1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: % File: IFAE-template.tex %
3: % %
4: % This file contains instructions to prepare the proceedings %
5: % for IFAE 2004. %
6: % %
7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8: \documentclass{ifae}
9:
10: \begin{document}
11:
12: %--- Header (title, authors, abstract)
13: \begin{header}
14: \begin{flushright}
15: CERN-PH-TH-2004-174\\
16: \end{flushright}
17: % The title of your talk
18: \title{Fragmentation of bottom quarks\\ in top quark decay}
19:
20: % List of authors with affiliations
21: \begin{Authlist}
22: G.~Corcella
23: %\Iref{cern}
24:
25: %\Affiliation{cern}
26: \it{CERN, Department of Physics, Theory Division,
27: CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland}
28:
29: \end{Authlist}
30:
31: % Abstract
32: \begin{abstract}
33: We review the main aspects of the
34: fragmentation of bottom quarks in top quark decay.
35: The NLO b-quark energy spectrum presents
36: large mass logarithms $\ln(m_t^2/m_b^2)$, which can be resummed by the use of
37: the approach of perturbative fragmentation functions.
38: Large soft contributions in both coefficient function and initial condition of
39: the perturbative fragmentation function have been resummed as well.
40: Results on the energy distribution of b quarks and b-flavoured
41: hadrons are finally presented in both $x$ and moment spaces.
42: \end{abstract}
43:
44: \end{header}
45:
46: % Beging of the text (no page break)
47: \section{Introduction}
48: A reliable understanding of bottom quark fragmentation in top quark
49: decay ($\rm{t}\to \rm{bW}$) will be fundamental to accurately measure the top
50: properties, such as its mass $m_t$,
51: at present and future high-energy colliders.
52: In fact, the uncertainty on bottom quark fragmentation is one of
53: the sources of systematic error on $m_t$ at the Tevatron accelerator
54: \cite{tevatron}
55: and will play a crucial role in the reconstruction of $m_t$ from
56: final states with leptons and $\mathrm{J/\psi}$ at the LHC \cite{avto}.
57:
58: In this paper we investigate bottom fragmentation in top decay within
59: the framework of perturbative fragmentation functions \cite{mele}.
60: We shall resum collinear logarithms $\sim\ln(m_t^2/m_b^2)$ and soft terms
61: that appear in the next-to-leading order (NLO) b-quark
62: energy distribution.
63: We shall present results on the b-quark energy spectrum in top quark decay
64: and investigate the impact of collinear and soft resummation.
65: Hadron-level results on b-flavoured hadrons will be shown
66: in $x_B$ and moment spaces.
67:
68:
69: \section{Collinear and soft resummation}
70: In Ref.~\cite{cm} NLO corrections
71: to top decay ${\rm{t}}(p_t)\to {\rm{b}}(p_b){\rm{W}}(p_W)
72: ({\rm{g}}(p_g))$
73: have been computed
74: for a massive b quark, and the differential width $d\Gamma/dx_b$,
75: with $x_b$ being the normalized
76: b-quark energy fraction in the top rest frame, has been calculated.
77: The differential rate obtained in \cite{cm} exhibits large mass logarithms
78: $\sim\alpha_S\ln(m_t^2/m_b^2)$ that need to be resummed in order to improve
79: the prediction.
80:
81: Such contributions can be resummed by using the
82: perturbative fragmentation approach \cite{mele}, which, up to power
83: corrections, factorizes the rate of
84: heavy-quark production into the convolution of a
85: coefficient function, describing the emission of a massless parton,
86: and a perturbative fragmentation function
87: $D(\mu_F,m)$, where $\mu_F$ is the factorization scale.
88: In the $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ factorization scheme we have:
89: \begin{eqnarray}
90: {1\over {\Gamma_0}} {{d\Gamma^b}\over{dx_b}} (x_b,m_t,m_b) &=&
91: \sum_i\int_{x_b}^1
92: {{{dz}\over z}\left[{1\over{\Gamma_0}}
93: {{d\hat\Gamma_i}\over {dz}}(z,m_t,\mu_F)
94: \right]^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}
95: D_i\left({x_b\over z},\mu_F,m_b \right)^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}} \nonumber \\
96: &&+ {\cal
97: O}\left((m_b/m_t)^p\right) \; ,
98: \label{pff}
99: \end{eqnarray}
100: In Eq.~(\ref{pff}) $\Gamma_0$ is the Born width of the process $\rm{t\to bW}$.
101: The ${\cal O}(\alpha_S)$ top decay coefficient function has been computed in
102: \cite{cm}.
103:
104: The perturbative fragmentation function expresses the
105: transition of the massless parton into the massive quark, and its value
106: at any scale $\mu_F$ can be obtained by solving the
107: Dokshitzer--Gribov--Lipatov--Altarelli--Parisi (DGLAP) evolution
108: equations \cite{ap,dgl} once an initial condition at a scale
109: $\mu_{0F}$ is given.
110:
111: In \cite{mele} the NLO expression for $D(\mu_{0F},m)$,
112: which was argued to be
113: process independent, was given.
114: The process independence has been lately established in
115: a more general way in Ref.~\cite{cc}.
116:
117: The initial condition of the perturbative fragmentation function
118: reads \cite{mele}:
119: \begin{equation}
120: D_p(x_b,\mu_{0F},m_b)=\delta(1-x_b)+{{\alpha_S(\mu_0)C_F}\over{2\pi}}
121: \left[{{1+x_b^2}\over{1-x_b}}\left(\ln {{\mu_{0F}^2}\over{m_b^2}}-
122: 2\ln (1-x_b)-1\right)\right]_+.
123: \label{dbb}
124: \end{equation}
125:
126: As discussed in \cite{cm}, solving the DGLAP equations for the
127: evolution $\mu_{0F}\to \mu_F$, with a NLO kernel,
128: allows one to resum leading logarithms (LL)
129: $\sim\alpha_S^n\ln^n(\mu_F^2/\mu_{0F}^2)$
130: and next-to-leading logarithms (NLL) $\sim\alpha_S^n
131: \ln^{n-1}(\mu_F^2/\mu_{0F}^2)$ (collinear resummation).
132: If we set $\mu_{0F}\simeq m_b$ and $\mu_F\simeq m_t$, we resum
133: large logarithms $\sim \ln(m_t^2/m_b^2)$, which are indeed the terms
134: appearing in the massive, unevolved, NLO
135: $d\Gamma/dx_b$.
136:
137: Moreover, both the ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$
138: coefficient function \cite{cm} and the initial condition
139: of the perturbative fragmentation function (\ref{dbb}) present,
140: at ${\cal O}(\alpha_S)$, terms
141: that behave like $1/(1-x_b)_+$ or $[\ln(1-x_b)/(1-x_b)]_+$, which become large
142: for $x_b\to 1$, i.e. for soft-gluon radiation.
143: In Mellin moment space, such contributions correspond to behaviours
144: $\sim\ln N$ and $\sim\ln^2N$ respectively.
145:
146: Soft contributions in the perturbative fragmentation function
147: are process-independent and have been resummed in \cite{cc} with
148: NLL accuracy.
149: Soft terms
150: in the coefficient function are instead process-dependent.
151: Resummation of
152: LL $\sim\alpha_S^n\ln^{n+1}N$ and NLL $\sim\alpha_S^n\ln^nN$
153: contributions to the top-decay coefficient function has been
154: performed in \cite{ccm} and we do not report here the formulae for the sake
155: of brevity.
156:
157: \section{Parton-level results}
158: We would like to present results on the b-quark energy distribution in
159: top decay and investigate the effect of collinear and soft resummation.
160: \begin{figure}[hbtp]
161: \begin{center}
162: \epsfig{file=part.eps,width=0.6\linewidth}
163: \caption{b-quark energy distribution in top decay, according
164: to the unresummed fixed-order calculation (dotted line),
165: and after inclusion of collinear resummation
166: (dashed) and of both collinear and soft resummations (solid).
167: We have set $m_t=175$~GeV, $m_b=5$~GeV, $m_W=80$~GeV,
168: $\Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}}=200$~MeV.
169: In the inset figure, we show the same curves on a logarithmic scale,
170: for $x_b>0.8$.}
171: \label{parton}
172: \end{center}
173: \end{figure}
174: In Fig.~\ref{parton} we show the b-quark energy spectrum.
175: The NLO calculation
176: lies below the two resummed predictions and
177: is divergent as $x_b\to 1$. After the resummation of collinear terms
178: $\sim\ln(m_t^2/m_b^2)$ the distribution exhibits a sharp peak at $x_b$ close to
179: 1. Finally, the inclusion of soft-gluon resummation smoothens
180: out the distribution, which exhibits the so-called
181: Sudakov peak.
182:
183: As discussed in \cite{ccm}, the implementation of collinear and
184: soft resummation
185: leads to a milder dependence of observables on the factorization
186: and renormalization scales entering the calculation, which corresponds
187: to a reduction of the theoretical uncertainty.
188: As an example, Fig.~\ref{fac} shows the results on the dependence of the $x_b$
189: spectrum on the factorization scale $\mu_F$ in Eq.~(\ref{pff}),
190: which is taken equal to
191: $m_t/2$, $m_t$ and 2$m_t$, and the effect of soft resummation.
192: We note that while the unresummed prediction still exhibits a
193: dependence on the value chosen for $\mu_F$, the implementation
194: of soft resummation yields three almost undistinguishable distributions.
195:
196: \begin{figure}[hbtp]
197: \begin{center}
198: \epsfig{file=fac1.eps,width=0.6\linewidth}
199: \caption{b-quark energy spectrum for different values
200: of the factorization scale $\mu_F$, with (solid) and
201: without (dashes)
202: NLL soft-gluon resummation.}
203: \label{fac}
204: \end{center}
205: \end{figure}
206:
207:
208: \section{Hadron-level results}
209:
210: We would like to make predictions for the spectrum of b-flavoured hadrons
211: in top decay.
212: We write the normalized rate for the production of B-hadrons
213: B as a convolution
214: of the rate for the production of b quarks and
215: a non-perturbative fragmentation function $D^{np}(x)$:
216: \begin{equation}
217: {1\over {\Gamma}} {{d\Gamma^B}\over{dx_B}} (x_B,m_t,m_b)={1\over{\Gamma}}
218: \int_{x_B}^1 {{{dz}\over z}{{d\Gamma^b}\over {dz}}(z,m_t,m_b)
219: D^{np}\left({x_B\over z}\right)},
220: \label{npff}
221: \end{equation}
222: where $x_B$
223: is the B normalized energy fraction.
224: The parton-level rate $d\Gamma^b/ dz$ can be computed following
225: the method which has been discussed in the previous section.
226:
227: As for the non-perturbative fragmentation
228: function, one can use some phenomenological models with
229: tunable parameters, which are to be
230: fitted to experimental data.
231: We consider a power law with two parameters:
232: \begin{equation}
233: D_{np}(x;\alpha,\beta)={1\over{B(\beta +1,\alpha +1)}}(1-x)^\alpha x^\beta,
234: \label{ab}
235: \end{equation}
236: the model of Kartvelishvili et al. \cite{kart}
237: \begin{equation}
238: D_{np}(x;\delta)=(1+\delta)(2+\delta) (1-x) x^\delta
239: \label{kk}
240: \end{equation}
241: and the non-perturbative fragmentation function of Peterson et
242: al. \cite{peterson}:
243: \begin{equation}
244: D_{np}(x;\epsilon)={A\over {x[1-1/x-\epsilon/(1-x)]^2}}.
245: \label{peter}
246: \end{equation}
247: In Eq.~(\ref{ab}), $B(x,y)$ is the Euler beta function;
248: in (\ref{peter}) $A$ is a normalization constant.
249: We tune such models to $\rm{e}^+\rm{e}^-$ data from the
250: ALEPH \cite{heister} and SLD \cite{abe} Collaboration. The ALEPH data
251: refer to b-flavoured mesons, the SLD data to baryons and mesons.
252: When we do the fits, we must describe the $\rm{e}^+\rm{e}^-\to
253: \rm{b}\bar{\rm{b}}$ process
254: within the same framework as we did
255: for top decay, i.e. we use the perturbative fragmentation method,
256: NLL DGLAP evolution and NLL soft resummation.
257: As in \cite{cm,ccm}, we shall consider $x_B$ values within the range
258: $0.18\leq x_B\leq 0.94$.
259: \begin{table}[ht!]
260: \caption{Results of fits of hadronization models to ALEPH and SLD data
261: on b-flavoured hadron production in $\rm{e}^+\rm{e}^-$ annihilation.}
262: \label{tab1}
263: \begin{center}
264: \begin{tabular}{||l|r|r||}\hline
265: &ALEPH\hspace{1.05cm} &SLD\hspace{1.45cm} \\ \hline
266: \hspace{1.cm}$\alpha$&$0.51\pm 0.15$\hspace{0.79cm} &$2.04\pm 0.38$
267: \hspace{0.78cm} \\ \hline
268: \hspace{1.cm}$\beta$&$13.35\pm 1.46$\hspace{0.8cm}
269: &$25.18\pm 3.27$\hspace{0.92cm} \\ \hline
270: $\chi^2(\alpha,\beta)$/dof&2.56/14\hspace{1.2cm}
271: &11.50/16\hspace{1.2cm} \\ \hline
272: \hspace{1.cm}$\delta$&$17.76\pm 0.62$\hspace{0.8cm}
273: &$16.59\pm 0.49$\hspace{0.92cm} \\ \hline
274: \hspace{0.2cm}$\chi^2(\delta)$/dof&10.54/15\hspace{1.2cm}
275: &22.19/17\hspace{1.1cm} \\ \hline
276: \hspace{1.cm}$\epsilon$&$(1.77\pm 0.16)\times 10^{-3}$
277: &$(1.61\pm 0.14)\times 10^{-3}$\\ \hline
278: \hspace{0.2cm}$\chi^2(\epsilon)$/dof&29.83/15\hspace{1.1cm}
279: &158.15/17\hspace{1.1cm} \\ \hline
280: \end{tabular}
281: \end{center}
282: \end{table}
283: \par In Table~\ref{tab1} we show the results of our fits, along with
284: the corresponding values of $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom.
285: One can see that the power law with two
286: parameters (\ref{ab}) and the Kartvelishvili model (\ref{kk})
287: fit both ALEPH and SLD data rather well, while the Peterson fragmentation
288: function is marginally consistent with ALEPH and unable to
289: reproduce the SLD data.
290: Moreover, the values of
291: the best-fit parameters $\delta$ and $\epsilon$, fitted to ALEPH and SLD, are
292: in agreement within two standard deviations.
293:
294: In Fig.~\ref{aleph} we show our prediction for the B-hadron spectrum in
295: top decay, using all three hadronization models fitted to the ALEPH data.
296: In order to account for the uncertainties on the best-fit parameters,
297: for each model we plot a band corresponding to a
298: prediction at one-standard-deviation confidence level.
299: From Fig.~\ref{aleph} we learn that the predictions based on the models
300: (\ref{ab}) and (\ref{kk}) are consistent,
301: while the Peterson model yields a distribution that lies quite far from
302: the other two and is peaked at larger values of $x_B$.
303:
304: In Fig.~\ref{sld} we plot the $x_B$ spectra yielded by models
305: (\ref{ab}) and (\ref{kk}), but fitted to SLD.
306: Such distributions statistically agree at the confidence
307: level of two standard deviations.
308:
309: In Fig.~\ref{alsld} we compare the predictions
310: obtained using the power law with two parameters, but fitted to
311: ALEPH and SLD data. We observe that the spectra are distinguishable; this
312: difference may be related to the different hadron types that the
313: two experiments have reconstructed.
314: \begin{figure}[ht]
315: \begin{center}
316: \epsfig{file=alres.eps,width=0.6\linewidth}
317: \caption{B-hadron energy spectrum in top decay, according to the
318: power law (solid line), the Kartvelishvili (dashed) and
319: the Peterson model (dotted), fitted to the $\rm{e}^+\rm{e}^-\to
320: \rm{b}\bar{\rm{b}}$
321: data from ALEPH. The plotted curves are the edges of bands at
322: one-standard-deviation confidence level.}
323: \label{aleph}
324: \end{center}
325: \end{figure}
326: \begin{figure}[ht]
327: \begin{center}
328: \epsfig{file=sldres.eps,width=0.6\linewidth}
329: \caption{As in Fig.~\ref{aleph}, but fitting the hadronization
330: models in Eqs.~(\ref{ab}) and (\ref{kk}) to the SLD data.}
331: \label{sld}
332: \end{center}
333: \end{figure}
334: \begin{figure}[ht]
335: \begin{center}
336: \epsfig{file=alsld.eps,width=0.6\linewidth}
337: \caption{B spectrum in top decay according to the power law (\ref{ab}),
338: fitted to ALEPH (solid) and SLD (dashes) data.}
339: \label{alsld}
340: \end{center}
341: \end{figure}
342: \par
343: We finally wish to present results on the moments of the B-hadron spectrum
344: in moment space $\Gamma_N^B$. Such moments
345: can be written as the product of a
346: perturbative and a non-perturbative contribution
347: $\Gamma^B_N = \Gamma^b_N D^{np}_N$. The advantage of working in moment space
348: is that one can extract $D^{np}_N$ from $\rm{e}^+\rm{e}^-$ data without relying
349: on any specific hadronization model.
350:
351: Predictions for the moments $\Gamma^B_N$ of B-meson spectra in
352: top decay are given in Table~\ref{tab2}, where
353: data from the DELPHI Collaboration \cite{delphi} are used to
354: obtain the non-perturbative information $D_N^{np}$.
355: Two sets of perturbative results ([A] and [B]) are shown,
356: the first using $\Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}} = 0.226$~GeV and
357: $m_b = 4.75$~GeV, the second
358: $\Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}} = 0.2$~GeV and
359: $m_b = 5$~GeV, the default values of this analysis.
360: As expected, the
361: perturbative calculations and the corresponding non-perturbative
362: components differ at the level of few per cent,
363: according to whether one uses set [A]
364: or [B]. However, the final hadron-level predictions for the physical results
365: $\Gamma^B_N$ differ only at the level of per mille.
366:
367:
368: \section{Conclusions}
369: We have considered bottom quark fragmentation in top quark decay
370: $\rm{t}\to \rm{bW}$.
371: We have pointed out that
372: the fixed-order result on the b-quark energy spectrum exhibits large
373: mass logarithms $\sim\ln(m_t^2/m_b^2)$, which can be resummed
374: to NLL accuracy using the approach of perturbative fragmentation
375: functions and DGLAP evolution equations. Moreover,
376: NLL soft contributions to the coefficient function and
377: to the initial condition of the perturbative fragmentation function
378: have been resummed as well.
379:
380: We have presented results on the b-quark spectrum in top decay, which
381: displays a remarkable impact of the inclusion of soft and
382: collinear resummation. In particular, the distributions exhibit
383: very little dependence on factorization and renormalization scales.
384:
385: Predictions on b-flavoured hadron energy distributions in top decay have been
386: obtained using ALEPH and SLD data to parametrize some hadronization models
387: in $x_B$ space and DELPHI data to get non-perturbative information in
388: moment space.
389:
390: The considered approach can now be applied to study several observables,
391: which are relevant to top quark phenomenology at the Tevatron and ultimately at
392: the LHC and compare the obtained results with the ones given by Monte Carlo
393: event generators.
394:
395: \begin{table}[ht]
396: \caption{DELPHI data for the moments
397: $\sigma^B_N$, the resummed $\rm{e}^+\rm{e}^-$ perturbative
398: calculations for $\sigma^b_N$~\protect\cite{cc}, and
399: the extracted non-perturbative contribution
400: $D^{np}_N$. Using the perturbative results $\Gamma^b_N$, a prediction for
401: the physical observable moments $\Gamma^B_N$ is given.
402: Set [A]: $\Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}} = 0.226$~GeV and $m_b = 4.75$~GeV,
403: set [B]: $\Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}} = 0.2$~GeV and $m_b = 5$~GeV. }
404: \label{tab2}
405: \begin{tabular}{| c | c c c c |}
406: \hline
407: & $\langle x\rangle$ & $\langle x^2\rangle$ & $\langle x^3\rangle$
408: & $\langle x^4\rangle$ \\
409: \hline
410: $\rm{e}^+\rm{e}^-$ data $\sigma_N^B$&0.7153$\pm$0.0052 &0.5401$\pm$0.0064 &
411: 0.4236$\pm$0.0065 &0.3406$\pm$0.0064 \\
412: \hline
413: \hline
414: $\rm{e}^+\rm{e}^-$
415: NLL $\sigma_N^b$ [A] & 0.7666 & 0.6239 & 0.5246 & 0.4502 \\
416: $\rm{e}^+\rm{e}^-$ NLL $\sigma_N^b$ [B]
417: & 0.7801 & 0.6436 & 0.5479 & 0.4755 \\
418: \hline
419: $D^{np}_N$ [A] & 0.9331 & 0.8657 & 0.8075 & 0.7566 \\
420: $D^{np}_N$ [B] & 0.9169 & 0.8392 & 0.7731 & 0.7163 \\
421: \hline
422: \hline
423: t-decay NLL $\Gamma^b_N$ [A]& 0.7750 & 0.6417 & 0.5498 & 0.4807 \\
424: t-decay NLL $\Gamma^b_N$ [B]& 0.7884 & 0.6617 & 0.5737 & 0.5072 \\
425: \hline
426: t-decay $\Gamma^B_N$ [A] & 0.7231 & 0.5555 & 0.4440 & 0.3637 \\
427: t-decay $\Gamma^B_N$ [B] & 0.7228 & 0.5553 & 0.4435 & 0.3633 \\
428: \hline
429: \end{tabular}
430: \end{table}
431:
432: \section*{Acknowledgements}
433: The results here presented have been obtained in collaboration with
434: A.D. Mitov and M. Cacciari.
435:
436: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
437: \bibitem {tevatron}
438: CDF Collaboration, T. Affolder et al., Phys. Rev. D 63 (2002) 032003;\\
439: D0 Collaboration, B. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 052001;\\
440: D0 Collaboration,
441: V.M. Abazov et al., Nature 429 (2004) 638.
442: \bibitem{avto}
443: A. Kharchilava, Phys. Lett. B 476 (2000) 73.
444: \bibitem{mele}
445: B. Mele and P. Nason, Nucl. Phys. B 361 (1991) 626.
446: \bibitem {cm}
447: G. Corcella and A.D. Mitov, Nucl. Phys. B 623 (2002) 247.
448: \bibitem{ap}
449: G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B126 (1977) 298.
450: \bibitem{dgl}
451: L.N. Lipatov, Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ 20 (1975) 95;
452: V.N. Gribov and L.N. Lipatov, Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ 15 (1972) 438;
453: Yu.L. Dokshitzer, Sov.\ Phys.\ 46 (1977) 641.
454: \bibitem{cc}
455: M. Cacciari and S. Catani, Nucl. Phys. B 617 (2001) 253.
456: \bibitem{ccm}
457: M. Cacciari, G. Corcella and A.D. Mitov, JHEP 0212 (2002) 015.
458: \bibitem{kart}
459: V.G. Kartvelishvili, A.K. Likehoded and V.A. Petrov, Phys. Lett. B 78 (1978)
460: 615.
461: \bibitem{peterson}
462: C. Peterson, D. Schlatter, I. Schmitt and P.M. Zerwas,
463: Phys. Rev. D 27 (1983) 105.
464: \bibitem{heister}
465: ALEPH Collaboration, A. Heister et al., Phys. Lett. B 512 (2001) 30.
466: \bibitem{abe}
467: SLD Collaboration, K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 4300.
468: \bibitem{delphi}
469: DELPHI Collaboration, ICHEP 2002 Note, DELPHI 2002-069 CONF 603.
470: \end{thebibliography}
471:
472:
473: \end{document}
474:
475:
476:
477:
478: