and BE effects.
352:
353:
354: In addition to the effects discussed above, variations
355: in the hadronic composition of jets, in production rates of heavy
356: resonances and in the fraction of neutrinos escaping detection can all
357: alter the details of the hadronic final state. Such effects
358: are especially important for the top production,
359: underlying physics of which involves large production rates of
360: beauty and charm particles, and represent a real
361: challenge for the MC models in use.
362:
363:
364: One of the sources of uncertainty in the measurement of the top quarks
365: at the Tevatron is the $b$-fragmentation \cite{bfrag}, which
366: is usually described
367: using the Peterson fragmentation function. The parameter $\epsilon_b$
368: of this parameterisation varies within a large range for different experiments
369: \cite{lep2}.
370: We will consider as realistic values of $\epsilon_b$ between $0.002$ and
371: $0.006$, following \cite{btev,lep2}. In addition, as an alternative to the
372: Peterson fragmentation, we will study the LUND-based
373: string fragmentation model for heavy flavour production
374: included in the default setting of PYTHIA.
375:
376:
377: \vspace{1.0cm}
378:
379: In this paper we will not consider
380: the systematical effects arising from the QED bremsstrahlung,
381: concentrating only on less understood hadronic aspect of the
382: top decay.
383: The systematics due to uncertainties on the $W$ mass
384: are also outside the scope of this paper.
385:
386: At present, the study of the effects discussed above
387: can only be performed using Monte
388: Carlo models which have many free parameters. To determine
389: the uncertainties arising from intrinsic ambiguities in their values,
390: modifications
391: of such parameters have to be done in a reasonable ("physical") range.
392: By doing this, however,
393: a realistic estimate for the uncertainties is difficult to obtain:
394: many MC parameters correlate and
395: a MC model with only one modified parameter
396: is likely to be unable to reproduce the existing $e^+e^-$ data because
397: a specific MC tuning might be destroyed.
398:
399:
400: In this paper, we will adopt the following approach:
401: instead of variations of MC parameters responsible
402: for a particular stage of the multi-jet production, we will use various
403: MC tunings from the LEP experiments. First of all, this
404: would allow us to consider a meaningful range of values for MC
405: parameters.
406: From the other hand, we will stay within a particular MC tuning,
407: not distorting agreements between MC models and $e^+e^-$ annihilation
408: data.
409:
410: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
411: \section{Top-mass reconstructions}
412: \label{rec}
413: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
414:
415: In this paper we are not aiming to suggest a particular
416: approach for the top reconstruction, but rather will
417: use the most simple methods which are sufficient for the
418: purposes of this article. A realistic detector simulation as well
419: as studies of the background processes are
420: required to understand the applicability of the methods described
421: below.
422:
423: The MC events for processes
424: (\ref{1t}) and (\ref{2t}) were generated at the centre-of-mass energy
425: of $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV. We use the most recent
426: versions of MC models: PYTHIA 6.2 \cite{pyt}, HERWIG 6.4 \cite{her} and
427: ARIADNE 4.12 \cite{ard}.
428: The nominal value of the $W$ mass was $M_W=80.45$ GeV and the
429: Breit-Wigner width was set to $2.071$ GeV (these values correspond
430: to the PYTHIA 6.2 default
431: settings). The mass of the generated top quarks
432: was $m_t=175.0$ GeV and the corresponding width of the Breit-Wigner distribution
433: was set to $1.398$ GeV.
434: In the HERWIG model, the top-quark width cannot be simulated.
435: The final-state particles (hadrons, photons and leptons) with
436: lifetime $c\tau > 15$ cm were considered as stable.
437:
438: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
439: \subsection{Fully hadronic $t\bar{t}$ decay}
440: \label{rec1}
441: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
442:
443: As a first step, a jet algorithm was applied to reconstruct the four-momenta
444: of jets in the process (\ref{1t}).
445: All particles were grouped to exactly six jets, thus
446: allowing for a distance measure
447: $y_{cut}$ of the jet algorithms to have different
448: values for every event.
449: Events were accepted if all reconstructed jets
450: have the transverse momenta above $10$ GeV.
451:
452: The double $b$-tagging is assumed throughout this paper. This allows us
453: to distinguish between light-flavored jets and $b$-quark jets, thus
454: helping to reduce the combinatorial background and to simplify the reconstruction.
455: To identify the $b$-quark jets, we match the four-momenta of generated
456: $b$-quarks to the
457: momenta of reconstructed jets using a cone algorithm with the radius of 0.5
458: in the pseudorapidity and the azimuthal angle of jets.
459:
460: The jets which are not tagged as $b$-jets
461: were used to reconstruct the dijet invariant mass, $M$.
462: For a $W$ candidate, we require for the dijet mass
463: to be within the mass window $\mid M_W -M \mid < 5$ GeV, where
464: $M_W$ is the nominal mass of the $W$ bosons.
465: An event was accepted if exactly two $W$ candidates were found.
466: (Below we will discuss a more complicated method which is better
467: suited for the experimental conditions).
468: For the accepted events, two $W$ candidates were combined
469: with $b$-tagged jets to form the invariant mass of top (anti-top)
470: candidates.
471:
472: The top mass and width were determined from the fit
473: procedure using the Breit-Wigner distribution together with
474: a term describing the combinatorial background.
475: An object-oriented data analysis framework ROOT \cite{root} was used
476: for the fits.
477: For the background, we use the quadratic polynomial
478: form, $a+bM+cM^2$ (with $a$, $b$, $c$ being the free parameters).
479: Note that the choice of the best fit function
480: is not trivial, and the chosen parameterisation
481: might be inappropriate for the realistic
482: experimental reconstruction in which a convolution of the Breit-Wigner
483: function with a Gaussian distribution is required to describe the detector
484: resolution, QED initial-state smearing, limited detector acceptance
485: etc.
486:
487: There is another difficulty in the studies of
488: top-quark events: many neutrinos from the $b$-quark fragmentation
489: escape without detection.
490: To deal with this problem, energy-momentum conservation constraints
491: can be imposed to
492: remove events with a significant fraction of neutrinos:
493: \beq
494: \mid \frac{E_{vis}}{\sqrt{s}} -1 \mid < 0.03 ,\qquad
495: \frac{ \mid \sum_{i} p_{||i} \mid} { \sum_i \mid \vec{p}_i \mid}<0.03 ,
496: \qquad
497: \frac{ \sum_{i} p_{Ti} } { \sum_i \mid \vec{p}_i \mid}<0.03 ,
498: \label{3t}
499: \eeq
500: where $E_{vis}$ is the visible energy, $p_{||i}$ and $ p_{Ti}$ are the
501: longitudinal and the transverse momentum of a final state particle.
502:
503: While the restrictions (\ref{3t}) are essentially irrelevant for the
504: parton-level studies to be discussed below,
505: they are rather tight for the hadron level.
506: This simplification helps to reject events with a large missing
507: momentum/energy leading to asymmetric tails of the mass distributions
508: for the final reconstruction of the top quarks.
509: After the requirement (\ref{3t}), the simple fit discussed above
510: can be used to extract the mass of the top quarks.
511: Such a simplification, however, is unnecessary for a more
512: sophisticated fit function in the realistic experimental
513: reconstruction procedure.
514:
515: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
516: \subsection{Semi-leptonic $t\bar{t}$ decay}
517: \label{rec2}
518: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
519:
520: In case of the process (\ref{2t}), it is necessary to reconstruct exactly
521: $4$ jets, in addition to a high $p_T$ lepton.
522: We use only events with $E_T>10$ GeV for the
523: reconstructed jets, and require the transverse momentum $p_T$
524: of the detected lepton to be above $10$ GeV.
525: The kinematics of the decay mode (\ref{2t}) is fully constrained,
526: like in case of the fully hadronic $t\bar{t}$ decays.
527: The missing energy and momentum have been assigned to a
528: neutrino escaping detection, therefore,
529: no any cuts similar to (\ref{3t}) were imposed.
530: The double $b$-tagging is used as before.
531:
532:
533: For the semi-leptonic decays, one $W$ candidate
534: can be reconstructed from the momenta of the lepton and
535: neutrino, while the second $W$ can be obtained
536: from the invariant-mass distributions of jets which do not
537: belong to the $b$-initialized jets.
538: However, reconstructing the top candidates,
539: only the $W$ candidates obtained from the lepton and neutrino were used,
540: requiring the invariant mass $M$ of the $W$ candidates to
541: be within the mass window $\mid M_W -M \mid < 5$ GeV.
542: We do not use the hadronically decaying $W$'s for the top-quark
543: reconstruction due to the following reason:
544: This case is completely
545: identical to the all-hadronic decays and, therefore,
546: it is less interesting when comparing the
547: semi-leptonic decays with the fully hadronic top-decay mode.
548:
549: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
550: \section{Parton-level study}
551: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
552:
553: In this section, we will consider the reconstruction of
554: top quarks from partons (photons) radiated by the quarks
555: after the hard subprocess.
556: The multiple-gluon radiation plays the key
557: role in building up the structure of the top-quark events, therefore,
558: there are uncertainties in how
559: the basic properties of the multi-partonic system are described.
560: As was noted before, there exist differences between Monte Carlo implementations
561: of this stage, moreover, even
562: within the scope of one particular MC model, there are
563: sizeable uncertainties in the values of tunable MC parameters
564: used to model this stage.
565:
566:
567: The reconstruction of top quarks from the partons proceeds through the
568: steps discussed in the previous sections.
569: As an illustration, Fig.~\ref{fig1} shows
570: the invariant mass of top candidates in the process (\ref{1t})
571: for the PYTHIA model with the default parameters. The solid thick line
572: shows the Breit-Wigner fit function together with the
573: background parameterisation. The fit function is not well suited for
574: the sharp peak near the nominal top mass value;
575: this drawback, however, gives a negligible effect for the results
576: discussed below\footnote{This has been verified by fitting the invariant
577: mass very close to the nominal top mass.}.
578:
579: The reconstructed top masses (determined
580: from the peak values of the Breit-Wigner fit)
581: and widths are given in
582: Fig.~\ref{fig2p} and \ref{fig2w}, respectively.
583: We use the Durham jet algorithm as the default
584: for PYTHIA with various LEP tunings
585: (L3, ALEPH and OPAL settings \cite{lep2}), for ARIADNE (DELPHI and ALEPH
586: tunings \cite{lep2}) and for HERWIG (with the OPAL tuning \cite{her_tun}).
587: To test the sensitivity
588: of the reconstruction procedure to a particular choice of the cluster algorithm,
589: the LUCLUS and JADE algorithms were used for the PYTHIA model
590: with the default set of parameters.
591:
592: Typical uncertainties on the top-mass reconstruction
593: are within $\pm 180$ MeV range, assuming a systematic off-set of $\sim 200$ MeV.
594: The main
595: uncertainty is due to the use of the ARIADNE and
596: HERWIG models\footnote{Note that the HERWIG top-mass
597: distribution was treated differently
598: than other models: since HERWIG does not contain the
599: Breit-Wigner distribution for the generated top mass, the
600: Breit-Wigner fit is not applicable. Therefore,
601: the peak position and the width were determined from
602: the mean and RMS values of the histogram defined in the mass range
603: of $170-180$ GeV.},
604: as well as due to the use of the JADE algorithm.
605:
606: It is important to note that
607: the obtained uncertainty includes not only the differences in the implementation
608: of the high-order QCD effects by various MC models, but also
609: uncertainties within a particular parton-shower approach.
610: For example, the QCD cut-off, $Q_0$, used to terminate the partonic cascade
611: is usually close to $1$ GeV.
612: A typical uncertainty on this value is on the level of
613: $\pm (15 - 20)\%$, depending on a specific tuning.
614: Another parameter, the QCD scale in the parton-shower evolution,
615: $\Lambda_{LLA}$, also affects the dynamic of the parton cascade
616: and, depending on an experimental input for MC tunings,
617: can vary by $\pm 20\%$.
618:
619: We have not attempted to estimate the
620: total systematical error by adding all contributions in quadrature,
621: since the
622: systematical uncertainties arising from
623: Monte Carlo models with various LEP tunings
624: are strongly correlated and cannot be combined.
625: The best example is ARIADNE, which has a similar shift
626: with respect to PYTHIA for the all studied tunings.
627:
628: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
629: \section{Reconstruction from the hadronic final state}
630: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
631:
632:
633: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
634: \subsection{The all-hadronic channel}
635: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
636:
637: The main limitations on an accurate extraction of the top mass are
638: expected to come from the non-perturbative phase.
639: As before, we will not freely modify tunable
640: MC parameters,
641: but rather will use known tunings from the LEP experiments.
642:
643: The method of the top reconstruction has been discussed in Sect.~\ref{rec1}.
644: Fig.~\ref{fig3} shows the invariant-mass
645: distribution for the fully hadronic top decays predicted by the PYTHIA model
646: (with the default parameters), together with the Breit-Wigner
647: fit and a polynomial function for the background.
648:
649: The reconstructed top masses and widths
650: are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig4p} and \ref{fig4w}, respectively.
651: As before, when other than the DURHAM algorithms were applied,
652: the PYTHIA parameters were set to the default values.
653: One sees an impressive stability of the results for PYTHIA with various
654: LEP tunings. HERWIG and ARIADNE yield a comparable
655: size of deviations from the top mass obtained from PYTHIA,
656: but in different directions from the PYTHIA prediction.
657: The largest systematic shifts arise from:
658:
659: \begin{itemize}
660:
661: \item
662: the choice of Monte Carlo models. The HERWIG model predicts systematically
663: larger top masses than PYTHIA does, while ARIADNE
664: has a shift to a smaller mass value.
665: Since ARIADNE does not show the same feature for the parton-level studies,
666: we conclude that the observed shift for the hadron level is due to
667: the inclusion of the LUND string fragmentation in
668: the colour-dipole model.
669: Note also that the ARIADNE mass spectrum is broader than
670: the mass distributions in other MC models (Fig.~\ref{fig4w}), and this
671: is already seen for the parton-level studies shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2w}.
672: The top width from the HERWIG model
673: is smaller than for PYTHIA, since HERWIG does not contain the Breit-Wigner
674: distribution for the top decays.
675:
676: \item
677: the way how the BE correlations are described by MC models.
678: The PYTHIA (L3+BE0) tuning corresponds to a model with
679: the BE effect simulated using the global energy compensation \cite{pyt}.
680: Note that a more advanced BE modeling implemented in PYTHIA,
681: the so-called "BE32" \cite{pyt}, does not show the same magnitude of
682: the deviation.
683: Yet, despite the fact that the BE modeling with the global energy
684: compensation is known to be problematic, it should be noted that
685: the PYTHIA (L3+BE0) has been tuned
686: by the L3 Collaboration \cite{jetd}
687: to reproduce the global-shape variables and single-particle
688: densities at $Z^0$ peak energy.
689: From the other hand,
690: the model with the BE32 type of modeling was neither
691: tuned to the global-event shapes,
692: nor to the BE correlation effect.
693:
694: As was mentioned before, the BE effect can produce a systematic shift
695: in the measurements of the $W$ mass at LEP2. For a liner collider,
696: it has been noted that the observation of the BE effect in
697: $e^+e^-\to W^+W^-$ is difficult, since
698: both $W$ bosons are well separated kinematically
699: for a higher centre-of-mass energy than at LEP2
700: \cite{chBE}. For the top decays, it was verified
701: that the systematic shift after the inclusion of the BE effect
702: comes from a smaller value of the reconstructed $W$ mass;
703: The shift after the inclusion of the BE32
704: effect amounts to $\sim 70$ MeV,
705: as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig5}.
706:
707: \item
708: a significant shift was found using the JADE algorithm.
709:
710: \end{itemize}
711:
712: At this moment, it is impossible to say whether the colour reconnection
713: effect can lead to an additional systematic uncertainty, since PYTHIA does not
714: include this effect for the top production, and HERWIG does not
715: show any seizable shift. It has to be noted that the direct
716: reconstruction of the top mass might be uncertain by $\sim 100$ MeV
717: due to the CR effect \cite{cr4}.
718:
719:
720: The determined systematical uncertainties for the all hadronic channel
721: are within $\pm 415$ MeV range, if the JADE-type of reconstruction is included.
722: Note again that
723: the JADE algorithm is not as good as other algorithms for the $W$
724: mass reconstruction \cite{algor}, therefore, as before, it is reasonable to quote
725: the systematic uncertainties without use of the JADE algorithm;
726: if the JADE is not included, the uncertainty range is reduced to $\pm 340$ MeV.
727:
728: The restriction $\mid M_W -M \mid < 5$ GeV used to
729: select the $W$ candidates
730: is rather tight in practice. Moreover, such a selection
731: is rather harmful because it affects
732: the tails of the Breit-Wigner distribution for the reconstructed $W$ bosons.
733: To avoid this bias, the $W$ candidates
734: were selected using the following alternative method:
735:
736: \begin{itemize}
737: \item
738: for a given jet algorithm, covariance matrixes
739: were constructed in the three variables: energy ($E$),
740: polar angle ($\theta$) and azimuthal angle ($\phi$) of the initial quark.
741: The covariance matrix elements were determined
742: as widths of the Gaussian distributions for
743: $X_{hadrons}/X_{partons}$ variable,
744: where $X=E, \theta, \phi$ defined for the jets of hadrons (partons).
745: The covariance matrix
746: in $\theta-\phi$ variables was stored in a 5x5 grid, while the covariance matrix
747: for the jet energies
748: was calculated in $5$ bins, from $10$ to $170$ GeV.
749:
750: \item
751: the remaining step was to translate the covariance matrix for jets
752: into an error on the dijet invariant mass,
753: after a proper numerical error propagation.
754: Then, for each dijet mass,
755: a $\chi^2$ value was determined from the deviations
756: from the known nominal value of $M_W$. The combination
757: which has $\chi^2<1$ was accepted for the top reconstruction.
758: \end{itemize}
759:
760:
761: Figure~\ref{fig6} shows the invariant-mass distribution
762: determined
763: from the PYTHIA model.
764: The filled histogram shows the $W$ candidates (passed
765: the $\chi^2<1$ restriction) used in the final reconstruction of top
766: quarks.
767: Fig.~\ref{fig7p} and \ref{fig7w} show the values of peaks and widths
768: for the reconstructed top quarks.
769: In general, the obtained
770: results are similar to those obtained using the restriction
771: $\mid M_W -M \mid < 5$ GeV which affects the Breit-Wigner tails for the $W$
772: decays. However, there exist some differences: the JADE-type of
773: reconstruction is not the dominant uncertainty anymore, and the
774: observed uncertainty, $\pm 425$ MeV, is due to
775: differences between different MC models.
776:
777: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
778: \subsection{Semi-leptonic top decays}
779: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
780:
781: In case of the semi-leptonic decays, the uncertainties due to
782: the use of different jet algorithms are expected to be smaller since,
783: in this study,
784: jets are not used in the reconstruction of the $W$ momenta.
785:
786:
787: Figures~\ref{fig8p} and \ref{fig8w} show the reconstructed masses and widths
788: for the same Monte Carlo
789: models as for those used in the study of the fully hadronic $t\bar{t}$ decays.
790: All MC uncertainties are within $\pm 260$ MeV range.
791: As before, the largest
792: uncertainty comes from the use of the JADE algorithm, applied to
793: reconstruct the $b$-initialized jets, and from the use of
794: the ARIADNE or HERWIG model.
795: If the JADE algorithm is not used, the uncertainty range is
796: only slightly smaller and amounts to $\pm 250$ MeV.
797: Note that for this decay channel
798: the shift from the nominal mass is negligible
799: after the inclusion of the BE32 effect.
800: Obviously, this is because the $W$ momenta were reconstructed
801: intentionally without the use of
802: hadronic jets.
803:
804: For the fully hadronic $t\bar{t}$ decay, the reconstructed masses
805: are shifted to a smaller than the nominal top mass.
806: These shifts are due to heavy tails
807: of the mass distributions from the left side of the Breit-Wigner
808: peak, caused by
809: contributions from unmeasured neutrinos in heavy particle decays
810: (mainly due to charmed hadrons) .
811: In contrast, for the semi-leptonic decays, the average reconstructed mass
812: is shifted to a larger than the nominal mass value.
813: This is again due to an impact of neutrinos from
814: heavy flavored hadrons: the momenta of
815: neutrinos from the $W$ leptonic decays are overestimated
816: when they are determined from the missing
817: event momenta.
818:
819:
820: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
821: \section{Summary and discussion}
822: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
823:
824: While the ultimate top-quark mass precision may eventually be
825: achieved by scanning the $t\bar{t}$ production threshold, it is essential
826: to understand the accuracy on the top-mass measurement using the direct
827: identification of top quarks from the hadronic final state.
828: This will require a relatively small experimental effort,
829: will not be hampered by the
830: lack of statistics, and will be useful for many
831: physics topics involving the measurements of top-quark properties.
832: As a disadvantage, the
833: uncertainties on the reconstructed top mass
834: can be determined for the pole mass definition, which is
835: known with less accuracy than the top quark $\overline{MS}$ mass.
836:
837: For $e^+e^-$ colliders, the top mass measurements will be limited by the
838: systematical uncertainties which are tightly linked to the Monte Carlo models
839: used to predict properties of the hadronic final
840: state in top decays.
841: In this paper we have estimated the uncertainties due to
842: the current understanding of
843: multi-hadronic final state
844: for the top-decay channels which will be dominant at
845: future $e^+e^-$ colliders.
846: Excluding the JADE-type of reconstruction,
847: the uncertainties on the top mass in the fully hadronic decays
848: are approximately within $\pm (340-425)$ MeV range,
849: while for the semi-leptonic decay channel
850: this value is smaller and amounts to $\pm 250$ MeV. The largest uncertainties
851: for both decay channels are due to differences
852: in the MC simulation of the underlying physics.
853: For the fully hadronic top decays,
854: the implementation of the
855: Bose-Einstein effect between identical final-state hadrons produces
856: an important systematic shift, ranged between $100$ MeV and $250$ MeV,
857: which needs to be studied further. The results also indicate a sensitivity
858: to the experimental methods used to extract the mass; attempts to take into
859: account the Breit-Wigner tails of the $W$ bosons originating
860: from decay $t\to W b$
861: increased the systematic uncertainty for the all hadronic top-decay channel
862: from 340 MeV to 425 MeV.
863:
864: While detailed studies remain to be carried out,
865: it is clear that the uncertainties discussed in this paper
866: might be reduced below the obtained values after better
867: understanding of the multi-hadronic final state,
868: improving the MC models, as well as after further optimization of the MC tunings
869: by using available $e^+e^-$ data.
870:
871: We should restress at this point that the quoted
872: errors do not include all known sources of the
873: uncertainties coming from the hadronic-final state.
874: First of all, some potentially important effects are
875: missed, since they are either absent in the present
876: versions of MC models, or LEP tunings do not contain
877: variations of the corresponding parameters responsible
878: for these phenomena. For example, the
879: colour-reconnection effect was only briefly discussed in
880: this paper due to the lack of MC modeling and tunings.
881: Secondly, it is important to note that the quoted
882: errors ($\pm 340 / 250$ MeV) do not represent {\em the
883: total} theoretical uncertainties on the top-mass measurement coming
884: from the hadronic final-state, since the uncertainties
885: from various sources studied in this paper have not
886: been added. Therefore, the discussed results are the
887: limits on the minimal possible uncertainties due to the
888: hadronic-final state phenomena. The obtained numbers
889: should be larger if there exist effects that give a larger
890: uncertainty than any of the effects discussed in this
891: paper. At this moment, however, it is unlikely that such effects
892: exist. Of course, the situation is different in case of the calculation
893: of the total theoretical error on
894: the top-mass measurement, for which any additional
895: uncertainty always increases the final error. At
896: present, to evaluate the total theoretical error on
897: the top-mass measurement even taking into account the
898: effects discussed in this paper is difficult without a
899: proper understanding of correlations between different
900: contributions. Adding the uncertainties in quadrature
901: (or linearly) usually leads to a rather pessimistic estimate;
902: this case requires certain assumptions
903: and a careful selection of systematic checks.
904: Finally, uncertainties are also expected from the
905: electroweak sector (QED initial-state photon
906: radiations, uncertainties on the W-mass determination etc.) which are
907: usually better understood, but still need to be
908: evaluated and properly combined with other uncertainties.
909:
910:
911: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
912: \section*{Acknowledgments}
913: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
914: This paper was completed shortly after the untimely
915: death of Prof.~Dr.~Bo~Andersson, who
916: played the tremendous role in the success of the LUND
917: Monte Carlo models.
918:
919: I thank V.~Morgunov, T.~Sj{\"o}strand and J.~Repond for helpful communication and
920: discussions.
921:
922:
923: \newpage
924: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
925:
926: \bibitem{tevat}
927: K.~Tollefson, E.W.~Varnes, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 49 (1999) 435.
928:
929: \bibitem{lhc}
930: M.~Beneke et al., {\it Top quark physics}, Proceedings of the
931: workshop "1999 CERN Workshop on SM physics at the LHC", {\tt hep-ph/0003033}
932:
933: \bibitem{jpsi}
934: A.~Kharchilave, \PL B476 (2000) 73.
935:
936: \bibitem{hoang1}
937: A.H.~Hoang et al., EPJdirect Vol. 2, C3 (2000) 1.
938:
939: \bibitem{hoang2}
940: M.~Beneke, \PL B434 (1998) 115. \\
941: A.H.~Hoang et al., \PR D59 (1999) 114014.
942:
943: \bibitem{her}
944: HERWIG 5.1, G.~Marchesini et al., \CPC 67 (1992) 465.
945:
946: \bibitem{pyt}
947: PYTHIA 5.7 and JETSET 7.4,
948: T.~Sj{\"o}strand, \CPC 82 (1994) 74;
949: T.~Sj{\"o}strand, L.~L\"{o}nnblad, S.~Mrenna,
950: LU TP 01-21, {\tt hep-ph/0108264}.
951:
952: \bibitem{ard}
953: ARIADNE 4.10, L.~L\"{o}nnblad, \CPC 71 (1992) 15.
954:
955: \bibitem{lep2}
956: I.G.~Knowles and T.~Sj\"{o}strand (conveners), ``QCD Event Generators'',
957: Physics at LEP2, CERN-96-01, Vol. 2, p.103 (1996).
958:
959: \bibitem{durham}
960: S.~Catani et al., \PL B269 (1991) 432.
961:
962: \bibitem{jade}
963: JADE \Coll, W.~Bartel et al., \ZP C33 (1986) 23.
964:
965: \bibitem{luclus}
966: T.~Sj{\"o}strand, \CPC 28 (1983) 227.
967:
968: \bibitem{algor}
969: S.~Moretti, L.~L\"{o}nnblad, T.~Sj{\"o}strand, LU-TP98-7, {\tt hep-ph/9804296}
970:
971: \bibitem{cluster}
972: G.~Marchesini and B.R.~Webber, \NP B310 (1988) 461.
973:
974: \bibitem{cr1} % for W+W- events
975: T.~Sj{\"o}strand and V.A.~Khoze, \ZP C62 (1994) 281.
976:
977: \bibitem{cr2} % soft pions W+W- events
978: V.A.~Khoze and T.~Sj{\"o}strand, \EPJ C6 (1999) 271.
979:
980: \bibitem{cr3} % for tops at NLC
981: A.~Ballestrero et al., \ZP C72 (1996) 71.
982:
983: \bibitem{cr4} % for tops and WW at NLC
984: V.A.~Khoze and T.~Sj{\"o}strand,
985: "Physics and Experimentation at a Linear Electron-Positron Collider",
986: Vol. 1, ed. T.~Behnke et al., (2001) p. 257; \\
987: V.A.~Khoze and T.~Sj{\"o}strand, Eur. Phys. J. direct C1 (2000) 1.
988:
989: \bibitem{be1} % for BE effect
990: L.~L\"{o}nnblad and T.~Sj{\"o}strand, \PL B351 (1995) 293.
991:
992: \bibitem{be2} % for BE effect
993: S.V.~Chekanov, E.A.~De Wolf, W.~Kittel,
994: Eur. J. Phys. C6 (1999) 403.
995:
996: \bibitem{cr_coll}
997: ALEPH \Coll , R.~Barate at al., \PL B453 (1999) 121; \\
998: ALEPH \Coll , R.~Barate at al., \PL B478 (2000) 50; \\
999: L3 \Coll , M.~Acciarri et al., \PL B493 (2000) 233; \\
1000: OPAL \Coll , G.~Abbiendi et al.,\PL B453 (1999) 153; \\
1001: OPAL \Coll , G.~Abbiendi et al., \EPJ C8 (1999) 559; \\
1002: DELPHI \Coll , M.~Battaglia et al., CERN-OPEN-2000-022; \\
1003: DELPHI \Coll , P.~Abreu et al., \PL B511(2001) 159.
1004:
1005: \bibitem{cr_rev}
1006: W.~Kittel, {\it Presented at 34th Rencontres de Moriond:
1007: QCD and Hadronic interactions}, (Les Arcs, France, 1999)
1008: hep-ph/9905394; \\
1009: A.De~Angelis and L.~Vitale,
1010: 9th International Workshop on Multiparticle Production:
1011: New Frontiers in Soft Physics and Correlations on the
1012: Threshold of the New Millennium (Torino, Italy, 2000),
1013: Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 92 (2001) 259;
1014: J. van~ Dalen, {\it Presented at XXXI International Symposium
1015: on Multiparticle Dynamics}, (Datong, Shanxi Province, China, 2001).
1016:
1017:
1018: \bibitem{bfrag}
1019: D0 \Coll , B.~Abbott et al., \PR D58 (1998) 052001; \\
1020: CDF \Coll, T.~Affolder et al., \PR D63 (2001) 010.
1021:
1022: \bibitem{btev}
1023: J.~Baines et al., {\em Bottom Production} (2001) {\tt hep-ph/0003142}
1024:
1025: \bibitem{root}
1026: ROOT Users guide 3.1c, R.~Brun et al., {\tt http://root.cern.ch}
1027:
1028:
1029: \bibitem{her_tun}
1030: The OPAL tuning is available
1031: via the official HERWIG web page
1032: {\tt http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/theory/seymour/herwig/}
1033:
1034: \bibitem{jetd}
1035: J.~Casaus, L3 Note 1946 (1996);
1036: Sunanda Banerjee and Swagato Banerjee, L3 Note 1978 (1996),
1037: see also \cite{lep2}.
1038:
1039:
1040: \bibitem{chBE}
1041: S.V.~Chekanov, A.De~Roeck, E.A.De~ Wolf,
1042: Proceedings of the Workshop "Physics Studies for a Future Linear Collider",
1043: QCD Working Group (DESY,2000), LC-TH-2000-009, DESY 01-123F, Vol. 1, Ed.
1044: T.~Behnke et al.,
1045: ISSN0418-9833 (2001) p. 539.
1046:
1047:
1048: \end{thebibliography}{}
1049:
1050:
1051:
1052: \newpage %--------------- new page
1053:
1054: \begin{figure}
1055: \begin{center}
1056:
1057: \vspace{-2.0cm}
1058: \mbox{\epsfig{file=fig1x.eps, height=12.0cm}}
1059: \caption{
1060: The invariant-mass distribution used to
1061: reconstruct the top candidates in the fully hadronic $t\bar{t}$ decays.
1062: The parton-level of the PYTHIA model with the default parameters
1063: was used.
1064: }
1065: \label{fig1}
1066: \end{center}
1067: \end{figure}
1068:
1069: \newpage %--------------- new page
1070: \begin{figure}
1071: \begin{center}
1072: \vspace{-1.5cm}
1073: \mbox{\epsfig{file=fig2x.eps, height=8.0cm}}
1074: \caption{
1075: The masses of top candidates in the fully
1076: hadronic $t\bar{t}$ decays.
1077: The reconstruction is performed using the parton-level MC predictions.
1078: The Durham jet algorithm was applied everywhere,
1079: except for PYTHIA (jade) and PYTHIA (luclus). For these two cases,
1080: as well as for the symbol labeled as "PYTHIA",
1081: the PYTHIA default parameters were used. The solid line indicates
1082: the nominal top mass, while the dashed lines indicate the size of
1083: uncertainties.
1084: }
1085: \label{fig2p}
1086: \end{center}
1087: \end{figure}
1088:
1089:
1090: \begin{figure}
1091: \begin{center}
1092: \vspace{-1.5cm}
1093: \mbox{\epsfig{file=fig3x.eps, height=8.0cm}}
1094: \caption{
1095: The widths of the Breit-Wigner fits used to
1096: reconstruct the top candidates in the fully hadronic decays.
1097: All other details as for Fig.~\ref{fig2p}.
1098: }
1099: \label{fig2w}
1100: \end{center}
1101: \end{figure}
1102:
1103: \newpage % -------------------------- new page
1104: \begin{figure}
1105: \begin{center}
1106:
1107: \vspace{-1.0cm}
1108: \mbox{\epsfig{file=fig4x.eps, height=12.0cm}}
1109: \caption{
1110: The invariant-mass distribution used in the reconstruction
1111: of top candidates
1112: in the fully hadronic $t\bar{t}$ decays. The final-state particles
1113: generated with PYTHIA were used for the fits.
1114: }
1115: \label{fig3}
1116: \end{center}
1117: \end{figure}
1118:
1119: \newpage % -------------------------- new page
1120: \begin{figure}
1121: \begin{center}
1122: \vspace{-1.5cm}
1123: \mbox{\epsfig{file=fig5x.eps, height=8cm}}
1124: \caption{
1125: The top masses in the fully
1126: $t\bar{t}$ hadronic decays reconstructed
1127: using the hadronic final state. The Durham jet algorithm is used everywhere,
1128: except for PYTHIA (jade) and PYTHIA (luclus). For these two cases,
1129: as well as for the symbol labeled as "PYTHIA",
1130: the default parameters were used.
1131: The solid line indicates
1132: the nominal mass value, while the dashed lines show the range of
1133: MC uncertainties.
1134: }
1135: \label{fig4p}
1136: \end{center}
1137: \end{figure}
1138:
1139:
1140: \begin{figure}
1141: \begin{center}
1142:
1143: \vspace{-1.5cm}
1144: \mbox{\epsfig{file=fig6x.eps, height=8cm}}
1145: \caption{
1146: The
1147: widths of the Breit-Wigner fit function obtained during the reconstruction
1148: of the top masses
1149: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig4p}. All other details as for Fig.~\ref{fig4p}.
1150: }
1151: \label{fig4w}
1152: \end{center}
1153: \end{figure}
1154:
1155:
1156: \newpage % -------------------------- new page
1157: \begin{figure}
1158: \begin{center}
1159: \mbox{\epsfig{file=fig7x.eps, height=8.0cm}}
1160: \caption{
1161: The dijet invariant masses used to
1162: reconstruct the top masses in the fully hadronic $t\bar{t}$ decays.
1163: The PYTHIA model with and without the BE effect was used for the
1164: Breit-Wigner fits.
1165: }
1166: \label{fig5}
1167: \end{center}
1168: \end{figure}
1169:
1170:
1171:
1172: \begin{figure}
1173: \begin{center}
1174:
1175: \vspace{-1.0cm}
1176: \mbox{\epsfig{file=fig8x.eps, height=8.0cm}}
1177: \caption{
1178: The dijet invariant-mass distribution used in the
1179: reconstruction
1180: of the fully hadronic $t\bar{t}$ decays.
1181: The hatched aria shows the $W$ invariant masses used
1182: in the reconstruction of top
1183: quarks (the so-called $\chi^2$-method).
1184: }
1185: \label{fig6}
1186: \end{center}
1187: \end{figure}
1188:
1189:
1190: \newpage
1191: \begin{figure}
1192: \begin{center}
1193: \vspace{-1.5cm}
1194: \mbox{\epsfig{file=fig9x.eps, height=8.0cm}}
1195: \caption{
1196: The masses of top-quark candidates reconstructed
1197: in the fully hadronic $t\bar{t}$ decay.
1198: The $W$ candidates were reconstructed from
1199: the dijet masses passed the $\chi^2$ restriction shown in Fig.~\ref{fig6}.
1200: }
1201: \label{fig7p}
1202: \end{center}
1203: \end{figure}
1204:
1205:
1206: \begin{figure}
1207: \begin{center}
1208:
1209: \vspace{-1.5cm}
1210: \mbox{\epsfig{file=fig10x.eps, height=8.0cm}}
1211: \caption{
1212: The
1213: widths of the Breit-Wigner fit function used in the
1214: reconstruction of the top masses shown in Fig.~\ref{fig7p}.
1215: }
1216: \label{fig7w}
1217: \end{center}
1218: \end{figure}
1219:
1220:
1221: \newpage
1222: \begin{figure}
1223: \begin{center}
1224: \vspace{-1.5cm}
1225: \mbox{\epsfig{file=fig11x.eps, height=8.0cm}}
1226: \caption{
1227: The top masses reconstructed
1228: in the semi-leptonic $t\bar{t}$ decays.
1229: The $W$ candidates were determined from a high $p_T$ lepton
1230: and neutrino (calculated from the missing event momentum).
1231: }
1232: \label{fig8p}
1233: \end{center}
1234: \end{figure}
1235:
1236:
1237: \newpage % ---------------------------- New page
1238: \begin{figure}
1239: \begin{center}
1240:
1241: \vspace{-1.5cm}
1242: \mbox{\epsfig{file=fig12x.eps, height=8.0cm}}
1243: \caption{
1244: The
1245: widths of the Breit-Wigner fit function used in the
1246: reconstruction of the top masses shown in Fig.~\ref{fig8p}.
1247: }
1248: \label{fig8w}
1249: \end{center}
1250: \end{figure}
1251:
1252: \end{document}
1253:
1254: