1: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
2: \documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
3:
4: % Some other (several out of many) possibilities
5: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}
6: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}
7: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
8:
9: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
10: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
11: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
12:
13: %\nofiles
14:
15: \def\slsh{\rlap{$\;\!\!\not$}}
16: \newcommand\pg {p_g}
17: \newcommand\pb {p_b}
18: \newcommand\pt {p_t}
19: \newcommand\pw {p_W}
20: \newcommand\tpW {\tilde p_W}
21: \newcommand\tpb {\tilde p_b}
22: \newcommand\vpb {\vec{p}_b}
23: \newcommand\vpw {\vec{p}_W}
24: \newcommand\nn {\nonumber}
25: \newcommand\plusdist {`+'-distribution}
26: \newcommand\xplusdist {`$x_+$'-distribution}
27: \newcommand\M[2] {\ensuremath{|{\cal{M}}^{#1}_{#2}|^2}}
28: \newcommand\as {\ensuremath{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}}
29: \newcommand\gs {\ensuremath{g_{\mathrm{s}}}}
30: \newcommand\muR[1] {\ensuremath{\mu^{#1}}}
31: \renewcommand\d {{\mathrm d}}
32: \renewcommand\i {{\mathrm i}}
33: \renewcommand\O {{\mathrm O}}
34: \newcommand\Oe[1] {\ensuremath{\mathrm O(\ep^{#1})}}
35: \newcommand{\bV} {{\bf V}}
36: \newcommand{\cV} {{\cal V}}
37: \newcommand{\cK} {{\cal K}}
38: \newcommand{\cT} {{\cal T}}
39: \def\MW{M_W}
40: \def\ep{\epsilon}
41: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
42: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
43: \def\beqn{\begin{eqnarray}}
44: \def\eeqn{\end{eqnarray}}
45: \def\ldot{\!\cdot\!}
46: \def\cM{{\cal M}}
47:
48: \def\ket#1{|{#1}\rangle}
49: \def\bra#1{\langle{#1}|}
50: \def\mket#1{|{#1}\rangle_m}
51: \def\mbra#1{{}_m\langle{#1}|}
52: \def\oket#1{|{#1}\rangle_{m+1}}
53: \def\obra#1{_{m+1}\langle{#1}|}
54: \def\aket#1{|{#1}>_{m+1+a}}
55: \def\abra#1{{}_{m+1+a}\langle_{#1}|}
56: \def\amket#1{|{#1}\rangle_{m+a}}
57: \def\ambra#1{{}_{m+a}\!\!<{#1}|}
58:
59: \def\average#1{#1}
60:
61: \def\bom#1{{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}}
62: \def\to{\rightarrow}
63: \def\kperp{k_{\perp}}
64: \def\Hba{\HFS{ba}}
65: \def\cF{{\cal F}}
66: \newcommand{\la}{\langle}
67: \newcommand{\ra}{\rangle}
68: \def\vspaceinarray{\nonumber ~&~&~\\}
69: \def\hg{h_g^\RS}
70: \def\P{\hat{P}^\RS}
71: \def\nn{\nonumber}
72: \def\arrowlimit#1{\mathrel{\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits_{#1}}}
73: \def\s#1#2{s_{#1#2}}
74: \def\ID{1 \kern -.45 em 1}
75: \def\nquad{\!\!\!\!\!\!\!}
76:
77: \newcommand{\tpij}{\widetilde p_{ij}}
78: \newcommand{\tpk}{\widetilde p_k}
79: \newcommand{\zi}{\tilde z_i}
80: \newcommand{\zj}{\tilde z_j}
81: \newcommand{\sijk}{s_{ij,k}}
82: \newcommand{\yijk}{y_{ij,k}}
83: \newcommand{\vijk}{v_{ij,k}}
84: \newcommand{\viji}{v_{ij,i}}
85: \newcommand{\tvijk}{\tilde v_{ij,k}}
86: \newcommand{\ri}{{\mathrm{i}}}
87: \newcommand{\rd}{{\mathrm{d}}}
88: \newcommand{\rA}{{\mathrm{A}}}
89: \newcommand{\rR}{{\mathrm{R}}}
90: \newcommand{\rV}{{\mathrm{V}}}
91: \newcommand{\eik}{{\mathrm{eik}}}
92: \newcommand{\fact}{{\mathrm{C}}}%fact}}}
93: \newcommand{\coll}{{\mathrm{coll}}}
94: \newcommand{\reg}{{\mathrm{reg}}}
95: \newcommand{\sym}{{\mathrm{sym}}}
96: \newcommand{\bT}{{\bf T}}
97: \newcommand{\cD}{{\cal D}}
98: \newcommand{\CF}{C_{\mathrm{F}}}
99: \newcommand{\CA}{C_{\mathrm{A}}}
100: \newcommand{\TR}{T_{\mathrm{R}}}
101: \newcommand{\Nc}{N_{\mathrm{c}}}
102: \def\Li{\mathop{\mathrm{Li}}\nolimits}
103: \def\Real{\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}\nolimits}
104: \def\mathswitchr#1{\relax\ifmmode{\mathrm{#1}}\else$\mathrm{#1}$\fi}
105: \newcommand{\rB}{{\mathswitchr{B}}}
106: \newcommand{\aLO}{{\mathswitchr{LO}}}
107: \newcommand{\aNLO}{{\mathswitchr{NLO}}}
108:
109: % modifications for drafts
110: \newcommand{\mpar}[1]{{\marginpar{\hbadness10000%
111: \sloppy\hfuzz10pt\boldmath\bf#1}}%
112: \typeout{marginpar: #1}\ignorespaces}
113: \marginparwidth 1.2cm
114: \marginparsep 0.2cm
115:
116: \def\draftdate{\relax}
117: \def\mda{\relax}
118: \def\mua{\relax}
119: \def\mla{\relax}
120: \def\draft{
121: \def\thtystars{******************************}
122: \def\sixtystars{\thtystars\thtystars}
123: \typeout{}
124: \typeout{\sixtystars**}
125: \typeout{* Draft mode!
126: For final version remove \protect\draft\space in source file *}
127: \typeout{\sixtystars**}
128: \typeout{}
129: \def\draftdate{August 13, 2004}
130: \def\mua{\marginpar[\boldmath\hfil$\uparrow$]%
131: {\boldmath$\uparrow$\hfil}%
132: \typeout{marginpar: $\uparrow$}\ignorespaces}
133: \def\mda{\marginpar[\boldmath\hfil$\downarrow$]%
134: {\boldmath$\downarrow$\hfil}%
135: \typeout{marginpar: $\downarrow$}\ignorespaces}
136: \def\mla{\marginpar[\boldmath\hfil$\rightarrow$]%
137: {\boldmath$\leftarrow $\hfil}%
138: \typeout{marginpar: $\leftrightarrow$}\ignorespaces}
139: \overfullrule 5pt
140: \oddsidemargin -15mm
141: \marginparwidth 29mm
142: }
143:
144: \def\stars{\strut\leaders\hbox{*}\hfill\strut}
145: \def\starline{\hfil\strut\hfil\hbox to \textwidth {\stars}\hfil}
146: \def\mark{\mpar{*!}}
147:
148: %\draft
149:
150: \def\bentarrow{\:\raisebox{1.3ex}{\rlap{$\vert$}}\!\rightarrow}
151: \def\dk#1#2#3{
152: \begin{array}{r c l}
153: #1 & \rightarrow & #2 \\
154: & & \bentarrow #3
155: \end{array}
156: }
157:
158:
159: \def\bothdk#1#2#3#4#5{
160: \begin{array}{r c l}
161: #1 & \rightarrow & #2#3 \\
162: & & \:\raisebox{1.3ex}{\rlap{$\vert$}}\raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\vert$}%
163: \phantom{#2}\!\bentarrow #4 \\
164: & & \bentarrow #5
165: \end{array}
166: }
167: \begin{document}
168: \preprint{ANL-HEP-PR-04-70}
169: \preprint{FERMILAB-Pub-04/134-T}
170: \preprint{DSF-22/2004}
171: \preprint{hep-ph/0408158}
172: \title{Single top production and decay at next-to-leading order}
173: \author{John Campbell}
174: \email{johnmc@hep.anl.gov}
175: \affiliation{
176: High Energy Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory,\\
177: Argonne, IL 60439, USA }
178: \altaffiliation[Address after October 1, 2004:]{ Department of Physics,
179: TH Division, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland}
180: \author{R. K. Ellis}%
181: \email{ellis@fnal.gov}
182: \affiliation{
183: Theoretical Physics Department, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,\\
184: P.~O.~Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510, USA}
185:
186: \author{Francesco Tramontano}
187: \email{Francesco.Tramontano@na.infn.it}
188: \affiliation{Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche, Universit\`a di Napoli,\\
189: Complesso di Monte S. Angelo, Napoli, Italy}
190:
191: \date{\today}% It is always \today, today,
192: % but any date may be explicitly specified
193:
194: \begin{abstract}
195: We present the results of a next-to-leading order analysis of single
196: top production including the decay of the top quark. Radiative
197: effects are included both in the production and decay stages, using a
198: general subtraction method. This calculation gives a good treatment of
199: the jet activity associated with single top production. We perform an
200: analysis of the single top search at the Tevatron, including a
201: consideration of the main backgrounds, many of which are also
202: calculated at next-to-leading order.
203: \end{abstract}
204:
205: \pacs{13.85.-t,14.65. Ha}% PACS, the Physics and Astronomy
206: % Classification Scheme.
207: %\keywords{Suggested keywords}%Use showkeys class option if keyword
208: %display desired
209: \maketitle
210:
211: \section{Introduction}
212:
213: Following the discovery of the top quark at the Tevatron in
214: Run I~\cite{Abe:1994st,Abe:1995hr,Abachi:1995iq},
215: one of the aims of the current round of data-taking is to study the
216: top quark in more detail. In addition to the accumulation of further
217: statistics in the $t \bar{t}$ pair-production channel, both
218: collaborations are performing a search for single top
219: production~\cite{Juste:2004an,Abbott:2000pa,Abazov:2001ns,Acosta:2004er,Acosta:2001un}. Since single top production proceeds by
220: the exchange (or production) of a $W$ boson,
221: it offers another window into the weak interactions of the top quark and
222: potentially can lead to a direct measurement of $V_{tb}$.
223: Relative to the $t \bar{t}$ pair-production channel, single top production
224: is suppressed by the weak coupling but favored by phase space.
225:
226: We shall report here on the method of inclusion of single top processes
227: into the general next-to-leading order Monte Carlo program
228: MCFM~\cite{Campbell:1999ah,Campbell:2000bg,Campbell:2002tg}
229: and give phenomenological results relevant to the search strategy in Run II.
230: At the Born level the single top processes which we include are the
231: $s$-channel process~\cite{Cortese:fw,Stelzer:1995mi,Heinson:1996zm},
232: \beq
233: u + {\bar d} \to W^* \to t + {\bar b},
234: \label{eq:schannel}
235: \eeq
236: the $t$-channel
237: process~\cite{Willenbrock:cr,Yuan:1989tc,Ellis:1992yw,Carlson:1993dt,Heinson:1996zm},
238: \beq
239: b + u \to t + d,
240: \label{eq:tchannel}
241: \eeq
242: and the $tW$ mode~\cite{Tait:1999cf,Belyaev:2000me},
243: \beq \label{eq:tWchannel}
244: b + g \to t + W^-.
245: \eeq
246: At the Tevatron, the $tW$ mode, Eq.~(\ref{eq:tWchannel}), evaluated
247: in the Born approximation represents less than one percent of the total single
248: top cross section; in this paper we will not consider
249: it further. The processes shown in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:schannel}-\ref{eq:tWchannel})
250: are schematic. The actual implementation in the program includes
251: a sum over all contributing partons in the initial state. In addition, we also
252: include the leptonic decay of the top quark,
253: \beq
254: t \to \nu + e^+ + b,
255: \eeq
256: which allows a better comparison with experimental studies.
257:
258: Although some information can be extracted from Born-level calculations,
259: the first serious approximation in QCD is obtained by including $O(\alpha_S)$
260: radiative corrections. We shall refer to this as next-to-leading order, (NLO).
261: It is only in NLO that a calculation gives any information about the choice
262: of factorization and renormalization scale.
263: Moreover, if the calculation includes jets in the final state, it is only in
264: NLO that one obtains first information about the structure of the jets.
265: The NLO corrections to the inclusive $s$-channel mode have been presented
266: in ref.~\cite{Smith:1996ij} and the corrections to the inclusive
267: $t$-channel process
268: have been considered in~ref.~\cite{Bordes:1994ki,Stelzer:1997ns}.
269: The NLO corrections to the differential distributions for the production
270: of single top, (without the decay of the top quark),
271: which are needed for comparison with experimental results,
272: have first been considered in ref.~\cite{Harris:2002md} for
273: the processes in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:schannel}) and~(\ref{eq:tchannel}).
274: For a recent update of this work see ref.~\cite{Sullivan:2004ie}.
275:
276: In this paper we extend this program by
277: adding the leptonic decay of the top quark with full spin correlations,
278: as noted above, and also by
279: including the effects of gluon radiation in the decay.
280: The approximations employed in incorporating the QCD corrections are
281: described in Section~\ref{qcdcorrections}.
282:
283: Section~\ref{topdecay} outlines the calculation of the $O(\as)$ corrections
284: to the decay of a free top quark which is helpful to establish notation.
285: The subtraction method which we use to
286: include the radiative corrections to the decay of a top quark
287: in the single top production processes is described in
288: Section~\ref{implementation}.
289:
290: The search for single top is expected to be more challenging than
291: top-antitop associated production, both because of the smaller cross
292: section and the presence of larger backgrounds. We therefore give a
293: full account of the signal and background processes in Section~\ref{pheno}.
294: Both the signal and the dominant background processes are evaluated at
295: next-to-leading order.
296:
297: \section{QCD corrections}
298: \label{qcdcorrections}
299: In order to describe the inclusion of radiative corrections we shall
300: discuss the $s$-channel process. The diagrams for the $t$-channel
301: process can easily be constructed by crossing. They are obtained by
302: reading the diagrams shown in
303: Figs.~\ref{fig:initialrad}-\ref{fig:finalv} from bottom to top,
304: instead of from left to right. Some of the statements made below are
305: specific to the $s$-channel process, but the extensions to the $t$-channel
306: process are obvious.
307:
308: We shall work in the on-shell approximation for the top quark.
309: Thus every diagram considered has one top quark exactly on its
310: mass shell. Diagrams without an on-shell top quark
311: are suppressed by $\Gamma_t/m_t$
312: where $\Gamma_t$ and $m_t$ are the width and mass of the top quark.
313: In this approximation the real radiative corrections fall
314: into three types: radiation associated with the initial
315: state~(Fig.~\ref{fig:initialrad}), radiation in the final state
316: associated with the production of the top
317: quark~(Fig.~\ref{fig:prodrad}), and radiation in the final state
318: associated with the decay of the top
319: quark~(Fig.~\ref{fig:decayrad}). The double bars in these figures
320: indicate which top quark is on its mass shell. By producing the top
321: quark strictly on its mass shell we are assured that
322: the diagrams in Figs.~\ref{fig:prodrad} and~\ref{fig:decayrad}
323: are separately gauge invariant.
324:
325: \begin{figure}
326: \begin{center}
327: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=\columnwidth]{initial.eps}
328: \caption{Initial-state radiation in the production stage.
329: \label{fig:initialrad}}
330: \end{center}
331: \end{figure}
332: %
333: \begin{figure}
334: \begin{center}
335: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=\columnwidth]{final.eps}
336: \caption{Final-state radiation in the production stage.
337: \label{fig:prodrad}}
338: \end{center}
339: \end{figure}
340: %
341: \begin{figure}
342: \begin{center}
343: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=\columnwidth]{decay.eps}
344: \caption{Final-state radiation in the decay stage.
345: \label{fig:decayrad}}
346: \end{center}
347: \end{figure}
348:
349: In addition to these real radiation diagrams we also have virtual
350: radiation diagrams. In our approximation these again fall into the
351: same three categories; virtual radiation in the initial state
352: Fig.~{\ref{initv}}, final-state virtual radiation in the production
353: stage Fig.~{\ref{fig:interv}}, and final-state virtual radiation in
354: the decay stage, Fig.~{\ref{fig:finalv}}. Self energy contributions on
355: massless external lines have not been displayed. They give rise to
356: scaleless integrals, which are set equal to zero in the dimensional
357: regularization scheme.
358:
359: \begin{figure}
360: \begin{center}
361: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.4]{initv.eps}
362: \caption{Virtual radiation in the initial state.
363: \label{initv}}
364: \end{center}
365: \end{figure}
366: \begin{figure}
367: \begin{center}
368: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=\columnwidth]{interv.eps}
369: \caption{Final-state virtual radiation in the production stage.
370: \label{fig:interv}}
371: \end{center}
372:
373: \end{figure}
374: \begin{figure}
375: \begin{center}
376: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=\columnwidth]{finalv.eps}
377: \caption{Final-state virtual radiation in the decay stage.
378: \label{fig:finalv}}
379: \end{center}
380:
381: \end{figure}
382:
383: We have neglected the interference between real radiation in
384: production and decay diagrams. An example is shown in
385: Fig.~\ref{fig:REAL}. We also neglect the virtual radiation diagrams
386: that link the production and decay stages, Fig.~\ref{fig:VIRT}.
387: %
388: \begin{figure}
389: \begin{center}
390: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{REAL.eps}
391: \caption{Interference between radiation in production and decay, real terms.
392: \label{fig:REAL}}
393: \end{center}
394: \end{figure}
395: %
396: \begin{figure}
397: \begin{center}
398: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{VIRT.eps}
399: \caption{Interference between radiation in production and decay, virtual terms
400: \label{fig:VIRT}}
401: \end{center}
402: \end{figure}
403: %
404: The physical reason for the neglect of these diagrams has been provided
405: in Refs.~\cite{Fadin:1993kt,Fadin:1993dz,Melnikov:np}. The
406: characteristic time scale for the production of the $t{\bar b}$ pair is
407: of order $1/m_t$ while the time for the decay is $1/\Gamma_t$.
408: Therefore in general, radiation in the production and decay stages are
409: separated by a large time and the interference effects average to zero.
410: The potentially dangerous region for this argument is the one in which
411: the emitted gluon is soft since this effect is not confined to a time
412: of order $1/m_t$. The phase space for soft radiation is limited
413: by the region in which the propagators remain resonant and the gluon
414: energy is less than of order $\Gamma_t$. However because of the
415: cancellation of real and virtual radiation the region of soft radiation
416: is not especially privileged. Thus for infrared safe variables these
417: interference effects are expected to be of order $\as \Gamma_t/m_t$.
418:
419: Confirmation of this suppression for the $s$-channel process
420: is provided by the work of Pittau~\cite{Pittau:1996rp}, who included
421: interference between the decay and production stages. The final results
422: are consistent with an effect of order $\Gamma/m_t$. A similar study
423: has been performed for $e^+e^- \to t {\bar t}$ including the
424: subsequent decay of the top quarks~\cite{Macesanu:2001bj}. Here
425: the effect of nonfactorizable corrections in the invariant mass
426: distribution of the top was found to be very small.
427:
428: The implementation of the cancellation of soft and collinear radiation
429: contributions which are separately divergent is performed using the
430: subtraction method~\cite{Ellis:1980wv}. In our program MCFM, we have
431: consistently used the dipole subtraction method for massless particles
432: as developed by Catani and
433: Seymour~\cite{Catani:1996jh,Catani:1997vz}. For the case of single
434: top production we have a massive quark in the final state, so we have
435: implemented a generalization of this scheme as suggested
436: in~\cite{Catani:2002hc}. A useful further generalization has been
437: suggested by Nagy and Tr\'ocs\'anyi~\cite{Nagy:1998bb,Nagy:2003tz},
438: who introduced a tunable parameter $\alpha$ which controls the size of
439: the subtraction region. We have extended the massive results of
440: ref.~\cite{Catani:2002hc} to include this parameter. Further details
441: may be found in Appendix~\ref{app:alphadep}.
442:
443: In order to deal with radiation in the
444: decay stage of the process we have developed a specialized
445: subtraction procedure, which we discuss in Section~\ref{implementation}.
446: We expect that this method may be useful in other contexts. In particular,
447: it could be applied to the decay of the top quarks in
448: the $t \bar{t}$ production process.
449:
450:
451: \section{Radiative corrections to top decay}
452: \label{topdecay}
453: One of the new results in this paper is the inclusion of the QCD corrections
454: to the decay of a top quark in a Monte Carlo program. Since the
455: phase space for the decay of an on-shell top quark factorizes from the
456: production phase space, most of the features of the full calculation
457: are present in the decay of an isolated top quark.
458: For simplicity, and in order
459: to introduce the notation, we first reproduce the well-known result for
460: radiation from a free top quark~\cite{Jezabek:1988iv}.
461:
462: The lowest order process is $t(\pt) \rightarrow W(\pw)+b(\pb)$,
463: where the momenta carried by the fields are shown in brackets.
464: The matrix element
465: summed and averaged over initial spin and color is,
466: \beq
467: \overline{\sum} |{\cM}_{0}|^2 =
468: 2 \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}} m_t^4 (1-r^2) (1+2r^2) \; .
469: \eeq
470: where we have defined $r^2=(\pt-\pb)^2/m_t^2$.
471: For the case of an on-shell $W$ boson, $r^2=\MW^2/m_t^2$.
472: Here and throughout this paper, the mass of the $b$-quark is set equal to zero.
473: The corresponding Born-approximation width is given by,
474: \beq
475: \Gamma_{0} = \frac{G_F m_t^3}{8 \pi \sqrt{2} } (1-r^2)^2(1+2 r^2)
476: \label{eq:widthborn}
477: \eeq
478:
479: \subsection{Virtual corrections}
480: The form-factor for the process $t \to W + b$ including virtual gluon
481: corrections is defined by,
482: \beq
483: \Gamma^\mu(\pb,\pt)=\bar{u}(\pb) F^\mu(\pb,\pt) u(\pt)
484: \eeq
485: with a massless $b$ quark and a massive $t$ quark and momentum transfer
486: $\pw=\pt-\pb$. The contributing diagrams are
487: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:freev}.
488: \begin{figure}
489: \begin{center}
490: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=\columnwidth]{freev.eps}
491: \caption{Virtual radiation in free top decay}
492: \label{fig:freev}
493: \end{center}
494: \end{figure}
495: %
496: The result for the form factor evaluated through order $\as$ is
497: well known~\cite{Gottschalk:1980rv,Schmidt:1995mr,Harris:2002md},
498: \beqn
499: F^\mu(\pb,\pt)&=&\gamma^\mu \gamma_L \Big[ 1 +
500: \frac{\alpha_S \; C_F }{4 \pi \Gamma(1-\ep)}
501: \Big(\frac{4 \pi \mu^2}{m_t^2-i \varepsilon}\Big)^\ep
502: C_0 \Big] \nn \\
503: &+&\frac{\alpha_S\; C_F}{4 \pi}\Big[
504: C_1 \frac{\pb^\mu}{m_t} \gamma_R
505: +C_2 \frac{\pw^\mu}{m_t} \gamma_R \Big]
506: +O(\ep)
507: \eeqn
508: where
509: \beqn
510: C_0&=&\Big\{-\frac{1}{\ep^2}
511: -\frac{1}{\ep}\Big(\frac{5}{2}-2 \ln(1-r^2)\Big)
512: - \frac{11+\eta}{2}-\frac{\pi^2}{6}
513: - 2 \Li_2(r^2) \nn \\
514: &+& 3 \ln(1-r^2) -2 \ln^2(1-r^2)- \frac{1}{r^2} \ln(1-r^2) \Big\} \nn \\
515: C_1&=& \frac{2}{r^2} \ln(1-r^2)
516: % \nn \\
517: % C_2&=& -\frac{2 }{r^2} \Big[1+(1-r^2) K(r^2)\Big]
518: \label{eq:massivevert}
519: \eeqn
520: and
521: \beq
522: \gamma_{R/L}= \frac{1}{2} (1 \pm \gamma_5) \; .
523: \eeq
524: The $C_2$ term will not contribute to physical amplitudes.
525: The ultra-violet and infra-red divergences have been
526: regulated by continuing to $d=4-2 \ep$ dimensions.
527: The dimensional regularization scheme is determined by the parameter
528: $\eta$ as follows,
529: \beqn
530: \label{eq:etadef}
531: \eta &=& 1,\;\;\mbox{'t Hooft-Veltman scheme~\cite{'tHooft:1972fi}} \nn \\
532: \eta &=& 0,\;\;\mbox{four-dimensional helicity scheme~\cite{Bern:2002zk}}\;.
533: \eeqn
534: The final result for the
535: virtual correction to the total decay width is,
536: \beq \label{eq:virtbit}
537: \Gamma_{\rm virtual} = \Gamma_{0} \;
538: \frac{\alpha_S C_F}{2\pi \Gamma(1-\ep)}
539: \left( \frac{4\pi \mu^2 }{m_t^2} \right)^{\ep}
540: \left( C_0 + \frac{1}{2} C_1 \frac{1-r^2}{1+2r^2} \right) +O(\ep) \; .
541: \eeq
542:
543: We now make three parenthetic remarks which are useful for including
544: the virtual corrections in the production processes,
545: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:schannel},\ref{eq:tchannel}).
546: First, we note that Eq.~(\ref{eq:massivevert})
547: is valid for $r^2 < 1$. For the case when $r^2 > 1$,
548: which is needed for the virtual
549: corrections to the $s$-channel production process,
550: we apply the transformation,
551: \beq
552: \Li_2(r^2)=\frac{\pi^2}{6}-\Li_2(1-r^2) -\ln(1-r^2) \ln r^2
553: \eeq
554: and analytically continue by replacing $\ln(1-r^2)$ with
555: $\ln(1-r^2-i\varepsilon)$.
556: Second, we note that the result for the
557: light quark vertex including the virtual corrections, which is also needed
558: for the case of production, is as follows~\cite{Altarelli:1979ub},
559: \beq
560: \Gamma^\mu(p_d, p_u)=\bar{u}(p_d) \gamma^\mu \gamma_L u(p_u) \;
561: \Bigg[ 1 + \frac{\alpha_S C_F }{4 \pi \Gamma(1-\ep)}
562: \Big(\frac{4 \pi \mu^2}{-q^2-i \varepsilon}\Big)^\ep
563: \Big\{-\frac{2}{\ep^2}-\frac{3}{\ep}-7-\eta+O(\ep) \Big\}\Bigg]
564: \eeq
565: with $q=p_u-p_d$. Third, for the case of the production processes
566: the singularities in these virtual corrections are canceled by equal
567: and opposite singularities in the integrated dipoles.
568: With a little work, using results for the integrated dipole terms in
569: Appendix~\ref{app:alphadep}, one can demonstrate this cancellation.
570:
571: \subsection{Real corrections}
572:
573: \begin{figure}
574: \begin{center}
575: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=\columnwidth]{free.eps}
576: \caption{Real radiation in free top decay}
577: \label{fig:free}
578: \end{center}
579: \end{figure}
580: %
581: The Feynman diagrams for the process
582: \beq
583: t(\pt) \rightarrow b(\pb)+W(\pw)+g(\pg) \; ,
584: \eeq
585: are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:free}.
586: The result for the matrix element squared in four dimensions
587: is given as follows
588: \beqn
589: \overline{\sum} |{\cM}|^2 &=&
590: 2 g^2 C_F \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}} m_t^2
591: \Bigg[m_t^2 (1-r^2) (1+2 r^2)
592: \Big(2 \frac{\pt.\pb}{\pb.\pg \; \pt.\pg}-\frac{m_t^2}{(\pt.\pg)^2}\Big) \nn \\
593: &+&8 r^2
594: +2 \frac{(\pt.\pg-\pb.\pg)^2}{\pb.\pg \; \pt.\pg}(1+2 r^2)\Bigg] \; .
595: \eeqn
596: Applying the substitutions
597: \beqn \label{eq:yztransformations}
598: \pb \cdot \pg &=& \frac{m_t^2}{2}(1-r)^2 y \nn \\
599: \pt \cdot \pg &=& \frac{m_t^2}{2} (1-r^2) (1-z) \; ,
600: \eeqn
601: the four-dimensional matrix element becomes,
602: \beqn
603: \label{eq:realmatrixelement}
604: \overline{\sum}
605: |{\cM}|^2&=&
606: g^2 C_F \Bigg\{ \Big[ \frac{1}{\pb.\pg}
607: \Big(\frac{2}{1-z}-1-z\Big)-\frac{m_t^2}{(\pt.\pg)^2}\Big] \;
608: \overline{\sum} |{\cM}_{0}|^2 \nn \\
609: &+& 8 m_t^2 \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}} \Big[
610: \frac{y}{1-z} \Big(\frac{3}{(1+r)}-r^2+2 r -\frac{5}{2}\Big)
611: +\frac{(1+2 r^2)}{(1-z)}-1 \Big] \Bigg\}
612: \eeqn
613:
614: In the rest frame of the top we obtain the two particle phase space
615: for the decay $t \rightarrow W+ b$
616: \beqn
617: d \Phi^{(2)}(\pw,\pb;\pt) &=& \frac{d^n \pb}{(2 \pi)^{n-1}}
618: \frac{d^n \pw}{(2 \pi)^{n-1}} \; (2 \pi)^n \; \delta^n(\pt-\pw-\pb) \;
619: \delta(\pb^2) \;
620: \delta(\pw^2-r^2 m_t^2) \nn \\
621: &=&=\frac{(4 \pi)^{2 \ep}}{8 \; (2 \pi)^2}
622: \frac{1}{(m_t^{2})^\ep} \;
623: (1-r^2)^{1-2 \ep} d ^{n-1}\Omega_w
624: \label{eq:PS2}
625: \eeqn
626: The corresponding result in the rest frame of the top
627: for the decay $t \rightarrow W + b + g$ is
628: \beqn
629: d \Phi^{(3)}(\pw,\pb,\pg;\pt)&=&
630: \frac{(1-r^2) (1-r)^{2-4\ep}}{32 \; (2\pi)^4} \;
631: \; \frac{(m_t^2)^{1-2\ep} (4 \pi)^{3\ep}}{
632: \Gamma(1-\ep)} \; d ^{n-1}\Omega_w \nn \\
633: &\times & \int_0^1 \; dz \;
634: (r^2+z (1-r^2))^{-\ep} \; \int_0^{y_{max}} dy \;
635: y^{-\ep} \; (y_{max} -y)^{-\ep}
636: \label{eq:PS3}
637: \eeqn
638: where the upper integration limit $y_{max}$ is given by
639: \beq
640: y_{max}=\frac{(1+r)^2 z (1-z)}{\Big( z+r^2 (1-z)\Big)}.
641: \eeq
642:
643: Taking the ratio of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:PS3}) and~(\ref{eq:PS2}) we
644: obtain the factorized form,
645: \beqn \label{eq:PSfactorized}
646: d \Phi^{(3)}(\pw,\pb,\pg;\pt)&=& d \Phi^{(2)}(\pw,\pb;\pt)
647: \times
648: \frac{(1-r)^{2}}{16 \pi^2} \;
649: \; \frac{(m_t^2)^{1-\ep} (4 \pi)^{\ep}}{
650: \Gamma(1-\ep)} \nn \\
651: &\times & \Big(\frac{1+r}{1-r}\Big)^{2 \ep} \; \int_0^1 \; dz \;
652: (r^2+z (1-r^2))^{-\ep} \; \int_0^{y_{max}} dy \;
653: y^{-\ep} \; (y_{max} -y)^{-\ep} \nn \\
654: \eeqn
655: Values of the reduced integrals defined by
656: \beq \label{integdef}
657: \Big\langle f(y,z) \Big\rangle = \Big(\frac{1+r}{1-r}\Big)^{2 \ep}
658: \int_0^1 \; dz \;
659: (r^2+z (1-r^2))^{-\ep} \; \int_0^{y_{max}} dy \;
660: y^{-\ep} \; (y_{max} -y)^{-\ep} \; f(z,y)
661: \eeq
662: are given in Table~\ref{integtable}.
663: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{2.5}
664: \begin{table*}
665: \begin{centering}
666: \caption{Table of integrals defined by Eq.~(\ref{integdef}).\label{integtable}}
667: \begin{ruledtabular}
668: \begin{tabular}{ll}
669: $\Big\langle \frac{1}{y} \frac{2}{(1-z)}\Big\rangle $
670: & $\frac{1}{\ep^2}-\frac{2}{\ep} \ln(1-r^2)
671: +2 \ln^2(1-r^2) +2 \Li_2(1-r^2)-\frac{5 \pi^2}{6} + O(\ep)$\\
672: \hline
673: $\Big\langle \frac{1}{y} \Big\rangle
674: $ & $-\frac{1}{\ep}-3 +2 \ln(1-r^2)
675: +\frac{r^2}{(1-r^2)} \ln r^2 + O(\ep)$ \\
676: \hline
677: $\Big\langle \frac{z}{y} \Big\rangle
678: $ & $-\frac{1}{2 \ep}-\frac{(7-5 r^2)}{4 (1-r^2)}
679: +\ln(1-r^2) -\frac{r^4 }{2 (1-r^2)^2} \ln r^2 + O(\ep)$ \\
680: \hline
681: $\Big\langle \frac{-2}{(1+r)^2}\frac{1}{(1-z)^2}\Big\rangle
682: $ & $\frac{1}{\ep}+2 -\frac{2 r^2}{1-r^2} \ln r^2
683: -2 \ln (1-r^2) + O(\ep)$ \\
684: \hline
685: $\Big\langle \frac{1}{(1+r)^2}\frac{1}{(1-z)}\Big\rangle
686: $ & $\frac{r^2 \ln r^2}{(1-r^2)^2}+\frac{1}{1-r^2} + O(\ep)$ \\
687: \hline
688: $\Big\langle \frac{1}{(1+r)^4}\frac{y}{(1-z)}\Big\rangle
689: $ & $\frac{r^2(2+r^2)}{2 (1-r^2)^4}\ln r^2
690: +\frac{(1+5 r^2)}{4 (1-r^2)^3} + O(\ep)$ \\
691: \hline
692: $\Big\langle (1-r)^2 \Big\rangle
693: $ & $ \frac{(r^2+1)}{2}+\frac{r^2}{1-r^2} \ln r^2 + O(\ep)$\\
694: \end{tabular}
695: \end{ruledtabular}
696: \end{centering}
697: \end{table*}
698: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.0}
699:
700: Using these integrals we can calculate the contribution
701: to the total decay width from the real diagrams. The result is,
702: \beqn \label{eq:realbit}
703: \Gamma_{\rm real} &=& \Gamma_{0}^{(d)} \;
704: \frac{\alpha_S C_F}{2\pi \Gamma(1-\ep)}
705: \left( \frac{4\pi \mu^2 }{m_t^2} \right)^{\ep}
706: \Bigg( \frac{1}{\ep^2} + \frac{1}{\ep}
707: \left( \frac{5}{2} - 2\ln(1-r^2) \right) - \frac{5\pi^2}{6}
708: +2\Li_2(1-r^2) \nn \\
709: &&-5\ln(1-r^2)+2\ln^2(1-r^2)
710: -\frac{2r^2(1+r^2)(1-2r^2)}{(1-r^2)^2(1+2r^2)} \ln r^2
711: -\frac{2(7r^4-5r^2-4)}{(1+2r^2)(1-r^2)} + \frac{\eta}{2} \Bigg) \nn \\ \; .
712: \eeqn
713: The $\eta$-dependence has been restored in this equation, so that
714: Eq.~(\ref{eq:realbit}) is valid also for the 't Hooft Veltman scheme.
715:
716: \subsection{Result for the corrected width}
717:
718: Using the virtual corrections of
719: Eq.~(\ref{eq:virtbit})
720: and the real corrections of Eq.~(\ref{eq:realbit})
721: we can calculate the value of
722: the top width at $O(\alpha_S)$.
723: We write the correction to the decay rate in the form
724: \begin{equation}
725: \Gamma = \Gamma _{0}+\as \Gamma_{1}
726: \label{eq:correcteddecayrate}
727: \end{equation}
728: Our result is in agreement with the $m^2_b /m^2_t \to 0$ limit of the
729: original calculation in ref.~\cite{Jezabek:1988iv},
730: \begin{eqnarray}
731: \frac{\as \Gamma_1}{\Gamma_0} &=& -\frac{\as}{2 \pi} C_F\Bigg[\frac{2}{3}\pi^2 +4 \;\Li_2(r^2)-\frac{3}{2}
732: -2 \; \ln\Big(\frac{r^2}{1-r^2}\Big) +2 \; \ln r^2 \ln(1-r^2)
733: \nn \\
734: &-&\frac{4}{3(1-r^2)}+\frac{(22-34 \; r^2)}{9 (1-r^2)^2}\ln r^2
735: +\frac{(3+27 \ln(1-r^2)-4 \ln r^2 )}{9 (1+2 r^2)} \Bigg] \; ,
736: \end{eqnarray}
737: where $r=\MW /m_t$.
738: For $r \sim 4/9$ the QCD correction amounts to
739: \begin{equation}
740: \frac{\as \Gamma_{1}}{\Gamma_{0}} \approx -0.8 \as
741: \label{eq:correction_to_width}
742: \end{equation}
743: which lowers the leading order result for the width by about 10\%.
744:
745: \section{Factorization of singularities in top quark decay}
746: \label{implementation}
747: We wish to construct a counter-term for the process
748: \beq
749: t \rightarrow W + b +g
750: \eeq
751: which has the same soft and collinear singularities as the
752: full matrix element. This counter-term
753: takes the form of a lowest order matrix element multiplied by a
754: function $D$ which describes the emission of soft or collinear
755: radiation,
756: \beq \label{decayfactorization}
757: |{\cM}( \ldots p_t,p_W,p_b,p_g) |^2 \to
758: |{\cM}_0( \ldots p_t,\tpW,\tpb) |^2 \times
759: D(\pt.\pg,\pb.\pg,m_t^2,\MW^2) \; ,
760: \eeq
761: In the region of soft emission, or in the region where the momenta
762: $p_g$ and $p_b$ are collinear, the right hand side of
763: Eq.~(\ref{decayfactorization})
764: has the same singularity structure as the full matrix element.
765: The lowest order matrix element $\cM_0$ in Eq.~(\ref{decayfactorization})
766: is evaluated for values of the momenta $\pw$ and $\pb$
767: modified to absorb the four-momentum carried away by the gluon,
768: and subject to
769: the momentum conservation constraint, $\pt \rightarrow {\tpW}+\tpb$.
770: The modified momenta denoted by a tilde are also subject to
771: the mass-shell constraints, ${\tpb}^2=0$ and ${\tpW}^2=\pw^2$.
772: The latter condition is necessary in order that the rapidly varying
773: Breit-Wigner function for the $W$ is evaluated at the same kinematic point
774: in the counterterm and in the full matrix element.
775: We define $\tpW$ by a
776: Lorentz transformation, ${\tpW}^\mu=\Lambda^{\mu}_{\nu} \pw^\nu$
777: fixed in terms of the momenta $\pw$ and $\pt$.
778: Because $\tpW$ and $\pw$ are related by a Lorentz transformation
779: the phase space for the subsequent
780: decay of the $W$ is unchanged.
781:
782: The general form of a Lorentz transformation in the plane of
783: the vectors $\pt$ and $\pw$ is given by
784: (${\tpW}^\mu=\Lambda^{\mu}_{\nu} \pw^\nu$),
785: \beqn
786: \Lambda^{\mu\nu}&=&g_{\mu \nu}
787: +\frac{\sinh(x)}{\sqrt{(\pt \cdot \pw)^2 -\pw^2 \pt^2}} \;
788: \Big(\pt^{\mu} \pw^{\nu}-\pw^{\mu} \pt^{\nu} \Big) \nn \\
789: &+&\frac{\cosh(x)-1}{(\pt \cdot \pw)^2 -\pw^2 \pt^2} \;
790: \Big(\pt \cdot \pw \; (\pt^\mu \pw^\nu+\pw^{\mu} \pt^{\nu})
791: -\pw^2 \; \pt^{\mu} \pt^{\nu}-\pt^2 \; \pw^{\mu} \pw^{\nu}\Big)
792: \label{eq:lorentztrans}
793: \eeqn
794: The transformed momentum of the $b$ quark is fixed by $\tpb=p_t-\tpW$.
795: For the special case in which we impose the condition
796: $\tpb^2=(\pt - {\tpW})^2=0$ we get
797: \beqn
798: \label{eq:lorentztransa}
799: \sinh(x)&=&\frac{1}{2 \; \pt^2 \pw^2} \Big[-(\pt^2-\pw^2) \pt\cdot \pw
800: +(\pt^2+\pw^2) \sqrt{(\pt \cdot \pw)^2 -\pw^2 \pt^2}\; \Big]
801: \nonumber \\
802: \cosh(x)&=&\frac{1}{2 \; \pt^2 \pw^2} \Big[+(\pt^2+\pw^2) \pt\cdot \pw
803: -(\pt^2-\pw^2)\sqrt{(\pt \cdot \pw)^2 -\pw^2 \pt^2}\; \Big]
804: \eeqn
805: Acting on the vector $\pw$ the Lorentz transformation becomes
806: \beq \label{eq:actingonpw}
807: \tpW = \alpha \; \big(\pw -\frac{\pt \cdot \pw}{\pt^2} \pt\big) +
808: \beta \; \pt
809: \eeq
810: where the constants are given by
811: \beqn
812: \alpha & = & \frac{\pt^2-\pw^2}{2 \sqrt{(\pt \cdot \pw)^2-\pw^2 \pt^2}} \\
813: \beta & = & \frac{\pt^2+\pw^2}{2 \pt^2}
814: \eeqn
815: Eq.~(\ref{eq:actingonpw}) makes it clear that,
816: in the top rest frame, the transformation
817: on $\pw$ is a Lorentz boost along the direction
818: of the $W$.
819:
820: The momenta of the decay products of the $W$ can similarly
821: be obtained by the same Lorentz transformation,
822: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:lorentztrans},\ref{eq:lorentztransa}).
823:
824: \subsection{Subtraction counterterm}
825: From Eq.~(\ref{eq:PSfactorized}) we may write the phase space
826: for the decay of an on-shell top quark as
827: \beqn \label{eq:phasespacefact}
828: d \Phi^{(3)} (\pw,\pb,\pg;\pt)
829: &=& d \Phi^{(2)} (\pw,\pb;\pt)
830: \int [dg(\pt,\pw,y,z)] \nn \\
831: &\equiv & d \Phi^{(2)} ({\tpW},{\tpb};\pt)
832: \int [dg(\pt,{\tpW},y,z)]
833: \eeqn
834: The equivalence in Eq.~(\ref{eq:phasespacefact})
835: follows from Eq.~(\ref{eq:PS2}) because
836: $d ^{n-1}\Omega_w= d ^{n-1}\Omega_{\tilde w}$ since $\pw$ and ${\tpW}$
837: are related by a boost. From Eq.~(\ref{eq:PSfactorized}) we see that the
838: phase space integral for the emitted gluon is given by,
839: \beqn
840: [dg(\pt,\tpW,y,z)] &=&
841: \frac{(1-r)^{2}}{16 \pi^2} \;
842: \; (m_t^2)^{(1-\ep)} \;
843: \frac{(4 \pi)^{\ep}} {\Gamma(1-\ep)} \nn \\
844: &\times & \Big(\frac{1+r}{1-r}\Big)^{2 \ep} \; \int_0^1 \; dz \;
845: (r^2+z (1-r^2))^{-\ep} \; \int_0^{y_{max}} dy \;
846: y^{-\ep} \; (y_{max} -y)^{-\ep}
847: \eeqn
848: where $y$ and $z$ are given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:yztransformations}).
849: By extension of Eq.~(\ref{eq:realmatrixelement})
850: we choose the counterterm to be,
851: \beq
852: D((p_t+p_g)^2,(p_b+p_g)^2,m_t^2,\MW^2) = g^2 \mu^{2 \ep}
853: C_F \Bigg[ \frac{1}{\pb.\pg}\Big(\frac{2}{(1-z)}-1-z-\eta \ep (1-z)\Big)
854: -\frac{m_t^2}{(t.g)^2}
855: \Bigg]
856: \eeq
857: where the role of the parameter $\eta$ is defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:etadef}).
858: Performing the integral using the results of Table~\ref{integtable}, we obtain
859: the following result for the integrated counterterm,
860: \beqn
861: \int [dg(\pt,\tpW,y,z)] &\times& D((p_t+p_g)^2,(p_b+p_g)^2,m_t^2,\MW^2)
862: = \nn \\
863: &&\frac{\alpha_S C_F}{2 \pi}
864: \; \frac{(4 \pi \mu^2)^{\ep}}{m_t^{2 \ep} \Gamma(1-\ep)}
865: \Big[
866: \frac{1}{\ep^2}
867: + \frac{1}{\ep} \Big(\frac{5}{2} - 2 \ln(1-r^2) \Big) \nn \\
868: &+& \frac{25}{4}
869: + \frac{1}{2} \Big(\frac{1}{(1-r^2)^2}
870: - \frac{8}{(1-r^2)}+7 \Big) \ln r^2
871: + \frac{1}{2 (1-r^2)} \nn \\
872: &+& 2 \Li_2(1-r^2)
873: - \frac{5 \pi^2}{6}
874: - 5 \ln(1-r^2)
875: + 2 \ln^2(1-r^2)
876: + \frac{\eta}{2}
877: \Big]
878: \eeqn
879:
880: \section{Phenomenological studies}
881: \label{pheno}
882: The method of the previous section has been implemented in the
883: Monte Carlo program, MCFM, allowing us to make predictions
884: for kinematic distributions of both signal and background events.
885: Before proceeding to describe our results for jets and the decay
886: products of the top, we present a number of results on total cross
887: sections.
888: \subsection{Total cross section}
889: Tables~\ref{tab:cteq6tot}
890: and~\ref{tab:mrs02tot} give total cross sections using recent
891: parton distributions and the updated top quark mass~\cite{Azzi:2004rc}.
892: The input parameters which we use throughout this phenomenological section
893: are presented in Table~\ref{tab:parameters}.
894: \begin{table}[tb]
895: \caption{\small LO and NLO cross sections for single top-quark
896: production at the Tevatron and LHC for $m_t=178$ GeV.
897: The branching ratio for the decay of the top quark is not included.
898: Cross sections are evaluated with CTEQ6L1 ($\as(M_Z)=0.130$) and CTEQ6M
899: ($\as(M_Z)=0.118$) PDFs~\cite{Pumplin:2002vw},
900: and all scales set to $m_t$. The errors represent Monte Carlo statistics only.
901: \label{tab:cteq6tot}}
902: \begin{center}
903: \begin{ruledtabular}
904: \begin{tabular}{llll}
905: Process & $\sqrt{s}$~[TeV] & $\sigma_{LO}$ [pb] & $\sigma_{NLO}$ [pb] \\
906: \hline
907: $s$-channel, $p\bar p$ ($t$) &1.96 & 0.270 & 0.405 $\pm$0.0003 \\
908: $s$-channel, $pp$ ($t$) &14 & 4.26 & 6.06 $\pm$0.004 \\
909: $s$-channel, $pp$ ($\bar t $)&14 & 2.58 & 3.76 $\pm$0.003 \\
910: \hline
911: $t$-channel, $p\bar p$ ($t$) &1.96 & 0.826 & 0.924 $\pm$0.001 \\
912: $t$-channel, $pp$ ($t$) &14 & 146.2 & 150.0 $\pm$0.2 \\
913: $t$-channel, $pp$ ($\bar t $)&14 & 84.8 & 88.5 $\pm$0.1 \\
914: \end{tabular}
915: \end{ruledtabular}
916: \end{center}
917: \end{table}
918: %
919: \begin{table}[tb]
920: \caption{\small LO and NLO cross sections for single top-quark
921: production at the Tevatron and LHC for $m_t=178$ GeV.
922: The branching ratio for the decay of the top quark is not included.
923: Cross sections
924: are evaluated with the MRST2002 NLO PDF set~\cite{Martin:2002aw}
925: with $\as(M_Z)=0.1197$, and all scales set to $m_t$.
926: The errors represent Monte Carlo statistics only.
927: \label{tab:mrs02tot}}
928: \begin{center}
929: \begin{ruledtabular}
930: \begin{tabular}{llll}
931: Process & $\sqrt{s}$~[TeV] & $\sigma_{LO}$ [pb] &
932: $\sigma_{NLO}$ [pb] \\
933: \hline
934: $s$-channel, $p\bar p$ ($t$) &1.96 & 0.285 & 0.404 $\pm$0.0003 \\
935: $s$-channel, $pp$ ($t$) &14 & 4.57 & 6.17 $\pm$0.004 \\
936: $s$-channel, $pp$ ($\bar t $) &14 & 2.85 & 3.86 $\pm$0.003 \\
937: \hline
938: $t$-channel, $p\bar p$ ($t$) &1.96 & 1.009 & 1.032 $\pm$0.001 \\
939: $t$-channel, $pp$ ($t$) &14 & 160.1 & 154.4 $\pm$0.2 \\
940: $t$-channel, $pp$ ($\bar t $) &14 & 96.9 & 92.4 $\pm$0.1 \\
941: \end{tabular}
942: \end{ruledtabular}
943: \end{center}
944: \end{table}
945: \begin{table}
946: \caption{Input parameters\label{tab:parameters}}
947: \begin{center}
948: \begin{ruledtabular}
949: \begin{tabular}{ll}
950: $m_t=178.$~GeV & $\Gamma_0=1.651$~GeV \\
951: $M_W=80.4$~ GeV & $\Gamma_W =2.06$~GeV \\
952: $M_Z=91.188$~GeV & $\Gamma_Z=2.49$~GeV \\
953: $G_F=1.16639\times 10^{-5}$~GeV$^{-2}$& $\alpha^{-1}=132.351$ \\
954: $g_W^2=0.42651$ & $e^2=0.0949475$
955: \end{tabular}
956: \end{ruledtabular}
957: \end{center}
958: \end{table}
959: We have not performed a full
960: analysis of the theoretical errors on these predictions.
961: It is important to remember that the results for the $t$-channel
962: process depend on the $b$-quark parton distribution,
963: which is calculated rather than measured. This is the source of the relatively
964: large difference between the $t$-channel Tevatron cross sections in
965: Tables~\ref{tab:cteq6tot} and~\ref{tab:mrs02tot}, compared to the
966: $s$-channel process which is dominated by well-constrained valence quark
967: distributions.
968:
969: We have also compared our leading order (LO) and next-to-leading order
970: (NLO) results for the total cross sections
971: (without radiation in the decay) at $\sqrt{s}=1.96$ and 14~TeV
972: with the results in ref.~\cite{Harris:2002md}.
973: With the appropriate modification of the input parameters,
974: we find agreement with their results within the quoted errors.
975:
976: We now investigate what effect the inclusion of QCD corrections
977: in the decay of the top quark has on the total cross section.
978: Radiation in the decay should not change the total cross section.
979: However in a perturbative approach this means that the difference
980: should be of higher order in $\as$.
981: Including QCD radiation effects only in the production, we obtain
982: \begin{equation}
983: \sigma B_{t \to b \nu e} \equiv \sigma B_{W \to \nu e}=
984: \sigma_{(0)}B_{W \to \nu e}+ \as \sigma_{(1)} B_{W \to \nu e}
985: \end{equation}
986: where $\sigma_{(0)}$ and $\sigma_{(1)}$ are the LO and NLO cross sections,
987: because in this order the width $t \to bW$ is equal to the total width.
988: When we also include radiative corrections to the decay, we use the
989: radiatively corrected total width $\Gamma=\Gamma_0+\as \Gamma_1$,
990: cf. Eqs.~(\ref{eq:widthborn},\ref{eq:correcteddecayrate}),
991: \begin{equation}
992: \sigma B_{t \to b \nu e+X}=
993: \sigma_{(0)}\frac{\Gamma_{0} B_{W \to \nu e}}{\Gamma}
994: + \as \sigma_{(1)}\frac{\Gamma_{0}B_{W \to \nu e}}{\Gamma}
995: +\sigma_{(0)}\frac{\as \Gamma_{1} B_{W \to \nu e}}{\Gamma}
996: \end{equation}
997: The difference between these two expressions is of $O(\as^2)$ and is given by
998: \beqn \label{eq:diff}
999: \sigma B_{t \to b \nu e+X}-\sigma B_{t \to b \nu e} &=&
1000: \as \sigma_{(1)}\frac{\Gamma_{0}B_{W \to \nu e}}{\Gamma}
1001: - \as \sigma_{(1)} B_{W \to \nu e} \nn \\
1002: &=& -\as^2 \sigma_{(1)} \frac{\Gamma_{1}B_{W \to \nu e}}{\Gamma}
1003: \eeqn
1004: \begin{table*}[tb]
1005: \caption{\small Comparison of LO and NLO cross sections for single $t$-quark
1006: production at the Tevatron and LHC. The NLO calculation is performed both
1007: without including QCD effects in the decay ($\sigma B_{t \to b \nu e}$) and
1008: also when it is included ($\sigma B_{t \to b \nu e+X}$).
1009: The top quark mass is $m_t=178$ GeV and cross sections are
1010: evaluated using MRST2002 NLO PDFs with all scales set to
1011: $m_t$. The errors represent Monte Carlo statistics only.
1012: Note that the values of $\Gamma_t$ at LO and NLO are $1.6511$~GeV and
1013: $1.5077$~GeV respectively and the branching ratio of the $W$ into
1014: leptons is ${\rm Br}(W \to e \nu) = 0.1104$.
1015: The differences in the rates are in good agreement with the formulae in
1016: Eq.~(\ref{eq:diff}).
1017: \label{tab:ratecomp}}
1018: \begin{center}
1019: \begin{ruledtabular}
1020: \begin{tabular}{lllll}
1021: Process & $\sqrt{s}$~[TeV] &
1022: $\sigma_0 B_{t \to b \nu e}$ (fb) &
1023: $\sigma B_{t \to b \nu e}$ (fb) &
1024: $\sigma B_{t \to b \nu e+X}$ (fb) \\
1025: \hline
1026: $s$-channel, $p\bar p$ ($t$) &1.96 & 31.54 $\pm$0.01 & 44.64 $\pm$0.03
1027: & 45.88 $\pm$0.03 \\
1028: $s$-channel, $pp$ ($t$) &14 & 503.9 $\pm$0.2 & 681.0 $\pm$0.4
1029: & 698.7 $\pm$0.4 \\
1030: \hline
1031: $t$-channel, $p\bar p$ ($t$) &1.96 & 111.34 $\pm$0.06 & 113.95 $\pm$0.12
1032: & 113.96 $\pm$0.12 \\
1033: $t$-channel, $pp$ ($t$) &14 & 17690. $\pm$8 & 17048.
1034: $\pm$16 & 16975. $\pm$16. \\
1035: \end{tabular}
1036: \end{ruledtabular}
1037: \end{center}
1038: \end{table*}
1039: As shown in Table~\ref{tab:ratecomp}
1040: the numerical differences are less than $3\%$ for the $s$-channel process
1041: and less than $0.5\%$ for the $t$-channel process.
1042:
1043: \subsection{Signals and Backgrounds at NLO}
1044: We shall consider the signal for single top production to be
1045: the presence of a lepton, missing energy and two jets,
1046: one of which is tagged as a $b$-jet. In the case where we have two tagged
1047: jets, we choose the jet to be assigned to the top quark at random.
1048: For clarity, we shall describe the processes at the parton level
1049: choosing specific partons in the initial state. In our program
1050: we sum over all the species of partons present in the initial proton
1051: and antiproton. For reactions considered at NLO, there
1052: can also be additional partons in the final state.
1053: We use the Run II $k_T$-clustering
1054: algorithm to find jets, with a pseudo-cone of size $R=1.0$~\cite{Blazey:2000qt}.
1055: The first reactions to consider are the two signal processes
1056: \beq
1057: \dk{u+\bar{d}} {t +\bar{b}}{\nu +e^+ + b}
1058: \label{eq:schannelwdk}
1059: \eeq
1060: and
1061: \beq
1062: \dk{b+u} {t +d}{\nu +e^+ + b} \; .
1063: \label{eq:tchannelwdk}
1064: \eeq
1065: Note that we present numerical results for the processes shown in
1066: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:schannelwdk},\ref{eq:tchannelwdk}), summed over species of
1067: initial partons, i.e. the production of a $t$-quark (rather than a $\bar{t}$)
1068: with the decay $t \to \nu+e^+ + b+X$. Thus in a hypothetical experiment
1069: with equal perfect acceptances for electrons of both charges and for muons
1070: of both charges the signal (and background) will be four times bigger,
1071: (if we ignore possible signatures coming from $W\to \tau \nu_\tau$).
1072: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, our NLO results for the signal processes are
1073: calculated including QCD corrections in both the production and decay of
1074: the top quark.
1075:
1076: The background processes which we consider are of several types.
1077: The irreducible backgrounds are,
1078: \beq
1079: \label{eq:wbbchannelwdk}
1080: \dk{u+\bar{d}}{W^+ + b + \bar{b}}{\nu +e^+}
1081: \eeq
1082: \beq
1083: \label{eq:wbchannelwdk}
1084: \dk{u+b}{W^+ +d + b}{\nu +e^+} \; .
1085: \eeq
1086: \beq
1087: \label{eq:wzchannelwdk}
1088: \bothdk{u+\bar{d}}{W^++}{Z}{b + \bar{b}}{\nu +e^+}
1089: \eeq
1090: There are also backgrounds related to $t \bar{t}$
1091: production which contribute to the $W+$~2 jets process.
1092: The case where both top quarks decay leptonically,
1093: \beq
1094: \label{eq:ttbarleptchannelwdk}
1095: \bothdk{u+\bar{u}}{t+}{\bar{t}}{\bar{b} + e^- + \bar{\nu}}{\nu +e^+ + b}
1096: \eeq
1097: contributes if the electron, $e^-$ (or muon, $\mu^-$) fails the cuts.
1098: If one of the top quarks instead decays hadronically then there can also
1099: be a contribution when only two jets are observed, either
1100: because of merging or because the extra jets lie outside the
1101: acceptance (or both),
1102: \beq
1103: \label{eq:ttbarhadchannelwdk}
1104: \bothdk{u+\bar{u}}{t+}{\bar{t}}{\bar{b} + q + \bar{q}}{\nu +e^+ + b}
1105: \eeq
1106:
1107: A significant background process
1108: involves $W$ + two light jet production
1109: where one of the light quark jets fakes a $b$-quark,
1110: \beq
1111: \label{eq:w2jetchannelwdk}
1112: \dk{u+\bar{d}}{W^+ + {\rm 2~jets}}{\nu +e^+}
1113: \eeq
1114: Further backgrounds involve the mistagging of a $c$-quark as a $b$-quark,
1115: \beq
1116: \label{eq:wsgoestocchannelwdk}
1117: \dk{u+\bar{s}}{W^+ +u + \bar{c}}{\nu +e^+}
1118: \eeq
1119: \beq
1120: \label{eq:wccchannelwdk}
1121: \dk{u+\bar{d}}{W^+ + c + \bar{c}}{\nu +e^+}
1122: \eeq
1123: \beq
1124: \label{eq:wcchannelwdk}
1125: \dk{u+c}{W^+ +d + c}{\nu +e^+}
1126: \eeq
1127:
1128: Our estimation of the rates for these processes depends on
1129: the cuts shown in Table~\ref{tab:cuts}, which have been chosen to mimic those
1130: used in an actual Run II analysis~\cite{Juste:2004an}.
1131: \begin{table}
1132: \caption{Cuts for the single top analysis presented in this section.\label{tab:cuts}}
1133: \begin{center}
1134: \begin{ruledtabular}
1135: \begin{tabular}{ll}
1136: Lepton~$p_T$ &$p_T^{e} > 20$~GeV \\
1137: \hline
1138: Lepton pseudorapidity & $|\eta^{e}| < 1.1$ \\
1139: \hline
1140: Missing $E_T$ & $\slsh{E_T} > 20$~GeV \\
1141: \hline
1142: Jet $p_T$ & $p_T^{\mbox{jet}} > 15$~GeV \\
1143: \hline
1144: Jet pseudorapidity & $|\eta^{\mbox{jet}}| < 2.8$ \\
1145: \hline
1146: Mass of $b+l+\nu$ & $ 140 < m_{bl\nu} < 210$~GeV \\
1147: \end{tabular}
1148: \end{ruledtabular}
1149: \end{center}
1150: \end{table}
1151: As well as the normal jet
1152: and lepton cuts, we perform a cut on the missing transverse energy and
1153: the mass of the `$b+l+\nu$'-system, $m_{bl\nu}$.
1154: The missing transverse energy vector is the negative of
1155: the vector sum of the transverse
1156: energy of the observed jets and leptons. The mass of the
1157: putative top system is determined by reconstructing the $W$ and combining
1158: it with the tagged $b$-jet. In reconstructing the $W$
1159: the longitudinal momentum of the neutrino
1160: is fixed by constraining the mass of the $e \nu$ system to
1161: be equal to $\MW$. The two solutions for the longitudinal momentum
1162: of the neutrino are,
1163: \beq
1164: p_L^{\nu} = \frac{1}{2 |p_T^{e}|^2}
1165: \Big[p_L^{e} \; \big(\MW^2-M_T^2+2 |p_T^{e}| |p_T^{\nu}| \big)
1166: \pm
1167: E^e \; \sqrt{(\MW^2-M_T^2) (\MW^2-m_T^2+4 |p_T^{e}| |p_T^{\nu}|)}
1168: \Big]
1169: \eeq
1170: In this equation $p_T^{\nu}$ is the measured missing transverse
1171: energy and
1172: \beq
1173: M_T^2=(|p_T^{e}|+|p_T^{\nu}|)^2- (\vec{p}_T^{\;e}+\vec{p}_T^{\;\nu})^2
1174: \eeq
1175: is the transverse mass of the $W$.
1176: We resolve the twofold ambiguity in $p_L^{\nu}$ by choosing
1177: the solution which gives the
1178: largest (smallest) neutrino rapidity for the $W^+ (W^-)$.
1179:
1180: Our results are shown in
1181: Table~\ref{tab:xsect}.
1182: \begin{table}
1183: \caption{Cross sections for the Tevatron Run II ($p{\bar p}$, $\sqrt s =1.96$~TeV)
1184: in femtobarns\label{tab:xsect}, calculated
1185: with MRST2002 and using the renormalization and factorization scale $\mu$.
1186: The cross sections contain two jets, subject to the cuts
1187: of Table~\ref{tab:cuts}.
1188: Next-to-leading order cross sections are also shown, where
1189: known. The last column estimates the importance of signal and background processes
1190: by including nominal tagging and mistagging efficiencies, using the
1191: NLO cross section where possible.}
1192: \begin{center}
1193: \begin{ruledtabular}
1194: \begin{tabular}{llllll}
1195: Process & Scale $\mu$ & $\sigma_{LO}$~[fb] & $\sigma_{NLO}$~[fb] & Efficiency
1196: & $\sigma$~[fb] \\
1197: \hline
1198: $s$-channel single top, Eq.~(\ref{eq:schannelwdk}) & $m_t$ & 10.3 & 11.7 & $1-(1-\varepsilon_b)^2$ & 7.4 \\
1199: $s$-channel (with decay radiation) & $m_t$ & 10.3 & 11.3 & $1-(1-\varepsilon_b)^2$ & 7.2 \\
1200: \hline
1201: $t$-channel single top, Eq.~(\ref{eq:tchannelwdk}) & $m_t$ & 38.8 & 29.4 & $\varepsilon_b$ & 11.8 \\
1202: $t$-channel (with decay radiation) & $m_t$ & 38.8 & 26.6 & $\varepsilon_b$ & 10.6 \\
1203: \hline
1204: $Wb \bar{b}$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:wbbchannelwdk}) & $\MW$ & 36.0 & 47.5 & $1-(1-\varepsilon_b)^2$ & 30.4 \\
1205: \hline
1206: $W+bj$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:wbchannelwdk}) & $\MW/4$ & 26.5 & - & $\varepsilon_b$ & 10.6 \\
1207: \hline
1208: $WZ$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:wzchannelwdk}) & $\MW$ & 3.64 & 3.91 & $1-(1-\varepsilon_b)^2$ & 2.5 \\
1209: \hline
1210: $t \bar{t}$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:ttbarleptchannelwdk}) &$m_t$ & 4.34 & - & $ 2 \times(1-(1-\varepsilon_b)^2)$ & 5.6 \\
1211: \hline
1212: $t \bar{t}$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:ttbarhadchannelwdk}) & $m_t$ & 4.94 & - &$1-(1-\varepsilon_b)^2$ & 3.2 \\
1213: \hline
1214: $W$+2 jet, Eq.~(\ref{eq:w2jetchannelwdk}) & $\MW$ & 5530. & 7030. & $1-(1-f_J)^2$ & 35.1 \\
1215: \hline
1216: $u\bar{s} \to Wu \bar{c}$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:wsgoestocchannelwdk}) & $\MW$ & 324.&- & $f_c $ & 19.4 \\
1217: \hline
1218: $Wc \bar{c}$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:wccchannelwdk}) & $\MW$ & 36.0 & 47.5 & $1-(1-f_c )^2$ & 5.5 \\
1219: \hline
1220: $W+cj$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:wcchannelwdk}) & $\MW/4$ & 54.7 & - &$f_c $ & 3.3 \\
1221: \end{tabular}
1222: \end{ruledtabular}
1223: \end{center}
1224: \end{table}
1225: In this table we first show the cross sections calculated assuming a
1226: perfectly efficient detector, both at LO and NLO where possible. The
1227: column labeled `Efficiency' gives the rescaling factor that should be
1228: applied in order to take account of experimental efficiencies and fake
1229: rates. To give some idea of the importance of the background
1230: processes, we have used the nominal (and perhaps optimistic) values of
1231: these quantities shown in Table~\ref{tab:eff} to obtain the final
1232: column of Table~\ref{tab:xsect}.
1233: \begin{table}
1234: \caption{Nominal efficiencies used throughout this section.\label{tab:eff}}
1235: \begin{center}
1236: \begin{ruledtabular}
1237: \begin{tabular}{ll}
1238: $b$-tagging efficiency & $\varepsilon_b =40\%$ \\
1239: \hline
1240: $c$-mistagged as $b$ & $f_c= 6\%$ \\
1241: \hline
1242: Jet fake rate & $ f_J=0.25\%$ \\
1243: \end{tabular}
1244: \end{ruledtabular}
1245: \end{center}
1246: \end{table}
1247:
1248: A strategy for searching for the single top processes at the Tevatron involves examining
1249: the $H_T$ distribution~\cite{Juste:2004an}, where $H_T$ is defined by,
1250: \beq
1251: H_T=|p_T(\mbox{lepton})|+|\slsh{E}_T|+\sum |p_T(\mbox{jet})| \; .
1252: \eeq
1253: In Fig.~\ref{fig:ht} we show the $H_T$ distributions of the signal and background
1254: processes described above, rescaled by the nominal efficiencies given
1255: in Table~\ref{tab:eff}. As in the table, the NLO calculation is used wherever it is known
1256: and the signal processes include gluon radiation in the decay of the top quark.
1257: We see that the $H_T$ distribution is harder
1258: for the single top distributions, than all backgrounds, except those
1259: which involve top production (which are however, small).
1260: \begin{figure}
1261: \begin{center}
1262: \includegraphics[,angle=270,width=\columnwidth]{ht.ps}
1263: \caption{
1264: Predictions for $H_T$ showing single top signal, (top left),
1265: irreducible backgrounds (top right),
1266: $t \bar{t}$~backgrounds, (bottom left) and jet
1267: and charm fake rate (bottom right)\label{fig:ht}.
1268: Next-to-leading order estimates are used for the cross sections
1269: where available.}
1270: \end{center}
1271: \end{figure}
1272: %
1273: Despite this fact, one sees that the background rates are still large
1274: in the region of $H_T$ where the signal processes peak. This is
1275: demonstrated more clearly in Figure~\ref{fig:htoverall}, where we show
1276: the $H_T$ distribution for the sum of all the backgrounds, the sum of
1277: the two single top processes and the total when combining signal and
1278: background. Although the single top signal represents about $50\%$ of
1279: the events in the bins of interest, an observation of this top
1280: production mechanism using the $H_T$ distribution is heavily reliant
1281: on accurate predictions of both the rates and shapes of the background
1282: processes. We stress that Figs.~\ref{fig:ht} and~\ref{fig:htoverall}
1283: depend on the particular values chosen for the efficiencies and will
1284: improve if better values are achieved.
1285: \begin{figure}
1286: \begin{center}
1287: \includegraphics[,angle=270,width=\columnwidth]{htoverall.ps}
1288: \caption{The $H_T$ distributions of signal, background and signal plus background. The curves
1289: correspond to the sum of the appropriate distributions shown in Figure~\ref{fig:ht}.
1290: \label{fig:htoverall}}
1291: \end{center}
1292: \end{figure}
1293:
1294: A further quantity that may be used to discriminate between the $t$-channel signal process and
1295: backgrounds is $Q\eta$, where $Q$ is the charge of the lepton (in units of the positron charge) and
1296: $\eta$ is the pseudorapidity of the untagged jet. In this analysis~\cite{Juste:2004an} an
1297: additional cut is applied, requiring that one of the two jets must have a $p_T> 30$~GeV. This
1298: extra cut serves to reduce the dominant backgrounds in
1299: Table~\ref{tab:xsect} by $15$--$30\%$ whilst leaving the signal virtually
1300: unchanged. Since this is a targeted search for the $t$-channel process
1301: we have also rejected events with two tagged jets, since at leading order,
1302: Eq.(\ref{eq:tchannelwdk}) contains only one $b$-jet.
1303: Results for the $Q\eta$ distribution are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:eta}, demonstrating
1304: that the $t$-channel process is enhanced at large pseudorapidity compared to the backgrounds.
1305: \begin{figure}
1306: \begin{center}
1307: \includegraphics[,angle=270,width=\columnwidth]{eta.ps}
1308: \caption{Predictions for $Q \eta$ showing single top signal, (top left),
1309: irreducible backgrounds (top right), $t \bar{t}$~backgrounds, (bottom
1310: left) and jet and charm fake rate (bottom right)\label{fig:eta}.
1311: Next-to-leading order estimates are used for the cross sections where
1312: available.}
1313: \end{center}
1314: \end{figure}
1315: As before, even the pronounced
1316: effect observed in this distribution can be hidden when comparing the signal to the
1317: sum of all backgrounds, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:etaoverall}.
1318: \begin{figure}
1319: \begin{center}
1320: \includegraphics[,angle=270,width=\columnwidth]{etaoverall.ps}
1321: \caption{The $Q\eta$ distributions of signal, background and signal plus background. The curves
1322: correspond to the sum of the appropriate distributions shown in Figure~\ref{fig:eta}.
1323: \label{fig:etaoverall}}
1324: \end{center}
1325: \end{figure}
1326:
1327: Finally, we end this section with a comment on the effect of including the radiation
1328: in the top quark decay at NLO. We find that although the overall rate is lowered
1329: (cf. Table~\ref{tab:xsect}), the shapes of the $H_T$ and $Q\eta$ distributions are
1330: not altered significantly. This is demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:comparedk}, where we
1331: compare the $H_T$ ($s$-channel) and $Q\eta$ ($t$-channel) distributions with and
1332: without radiation in the decay. However this is a feature of our specific
1333: choice of cuts and we do not know this to be true in general.
1334: \begin{figure}
1335: \begin{center}
1336: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=\columnwidth]{diff.ps}
1337: \caption{Comparison of the NLO distributions for $H_T$ in the $s$-channel process
1338: (left) and $Q\eta$ in the $t$-channel process (right),
1339: with and without radiation in decay. \label{fig:comparedk}}
1340: \end{center}
1341: \end{figure}
1342:
1343: %\begin{figure}
1344: %\begin{center}
1345: %\includegraphics[,angle=270,width=\columnwidth]{eta_signal_diff.ps}
1346: %\caption{Difference in $\eta$ distribution, with and without radiation in decay.}
1347: %\end{center}
1348: %\end{figure}
1349:
1350: \section{Conclusions}
1351: We have presented the first results of our NLO Monte Carlo program
1352: which describes the signal and background for single top production.
1353: The new feature of our analysis is the inclusion of the decay of the
1354: top quark. Since our analysis is performed at next-to-leading order,
1355: we have included radiative effects both in the production and
1356: in the decay. Radiation in the decay is performed using a new subtraction
1357: method, which may be useful in other contexts.
1358:
1359: We have studied the effects of the NLO corrections on two
1360: distributions that are relevant for single top searches at the
1361: Tevatron. The inclusion of the top quark decay is imperative for such
1362: an analysis for two reasons. Firstly, the cuts that are applied (in
1363: order to match the experimental analysis) are on the decay products
1364: and not on the top quark itself. Second, one of the distributions of
1365: interest, $H_T$, can only be calculated when the momenta of the decay
1366: products are known. We have also performed the calculation of a number
1367: of important backgrounds at NLO and examined the feasibility of using
1368: variables such as $H_T$ and $Q\eta$ to discriminate between the single
1369: top signal and the main backgrounds. We find that the inclusion of
1370: radiation in the decay makes very little difference in the shapes of
1371: these distributions, but further decreases the exclusive two-jet
1372: signal cross section. Our treatment is obviously approximate, because
1373: we assume $p_T$-independent efficiencies, stable $b$ and $c$ quarks
1374: and include no showering or hadronization. Nevertheless it confirms
1375: that the search for single top is extremely challenging and suggests
1376: that significantly larger tagging efficiencies and/or methods with
1377: greater discriminatory power will be needed to observe single top
1378: production. We hope to have contributed to this search by providing
1379: more reliable information on the kinematic structure of both the
1380: signal and the background.
1381:
1382:
1383:
1384:
1385: \begin{acknowledgments}
1386: R.K.E would like to acknowledge helpful discussions with W.A. Bardeen.
1387: This work has been supported by the Universities Research Association, Inc.
1388: under contract No. DE-AC02-76CH03000 with the U.S. Department of Energy
1389: and also by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. W-31-109-ENG-38.
1390: \end{acknowledgments}
1391:
1392: \appendix
1393: \section{Integration of dipoles}
1394: \label{app:alphadep}
1395: As described in the text of the paper the production cross section
1396: was calculated using a subtraction method~\cite{Ellis:1980wv}. The particular
1397: subtraction terms were taken from ref.~\cite{Catani:1997vz} (CS)
1398: for the subtraction terms with massless particles
1399: and from ref.~\cite{Catani:2002hc} (CDST) for the
1400: dipoles involving massive particles in the final state.
1401:
1402: In this appendix we describe two minor modifications of
1403: the methods in those references. The first is that we allow ourselves
1404: the freedom to work in the four-dimensional helicity scheme. This scheme
1405: has been used for the calculation of many virtual matrix elements, so we
1406: believe that our results may be useful in other contexts.
1407:
1408:
1409: The second modification is that, following Nagy and
1410: Tr\'ocs\'anyi~\cite{Nagy:1998bb,Nagy:2003tz} we introduce a tuneable
1411: parameter $\alpha$ which can be used to reduce the range of
1412: integration over the singular variable. $\alpha=1$ corresponds to
1413: integration over the whole dipole phase space and for $\alpha<1$ the
1414: volume of phase space for the dipole subtraction is reduced. As
1415: detailed in~\cite{Nagy:2003tz} this serves a number of purposes.
1416: Since the subtraction is smaller, the mis-match between real matrix
1417: elements and subtractions is also reduced, leading to fewer events
1418: where the event and counter-event fall into different bins. In
1419: addition, for small $\alpha$ the counter-terms are only calculated in
1420: events where they actually play a role in canceling a
1421: singularity. This can lead to a saving in computer time. Lastly, the
1422: lack of $\alpha$-dependence in the results is a valuable check of the
1423: numerical implementation. For the massless case the integrations of
1424: the dipoles in reduced phase space volumes have been provided
1425: in~\cite{Nagy:2003tz}. The results for the $\alpha$ dependence of the
1426: massive dipoles are new.
1427:
1428: To keep the appendix short we try and use a similar notation to
1429: refs.~\cite{Catani:1997vz,Catani:2002hc} and refer back to specific
1430: equations in those references
1431: (CS~\cite{Catani:1997vz} and CDST~\cite{Catani:2002hc})
1432: when appropriate.
1433:
1434: \subsection{Initial-state emitter with initial state spectator}
1435: As explained above we have used a slight generalization of the dipole
1436: phase space (CS, Eq.~(5.151)) where the variable ${\tilde v_i}$
1437: is modified by the factor $\Theta(\alpha-{\tilde v}_i)$.
1438: The variable ${\tilde v_i}$ is the rescaled value of the propagator, defined as
1439: \beq
1440: {\tilde v_i}= \frac{p_a p_i}{p_a p_b}
1441: \eeq
1442: where $p_a$ is the initial state emitter, $p_i$ is the emitted parton and
1443: $p_b$ is the other initial state parton which is the spectator.
1444: For a full description see section 5.5 of CS.
1445: The dipole integrand which we subtract is obtained by introducing $\eta$
1446: into CS, Eq.~(5.145) for the $q,q$ case
1447: and CS, Eq.~(5.146) for the $g,q$ case:
1448: \beq
1449: \bra{s}
1450: {\bom V}^{q_ag_i,b}(x_{i,ab}) \ket{s'}
1451: = 8\pi \mu^{2\ep} \as\; C_F\;\delta_{ss'} \left[ \frac{2}{1-x_{i,ab}}
1452: - \frac{}{} (1+ x_{i,ab}) - \eta \ep (1-x_{i,ab})) \right]
1453: \;,
1454: \eeq
1455: \beqn
1456: \bra{s}
1457: {\bom V}^{g_a{\bar q}_i,b}(x_{i,ab}) \ket{s'}
1458: = 8\pi \mu^{2\ep} \as\; T_R\;
1459: \left[ 1 - \eta \ep -2 x_{i,ab}(1-x_{i,ab}) \right]
1460: \;\delta_{ss'} \;,
1461: \eeqn
1462: As in Eq.~(\ref{eq:etadef})
1463: for $\eta=1$ we are in the 't Hooft-Veltman scheme.
1464: Setting $\eta=0$ we are in the 4-dimensional helicity scheme.
1465:
1466:
1467: The result for the $q,q$ case
1468: is a generalization of CS, Eq.~(5.155) and is given by,
1469: \beqn
1470: &&{\tilde \cV}^{q,q}(x;\ep,\alpha)
1471: =C_F \Bigg\{\Bigg(\frac{1}{\ep^2}-\frac{\pi^2}{6}\Bigg)
1472: \delta(1-x) \nn \\
1473: &+& \eta(1-x)-(1+x) \Big(2 \ln(1-x)-\frac{1}{\ep}\Big)
1474: \nn \\
1475: &+&\Theta(1-x-\alpha) \frac{(1+x^2)}{(1-x)}
1476: \ln\Big(\frac{\alpha}{1-x}\Big)
1477: \nn \\
1478: &-& \frac{2}{\ep} \frac{1}{\big[1-x\big]_{+}}
1479: +4 \Bigg[\frac{\ln(1-x)}{1-x}\Bigg]_{+} \Bigg\} +\Oe{}\:
1480: \eeqn
1481: The result for the $g,q$ case
1482: (after averaging in $d$ dimensions in the 't Hooft Veltman scheme)
1483: is given by,
1484: \beqn
1485: &&{\tilde \cV}^{g,q}(x;\ep,\alpha)
1486: =T_R \Bigg\{\Big((1-x)^2+x^2\Big) \nn \\
1487: &\times & \Bigg[2 \ln(1-x)-\frac{1}{\ep}
1488: +\Theta(1-x-\alpha) \ln\bigg(\frac{\alpha}{1-x}\bigg)\Bigg] \nn \\
1489: &+&2 \eta x (1-x) \Bigg\} +\Oe{}\:
1490: \eeqn
1491: In the limit $\alpha=1$ (and $\eta=1$)
1492: these functions reduce to those derived
1493: by the explicit expansion of CS, Eq.~(5.155).
1494: They are also in agreement with the results of Nagy~\cite{Nagy:privcomm}.
1495:
1496: In the above equations we have followed the conventions of CS. However in CS the overall
1497: factor multiplying the functions ${\tilde \cV}$ contains a term of the form,
1498: (cf. CS Eq.~(5.152))
1499: \beq
1500: \Bigg( \frac{4 \pi \mu^2}{2 p_a p_b} \Bigg)^\epsilon \; .
1501: \eeq
1502: In our program we choose to write this factor as
1503: \beq
1504: \Bigg( \frac{4 \pi \mu^2}{2 p_a p_b} \Bigg)^\epsilon =
1505: \Bigg( \frac{4 \pi \mu^2 x }{2 {\tilde p_{ai}} p_b} \Bigg)^\epsilon
1506: \approx \Bigg( \frac{4 \pi \mu^2}{2 {\tilde p_{ai}} p_b} \Bigg)^\epsilon
1507: \Big(1+\ep \ln x + \ldots \Big) \; ,
1508: \eeq
1509: since it is the transformed momenta which are held fixed when we perform the $x$ integration. In
1510: our program the additional $\ln x$ terms are included in our results for the integrated dipoles.
1511: These additional terms containing $\ln x$ are accounted for in the paper of CS in a different
1512: fashion. For a similar reason, our program contains additional $\ln x$ terms in the numerical
1513: implementation of Eqs.~(\ref{ifinteg},\ref{ifintegb}).
1514:
1515: \subsection{Initial-state emitter with final-state spectator}
1516:
1517: We have two cases which we have to consider
1518: \beqn
1519: && \mbox{a) Initial } q \to q+g, \mbox{with a massive final state spectator}; \nn \\
1520: && \mbox{b) Initial } q \to q+g, \mbox{with a massless final state spectator} \nn
1521: \eeqn
1522:
1523: For case (a), the phase space is the generalization of CDST, Eq.~(5.79) with an
1524: extra factor of $\Theta(\alpha-z_i)$ which implements the reduction in the phase
1525: space volume. The variable $z_+$ is defined by,
1526: \beq
1527: z_+ = \frac{1-x}{1-x+\mu_Q^2}.
1528: \eeq
1529: The dipole integrand is given by a generalization of
1530: CDST, Eq.~(5.81). The result is
1531: \def\mut{\tilde \mu}
1532: \beqn
1533: \label{ifinteg}
1534: &&I^{qq}_Q(x;\ep,\alpha) = C_F\Bigg\{ -\frac{1}{\ep}
1535: \Big[ \frac{2}{[1-x]_{+}}-1-x\Big]
1536: + \delta(1-x) \Bigg[ \frac{1}{\ep^2}+\frac{\pi^2}{6}
1537: + \frac{1}{\ep}\ln(1+\mut^2) \nn \\
1538: &+& 2 \Li_{2}(-\mut^2)
1539: +2 \ln(\mut^2) \ln(1+\mut^2)- \frac{1}{2} \ln^2(1+\mut^2) \Bigg] \nn \\
1540: &+&4\; \Big[\frac{\ln(1-x)}{(1-x)}\Big]_{+}
1541: -2\; \frac{\ln(1+{\tilde \mu}^2)}{[1-x]_{+}}
1542: -\frac{2 }{(1-x)} \ln\Big(\frac{2-x+x\mut^2}{1+\mut^2}\Big)
1543: \nn \\
1544: &-& \Theta(z_+-\alpha) \Bigg[ \left( \frac{2}{1-x} \right)
1545: \log \left( \frac{z_+ (1-x+\alpha )}{\alpha(1-x+z_+)} \right)
1546: -(1+x) \ln \left( \frac{z_+}{\alpha} \right) \Bigg]
1547: \nn \\
1548: &-& (1+x)\ln\Big(\frac{(1-x)^2}{(1-x+x\mut^2)}\Big) + \eta (1-x)
1549: \Bigg\} +\Oe{}\:
1550: \eeqn
1551: For $\alpha=1$ and $\eta=1$ this agrees with CDST, Eqs.~(5.90) and (5.88).
1552: Here we have introduced the variable
1553: \beq
1554: {\tilde \mu^2} = \frac{\mu^2}{x} = \frac{m^2}{2 {\tilde p_{ai}} {\tilde p_j}}
1555: \eeq
1556: which only depends on ${\tilde p_{ai}}$ and ${\tilde p_j}$ which are defined in
1557: CDST Eq.~(5.73).
1558: This is helpful since it is these transformed momenta which are held fixed
1559: when we do the $x$ integration.
1560:
1561: For case (b), the dipole phase space is given by CS, Eq.~(5.72) with an additional
1562: factor of $\Theta(\alpha-u_i)$. The integrand is given by the
1563: usual $\eta$-dependent generalization of CS, Eq.~(5.77).
1564: Performing the integration yields,
1565: \beqn \label{ifintegb}
1566: \cV^{q,q}(x;\ep,\alpha) &=& C_F \Bigg\{
1567: \eta(1 - x) - \frac{2}{1-x}\ln\Big(\frac{1+\alpha-x}{\alpha}\Big)
1568: + \Big(\frac{1}{\ep}-\ln(\alpha)-\ln(1-x)\Big) (1+x) \nn \\
1569: &+& \delta(1-x)\Big(\frac{1}{\ep^2} + \frac{\pi^2}{6} \Big)
1570: + 4 \Big[\frac{\ln(1-x)}{(1-x)}\Big]_{+}
1571: -\frac{2}{\ep} \Big[\frac{1}{1-x}\Big]_{+} \Bigg\}+\Oe{}\:
1572: \eeqn
1573: This result for $\eta=1$ is in agreement with CS, Eq.~(5.83).
1574: It is also in agreement
1575: with the $\alpha \neq 1$ results of Nagy~\cite{Nagy:privcomm}.
1576: Since the $\mu \to 0$ limit is smooth it can also be obtained from
1577: the limit of Eq.~(\ref{ifinteg}).
1578:
1579: \subsection{Final-state emitter with initial-state spectator}
1580:
1581: Once again there are two cases which we have to consider,
1582: \beqn
1583: && \mbox{a) Final } Q \to Q+g, \mbox{with a massless initial-state spectator;} \nn \\
1584: && \mbox{b) Final } q \to q+g, \mbox{with a massless initial-state spectator.} \nn
1585: \eeqn
1586:
1587: We shall deal with the two cases in turn.
1588: The phase space for the first case is given by
1589: CDST, Eq.~(5.48) with the addition of the factor $\Theta(x-1+\alpha)$ to
1590: reduce the phase-space volume. The integrand is given by CDST, Eq.~(5.50) and yields a
1591: result which we choose to decompose into three separate contributions.
1592: Our decomposition of $I_{ij}^a$ is into a delta-function, plus-distribution and
1593: regular parts.
1594: \beq
1595: \label{eq:I_gQa}
1596: I_{gQ}^a(x;\ep,\alpha) = C_F \left\{
1597: \delta(1-x) \, J_{gQ}^{a\; \rm\delta}(\mu_Q,\ep,\alpha)
1598: +J_{gQ}^{a \; +}(x, \mu_Q,\alpha)
1599: + J_{gQ}^{a\;\rm R}(x,\mu_Q,\alpha) \right\}
1600: +\Oe{}, \nn \\
1601: \eeq
1602: where we have introduced the variable (c.f. Eq.~(5.45) of CDST)
1603: \beq
1604: \mu_Q^2 = \frac{m^2}{2 {\tilde p_{ij}} {p_a}}.
1605: \eeq
1606: This is a different choice than the one given in
1607: Eq.~(5.56) of ref.~\cite{Catani:2002hc} and more suitable for implementation
1608: into our program. The three contributions to Eq.~(\ref{eq:I_gQa}) are
1609: \beqn
1610: J_{gQ}^{a \; \delta}(\mu, \ep,\alpha)& = &\frac{1}{\ep}
1611: -\frac{1}{\ep} \ln\Big(\frac{1+\mut^2}{\mut^2}\Big)
1612: -2 \Li_2(-\mut^2) -\frac{\pi^2}{3}+2
1613: +2 \ln (\alpha) \Big[\ln\Big(\frac{1+\mut^2}{\mut^2}\Big) - 1 \Big] \nn \\
1614: &+&\frac{1}{2}\ln^2\mut^2
1615: +\frac{1}{2}\ln^2(1+\mut^2)-2 \ln \mut^2 \ln (1+\mut^2)
1616: +\ln (\mut^2)
1617: \eeqn
1618: \beq
1619: J_{gQ}^{a \;\rm +}(x,\mu,\alpha) =
1620: \Big[\ln\Big(\frac{1+{\tilde \mu}^2}{{\tilde \mu}^2}\Big) - 1 \Big]
1621: \left(\frac{2}{1-x}\right)_{1-\alpha} \nn \\
1622: \eeq
1623: \beq
1624: [J_{gQ}^{a\; R}(x, \mu,\alpha)] = \Bigg\{
1625: \frac{1-x}{2(1-x+\mu^2)^2}
1626: +\frac{2}{(1-x)}
1627: \ln\Bigg(\frac{(2-x+\mu^2) \; {\tilde \mu}^2}
1628: {(1+{\tilde \mu}^2)(1-x+\mu^2)}\Bigg)
1629: \Bigg\}\; \Theta(x-1+\alpha)
1630: \label{Jdef}
1631: \eeq
1632: where we have defined $\mut^2 = \mu^2/x$ because
1633: the $x$ integration is performed at fixed $\mut^2$.
1634: The distribution is interpreted as follows
1635: \beq
1636: \int_0^1 \; dx \; f(x) \Bigg(\frac{1}{1-x}\Bigg)_{1-\alpha} =
1637: \int^1_{1-\alpha} \; dx \; \frac{(f(x)-f(1))}{1-x}
1638: \eeq
1639: so that as $\alpha \to 1$ we recover the normal plus distribution.
1640:
1641: Eq.~(\ref{Jdef}) with $\alpha=1$ should be compared with
1642: Eqs.~(5.58, 5.59 and 5.60) of CDST.
1643: The comparison is mostly easily performed by showing that the two forms
1644: are identical for $x \neq 1$ and that the integral
1645: \beq \int_0^1 \; dx \; I_{gQ}^a(x;\ep)
1646: \eeq
1647: is identical for the two forms.
1648:
1649: Now we consider case b), in which both the emitter and spectator quarks
1650: are massless. The phase space is given by CS, Eq.~(5.48)
1651: and the subtraction is given by the $\eta$-dependent generalization
1652: of CS, Eq.~(5.49). The result is
1653: \beqn
1654: &&\cV_{qg}(x;\ep,\alpha) = C_F \Bigg\{
1655: \delta(1-x) \Bigg( \frac{7}{2} -\frac{1-\eta}{2} - \frac{\pi^2}{2}
1656: - \frac{3}{2}\ln(\alpha)
1657: - \ln^2(\alpha) + \frac{3}{2 \ep} + \frac{1}{\ep^2} \Bigg)
1658: \nn \\
1659: &+&\frac{2\; \ln(2-x)}{1-x} \; \Theta(x-1+\alpha)
1660: - 2\Bigg(\frac{\ln(1-x)}{1-x}\Bigg)_{1-\alpha}
1661: - \frac{3}{2} \Bigg(\frac{1}{1-x}\Bigg)_{1-\alpha} \Bigg\}+\Oe{}\:
1662: \label{vqgnomass}
1663: \eeqn
1664: Eq.~(\ref{vqgnomass}) is in agreement with CS, Eq.~(5.57) when $\eta=1$.
1665: It is also in agreement with the $\alpha$-dependent results of
1666: Nagy~\cite{Nagy:privcomm}.
1667:
1668:
1669: \subsection{Final-state emitter with final-state spectator}
1670: \def\YP{y_{+}}
1671: \def\xp{x_{+}}
1672: We now consider final state radiation of a gluon from a quark line
1673: with a final state spectator.
1674: This can either be radiation off a massive line,
1675: with a massless spectator, or radiation off a massless line with a
1676: massive spectator:
1677: \beqn
1678: && \mbox{a) Final } Q \to Q+g, \mbox{with massless final-state spectator;} \nn \\
1679: && \mbox{b) Final } q \to q+g, \mbox{with massive final-state spectator.} \nn
1680: \eeqn
1681:
1682: For case (a) we have the phase space from CDST, Eq.~(5.11) multiplied by
1683: $\Theta(\alpha-\yijk)$ where the $\yijk$ and $z_i$ integrations range over,
1684: \beqn
1685: 0 < & \yijk & < 1 \nn \\
1686: 0 < & \zi & < \frac{(1-\mu_Q^2)\yijk}{[\mu_Q^2+(1-\mu_Q^2)\yijk]}\;.
1687: \eeqn
1688:
1689: The dipole
1690: subtraction is a generalization of CDST, Eq.~(5.16).
1691: \beqn
1692: \label{eq:V_gQk}
1693: \langle s|\bV_{g Q,q}|s'\rangle && =
1694: 8\pi\mu^{2\ep}\alpha_S\CF \left\{
1695: \frac{2}{1-\zj(1-\yijk)}
1696: -\frac{\tvijk}{\vijk}\left[(1+\zj) \phi +\frac{m_Q^2}{p_i p_j}\right]
1697: \right\} \delta_{ss'}
1698: \label{dipffsub}
1699: \eeqn
1700:
1701: $\tvijk$, $\vijk$ and $\zj=1-\zi$ are defined in CDST, Eqs.~(5.8), (5.14) and
1702: (5.12). Following CDST, Eq.~(5.23) we divide the dipole subtraction
1703: into an eikonal piece and a collinear piece.
1704: \beq \label{eq:eikdiv}
1705: I_{gQ,k}(\mu_j,\mu_k;\ep) = C_F \Big[2 I^{\eik}(\mu_j,\mu_k;\ep)
1706: +I^{\coll}(\mu_j,\mu_k;\ep) \Big]
1707: \eeq
1708: For a massive quark there is no collinear divergence and hence only the terms
1709: with soft singularities are necessary.
1710: The terms which subtract a putative mass singularity ensure continuity in the
1711: small mass limit. For a large enough mass they are irrelevant and
1712: they can be removed by setting $\phi=0$.
1713:
1714: The eikonal integral is defined by
1715: \beqn
1716: \label{eq:Ieik}
1717: &&\frac{\alpha_S}{2\pi}\frac{1}{\Gamma(1-\ep)}
1718: \biggl(\frac{4\pi\mu^2}{Q^2}\biggr)^\ep I^{\eik}(\mu_Q,0;\ep) = \nn \\
1719: &&\int [\rd p_i(\tpij,\tpk)] \, \frac{1}{2p_i p_j} \,
1720: \frac{8\pi\mu^{2\ep}\alpha_S}{1-\zj(1-\yijk)}
1721: \Theta(\alpha-\yijk), \nn \\
1722: \eeqn
1723: and performing the integration we obtain,
1724: \beqn
1725: I^{\eik}(\mu_Q,0;\ep) &=&
1726: \frac{\ln(\mu_Q^2)}{2 \ep}
1727: -2 \Li_2(1-\mu_Q^2)
1728: -\ln(\mu_Q^2) \ln(1-\mu_Q^2)-\frac{1}{4}\ln^2(\mu_Q^2) \nn \\
1729: &-&\ln(\alpha) \ln(\mu_Q^2)
1730: -\Li_2\Big(\frac{\mu_Q^2-1}{\mu_Q^2}\Big)
1731: +\Li_2\Big(\frac{\alpha (\mu_Q^2-1)}{\mu_Q^2}\Big)+\Oe{}\:.
1732: \eeqn
1733: Taking $\alpha=1$ we can compare with the appropriate limit of CDST, Eq.~(A.1).
1734:
1735: The remaining terms in Eq.~(\ref{dipffsub}) are referred to as collinear subtraction
1736: terms (even though the term proportional to $m_Q^2$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:V_gQk}) has only
1737: a soft singularity). The result after integration is,
1738: \beqn
1739: I^{\coll}(\mu_Q,0;\ep)&=& \frac{1}{\ep}+\phi+2
1740: +\ln(\mu_Q^2) (1+\frac{\phi}{2})
1741: +\ln(\mu_Q^2) \frac{(\phi-2)}{1-\mu_Q^2}-2 \ln(1-\mu_Q^2) \nn \\
1742: &+&\frac{\phi}{2}\Big[3 \alpha-2 -\frac{(3-\mu_Q^2)}{(1-\mu_Q^2)} \ln(\alpha+(1-\alpha) \mu_Q^2)
1743: -\frac{\alpha}{(\alpha+(1-\alpha) \mu_Q^2)}
1744: \Big] \nn \\
1745: &-&2 \ln(\alpha)+2 \frac{\ln(\alpha+(1-\alpha) \mu_Q^2)}{(1-\mu_Q^2)}+\Oe{}\:.
1746: \eeqn
1747: Setting $\alpha=1$ and $\phi=1$ we recover
1748: \beq
1749: I^{\coll}(\mu_Q,0;\ep)= \frac{1}{\ep}+3
1750: +\frac{3}{2} \ln(\mu_Q^2)
1751: -\frac{\ln(\mu_Q^2) }{1-\mu_Q^2}-2 \ln(1-\mu_Q^2)
1752: \eeq
1753: This last result can be extracted from the appropriate limit of
1754: CDST, Eq.~(5.35).
1755:
1756: For case (b) the phase space is again taken from CDST, Eq.~(5.11) but
1757: with the constraint $\Theta(\alpha\YP-\yijk)$ and integration limits
1758: \beqn
1759: 0 < & \yijk & < \YP =\frac{1-\mu_Q}{1+\mu_Q} \nn \\
1760: (1-\vijk)/2 < & z & < (1+\vijk)/2
1761: \eeqn
1762: where
1763: \beq
1764: \vijk =
1765: \frac{\sqrt{[2\mu_k^2+(1-\mu_k^2)(1-\yijk)]^2-4\mu_k^2}}
1766: {(1-\mu_k^2)(1-\yijk)}.
1767: \eeq
1768:
1769: For this case the subtraction term is
1770: \beqn
1771: \langle s|\bV_{g q,Q}|s'\rangle && =
1772: 8\pi\mu^{2\ep}\alpha_S\CF \left\{
1773: \frac{2}{1-\zj(1-\yijk)}
1774: -\frac{\tvijk}{\vijk}\left[1+\zj+\ep(1-\zj) \eta \right]
1775: \right\} \delta_{ss'}
1776: \nn\\[.5em]
1777: \eeqn
1778: The correction pieces for the $\alpha$-dependent
1779: restricted range of the integral over $y$ can be performed with the help
1780: of the transformation
1781: \beq
1782: x = \YP-y+\sqrt{\Big(\YP-y\Big)\Big(\frac{1}{\YP}-y\Big)}
1783: \eeq
1784: as suggested in Appendix C.1 of ref.~\cite{Dittmaier:2000mb}. The result
1785: for the eikonal integral is,
1786: \beqn
1787: &&I^{\eik}(0,\mu_Q;\ep) =
1788: \frac{1}{2 \ep^2}
1789: -\frac{\ln(1-\mu_Q^2)}{\ep}\nn \\
1790: &+&\Li_2(1-\mu_Q^2)
1791: -\frac{5}{12} \pi^2 +\ln^2(1-\mu_Q^2)
1792: \nn \\
1793: &+& \frac{1}{2}
1794: \ln^2\Big(\frac{1-\YP^2+2 \xp \YP}{(1+\YP-\xp)(1-\YP+\xp)}\Big)
1795: -\ln^2\Big(\frac{1+\YP-\xp}{1+\YP}\Big) \nn \\
1796: &+&2 \Bigg[ \; \ln\Big(\frac{1+\YP}{2}\Big) \ln\Big(\frac{1-\YP+\xp}{1-\YP}\Big)
1797: +\; \ln\Big(\frac{1+\YP}{2 \YP} \Big)
1798: \ln\Big(\frac{1-\YP^2+2 \xp \YP}{1-\YP^2} \Big)
1799: \nn \\
1800: &+& \; \Li_{2}\Big(\frac{1-\YP}{1+\YP}\Big)
1801: - \; \Li_{2}\Big(\frac{1-\YP^2+2 \xp \YP}{(1+\YP)^2}\Big) \nn \\
1802: &+& \; \Li_{2}\Big(\frac{1-\YP+\xp}{2}\Big)
1803: -\; \Li_{2}\Big(\frac{1-\YP}{2}\Big)\Bigg]+\Oe{}\:
1804: \eeqn
1805: where
1806: \beq
1807: \xp= \YP(1-\alpha)+\sqrt{(1-\alpha)(1-\alpha\YP^2)}
1808: \eeq
1809: Setting $\alpha=1$ yields agreement with the appropriate limit of CDST, Eq.~(A.1).
1810:
1811: The contribution from the collinear piece which has no
1812: soft singularity is
1813: \beqn
1814: I^{\coll}(0,\mu_Q;\ep) &=&
1815: \frac{3}{2 \ep} -3 \ln(1-\mu_Q)+\frac{9 + \eta}{2}
1816: -\frac{\mu_Q}{1-\mu_Q}
1817: -2 \frac{\mu_Q (1-2 \mu_Q)}{(1-\mu_Q^2)} \nn \\
1818: &-&\frac{3}{2}\Big[\ln(\alpha)+\YP(1-\alpha)\Big]+\Oe{}\:
1819: \eeqn
1820: After setting $\alpha=1$ and $\eta=1$,
1821: this can be compared to CDST, Eq.~(5.35).
1822: The total contribution for the integrated dipole is defined in
1823: Eq.~(\ref{eq:eikdiv}).
1824:
1825:
1826: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1827:
1828: %\cite{Abe:1994st}
1829: \bibitem{Abe:1994st}
1830: F.~Abe {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration],
1831: %``Evidence for top quark production in anti-p p collisions at s**(1/2) =
1832: %1.8-TeV,''
1833: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50}, 2966 (1994).
1834: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D50,2966;%%
1835:
1836: %\cite{Abe:1995hr}
1837: \bibitem{Abe:1995hr}
1838: F.~Abe {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration],
1839: %``Observation of top quark production in anti-p p collisions,''
1840: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 74}, 2626 (1995)
1841: [arXiv:hep-ex/9503002].
1842: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9503002;%%
1843:
1844: %\cite{Abachi:1995iq}
1845: \bibitem{Abachi:1995iq}
1846: S.~Abachi {\it et al.} [D0 Collaboration],
1847: %``Observation of the top quark,''
1848: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 74}, 2632 (1995)
1849: [arXiv:hep-ex/9503003].
1850: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9503003;%%
1851:
1852: %\cite{Juste:2004an}
1853: \bibitem{Juste:2004an}
1854: A.~Juste [CDF Collaboration],
1855: %``Search for single top quark production and measurements of top quark decay
1856: %properties at the Tevatron,''
1857: arXiv:hep-ex/0406041.
1858: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0406041;%%
1859: %\cite{Abbott:2000pa}
1860:
1861: \bibitem{Abbott:2000pa}
1862: B.~Abbott {\it et al.} [D0 Collaboration],
1863: %``Search for electroweak production of single top quarks in p anti-p
1864: %collisions,''
1865: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 031101 (2001)
1866: [arXiv:hep-ex/0008024].
1867: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0008024;%%
1868:
1869: %\cite{Abazov:2001ns}
1870: \bibitem{Abazov:2001ns}
1871: V.~M.~Abazov {\it et al.} [D0 Collaboration],
1872: %``Search for single top quark production at D0 using neural networks,''
1873: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 517}, 282 (2001)
1874: [arXiv:hep-ex/0106059].
1875: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0106059;%%
1876:
1877: %%\cite{Acosta:2004er}
1878: \bibitem{Acosta:2004er}
1879: D.~Acosta {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration],
1880: %``Optimized search for single top quark production at the Fermilab Tevatron,''
1881: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 052003 (2004).
1882: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D69,052003;%%
1883:
1884: %\cite{Acosta:2001un}
1885: \bibitem{Acosta:2001un}
1886: D.~Acosta {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration],
1887: %``Search for single top quark production in p anti-p collisions at s**(1/2) =
1888: %1.8-TeV,''
1889: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 091102 (2002).
1890: %[arXiv:hep-ex/0110067].
1891: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0110067;%%
1892:
1893: %\cite{Campbell:1999ah}
1894: \bibitem{Campbell:1999ah}
1895: J.~M.~Campbell and R.~K.~Ellis,
1896: %``An update on vector boson pair production at hadron colliders,''
1897: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 113006 (1999)
1898: [arXiv:hep-ph/9905386].
1899: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905386;%%
1900:
1901: %\cite{Campbell:2000bg}
1902: \bibitem{Campbell:2000bg}
1903: J.~M.~Campbell and R.~K.~Ellis,
1904: %``Radiative corrections to Z b anti-b production,''
1905: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 114012 (2000)
1906: [arXiv:hep-ph/0006304].
1907: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006304;%%
1908:
1909: %\cite{Campbell:2002tg}
1910: \bibitem{Campbell:2002tg}
1911: J.~Campbell and R.~K.~Ellis,
1912: %``Next-to-leading order corrections to W + 2jet and Z + 2jet production at
1913: %hadron colliders,''
1914: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 113007 (2002)
1915: [arXiv:hep-ph/0202176].
1916: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202176;%%
1917:
1918: \bibitem{Cortese:fw}
1919: S.~Cortese and R.~Petronzio,
1920: %``The Single Top Production Channel At Tevatron Energies,''
1921: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 253}, 494 (1991).
1922: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B253,494;%%
1923:
1924: \bibitem{Stelzer:1995mi}
1925: T.~Stelzer and S.~Willenbrock,
1926: %``Single top quark production via q anti-q $\to$ t anti-b,''
1927: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 357}, 125 (1995).
1928: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9505433;%%
1929:
1930: \bibitem{Heinson:1996zm}
1931: A.~P.~Heinson, A.~S.~Belyaev and E.~E.~Boos,
1932: %``Single top quarks at the Fermilab Tevatron,''
1933: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 3114 (1997).
1934: %arXiv:hep-ph/9612424.
1935: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9612424;%%
1936:
1937: \bibitem{Willenbrock:cr}
1938: S.~S.~Willenbrock and D.~A.~Dicus,
1939: %``Production Of Heavy Quarks From W Gluon Fusion,''
1940: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 34}, 155 (1986).
1941: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D34,155;%%
1942:
1943: \bibitem{Yuan:1989tc}
1944: C.~P.~Yuan,
1945: %``A New Method To Detect A Heavy Top Quark At The Tevatron,''
1946: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 41}, 42 (1990).
1947: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D41,42;%%
1948:
1949: \bibitem{Ellis:1992yw}
1950: R.~K.~Ellis and S.~Parke,
1951: %``Top quark production by W gluon fusion,''
1952: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46}, 3785 (1992).
1953: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D46,3785;%%
1954:
1955: \bibitem{Carlson:1993dt}
1956: D.~O.~Carlson and C.~P.~Yuan,
1957: %``Studying the top quark via the W - gluon fusion process,''
1958: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 306}, 386 (1993).
1959: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B306,386;%%
1960:
1961: %\cite{Tait:1999cf}
1962: \bibitem{Tait:1999cf}
1963: T.~M.~P.~Tait,
1964: %``The t W- mode of single top production,''
1965: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 034001 (2000)
1966: [arXiv:hep-ph/9909352].
1967: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909352;%%
1968:
1969: %\cite{Belyaev:2000me}
1970: \bibitem{Belyaev:2000me}
1971: A.~Belyaev and E.~Boos,
1972: %``Single top quark t W + X production at the LHC: A closer look,''
1973: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 034012 (2001)
1974: [arXiv:hep-ph/0003260].
1975: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003260;%%
1976:
1977: %\cite{Smith:1996ij}
1978: \bibitem{Smith:1996ij}
1979: M.~C.~Smith and S.~Willenbrock,
1980: %``QCD and Yukawa Corrections to Single-Top-Quark Production via q qbar $\to$ t
1981: %bbar,''
1982: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54}, 6696 (1996)
1983: [arXiv:hep-ph/9604223].
1984: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9604223;%%
1985:
1986: %%\cite{Bordes:1994ki}
1987: \bibitem{Bordes:1994ki}
1988: G.~Bordes and B.~van Eijk,
1989: %``Calculating QCD corrections to single top production in hadronic
1990: %interactions,''
1991: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 435}, 23 (1995).
1992: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B435,23;%%
1993:
1994:
1995: %\cite{Stelzer:1997ns}
1996: \bibitem{Stelzer:1997ns}
1997: T.~Stelzer, Z.~Sullivan and S.~Willenbrock,
1998: %``Single-top-quark production via W-gluon fusion at next-to-leading order,''
1999: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 5919 (1997)
2000: [arXiv:hep-ph/9705398].
2001: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9705398;%%
2002:
2003: %\cite{Harris:2002md}
2004: \bibitem{Harris:2002md}
2005: B.~W.~Harris, E.~Laenen, L.~Phaf, Z.~Sullivan and S.~Weinzierl,
2006: %``The fully differential single top quark cross section in next-to-leading
2007: %order QCD,''
2008: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 054024 (2002)
2009: [arXiv:hep-ph/0207055].
2010: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207055;%%
2011:
2012:
2013: %\cite{Sullivan:2004ie}
2014: \bibitem{Sullivan:2004ie}
2015: Z.~Sullivan,
2016: %``Understanding single-top-quark production and jets at hadron colliders,''
2017: arXiv:hep-ph/0408049.
2018: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408049;%%
2019:
2020: %\cite{Fadin:1993kt}
2021: \bibitem{Fadin:1993kt}
2022: V.~S.~Fadin, V.~A.~Khoze and A.~D.~Martin,
2023: %``How suppressed are the radiative interference effects in heavy instable
2024: %particle production?,''
2025: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 320}, 141 (1994)
2026: [arXiv:hep-ph/9309234].
2027: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9309234;%%
2028:
2029: %\cite{Fadin:1993dz}
2030: \bibitem{Fadin:1993dz}
2031: V.~S.~Fadin, V.~A.~Khoze and A.~D.~Martin,
2032: %``Interference radiative phenomena in the production of heavy unstable
2033: %particles,''
2034: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 2247 (1994).
2035: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,2247;%%
2036:
2037: %\cite{Melnikov:np}
2038: \bibitem{Melnikov:np}
2039: K.~Melnikov and O.~I.~Yakovlev,
2040: %``Top Near Threshold: All Alpha-S Corrections Are Trivial,''
2041: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 324}, 217 (1994)
2042: [arXiv:hep-ph/9302311].
2043: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9302311;%%
2044:
2045: %\cite{Pittau:1996rp}
2046: \bibitem{Pittau:1996rp}
2047: R.~Pittau,
2048: %``Final state QCD corrections to off-shell single top production in hadron
2049: %collisions,''
2050: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 386}, 397 (1996)
2051: [arXiv:hep-ph/9603265].
2052: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603265;%%
2053:
2054: %\cite{Macesanu:2001bj}
2055: \bibitem{Macesanu:2001bj}
2056: C.~Macesanu,
2057: %``QCD loop corrections to top production and decay at e+ e- colliders,''
2058: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 074036 (2002)
2059: [arXiv:hep-ph/0112142].
2060: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112142;%%
2061:
2062: %\cite{Ellis:1980wv}
2063: \bibitem{Ellis:1980wv}
2064: R.~K.~Ellis, D.~A.~Ross and A.~E.~Terrano,
2065: %``The Perturbative Calculation Of Jet Structure In E+ E- Annihilation,''
2066: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 178} (1981) 421.
2067: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B178,421;%%
2068:
2069: %\cite{Catani:1996jh}
2070: \bibitem{Catani:1996jh}
2071: S.~Catani and M.~H.~Seymour,
2072: %``The Dipole Formalism for the Calculation of QCD Jet Cross Sections at
2073: %Next-to-Leading Order,''
2074: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 378} (1996) 287
2075: [hep-ph/9602277].
2076: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9602277;%%
2077:
2078: %\cite{Catani:1997vz}
2079: \bibitem{Catani:1997vz}
2080: S.~Catani and M.~H.~Seymour,
2081: %``A general algorithm for calculating jet cross sections in NLO QCD,''
2082: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 485} (1997) 291
2083: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 510} (1997) 291]
2084: [hep-ph/9605323].
2085: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9605323;%%
2086:
2087:
2088: %%\cite{Catani:2002hc}
2089: \bibitem{Catani:2002hc}
2090: S.~Catani, S.~Dittmaier, M.~H.~Seymour and Z.~Trocsanyi,
2091: %``The dipole formalism for next-to-leading order QCD calculations with massive
2092: %partons,''
2093: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 627}, 189 (2002)
2094: [arXiv:hep-ph/0201036].
2095: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201036;%%
2096:
2097: %\cite{Nagy:1998bb}
2098: \bibitem{Nagy:1998bb}
2099: Z.~Nagy and Z.~Trocsanyi,
2100: %``Next-to-leading order calculation of four-jet observables in electron
2101: %positron annihilation,''
2102: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 014020 (1999)
2103: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 62}, 099902 (2000)]
2104: [arXiv:hep-ph/9806317].
2105: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806317;%%
2106:
2107: %\cite{Nagy:2003tz}
2108: \bibitem{Nagy:2003tz}
2109: Z.~Nagy,
2110: %``Next-to-leading order calculation of three-jet observables in hadron hadron
2111: %collision,''
2112: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 094002 (2003)
2113: [arXiv:hep-ph/0307268].
2114: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307268;%%
2115:
2116: %\cite{Jezabek:1988iv}
2117: \bibitem{Jezabek:1988iv}
2118: M.~Jezabek and J.~H.~Kuhn,
2119: %``QCD Corrections To Semileptonic Decays Of Heavy Quarks,''
2120: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 314}, 1 (1989).
2121: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B314,1;%%
2122:
2123:
2124: %\cite{Gottschalk:1980rv}
2125: \bibitem{Gottschalk:1980rv}
2126: T.~Gottschalk,
2127: %``Chromodynamic Corrections To Neutrino Production Of Heavy Quarks,''
2128: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 23}, 56 (1981).
2129: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D23,56;%%
2130:
2131: %\cite{Schmidt:1995mr}
2132: \bibitem{Schmidt:1995mr}
2133: C.~R.~Schmidt,
2134: %``Top quark production and decay at next-to-leading order in e+ e-
2135: %annihilation,''
2136: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54}, 3250 (1996)
2137: [arXiv:hep-ph/9504434].
2138: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9504434;%%
2139:
2140:
2141: %\cite{'tHooft:1972fi}
2142: \bibitem{'tHooft:1972fi}
2143: G.~'t Hooft and M.~J.~G.~Veltman,
2144: %``Regularization And Renormalization Of Gauge Fields,''
2145: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 44}, 189 (1972).
2146: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B44,189;%%
2147:
2148: %\cite{Bern:2002zk}
2149: \bibitem{Bern:2002zk}
2150: Z.~Bern, A.~De Freitas, L.~J.~Dixon and H.~L.~Wong,
2151: %``Supersymmetric regularization, two-loop QCD amplitudes and coupling
2152: %shifts,''
2153: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 085002 (2002)
2154: [arXiv:hep-ph/0202271].
2155: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202271;%%
2156:
2157: %\cite{Altarelli:1979ub}
2158: \bibitem{Altarelli:1979ub}
2159: G.~Altarelli, R.~K.~Ellis and G.~Martinelli,
2160: %``Large Perturbative Corrections To The Drell-Yan Process In QCD,''
2161: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 157}, 461 (1979).
2162: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B157,461;%%
2163:
2164: \bibitem{Nagy:privcomm}
2165: Z.~Nagy, private communication.
2166:
2167: \bibitem{Dittmaier:2000mb}
2168: S.~Dittmaier,
2169: %``A general approach to photon radiation off fermions,''
2170: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 565} (2000) 69
2171: [hep-ph/9904440].
2172: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904440;%%
2173:
2174: %\cite{Khoze:1992rq}
2175: \bibitem{Khoze:1992rq}
2176: V.~A.~Khoze, W.~J.~Stirling and L.~H.~Orr,
2177: %``Soft gluon radiation in e+ e- $\to$ t anti-t,''
2178: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 378}, 413 (1992).
2179: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B378,413;%%
2180:
2181:
2182: %\cite{Azzi:2004rc}
2183: \bibitem{Azzi:2004rc}
2184: P.~Azzi {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration],
2185: %``Combination of CDF and D0 results on the top-quark mass,''
2186: arXiv:hep-ex/0404010.
2187: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0404010;%%
2188:
2189:
2190: %\cite{Blazey:2000qt}
2191: \bibitem{Blazey:2000qt}
2192: G.~C.~Blazey {\it et al.},
2193: %``Run II jet physics,''
2194: arXiv:hep-ex/0005012.
2195: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0005012;%%
2196:
2197: %\cite{Pumplin:2002vw}
2198: \bibitem{Pumplin:2002vw}
2199: J.~Pumplin, D.~R.~Stump, J.~Huston, H.~L.~Lai, P.~Nadolsky and W.~K.~Tung,
2200: %``New generation of parton distributions with uncertainties from global QCD
2201: %analysis,''
2202: JHEP {\bf 0207}, 012 (2002)
2203: [arXiv:hep-ph/0201195].
2204: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201195;%%
2205:
2206: %\cite{Martin:2002aw}
2207: \bibitem{Martin:2002aw}
2208: A.~D.~Martin, R.~G.~Roberts, W.~J.~Stirling and R.~S.~Thorne,
2209: %``Uncertainties of predictions from parton distributions. I: Experimental
2210: %errors. ((T)),''
2211: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 28}, 455 (2003)
2212: [arXiv:hep-ph/0211080].
2213: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211080;%%
2214: \end{thebibliography}
2215: \end{document}
2216:
2217:
2218: