1: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

2: \documentclass[preprint,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\msbar      {\ensuremath{{\overline {\rm MS}}}}

31: \newcommand\muR[1]     {\ensuremath{\mu^{#1}}}

32: \newcommand\smfrac[2]  {{\textstyle\frac{#1}{#2}}}

33: \renewcommand\d        {{\mathrm d}}

34: \renewcommand\i        {{\mathrm i}}

35: \renewcommand\O        {{\mathrm O}}

36: \newcommand\Oe[1]      {\ensuremath{\mathrm O(\ep^{#1})}}

37: \newcommand{\bV}       {{\bf V}}

38: \newcommand{\cV}       {{\cal V}}

39: \newcommand{\cK}       {{\cal K}}

40: \newcommand{\cT}       {{\cal T}}

41: \def\ltap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\,\sim\,$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$\,<\,$}}

42: \def\gtap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\,\sim\,$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$\,>\,$}}

43: 

44: 

45: \def\MW{M_W}

46: \def\ep{\epsilon}

47: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

48: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

49: \def\beqn{\begin{eqnarray}}

50: \def\eeqn{\end{eqnarray}}

51: \def\ldot{\!\cdot\!}

52: \def\cM{{\cal M}}

53: 

54: \def\ket#1{|{#1}\rangle}

55: \def\bra#1{\langle{#1}|}

56: \def\mket#1{|{#1}\rangle_m}

57: \def\mbra#1{{}_m\langle{#1}|}

58: \def\oket#1{|{#1}\rangle_{m+1}}

59: \def\obra#1{_{m+1}\langle{#1}|}

60: \def\aket#1{|{#1}>_{m+1+a}}

61: \def\abra#1{{}_{m+1+a}\langle_{#1}|}

62: \def\amket#1{|{#1}\rangle_{m+a}}

63: \def\ambra#1{{}_{m+a}\!\!<{#1}|}

64: 

65: \def\average#1{#1}

66: 

67: \def\bom#1{{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}}

68: \def\to{\rightarrow}

69: \def\kperp{k_{\perp}}

70: \def\Hba{\HFS{ba}}

71: \def\cF{{\cal F}}

72: \newcommand{\la}{\langle}

73: \newcommand{\ra}{\rangle}

74: \def\vspaceinarray{\nonumber ~&~&~\\}

75: \def\hg{h_g^\RS}

76: \def\P{\hat{P}^\RS}

77: \def\Pav{\hat{P}^{{\RS;\rm av}}}

78: \def\PDRav{\hat{P}^{{\RS;\rm av}}}

79: \def\nn{\nonumber}

80: \def\arrowlimit#1{\mathrel{\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits_{#1}}}

81: \def\s#1#2{s_{#1#2}}

82: \def\AP{Altarelli--Parisi }

83: \def\ID{1 \kern -.45 em 1}

84: \def\nquad{\!\!\!\!\!\!\!}

85: 

86: \newcommand{\tpij}{\widetilde p_{ij}}

87: \newcommand{\tpk}{\widetilde p_k}

88: \newcommand{\zi}{\tilde z_i}

89: \newcommand{\zj}{\tilde z_j}

90: \newcommand{\sijk}{s_{ij,k}}

91: \newcommand{\yijk}{y_{ij,k}}

92: \newcommand{\vijk}{v_{ij,k}}

93: \newcommand{\viji}{v_{ij,i}}

94: \newcommand{\tvijk}{\tilde v_{ij,k}}

95: \newcommand{\ri}{{\mathrm{i}}}

96: \newcommand{\rd}{{\mathrm{d}}}

97: \newcommand{\rA}{{\mathrm{A}}}

98: \newcommand{\rR}{{\mathrm{R}}}

99: \newcommand{\rV}{{\mathrm{V}}}

100: \newcommand{\eik}{{\mathrm{eik}}}

101: \newcommand{\fact}{{\mathrm{C}}}%fact}}}

102: \newcommand{\coll}{{\mathrm{coll}}}

103: \newcommand{\reg}{{\mathrm{reg}}}

104: \newcommand{\sym}{{\mathrm{sym}}}

105: \newcommand{\bT}{{\bf T}}

106: \newcommand{\cD}{{\cal D}}

107: \newcommand{\CF}{C_{\mathrm{F}}}

108: \newcommand{\CA}{C_{\mathrm{A}}}

109: \newcommand{\TR}{T_{\mathrm{R}}}

110: \newcommand{\Nc}{N_{\mathrm{c}}}

111: \def\Li{\mathop{\mathrm{Li}}\nolimits}

112: \def\Real{\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}\nolimits}

113: \def\mathswitchr#1{\relax\ifmmode{\mathrm{#1}}\else$\mathrm{#1}$\fi}

114: \newcommand{\rB}{{\mathswitchr{B}}}

115: \newcommand{\aLO}{{\mathswitchr{LO}}}

116: \newcommand{\aNLO}{{\mathswitchr{NLO}}}

117: 

118: \newcommand{\tautb}{\tau_{tb}}

119: \newcommand{\tautg}{\tau_{tg}}

120: \newcommand{\taugb}{\tau_{gb}}

121: \newcommand{\ttb}{t_{tb}}

122: \newcommand{\ttg}{t_{tg}}

123: 

124: \newcommand{\xn}{{N}}

125: \newcommand{\mt}{m_{t}}

126: \newcommand{\msq}{m^2_{t}}

127: \newcommand{\qtb}{q_{tb}}

128: \newcommand{\qtg}{q_{tg}}

129: \newcommand{\qgb}{q_{gb}}

130: \newcommand{\qsqhat}{\hat{Q}}

131: \newcommand{\qsq}{Q}

132: 

133: \newcommand{\ltb}{l_{tb}}

134: \newcommand{\ltg}{l_{tg}}

135: \newcommand{\ptbv}{p_T^{\, {\bar b}~\rm veto}}

136: % modifications for drafts

137: \newcommand{\mpar}[1]{{\marginpar{\hbadness10000%

138:                       \sloppy\hfuzz10pt\boldmath\bf#1}}%

139:                       \typeout{marginpar: #1}\ignorespaces}

140: \marginparwidth 1.2cm

141: \marginparsep 0.2cm

142: 

143: \def\draftdate{\relax}

144: \def\mda{\relax}

145: \def\mua{\relax}

146: \def\mla{\relax}

147: \def\draft{

148: \def\thtystars{******************************}

149: \def\sixtystars{\thtystars\thtystars}

150: \typeout{}

151: \typeout{\sixtystars**}

152: \typeout{* Draft mode!

153:          For final version remove \protect\draft\space in source file *}

154: \typeout{\sixtystars**}

155: \typeout{}

156: \def\draftdate{\today}

157: \def\mua{\marginpar[\boldmath\hfil$\uparrow$]%

158:                    {\boldmath$\uparrow$\hfil}%

159:                     \typeout{marginpar: $\uparrow$}\ignorespaces}

160: \def\mda{\marginpar[\boldmath\hfil$\downarrow$]%

161:                    {\boldmath$\downarrow$\hfil}%

162:                     \typeout{marginpar: $\downarrow$}\ignorespaces}

163: \def\mla{\marginpar[\boldmath\hfil$\rightarrow$]%

164:                    {\boldmath$\leftarrow $\hfil}%

165:                     \typeout{marginpar: $\leftrightarrow$}\ignorespaces}

166: \overfullrule 5pt

167: \oddsidemargin -15mm

168: \marginparwidth 29mm

169: }

170: 

171: \def\stars{\strut\leaders\hbox{*}\hfill\strut}

172: \def\starline{\hfil\strut\hfil\hbox to \textwidth {\stars}\hfil}

173: \def\mark{\mpar{*!}}

174: 

175: %\draft

176: 

177: \def\bentarrow{\:\raisebox{1.3ex}{\rlap{$\vert$}}\!\rightarrow}

178: \def\dk#1#2#3{

179: \begin{array}{r c l}

180: #1 & \rightarrow & #2 \\

181:  & & \bentarrow #3

182: \end{array}

183: }

184: 

185: 

186: \def\bothdk#1#2#3#4#5{

187: \begin{array}{r c l}

188: #1 & \rightarrow & #2#3 \\

189:  & & \:\raisebox{1.3ex}{\rlap{$\vert$}}\raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\vert$}%

190: \phantom{#2}\!\bentarrow #4 \\

191:  & & \bentarrow #5

192: \end{array}

193: }

194: \begin{document}

195: \preprint{CERN-PH-TH/2005-110}

196: \preprint{DSF-18/2005}

197: \preprint{hep-ph/0506289}

198: \title{Next-to-leading order corrections to $Wt$ production and decay}

199: %\title{$Wt$ production and decay at next-to-leading order}

200: \author{John Campbell}

201: \email{John.Campbell@cern.ch}

202: \affiliation{

203: Department of Physics, 

204:  TH Divison, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland}

205: \author{Francesco Tramontano}

206: \email{Francesco.Tramontano@na.infn.it}

207: \affiliation{Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche, Universit\`a di Napoli,\\

208: ``Federico II'' e INFN sezione di Napoli,\\

209: Complesso di Monte S. Angelo, Napoli, Italy}

210: 

211: \date{\today}% It is always \today, today,

212:              %  but any date may be explicitly specified

213: 

214: \begin{abstract}

215: We present the results of a next-to-leading order

216: calculation of $Wt$ production, including the decays of both

217: the top quark and the $W$ boson. The effects of radiation in the

218: decay of the top quark are also included.

219: The separation of diagrams which appear in the real corrections, into

220: singly- and doubly-resonant contributions, is performed using a $b$-jet

221: veto which is motivated by the use of the bottom quark distribution

222: function. We find that, for a choice of scale which is suitable for

223: this approach, the QCD corrections are very mild and only change the cross

224: section by up to $10$\% at the LHC, depending on the severity of the $b$-jet

225: veto. When further cuts are applied, applicable for a Higgs boson search

226: in the $H \to W W^\star$ channel, we find that the radiative effects

227: greatly decrease the number of background events expected from this

228: process. In addition, the shapes of relevant distributions can be

229: significantly changed at next-to-leading order.

230: \end{abstract}

231: 

232: \pacs{13.85.-t,14.65. Ha}% PACS, the Physics and Astronomy

233:                              % Classification Scheme.

234: %\keywords{Suggested keywords}%Use showkeys class option if keyword

235:                               %display desired

236: \maketitle

237: 

238: \section{Introduction}

239: 

240: At the LHC, the top quark will be produced copiously in many channels.

241: As well as the $t{\bar t}$ pair production channel, the top quark

242: may be produced singly in association with other particles. The rates

243: for these processes will be sufficient to both study the properties of

244: the top quark in detail and to provide a significant source of

245: background events for other analyses~\cite{Altarelli:2000ye}.

246: 

247: In this paper we will discuss the calculation of the next-to-leading

248: order (NLO) corrections to the production of a single top quark in association

249: with a $W$ boson. This calculation has been included in the general

250: purpose NLO program

251: MCFM~\cite{Campbell:1999ah,Campbell:2000bg,Campbell:2002tg}.

252: The lowest order process which we consider is,

253: \beq

254: \label{eq:wtdecay}

255: \bothdk{b+g}{W^-+}{t}{\nu+e^++b}{e^-+{\bar \nu}}

256: \eeq

257: so that the leptonic decays of the $W^-$ and of the top quark are included.

258: We note that both at the Tevatron and the LHC, the rate for the charge-conjugate

259: process involving a $W^+$ and a ${\bar t}$ quark is identical~\footnote{

260: At the Tevatron, this is due to the fact that the machine is a proton

261: anti-proton collider. At the LHC, the equality is because

262: the perturbatively-derived bottom quark distribution functions that we

263: use are the same for ${\bar b}$ and $b$ quarks.}.

264: This process has previously been considered extensively at leading

265: order~\cite{Belyaev:1998dn,Tait:1999cf, Belyaev:2000me}. However, it is

266: only at next-to-leading order that we obtain accurate predictions of

267: event rates which are sensitive to the structure of jets in the final

268: state. Such NLO calculations have so far been available only for the case

269: where the decays of the heavy quark and $W$ boson are not

270: included~\cite{Giele:1995kr,Zhu:2002uj}. 

271: 

272: We have extended these predictions to include not only the full spin correlations in the

273: decays of the $W$ boson and the top quark, but also to include the effects of gluon

274: radiation in the top quark decay. This is achieved using the same method that has previously

275: been applied to other single top production channels~\cite{Campbell:2004ch} and which is briefly

276: described, together with other details of the calculation, in Section~\ref{sec:calculation}.

277: 

278: At next-to-leading order some of the contributions representing the emission of

279: an additional parton require special attention. One finds that the corrections

280: involving two gluons in the initial state contain diagrams that would normally

281: be assigned to the lowest order calculation of the doubly resonant $t{\bar t}$

282: production process. We discuss our treatment of this complication

283: in Section~\ref{sec:separation}. 

284: 

285: The results of our calculation are presented in

286: Section~\ref{sec:results}. We discuss the NLO corrections

287: at the Tevatron and the LHC, comparing our findings with those obtained

288: previously in the literature. We also provide updated predictions

289: obtained using the latest experimental inputs and examine the effect 

290: of including gluon radiation in the decay of the top quark.

291: 

292: Section~\ref{sec:pheno} contains a study of our results in the context

293: of the search for an intermediate mass Higgs boson at the LHC. In this

294: channel the Higgs decays via $WW^\star$, with the final state

295: containing leptons and missing transverse momentum. Since the Higgs

296: mass cannot then be reconstructed, theoretical input as accurate as

297: possible is imperative. To that end, in this

298: section we apply realistic acceptance and search cuts to all the

299: final state particles, then compare the

300: effect of the NLO corrections with the more inclusive results already

301: presented.

302: 

303: \section{Calculational details}

304: \label{sec:calculation}

305: 

306: To evaluate the matrix elements for the production and decay of a

307: $W$-top system, we follow the same strategy as in a previous

308: calculation of single top production~\cite{Campbell:2004ch}, which is

309: based on two approximations. The first is that the top quark is

310: produced and decays exactly on-shell, motivated by the fact that

311: diagrams without an on shell top quark are suppressed by a factor of

312: $\Gamma_t/m_t \approx 1\%$. This enables a division of the process into

313: production and decay stages, with the further approximation that the

314: interference between radiation in the two stages is neglected. On

315: general grounds the contribution of these interference terms can be

316: shown to be of the order of $\alpha_s\,\Gamma_t/m_t$ due to the large

317: difference between the characteristic time scales of the production

318: ($m_t^{-1}$) and decay ($\Gamma_t^{-1}$) stages. More technical details

319: and further references can be found in Ref.~\cite{Campbell:2004ch}.

320: 

321: The tree level amplitude is represented in Fig.~\ref{fig:TL}, where the on-shell

322: top propagator is denoted by two short lines.

323: %

324: \begin{figure}[!ht]

325: \begin{center}

326: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.69\columnwidth]{TL.eps}

327: \caption{The two tree level diagrams for the $Wt$ process. 

328: \label{fig:TL}}

329: \end{center}

330: \end{figure}

331: %

332: Due to the weak vertices the only two non-vanishing helicity amplitudes correspond to

333: the two polarizations of the gluon, with all massless fermions left-handed.

334: In our expressions for the amplitudes we take all momenta outgoing, restoring incoming

335: momenta in our implementation by performing the proper analytical continuation of the massless

336: spinor products.

337: We write the amplitudes in terms of the momenta of the decay products,

338: with labels as follows,

339: \beq

340: \bothdk{b_i+g}{W^-+}{t}{\nu_f+e_f+b_f}{e_i+\nu_i}

341: \eeq

342: and also use $t$ to represent the momentum of the top quark, so that

343: $t=\nu_f+e_f+b_f$. Both bottom quarks are treated as

344: massless particles in our approach.

345: The two tree-level amplitudes are then given by,

346: \beqn

347: A_-&=& \frac{f}{\left[\,g\,b_i\,\right]} \,

348:   \left( \,m_t^2\,\la\,g\,e_i\,\ra\,\left[\,b_i\,e_f\,\right]

349: - \la\,g\,|\,t\,|\,e_f\,\ra\,\la\,e_i\,\nu_i\,\ra\,\left[\,b_i\,\nu_i\,\right] \right), \nn \\

350: A_+&=& \frac{f}{\la\,g\,b_i\,\ra} \, 

351:   \left( \la\,b_i\,|\,t\,|\,e_f\,\ra \, \la\,e_i\,|\,t\,|\,g\,\ra

352:  - m_t^2\,\la\,b_i\,e_i\,\ra\,\left[\,g\,e_f\,\right]

353:  + \,2\,g \cdot t\,\la\,e_i\,|\,t\,|\,e_f\,\ra\,

354:    \frac{\left[\,g\,\nu_i\,\right]}{\left[\,b_i\,\nu_i\,\right]} \right),

355: \eeqn

356: where the overall factor $f$ is,

357: \beq

358: f = \frac{g_s\,g_w^4\, T^a\; \la\,\nu_f\,b_f\,\ra\,\left[\,b_i\,\nu_i\,\right]}

359: {\sqrt{2}\,g \cdot t\; W^+_{prop}\,W^-_{prop}\,t_{prop}}.

360: \eeq

361: In these formulae $P_{prop}= P^2-M_P^2+iM_P\Gamma_P$,

362: $T^a$ represents one of the eight $SU(3)$ color generators and

363: the spinor products with massless four-momenta $p_i$ and $p_j$

364: are defined as usual:

365: \beqn

366: \la \, p_i \,  p_j \, \ra &=&  \la \, p_i - |\, p_j \, + \ra , \\

367: \left[ \, p_i \, p_j \, \right] &=& \la \, p_i + |\, p_j \, - \ra , \\

368: \la \, p_i\,|\,p_k\,|\,p_j\,\ra &=& \la\, p_i - |\, \rlap{/}p_k \,|\, p_j - \ra .

369: \eeqn

370: As explained above, the virtual corrections to this process can

371: be divided into production stage corrections (represented

372: in Fig.~\ref{fig:virtp}) and decay stage ones (shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:virtd}).

373: The same division applies to the real corrections, which are depicted in Figs.~\ref{fig:realp}

374: and~\ref{fig:reald} respectively. By producing the top quark strictly on shell we are assured

375: that the diagrams in Figs.~\ref{fig:realp} and~\ref{fig:reald} are separately gauge

376: invariant.

377: %

378: \begin{figure}[!ht]

379: \begin{center}

380: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.55\columnwidth]{Self.eps}

381: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.75\columnwidth]{Tri_Ini.eps}

382: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.75\columnwidth]{Box.eps}

383: \caption{One loop diagrams representing virtual corrections in the production stage.

384: \label{fig:virtp}}

385: \end{center}

386: \end{figure}

387: %

388: \begin{figure}[!ht]

389: \begin{center}

390: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.50\columnwidth]{Tri_Fin.eps}

391: \caption{One loop diagrams contributing to the calculation of virtual radiation in the decay stage.

392: \label{fig:virtd}}

393: \end{center}

394: \end{figure}

395: %

396: \begin{figure}[!ht]

397: \begin{center}

398: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.00\columnwidth]{realp.eps}

399: \caption{Diagrams representing the emission of real radiation in the production stage. In the

400: calculation, the additional gluon must also be crossed into the initial state and diagrams containing

401: two quark lines (not shown) are also included.

402: \label{fig:realp}}

403: \end{center}

404: \end{figure}

405: %

406: \begin{figure}[!ht]

407: \begin{center}

408: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.50\columnwidth]{reald.eps}

409: \caption{Diagrams contributing to real radiation in the decay of the top quark.

410: \label{fig:reald}}

411: \end{center}

412: \end{figure}

413: %

414: 

415: The cancellation of the soft and collinear divergences between real and

416: virtual contributions has been implemented through the subtraction method~\cite{Ellis:1980wv}.

417: % - real in the production

418: In particular, for the contribution from real radiation in the production stage we have adopted an

419: extension of the dipole subtraction scheme~\cite{Catani:1996jh,Catani:1997vz} which handles the

420: case of massive quarks in the final state~\cite{Catani:2002hc}. We have used a

421: generalization of this method, where one can use a tuneable parameter in order to have

422: better control over the size of the subtraction. Further details and formulae are

423: contained in Ref.~\cite{Campbell:2004ch} and Appendix~\ref{appendix:real}.

424: % - real in the decay

425: For the case of real radiation in the decay we have used a further extension of this method,

426: as in Ref.~\cite{Campbell:2004ch}, which ensures that the top quark and the $W$ boson remain

427: on-shell when the subtraction is performed.

428: 

429: % - virtual in the decay

430: The virtual corrections in the decay stage amount

431: to the study of the decay of an on-shell top quark. These amplitudes

432: have been known for a long time~\cite{Gottschalk:1980rv,Schmidt:1995mr} and we do

433: not report them here.

434: % - virtual in the production

435: To evaluate the contribution of the virtual radiation in the production

436: stage (Fig.~\ref{fig:virtp}) we start from the amplitudes where the top quark

437: is produced on-shell without decaying and calculate amplitudes for

438: the two polarization states of the top quark. This is achieved by writing the

439: spinors in terms of an auxiliary massless four-vector $t_0$ in the following way:

440: \beqn

441: u(t)_\uparrow &=&

442: \frac{(\rlap{/}t+m_t)}{\left[\,t_0\,g\,\right]}\,|\,g,-1\,\ra \nn , \qquad

443: \bar{u}(t)_\uparrow =

444: \la\,g,-1|\,\frac{(\rlap{/}t+m_t)}{\la\,g\,t_0\,\ra} \nn , \\

445: u(t)_\downarrow &=& \frac{(\rlap{/}t+m_t)}{\la\,t_0\,g\,\ra}\,|\,g,+1\,\ra , \qquad

446: \bar{u}(t)_\downarrow =

447: \la\,g,+1|\,\frac{(\rlap{/}t+m_t)}{\left[\,g\,t_0\,\right]} .

448: \eeqn

449: The vector $t_0$ is constructed by forming a linear combination of $t$ and $g$,

450: \beq

451: t_0^\mu=t^\mu-\frac{m_t^2}{2\,t \cdot g}\,g^\mu .

452: \eeq

453: The full result, where the decay of the top quark is included, can then

454: be obtained by combining these amplitudes with the ones for the

455: decay $t \to Wb$, calculated in the same way. This is possible since

456: the intermediate top quark propagator is recovered via the identity,

457: \beq

458: u(t)_\uparrow \bar{u}(t)_\uparrow +

459: u(t)_\downarrow \bar{u}(t)_\downarrow = \rlap{/}t + m_t .

460: \eeq

461: Performing the calculation in this factorized way has a number of

462: advantages. First, useful consistency  checks can be performed using

463: the amplitudes without the top quark decay. Second, by replacing the

464: top quark mass appropriately, these amplitudes can be used to study

465: other processes where this decay is not relevant.

466: 

467: The diagrams of Fig.~\ref{fig:virtp} have been written and algebraically

468: manipulated using FORM, after we have used the background field gauge to contain the number

469: of terms generated by the three gluon vertex.

470: We deal with infrared and ultraviolet singularities by using dimensional

471: regularization in the four dimensional helicity scheme and 

472: use the method of Ref.~\cite{Pittau:1997mv} to write the amplitudes in terms

473: of traces. The appearance of $\gamma_5$ in the weak vertex is then handled by cyclically rotating

474: these traces so that $\gamma_5$ appears at the beginning of each trace, before

475: performing the contraction of Lorentz indices.

476: Using this prescription we have checked that the Ward identity for the weak current

477: is satisfied exactly and no additional counter terms are required.

478: 

479: Finally, we are left with box vector integrals and triangle rank 2 tensor integrals.

480: Using Passarino-Veltman $n$-dimensional decomposition, we obtain a result in terms

481: of scalar integrals. Due to the nature of our approach, other spurious divergences

482: are still present at this stage. Individual terms in the result appear to be divergent as

483: factors in the denominator approach zero. However, in this limit, a combination of such

484: apparently-singular terms is finite. 

485: By collecting all such terms over a common denominator, one can identify new functions

486: that are well-behaved in these limits. These are combinations of rational

487: and logarithmic functions, as in Ref.~\cite{Campbell:1996zw}. Following this procedure, we

488: are able to refine our first result considerably.

489: To show the level of simplification that we have reached,

490: one of the amplitudes is reported in Appendix~\ref{appendix:virt}.

491: The others are slightly larger in size and we do not reproduce them here. 

492: They will be available, together with the rest of our calculation, as part of the

493: next release of the Monte Carlo program MCFM.

494: 

495: \section{Separation of $Wt$ and $t{\bar t}$ diagrams}

496: \label{sec:separation}

497: 

498: When calculating the real radiation corrections, all appropriate

499: crossings of the diagrams shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:realp} should be

500: included. Some of the crossings, in which the additional parton is a

501: ${\bar b}$ quark in the final state, are particularly problematic.

502: These diagrams are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:wtbdiags} and involve

503: gluon-gluon and same flavour quark-antiquark initial states, which are

504: important at the LHC and Tevatron respectively.

505: %

506: \begin{figure}

507: \begin{center}

508: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\columnwidth]{wtbdiags.eps}

509: \caption{Real corrections to $W^-t$ production which involve an

510: additional ${\bar b}$ quark. The double bars indicate the on-shell

511: top quark which subsequently decays into $W^+b$. Diagrams obtained by

512: interchanging two gluons are not shown. The 3 representative diagrams

513: in the right panel (b) contain a resonant ${\bar t}$ propagator, while

514: those on the left (a) do not.

515: \label{fig:wtbdiags}}

516: \end{center}

517: \end{figure}

518: %

519: All these diagrams produce a final state consisting of a $W^-$, an

520: on-shell top quark and a ${\bar b}$ quark. However, the diagrams  in

521: panel (b) contain a resonant ${\bar t}$ propagator and represent the

522: production of a $t{\bar t}$ pair with the subsequent decay of the

523: ${\bar t}$ into the $W^-$ and ${\bar b}$ quark. As such, the

524: contribution from these diagrams when integrated over the total

525: available phase space can be much larger than the lowest order $Wt$

526: cross section (an order of magnitude at the LHC). In order to

527: disentangle these two processes, two methods have been outlined in the

528: literature.

529: 

530: The first involves making a cut on the invariant mass of the $W^-{\bar

531: b}$ system to prevent the ${\bar t}$ propagator from becoming

532: resonant~\cite{Belyaev:1998dn}. The second method instead subtracts the

533: contribution from the resonant diagrams so that no on-shell piece

534: remains~\cite{Tait:1999cf}. A comparison of these two

535: approaches~\cite{Belyaev:2000me} shows that the methods yield the same

536: total cross section when a mass window of $15 \Gamma_t \approx 25$~GeV

537: either side of the top mass is chosen. However, these methods do not

538: lend themselves to a Monte Carlo implementation where one wishes to

539: study distributions of final state particles as well as total cross

540: sections. Therefore we shall adopt neither of these prescriptions but

541: instead follow a procedure motivated by our use of the bottom quark

542: PDF.

543: 

544: In the $b$-PDF approach, the $b$ quark distribution function 

545: is derived perturbatively from a collinear $g \to b{\bar b}$ splitting

546: that occurs in the initial state. It implicitly

547: includes all splittings up to a $p_T$ of the ${\bar b}$-quark

548: equal to the factorization scale, $\mu_F$. This means that the

549: contribution from the corresponding $gg \to Wtb$ diagrams

550: (contained in panel (a) of Fig.~\ref{fig:wtbdiags})

551: has already been included in the lowest order

552: calculation. Therefore the net contribution from these diagrams,

553: including appropriate counter-terms and integrating over all ${\bar b}$

554: quark transverse momenta up to $\mu_F$, should be approximately zero.

555: For a suitable choice of $\mu_F$ we have checked that this is indeed

556: the case. The choice of $\mu_F$ is made such that the collinear

557: approximation used in deriving the $b$-PDF is accurate, which for this

558: process implies that

559: $\mu_F \lesssim \, (m_W+m_t)/4 \, \approx 65$~GeV~\footnote{

560: This can be seen by examining a study of the similar process, charged Higgs

561: production in association with a top quark~\cite{Boos:2003yi}.

562: We have also reproduced this result for the process at hand.}.

563: 

564: There is also a contribution from the diagrams in panel (b) of Fig.~\ref{fig:wtbdiags}

565: when the $p_T$ of the ${\bar b}$ quark is small, $p_T^{\bar b} < \mu_F$.

566: However, these diagrams simply represent the doubly-resonant

567: $t{\bar t}$ production process which is currently known

568: up to NLO~\footnote{

569: A NLO calculation including the decays of the top quarks is not

570: currently available. However one could, for instance, use a lowest

571: order calculation including the decays and normalize to the inclusive

572: $t{\bar t}$ NLO rate, which is known~\cite{Nason:1987xz}.}.

573: Therefore it is preferable to separate this contribution from the

574: `genuine' NLO corrections to the $Wt$ process. As we shall show later,

575: although the contribution from the $t{\bar t}$ diagrams in this region

576: of phase space is rather small in relation to the total cross section,

577: it is still competitive with the $Wt$ result. This suppression means

578: that the interference effects between the two sets of diagrams is very

579: small when using a $b$-jet veto, in contrast to the case when $p_T^b$

580: is unconstrained~\cite{Belyaev:2000me}.

581: 

582: When a ${\bar b}$ quark is observed with a $p_T$ above $\mu_F$ then our description

583: of the final state is a lowest order one. The contribution from the doubly-resonant diagrams

584: dominates and, as above, a better prediction would be obtained by using the $t{\bar t}$

585: process.

586: Alternatively, one could use a calculation including all the diagrams for 

587:  $gg \to tWb$, including the $t \to bW \to b\ell\nu$ decay (retaining the $b$ quark mass)

588: and also finite width effects~\cite{Kauer:2001sp}. However, currently this study

589: would be limited to leading order in $\alpha_s$ only.

590: 

591: To summarize, we shall perform our calculation of the $Wt$ process by

592: applying a veto on the $p_T$ of the additional $b$ quark that appears

593: at next-to-leading order. This aids the separation of this process from

594: doubly-resonant $t{\bar t}$ production. When applying this veto, one

595: should choose the factorization scale equal to (or at least of the same

596: order as) the maximum $p_T$ of the $b$ quark that is allowed, $\ptbv$.

597: This choice respects the approximations that were originally used to

598: define the $b$ quark PDF. For $\mu_F \ne \ptbv$ and for less inclusive

599: quantities, the contribution from the $gg \to Wtb$ diagrams is

600: calculated by simply omitting the doubly-resonant diagrams~\footnote{

601: As we have already pointed out, interference effects

602: between singly- and doubly-resonant diagrams are small. Although this

603: procedure is not strictly gauge invariant, it is no

604: more serious an error than that incurred when introducing a

605: Breit-Wigner width for resonant propagators.}.

606: The result for this piece remains at the level of a few percent of

607: the lowest order cross section.

608: 

609: \section{Results}

610: \label{sec:results}

611: 

612: Before discussing the effect of including radiation in the decay of the

613: top quark, we will first consider just the $Wt$ total cross section in

614: order to discuss some features of our approach and to compare our

615: results with those available in the literature.

616: 

617: \subsection{Comparison with no top quark decay}

618: 

619: The NLO corrections to the total $Wt$ cross section, where no decay

620: of the top quark is included, were previously

621: presented in Ref.~\cite{Zhu:2002uj}. For the sake of comparison, in

622: this section we will adopt the parameters therein as closely as

623: possible. In particular, we choose $m_t=175$~GeV and the CTEQ5 set of

624: parton distribution functions~\footnote{We use CTEQ5L1 for the lowest

625: order calculation and CTEQ5M1 at NLO, the versions that include the

626: improved evolution code.}. The other electroweak parameters that

627: enter our calculation are chosen to be,

628: \beq

629: M_W=80.419~{\mathrm GeV}, \qquad g_W^2=0.4267.

630: \eeq

631: 

632: We perform our comparison at the LHC and examine the dependence of our

633: results on the common renormalization and factorization scale $\mu$. As we

634: have already argued, the $b$-PDF approach is most well-motivated when

635: choosing a value of $\mu$ less than about $65$~GeV.  However, such a value is

636: much smaller than the more typical choice, $\mu=m_t+m_W$ which is the central

637: value chosen in Ref.~\cite{Zhu:2002uj}. Therefore, for the sake of

638: illustration, we choose to study the scale dependence over a large range

639: from $\mu=25$ GeV up to $\mu=m_t+m_W=255$~GeV. As we have discussed above, we

640: limit the $p_T$ of the $b$ quark that appears at next-to-leading order to

641: have a maximum value $\ptbv$, which we choose here to be $50$~GeV.

642: 

643: Our results at LO and NLO are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mudep_veto50}.

644: %

645: \begin{figure}

646: \begin{center}

647: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=0.8\columnwidth]{mudep_veto50.ps}

648: \caption{Scale dependence of the cross sections for $W^-t$ production at the LHC

649: for $m_t=175$ GeV. The branching ratios for the decay of the top quark

650: and the $W$'s are not included. Cross sections are evaluated with

651: CTEQ5L1 ($\as(M_Z)=0.127$) and CTEQ5M1 ($\as(M_Z)=0.118$)

652: PDFs~\cite{Lai:1999wy}. We choose a single common renormalization and factorization

653: scale, $\mu$. The lowest order cross section is the dashed curve, whilst the NLO one

654: -- calculated with $\ptbv=50$~GeV -- is solid.

655: \label{fig:mudep_veto50}}

656: \end{center}

657: \end{figure}

658: %

659: We see that the dependence of the lowest order curve on a common scale choice

660: is already remarkably small. At next-to-leading order we see that this is

661: improved still further, with the cross section varying by about $3\%$ over

662: the range of scales shown in the figure.

663: 

664: Comparing with Zhu~\cite{Zhu:2002uj}, we find a number of differences. Even

665: at lowest order our result for $\mu=m_t+m_W$ is higher and furthermore, the

666: dependence of the result on this scale appears less mild (c.f. Fig.~2 of

667: Ref.~\cite{Zhu:2002uj}). However, we have checked the lowest order results of

668: our program against those obtained with MadEvent~\cite{Maltoni:2002qb} and found

669: good agreement. At next-to-leading order we also find a slightly different

670: result, lower and with a stronger dependence on the scale. In this case, we

671: expect some discrepancy due to our different method of handling the $gg \to

672: Wtb$ contribution. We note that the combination of the ${\bar b}$-jet veto and our

673: preferred choice of a much smaller scale, leads to a next-to-leading order

674: cross section that is about $15\%$ smaller than that found by Zhu. In

675: addition, the $K$-factor, defined as the ratio of NLO and LO cross sections,

676: is much smaller and in the range $1.2$--$1.3$ depending on the scale choice.

677: 

678: Finally, we consider the dependence of our result on the choice for $\ptbv$. In

679: Fig.~\ref{fig:mudep_ptdep} we show the scale dependence for three different choices of the

680: veto threshold. 

681: %

682: \begin{figure}

683: \begin{center}

684: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=0.8\columnwidth]{mudep_ptdep.ps}

685: \caption{Scale dependence of the cross sections for $W^-t$ production at the LHC,

686: for three different choices of $\ptbv = \mu_0$. From bottom to top,

687: the solid curves represent values of $30$, $40$ and $50$~GeV. The lowest order dashed

688: curve (calculated with $\mu_0=50$~GeV) is also shown for reference.

689: \label{fig:mudep_ptdep}}

690: \end{center}

691: \end{figure}

692: %

693: We have concentrated on the region of smaller scales and varied the common

694: scales by a factor of two about the central value $\mu_0=\ptbv$. One sees

695: that, within this window, the scale dependence of the next-to-leading order

696: calculation is  again somewhat smaller than that found at LO and improves as

697: the veto threshold is raised.  Compared to a threshold of $50$~GeV, the

698: cross section decreases by about $15\%$ when lowering the veto to $30$~GeV.

699: This substantially redues the effect of the next-to-leading order corrections

700: on the cross section, leaving a $K$-factor close to unity for our central

701: scale choice. 

702: 

703: \subsection{Updated results and radiation in the decay}

704: 

705: First, we repeat the calculation of the total $Wt$ cross section, but using

706: the most recent determination of the top quark mass~\cite{Azzi:2004rc}, which

707: yields $m_t=178$~GeV. We also use recent PDF sets from the MRST and CTEQ

708: groups.

709: 

710: Our predictions for the Tevatron and the LHC are shown in

711: Table~\ref{tab:total}, where we have used $\ptbv=50$~GeV and factorization

712: and renormalization scales also equal to this value.

713: It is clear from the quoted cross sections that this process is of

714: little phenomenological relevance at the Fermilab collider, although

715: we include the result here for completeness.

716: %

717: \begin{table}[tb]

718: \caption{\small LO and NLO cross sections for single top-quark

719: production in association with a $W^-$ at the Tevatron and LHC, for $m_t=178$ GeV. 

720: The branching ratios for the decays of the top quark and the $W^-$ are not included. 

721: Cross sections are evaluated with CTEQ6L1 ($\as(M_Z)=0.130$) and CTEQ6M

722: ($\as(M_Z)=0.118$) PDFs~\cite{Pumplin:2002vw} and also with the MRST2002 NLO PDF

723: set ($\as(M_Z)=0.1197$)~\cite{Martin:2002aw}. 

724: The renormalization and factorization

725: scales are set to the ${\bar b}$ jet veto threshold of $50$~GeV.  The errors represent Monte Carlo statistics only.

726: \label{tab:total}}

727: \begin{center}

728: \begin{ruledtabular}

729: \begin{tabular}{llll} 

730: Collider, $\sqrt{s}$   & PDF      & $\sigma_{LO}$ [pb] & $\sigma_{NLO}$ [pb] \\

731: \hline

732: $p\bar p$, 1.96 TeV    & CTEQ6    & 0.04796            & 0.06458   $\pm$ 0.0001 \\

733: $p\bar p$, 1.96 TeV    & MRST2002 & 0.08083            & 0.07414   $\pm$ 0.0001 \\

734: \hline

735: $pp$,        14 TeV    & CTEQ6    & 29.41 	       & 32.10	$\pm$ 0.03 \\

736: $pp$,        14 TeV    & MRST2002 & 31.08 	       & 34.49	$\pm$ 0.03 \\

737: \end{tabular}

738: \end{ruledtabular}

739: \end{center}

740: \end{table}

741: %

742: The NLO corrections at the Tevatron increase the cross section by a

743: factor of $1.35$ when using the CTEQ PDF set, but decrease it by a little

744: under $10$\% for the 

745: MRST parametrization. The NLO results still differ by about 

746: $15$\%, reflecting the considerable uncertainty in the gluon

747: distribution at large $x$. At the LHC the effect of the NLO corrections

748: is much smaller, increasing the cross section by about $10\%$ in both cases,

749: and the predictions from the two PDF sets show much better agreement. 

750: 

751: We now turn to a fuller description of the final state, where all

752: the leptonic decays of the top quark and the $W$ bosons are included,

753: as in Eq.~(\ref{eq:wtdecay}). 

754: The decays are included using Breit-Wigner propagators

755: with widths,

756: \beq

757: \Gamma_W =2.06~{\mathrm GeV}, \qquad

758: \Gamma_t^{\mathrm LO}=1.651~{\mathrm GeV},

759: \eeq

760: and we now investigate the effects of the inclusion of gluon radiation in the

761: decay of the top quark. Although the inclusion of this radiation should not

762: change the total cross section, a difference is expected when working at a

763: fixed order of perturbation theory. Our results are summarized in

764: Table~\ref{tab:decay}.

765: %

766: \begin{table*}[tb]

767: \caption{\small Comparison of LO and NLO cross sections for $W^-t$

768: production at the Tevatron and LHC, with leptonic decays of both the $W^-$ and the

769: top quark. The NLO calculation is performed both

770: without including QCD effects in the decay ($\sigma B_{t \to b \nu e}$) and

771: also when it is included ($\sigma B_{t \to b \nu e+X}$).

772: The top quark mass is $m_t=178$ GeV and cross sections are 

773: evaluated using the CTEQ6M PDF set with all scales equal to

774: $50$~GeV. The errors represent Monte Carlo statistics only.

775: Note that the values of $\Gamma_t$ at LO and NLO are $1.651$~GeV and

776: $1.480$~GeV respectively and the branching ratio of the $W$ into

777: leptons is ${\rm Br}(W \to e \nu) = 0.1105$.

778: \label{tab:decay}}

779: \begin{center}

780: \begin{ruledtabular}

781: \begin{tabular}{lllll}

782: Collider, $\sqrt{s}$ &

783: $\sigma_0 B_{t \to b \nu e}$ [fb] &

784: $\sigma B_{t \to b \nu e}$ [fb] &

785: $\sigma B_{t \to b \nu e+X}$ [fb] \\

786: \hline

787: $p\bar p$, 1.96 TeV    & 0.8564 $\pm$ 0.0006  & 0.7887 $\pm$ 0.0005 & 0.7806 $\pm$ 0.0005 \\

788: $pp$,        14 TeV    & 356.9  $\pm$ 0.2     & 391.7  $\pm$ 0.3    & 395.7 $\pm$ 0.3 \\

789: \end{tabular}

790: \end{ruledtabular}

791: \end{center}

792: \end{table*}

793: %

794: We have used the CTEQ6M PDF set for all the cross sections in this table, so that

795: the effect of including radiation in the decay can be understood more easily.

796: When including radiation in the decay, the total cross section should change by

797: an amount that is formally of higher order in $\alpha_S$ and is given 

798: by~\cite{Campbell:2004ch},

799: \beq

800: \sigma B_{t \to b \nu e+X} - \sigma B_{t \to b \nu e} =

801: \left( \frac{\Gamma_t^{LO}}{\Gamma_t^{NLO}}-1 \right)

802: \left( \sigma B_{t \to b \nu e} - \sigma_0 B_{t \to b \nu e}\right).

803: \eeq

804: The results shown in the table agree with this expectation. Since, in our approach,

805: the effect of the NLO corrections in the production is fairly small,

806: the numerical difference is only $1$\% at both colliders.

807: 

808: We conclude this section with a more detailed presentation of the scale

809: dependence of our calculation when using the updated parameters and PDF set.

810: Anticipating the study of the following section, we also choose a lower

811: value for the ${\bar b}$ jet veto in  the next-to-leading order calculation,

812: $\ptbv=30$~GeV. This results in the scale dependence shown in

813: Fig.~\ref{fig:mudepcteq6dk}, where the cross sections at each choice of scale

814: are expressed as a ratio with the central result at $\mu_0=\ptbv$ and

815: we vary the scales by a factor of two about $\mu_0$. We also

816: show the curves obtained when varying the renormalization and factorization

817: scales separately.  One sees that the relatively small scale dependence at

818: lowest order is the result of a large cancellation between the dependence on

819: the factorization and renormalization scales individually. In contrast, the

820: dependence on these scales at next-to-leading order, either on their own or

821: when varied together, is small -- less than $10$\% over this range. We also

822: note that, for this choice of parameters and veto, the

823: next-to-leading order corrections do not alter the tree level cross

824: section, which remains at $346$~fb.

825: %

826: \begin{figure}

827: \begin{center}

828: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=0.48\columnwidth]{mudep_cteq6dk_lo.ps}

829: \hspace*{0.3cm}

830: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=0.48\columnwidth]{mudep_cteq6dk_nlo.ps}

831: \caption{Scale dependence of the cross sections for

832: $W^-(\to e^- {\bar \nu})t(\to \nu e^+ b)$ production at the LHC,

833: at LO (left) and NLO (right). The NLO calculation includes the effect

834: of radiation in the decay of the top quark. 

835: The scale $\mu$ is expressed as the ratio with the central

836: scale $\mu_0=\ptbv=30$~GeV and the cross sections are scaled to

837: the central result at $\mu=\mu_0$. 

838: The solid lines represent the variation of both renormalization

839: and factorization scales together ($\mu_R=\mu_F=\mu$), the dashed ones the result when only

840: $\mu_F$ is varied ($\mu_R=\mu_0$) and the dot-dashed curves represent the dependence on the

841: renormalization scale alone ($\mu_F=\mu_0$).

842: \label{fig:mudepcteq6dk}}

843: \end{center}

844: \end{figure}

845: %

846: 

847: \section{The $Wt$ background to $H \to WW^\star$}

848: \label{sec:pheno}

849: 

850: As an example of the utility of our calculation, in this section we

851: consider the effect of NLO corrections in the context of a search for

852: the Higgs boson at the LHC. In the intermediate mass range, $155 < m_H

853: < 180$~GeV, one of the search strategies involves Higgs production via

854: gluon fusion, with the subsequent decay of the Higgs boson into

855: off-shell $W$ pairs which then decay

856: leptonically~\cite{Dittmar:1996ss},

857: \beq

858: \bothdk{g+g \to H}{W^-+}{W^+}{\nu+e^+}{e^-+{\bar \nu}}

859: \eeq

860: The largest background in this

861: channel is from the continuum production of $W$ pairs, both from

862: diboson production via quark-antiquark scattering and from loop-induced gluon-gluon

863: fusion~\cite{Binoth:2005ua,Duhrssen:2005bz}. A further significant

864: source of background events comes from processes producing top-quarks

865: that decay leptonically. Since the presence of neutrinos in the signal

866: prevents a full reconstruction of the Higgs mass peak, an accurate

867: prediction of all the backgrounds is necessary.

868: 

869: In previous studies~\cite{AtlasTDR,Davatz:2004zg} two top backgrounds

870: have been considered using Pythia~\cite{Sjostrand:2000wi}.

871: These are resonant $t{\bar t}$

872: production and $Wt$ production, the process that we consider here. As

873: we have discussed previously, these two processes become entangled at

874: NLO. We will separate them according to the procedure that we

875: outlined in Section~\ref{sec:separation}. Therefore, in addition to our

876: NLO calculation of the $Wt$ process, we will also consider the contribution

877: from resonant $t{\bar t}$ production, with the appropriate top quark

878: decays.

879: 

880: Since the signal process contains no jets at lowest order, it is 

881: efficient to impose a veto on all jet activity to reduce the size

882: of these backgrounds.

883: Our application of a cut on the transverse momentum of the ${\bar b}$

884: jet in the $Wt$ process fits naturally into this procedure.

885: We simply extend our veto

886: to disallow all contributions with any jet observed above the veto

887: threshold. We note that there is a slight mismatch due to the fact

888: that our theoretically-motivated veto applies at all rapidity values

889: whilst the experimental approach only vetoes a jet up to a few units of

890: rapidity. However, we do not expect this to greatly affect our results.

891: 

892: For our parton-level study we adopt a minimal set of cuts and

893: examine the effect of the NLO corrections on a selection of observables

894: that are typically used in more detailed experimental

895: studies~\cite{Dittmar:1996ss,AtlasTDR,Davatz:2004zg,Duhrssen:2005bz}.

896: Our basic cuts represent the finite acceptance limits of the detectors

897: at the LHC,

898: \beq

899: p_T({\rm lepton}) > 20~{\rm GeV} , \qquad

900: |\eta({\rm lepton})| < 2.5,

901: \label{eq:cutbegin}

902: \eeq

903: applied to both of the leptons produced in the $W$ decays, with the missing

904: transverse momentum also constrained by,

905: \beq

906: p_T({\rm missing}) > 30~{\rm GeV}.

907: \eeq

908: The final cut that we apply is the jet veto, after potential jets have

909: been clustered according to the $k_T$ algorithm with a jet separation

910: parameter $\Delta R=1.0$. Events are not included if any jet is

911: observed with,

912: \beq

913: p_T({\rm jet}) > 30~{\rm GeV} , \qquad

914: |\eta({\rm jet})| < 3.

915: \label{eq:cutend}

916: \eeq 

917: We note that, in addition to excluding additional radiation at 

918: next-to-leading order, this veto also applies to the $b$ jet that is

919: produced in the top quark decay. This results in a substantial

920: decrease in cross section compared to the totally inclusive case.

921: 

922: To exploit the spin correlation between the leptons in the signal

923: events~\cite{Nelson:1986ki}, one can make quite stringent cuts 

924: on the opening angle between the leptons in the transverse plane,

925: $\Delta \phi_{\ell \ell}$. This is illustrated in

926: Fig.~\ref{fig:dphicompare}, where we show the shapes of the lowest

927: order predictions for the Higgs signal and the two top backgrounds,

928: $Wt$ and $t{\bar t}$. Signal events predominantly contain leptons

929: with a small opening angle between them, whereas both backgrounds tend

930: to produce leptons that are almost back-to-back in the transverse plane.

931: %

932: \begin{figure}

933: \begin{center}

934: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=0.8\columnwidth]{dphi_compare.ps}

935: \caption{

936: The distribution of the opening angle between the leptons in the

937: transverse plane, for the signal and the two background processes

938: considered here. All curves are lowest order predictions and are

939: normalized to unity. The signal calculation uses a Higgs mass of

940: $155$~GeV and the backgrounds are $W^-t$ (solid) and $t{\bar t}$

941: (dashed).

942: \label{fig:dphicompare}}

943: \end{center}

944: \end{figure}

945: %

946: 

947: We now examine the extent to which this is changed in our NLO

948: calculation of the $Wt$ background, with our results shown in

949: Fig.~\ref{fig:dphi}. 

950: %

951: \begin{figure}

952: \begin{center}

953: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=0.8\columnwidth]{dphi.ps}

954: \caption{

955: The distribution of the opening angle between the leptons in

956: the transverse plane for $W^-t$ events at the LHC, calculated at LO (dashed)

957: and NLO (solid) for the LHC. The NLO curves are labelled according to

958: whether or not they include the effect of radiation in the decay.

959: All the rates are normalized to unity.

960: \label{fig:dphi}}

961: \end{center}

962: \end{figure}

963: %

964: The effect of the NLO corrections is to change the shape of the

965: distribution considerably when these cuts are applied. The peak at

966: large $\Delta \phi_{\ell \ell}$ is shifted to a smaller value and

967: becomes much less pronounced. This could have quite a large impact on a

968: strategy in which this background is measured using events at large

969: $\Delta \phi_{\ell \ell}$ and then extrapolated via the theoretical

970: shape to the Higgs signal region. One also sees that the shape is

971: changed again when including the effects of radiation in the top quark

972: decay, with the peak being sharpened once more, although the effect is

973: fairly minor.

974: 

975: One can also imagine constructing the transverse mass of the putative

976: Higgs boson ($m_T$) from the transverse momenta of the dilepton system

977: and the missing $p_T$,

978: \beq

979: m_T=\sqrt{2 p_T^{\ell \ell} p_T^{\rm miss} (1-\cos(\Delta\phi))},

980: \eeq

981: where $\Delta \phi$ is the angle between the two vectors in the

982: transverse plane. Cutting in a suitable mass window can further help

983: to reduce the backgrounds for only a small loss in signal. The impact of our

984: next-to-leading order calculation on this distribution is illustrated

985: in Fig.~\ref{fig:mtrans}.

986: %

987: \begin{figure}

988: \begin{center}

989: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=0.8\columnwidth]{mtrans.ps}

990: \caption{

991: The distribution of the transverse mass for $W^-t$ events at the LHC,

992: calculated at LO (dashed) and NLO (solid) for the LHC. The NLO result includes

993: the effect of radiation in the decay. The rates are normalized to unity.

994: \label{fig:mtrans}}

995: \end{center}

996: \end{figure}

997: %

998: In this figure we have only shown the result when including radiation

999: in the decay but note that this distribution changes little when it is

1000: excluded. One can see that the shape of this distribution is relatively

1001: unchanged at NLO, although more events are produced at high values of

1002: $M_T$, beyond the peak of the distribution, than at LO. 

1003: 

1004: Finally, to give some idea of the effect of the NLO corrections on

1005: the number of events that should be observed in this channel, in

1006: Table~\ref{tab:cutxsecs} we show the cross sections that we find

1007: for the $Wt$ and $t{\bar t}$ processes. The $W$'s decay into electrons

1008: only and for the $Wt$ process, both $W^-t$ and $W^+{\bar t}$ are

1009: included. Results are shown at LO, NLO and at NLO when including

1010: radiation in the top quark decay. For the $t{\bar t}$ process,

1011: the lowest order diagrams of Fig.~\ref{fig:wtbdiags} (b)

1012: are calculated. As an approximation to the NLO result, a

1013: $K$-factor is applied from the NLO calculation involving no top quark

1014: decay. In order to match the study more closely, we have used

1015: a $K$-factor obtained when applying the jet veto of Eq.~(\ref{eq:cutend}).

1016: Using the common scales $\mu_R=\mu_F=m_t$, we find that this factor is

1017: ${\cal K}=0.7$.

1018: %

1019: \begin{table*}[tb]

1020: \caption{\small Comparison of LO and NLO cross sections for top quark

1021: backgrounds in an intermediate mass Higgs search at the LHC. Results are

1022: shown in femtobarns for ($W^-t+W^+{\bar t}$) and $t{\bar t}$ production,

1023: with leptonic decays of both the $W$ and the top quark.

1024: Three sets of cuts are considered, which are described in

1025: detail in the text. The NLO $Wt$ calculation is performed both

1026: without including QCD effects in the decay ($\sigma B_{t \to b \nu e}$) and

1027: also when it is included ($\sigma B_{t \to b \nu e+X}$).

1028: \label{tab:cutxsecs}}

1029: \begin{center}

1030: \begin{ruledtabular}

1031: \begin{tabular}{lccc}

1032:                              & basic       & $m_H=155$~GeV    & $m_H=180$~GeV \\

1033: \hline

1034: \multicolumn{4}{c}{$Wt$ process}                                              \\

1035: $\sigma_0 B_{t \to b \nu e}$ [fb] & 40.08       & 0.80             & 0.80          \\

1036: $\sigma B_{t \to b \nu e}$ [fb]   & 13.14       & 0.38             & 0.43          \\

1037: $\sigma B_{t \to b \nu e+X}$ [fb] & 13.85       & 0.46             & 0.51          \\

1038: \hline

1039: \multicolumn{4}{c}{$t{\bar t}$ process}                                       \\

1040: $\sigma_{LO}\times{\cal K}$ [fb]  & 30.52       & 0.42             & 0.43          

1041: \end{tabular}

1042: \end{ruledtabular}

1043: \end{center}

1044: \end{table*}

1045: %

1046: 

1047: The cross sections shown in Table~\ref{tab:cutxsecs} are evaluated using

1048: three different sets of cuts. The first column uses just the 

1049: basic set of cuts (Eqs.~(\ref{eq:cutbegin})--(\ref{eq:cutend})), then the

1050: other two columns represent extensions of these cuts that might be used

1051: in the search for a Higgs boson of given mass. Both the further sets also impose,

1052: \beqn

1053: \Delta \phi_{\ell \ell} & < & \pi/4 , \nonumber \\

1054: m_{\ell \ell} & < & 35~{\rm GeV},

1055: \eeqn

1056: to select the Higgs signal region. In addition we have used

1057: a cut on the reconstructed transverse mass around the Jacobian peak of

1058: the putative Higgs mass. In the first case,

1059: the cut is constructed for a Higgs mass of $155$~GeV, by

1060: constraining $125 < m_T < 155$~GeV. The second set requires that

1061: $140 < m_T < 180$~GeV and is aimed at a search for a $180$~GeV Higgs.

1062: 

1063: One sees that the effect of the NLO corrections in this region of phase

1064: space is significantly different from the inclusive case. The cross

1065: section is decreased substantially, with a $K$-factor (for the

1066: calculation including radiation in the decay) of approximately $0.6$

1067: when applying the Higgs search cuts. We also see that the contributions

1068: from the two top quark processes are comparable when calculated in this

1069: way.

1070: 

1071: 

1072: \section{Conclusions}

1073: 

1074: At the LHC, the top quark will be readily produced in association with

1075: a $W$ boson. In this paper we have performed a next-to-leading order

1076: calculation of this process, including both the subsequent leptonic

1077: decays $W^- \to e^- {\bar \nu}$ and $t \to \nu e^+ b$, as well as

1078: the emission of real radiation in the top decay.

1079: 

1080: For total inclusive cross sections, where the top quark and $W^-$ boson

1081: do not decay, comparison with previous calculations is possible and we

1082: find results which are broadly similar. However, due to the presence of

1083: doubly-resonant $t{\bar t}$ diagrams at NLO -- which are handled differently

1084: in our calculation -- we do not find exact agreement. Our method

1085: maintains the consistency of the $b$-PDF approach and requires the

1086: simultaneous use of a relatively low factorization scale $\mu_F \sim

1087: (m_t+m_W)/4$ and a veto on ${\bar b}$ quarks with a transverse momentum

1088: larger than this value of $\mu_F$.

1089: 

1090: With this approach, we find that the NLO corrections to the inclusive rate

1091: at the Tevatron can be large, but the process remains phenomenologically

1092: irrelevant there. At the LHC the corrections are smaller and can either

1093: increase or decrease the cross section by $10$\%, depending on the

1094: ${\bar b}$ quark veto that is chosen. We also performed an

1095: analysis of this process as a background to Higgs production at the LHC,

1096: where quite a severe veto on all jet activity is applied.

1097: We find that the shape of the $\Delta \phi_{\ell \ell}$ distribution

1098: -- crucial to the estimation of this background -- is significantly changed.

1099: However the cross section for this process

1100: can be reduced by as much as $40$\% in the Higgs signal region.

1101: 

1102: Our predictions are based on a number of approximations. Firstly, the

1103: mass of the $b$ quark is set to zero throughout and the top quark is

1104: kept on its mass shell. The inclusion of the $b$-mass in the top quark

1105: decay and implementation of a Breit-Wigner distribution for the top

1106: quark can be studied in the lowest order calculation. Neither of these

1107: significantly alters the total cross section or the shapes of the

1108: distributions which we have examined. Effects due to the interference

1109: between radiation in the production and decay stages are estimated to

1110: be similarly small, of order $\alpha_s \Gamma_t/m_t$. Lastly, our

1111: predictions are performed at parton-level only and lack any modelling

1112: of hadronization and showering. This is particularly relevant to our

1113: phenomenological analysis, where the application of a jet veto at

1114: relatively low transverse momenta (compared to the top quark mass)

1115: increases the sensivity to soft-gluon effects. Nevertheless, we hope

1116: that our results can provide a starting point for further investigation

1117: of the $Wt$ process at next-to-leading order accuracy.

1118: 

1119: \begin{acknowledgments}

1120: We thank K.~Ellis for collaboration in the early stages of this work and

1121: we would like to acknowledge many helpful discussions with F.~Maltoni

1122: and S.~Willenbrock.

1123: \end{acknowledgments}

1124: 

1125: 

1126: \appendix

1127: 

1128: \section{Integration of dipoles}

1129: \label{appendix:real}

1130: 

1131: We have slightly extended the approach outlined in Appendix A of

1132: Ref.~\cite{Campbell:2004ch} in order to handle the presence of

1133: gluons in the initial state. We refer the reader to

1134: Ref.~\cite{Campbell:2004ch} and the original papers

1135: CS~\cite{Catani:1997vz} and CDST~\cite{Catani:2002hc} for further

1136: explanation of the method and notation.

1137: 

1138: \subsection{Initial-state emitter with initial state spectator}

1139: As explained in Ref.~\cite{Campbell:2004ch},

1140: we have generalized the dipole

1141: phase space (CS, Eq.~(5.151)) by introducing a constraint

1142: enforced by the factor $\Theta(\alpha-{\tilde v}_i)$.

1143: The variable ${\tilde v_i}$ is the rescaled value of the propagator defined

1144: by,

1145: \beq   

1146: {\tilde v_i}= \frac{p_a p_i}{p_a p_b}

1147: \eeq   

1148: where $p_a$ is the initial state emitter, $p_i$ is the emitted parton and 

1149: $p_b$ is the other initial state parton which is the spectator. 

1150: Further details are given in section 5.5 of CS.

1151: In this appendix we extend the previous treatment by considering the

1152: remaining $q,g$ and $g,g$ cases. The dipole integrands which we

1153: subtract are obtained by modifying CS, Eq.~(5.154):

1154: \beq

1155: \langle\,

1156: {\bom V}^{q_aq_i,b}(x_{i,ab}) \,\rangle

1157: = 8\pi \mu^{2\ep} \as\; C_F\;

1158: \left[ \frac{1 + (1 - x_{i,ab})^2}{x_{i,ab}} -\eta\,\ep\,x_{i,ab}\right]

1159: \;\delta_{ss'} \;,

1160: \eeq

1161: \beq

1162: \langle\,

1163: {\bom V}^{g_ag_i,b}(x_{i,ab}) \,\rangle

1164: = 8\pi \mu^{2\ep} \as\; 2\,C_A\;\left[ \frac{x_{i,ab}}{1-x_{i,ab}}

1165: + \frac{1-x_{i,ab}}{x_{i,ab}} + x_{i,ab}\,(1- x_{i,ab}) \right]

1166: \; .

1167: \eeq

1168: 

1169: We find that the result for the $q,g$ case is given by,

1170: \beqn

1171: &&{\tilde \cV}^{q,g}(x;\ep,\alpha)

1172: =C_F \Bigg\{ \frac{\Big( 1+(1-x)^2 \Big)}{x} \nn \\

1173: &\times & \Bigg[2 \ln(1-x)-\frac{1}{\ep}

1174:     +\Theta(1-x-\alpha) \ln\bigg(\frac{\alpha}{1-x}\bigg)\Bigg]

1175:   + \eta\,x \Bigg\} +\Oe{}\: ,

1176: \eeqn

1177: and for the $g,g$ case it is,

1178: \beqn

1179: &&{\tilde \cV}^{g,g}(x;\ep,\alpha)

1180: =C_A \Bigg\{\Bigg(\frac{1}{\ep^2}-\frac{\pi^2}{6}\Bigg) 

1181:   \delta(1-x) \nn \\

1182: &+& 2\Big( x\,(1-x)+\frac{1-x}{x} -1 \Big) \Big(2 \ln(1-x)-\frac{1}{\ep}\Big)

1183: \nn \\

1184: &+&\Theta(1-x-\alpha) \frac{2(x\,(1-x)-1)^2}{x(1-x)} 

1185:  \ln\Big(\frac{\alpha}{1-x}\Big) 

1186: \nn \\

1187:       &-& \frac{2}{\ep} \frac{1}{\big[1-x\big]_{+}}

1188:   +4 \Bigg[\frac{\ln(1-x)}{1-x}\Bigg]_{+} \Bigg\} +\Oe{}\: .

1189: \eeqn

1190: 

1191: In the limit $\alpha=1$ these functions correspond to

1192: those given in CS, Eq.~(5.155) and also agree with the results of

1193: Nagy~\cite{Nagy:1998bb,Nagy:2003tz}.

1194: 

1195: \subsection{Initial-state emitter with final-state spectator}

1196: 

1197: In this category, we complete the treatment of Ref.~\cite{Campbell:2004ch}

1198: by considering the remaining three cases:

1199: \beqn

1200: && \mbox{a) Initial } g  \to q+\bar{q} , \nn \\

1201: && \mbox{b) Initial } q  \to g+q , \nn \\

1202: && \mbox{c) Initial } g  \to g+g ,  

1203: \eeqn

1204: where the first parton on the right-hand side is an initial-state

1205: emitter and the last one is a massive final-state

1206: spectator. The phase space is the generalization of CDST, Eq.~(5.79) with an

1207: extra factor of $\Theta(\alpha-z_i)$.

1208: 

1209: For case (a) the dipole integrand is given by a generalization of 

1210: CDST, Eq.~(5.82). The result is written in the terms of the variable

1211: $z_+$ defined by,

1212: \beq

1213: z_+=\frac{1-x}{1-x+\mu_Q^2},

1214: \eeq

1215: and we find,

1216: \def\mut{\tilde \mu}

1217: \beqn

1218: \label{if1}

1219: &&I^{gq}(x;\ep,\alpha)

1220: =T_R \Bigg\{ \Big( x^2 + (1-x)^2 \Big) \nn \\

1221: &\times & \Bigg[ \ln\Big(\frac{(1-x)^2}{1-x+x\mut^2}\Big) -\frac{1}{\ep}

1222:  - \Theta(z_+ -\alpha) \ln\bigg(\frac{z_+}{\alpha}\bigg)\Bigg]

1223:  +2\,\eta\,x(1-x)  \Bigg\} +\Oe{}\: . 

1224: \eeqn

1225: In this expression we have also introduced the variable,

1226: \beq

1227: {\tilde \mu^2} = \frac{\mu^2}{x} = \frac{m^2}{2 {\tilde p_{ai}} {\tilde p_j}} ,

1228: \eeq

1229: which only depends on ${\tilde p_{ai}}$ and  ${\tilde p_j}$ (defined in

1230: CDST Eq.~(5.73)), the momenta held fixed

1231: when the $x$ integration is performed.

1232: 

1233: For case (b) the integrand is obtained by generalizing Eq.~(5.84) of

1234: CDST. Performing the integrals yields the result,

1235: \beqn

1236: \label{if2}

1237: &&I^{qg}_Q(x;\ep,\alpha)

1238: =C_F \Bigg\{ \frac{\Big( 1+(1-x)^2 \Big)}{x} \nn \\

1239: &\times & \Bigg[ \ln\Big(\frac{(1-x)^2}{1-x+x\mut^2}\Big) -\frac{1}{\ep}

1240:  -\Theta(z_+ -\alpha) \ln\bigg(\frac{z_+}{\alpha}\bigg)\Bigg]

1241:    + 2\,\mut^2 \ln \bigg(\frac{x\mut^2}{1-x+x\mut^2}\bigg) \nn \\

1242: &-& \Theta(z_+ -\alpha) 2 \mut^2\,\ln\bigg(\frac{1-z_+}{1-\alpha}\bigg)\Bigg]

1243:    + \eta\,x \Bigg\} +\Oe{}\: .

1244: \eeqn

1245: 

1246: Lastly, the dipole integrand for case (c) is an extension of 

1247: CDST, Eq.~(5.86). The result in this case is,

1248: \beqn

1249: \label{if3}

1250: &&I^{gg}_Q(x;\ep,\alpha)

1251: = \,C_A \Bigg\{

1252:   \delta(1-x) \Bigg[ \frac{1}{\ep^2}+\frac{1}{\ep}\ln(1+\mut^2)+\frac{\pi^2}{6} \nn \\

1253: &+& 2 \Li_{2}(-\mut^2) +2 \ln(\mut^2) \ln(1+\mut^2)- \frac{1}{2} \ln^2(1+\mut^2) \Bigg] \nn \\

1254: &-&\frac{1}{\ep}\,\frac{2}{[1-x]_{+}} -2\;\frac{\ln(1+{\tilde \mu}^2)}{[1-x]_{+}} 

1255:  +4\;\Big[\frac{\ln(1-x)}{(1-x)}\Big]_{+} \nn \\

1256:  &+& 2\,\Big( x(1 - x) + \frac{1 - x}{x} - 1 \Big) \Bigg[ - \frac{1}{\ep}

1257:  + \ln\Big(\frac{(1-x)^2}{1-x+x\mut^2}\Big) 

1258:  - \Theta(z_+-\alpha)\,\ln\Big(\frac{z_+}{\alpha}\Big) \Bigg] \nn \\

1259:  &-& \Theta(z_+-\alpha) \Bigg[ 

1260:   2 \mut^2\,\ln\Big(\frac{1-z_+}{1-\alpha}\Big)

1261:  - \frac{2}{(1-x)} \ln\Big(\frac{\alpha(1-x+z_+)}{z_+(1-x+\alpha)}\Big) \Bigg] \nn \\

1262: &+& 2\mut^2\,\ln\Big(\frac{x\mut^2}{1-x+x\mut^2} \Big) 

1263:  - \frac{2}{(1-x)} \ln\Big(\frac{2-x+x\mut^2}{1+\mut^2} \Big)

1264: \Bigg\} .

1265: \eeqn

1266: 

1267: \section{The virtual $++$ amplitude}

1268: \label{appendix:virt}

1269: 

1270: We remind the reader that we calculate the virtual amplitudes for

1271: the production of a $W$ that decays leptonically in association with

1272: an on-shell top quark,

1273: \beq

1274: b+g \longrightarrow W (\to e+n) + t,

1275: \eeq

1276: where $n$ represents the neutrino, $t^2=m_t^2$ and

1277: $b^2=g^2=e^2=n^2=0$.

1278: 

1279: We first introduce the following short-hand notation,

1280: \beqn

1281: &&\tau_{xy}=2 \, x \cdot y ~,~

1282: t_{xy}=(x+y)^2 ~,~

1283: \qsq=q^2=2\,e \cdot n \nn \\

1284: &&q_{xy}=\qsq-t_{xy} ~,~

1285: \qsqhat=\qsq-\mt^2 \nn \\

1286: &&\delta_{tb}=\la b\,t_0 \ra \, [t_0\,b] = 2\,b \cdot t_0

1287: = 2\,b \cdot t - m_t^2\,\frac{b \cdot g}{t \cdot g},

1288: \label{eq:topdecomp}

1289: \eeqn

1290: such that the massive top quark momentum $t$ does not appear

1291: directly in the following formulae but is instead replaced by

1292: the massless vector $t_0$, which is suitable for our spinor

1293: approach.

1294: 

1295: Next we define a set of functions that are useful for decomposing the

1296: form of the virtual amplitudes. In these formulae, the

1297: scalar $n-$point functions are written using the following definition,

1298: \beq

1299: I_0^n(\{p_{1...n-1}\};\{m_{1...n}^2\})=

1300: \frac{\mu^{2\ep}}{r_\Gamma}\int\frac{d^{4-2\ep}l}{(2\pi)^{4-2\ep}}

1301: \frac{1}{(l^2-m_1^2)((l-p_1)^2-m_2^2)~...~((l-p_{n-1})^2-m_n^2)},

1302: \eeq

1303: where,

1304: \beq

1305: r_\Gamma=\left(\frac{4\,\pi\,\mu^2}{m_t^2}\right)^{\ep}

1306:  \frac{i}{16\,\pi^2\,\Gamma(1-\ep)}.

1307: \eeq

1308: We subsequently identify $I_0^2( \ldots )\equiv B_0( \ldots )$,

1309: $I_0^3( \ldots )\equiv C_0( \ldots )$ and $I_0^4( \ldots )\equiv D_0( \ldots )$.

1310: The simplest functions contain only bubble integrals,

1311: \beqn

1312: % = \qsqhat \, \log( -\qsqhat/ \msq ) / \qsq

1313: l_Q&=& 1/\ep+2-B_0(q;0,\msq) = \qsqhat \, \log( -\qsqhat/ \msq ) / \qsq \nn \\ 

1314: % = \tautg  \, \log( -\tautg / \msq ) / \ttg

1315: \ltg &=& 1/\ep+2-B_0(t+g;0,\msq) = \tautg  \, \log( -\tautg / \msq ) / \ttg  \nn \\ 

1316: % = \tautb  \, \log( -\tautb / \msq ) / \ttb

1317: \ltb &=& 1/\ep+2-B_0(t+b;0,\msq) = \tautb  \, \log( -\tautb / \msq ) / \ttb  \nn \\ 

1318: l^1_{Q} &=& \qsq \, (\ltg-l_Q) / \qtg  \nn \\

1319: l^1_{tb} &=& \ttb \, (\ltb-l_Q) / \qtb  \nn \\

1320: %\eeqn

1321: %\beq

1322: \l^2_{tg} &=&

1323:       (\ltg-l_Q)\,\qsq^2/\qtg^2

1324:     + l_Q\,\qsq^2/\qtg/\tautg

1325:     - l_Q\,\qsq/\qtg

1326:     + \qsq/\qtg

1327: \eeqn

1328: Three triangle functions appear in our results, which we choose to

1329: keep as independent functions,

1330: \beqn

1331: C_0^A&=&C_0(t+b,g;0,\msq,\msq)\nn \\

1332: %=(Li_2(\ttb/\msq)-Li_2(\qsq/\msq))/\qtb \nn 

1333: C_0^B&=&C_0(t,g;0,\msq,\msq) \nn \\

1334: %=(\pi^2/6-Li_2[\ttg/m_t^2])/\tautg \nn 

1335: C_0^C&=&C_0(g+b,t;0,0,\msq)

1336: \eeqn

1337: Lastly, we form functions which are combinations of the triangle

1338: functions and the basic box integrals that enter our calculation,

1339: \beqn

1340: L^6_1&=&\tautb\,\taugb\,(D_0(g,b,t;0,0,0,\msq)

1341:   -C_0(g,b;0,0,0)/\tautb  \nn \\

1342: &&  +C_0(g,t+b;0,0,\msq)\,(\taugb+\tautg)/\taugb/\tautb

1343:   -C_0(b,t;0,0,\msq)/\taugb  \nn \\

1344: &&  +C_0(g+b,t;0,0,\msq)\,(\tautb\,(\tautg+\tautb)-2\,m_t^2\,\taugb)/\taugb/\tautb^2) ,

1345: \eeqn

1346: \beqn

1347: L^6_2&=&\tautb\,\tautg\,(D_0(b,t,g;0,0,\msq,\msq)

1348:    -C_0(b,t;0,0,\msq)/\tautg  \nn \\

1349: &&   +C_0(b,t+g;0,0,\msq)\,(\taugb+\tautb)/\tautg/\tautb

1350:    +C_0(t,g;0,\msq,\msq)\,(2\,m_t^2\,\taugb-\tautg\,\tautb)/\tautg/\tautb^2  \nn \nn \\

1351: &&   +C_0(t+b,g;0,\msq,\msq)\,(\tautg+\taugb)

1352:                           \,(\tautg\,\tautb-2\,m_t^2\,\taugb)/\tautg^2/\tautb^2) ,

1353: \eeqn

1354: \beqn

1355: L^6_3&=&\tautg\,\taugb\,(D_0(b,g,t;0,0,0,\msq)

1356:   -C_0(b,g;0,0,0)/\tautg  \nn \\

1357: &&  +C_0(b,t+g;0,0,\msq)\,(\taugb+\tautb)/\taugb/\tautg

1358:   -C_0(g,t;0,0,\msq)/\taugb  \nn \\

1359: &&  +C_0(g+b,t;0,0,\msq)\,(\tautg\,(\tautg+\tautb)-2\,m_t^2\,\taugb)/\taugb/\tautg^2) .

1360: \eeqn

1361: %This function is finite and is very long, an expression in terms of 12 dilogarithms can be

1362: %found in cite{Denner}

1363: All the basic scalar integrals, $B_0$, $C_0$ and $D_0$ are well

1364: known~\cite{'tHooft:1978xw,Beenakker:2002nc}.

1365: 

1366: To renormalize the virtual amplitudes

1367: we have used the modification of the $\overline{MS}$ scheme in which the top

1368: quark is decoupled. The top self-energy is renormalized on-shell

1369: so that we have evaluated the self energy in the top-right diagram of

1370: Fig.~\ref{fig:virtp} including the following mass counterterm,

1371: \beq

1372: \delta Z_{mass,c.t.}=-\frac{\alpha_s}{4\,\pi}

1373: \left( \frac{4\,\pi\,\mu^2}{m_t^2}\right)^\ep

1374: \frac{C_F\,m_t}{\Gamma(1-\ep)}\,

1375: \left(\frac{3}{\ep}+5-\eta\right)\,\bar{\psi}_t\psi_t,

1376: \eeq

1377: and we renormalize the top wave function by adding,

1378: \beq

1379: \frac{\delta Z_{wf}}{2}=-\frac{\alpha_s}{4\,\pi}

1380: \left( \frac{4\,\pi\,\mu^2}{m_t^2}\right)^\ep

1381: \frac{C_F}{2\,\Gamma(1-\ep)}\,

1382: \left(\frac{3}{\ep}+5-\eta\right)\,A_{Tree~Level}.

1383: \eeq

1384: In the above formulae $\eta$ is a parameter that specifies the

1385: regularization scheme adopted throughout the calculation.

1386: $\eta=0$ corresponds to the 4-dimensional helicity scheme, which 

1387: we use here, whilst $\eta=1$ is appropriate in the 't Hooft Veltman

1388: scheme. Subtracting the top loop contribution to the gluon self energy

1389: at zero momentum transfer enables the coupling constant to evolve due to

1390: the presence of 5 light flavours only. Finally, the partial cancellation of

1391: the coupling constant renormalization and this top contribution to the

1392: gluon self energy give us the last contribution,

1393: \beq

1394: \delta Z_{g}'=-\frac{\alpha_s}{4\,\pi}(4\,\pi)^\ep

1395: \frac{(11N/6-2T_R\,n_f/3)}{\ep\,\Gamma(1-\ep)}\,

1396: A_{Tree~Level}.

1397: \eeq

1398: 

1399: We are now in a position to write down the amplitudes for the specific

1400: helicity choice `++'. The first `+' signifies the helicity of the gluon

1401: and the second `+' the spin of the top quark in a basis determined by

1402: our decomposition in Eq.~(\ref{eq:topdecomp}). The tree-level amplitude

1403: is,

1404: \beq

1405: A_{Tree~Level}^{++}=

1406:  \frac{\sqrt{2}\,g_s\,g_W^2\,T^a}{\,W^-_{prop}}\,A_{0}^{++},

1407: \eeq

1408: where,

1409: \beq

1410: A_{0}^{++}=-\,\mt\,\frac{\la g\,e \ra}{\la g\,b \ra\,\la g\,t_0 \ra^2}\,

1411:  (\la b\,t_0 \ra\,[b\,n]+\la g\,t_0 \ra\,[g\,n]),

1412: \eeq

1413: and,

1414: \beq

1415: W^-_{prop}=q^2-M_W^2+i M_W \Gamma_W.

1416: \eeq

1417: The corresponding virtual amplitude is decomposed into a piece containing

1418: poles in $\epsilon$ which is proportional to the lowest order result, plus a finite

1419: remainder,

1420: \beqn

1421: A_{Virtual}^{++}&=&\frac{\alpha_s}{4\,\pi}\frac{\sqrt{2}\,g_s\,g_W^2\,T^a}{\Gamma(1-\ep)\,W^-_{prop}}

1422: \left(\frac{4\,\pi\,\mu^2}{m_t^2}\right)^{\ep}

1423: \left[(F+P_{wf}) \cdot A_{0}^{++}+A_{1}^{++}\right].  

1424: \eeqn

1425: The pole pieces are given by,

1426: \beqn

1427: F&=&

1428:    -N\,(3/2/\ep^2-1/\ep\,\log(-\tautg/\msq)-1/\ep\,\log(-\taugb/\msq)  \nn \\

1429: &&  +1/2/\ep+\log(-\tautg/\msq)^2+1/2\,\log(-\taugb/\msq)^2) \nn \\

1430: &&   +1/2/N\,(1/\ep^2-2/\ep\,\log(-\tautb/\msq)+1/\ep+2\,\log(-\tautb/\msq)^2)  \nn \\

1431: &&   -N\,(\Li_{2}(\ttg/\msq)+\,\pi/12)+(\Li_{2}(\ttb/\msq)+\,\pi^2/12)/N,  

1432: \eeqn

1433: while the term which is the sum of coupling constant and wave-function renormalization is,

1434: \beq

1435: P_{wf}=(2\,T_R\,n_f/3-11\,N/6)\,(1/\ep-\log(\mu^2/\msq))

1436: -3C_F/2\,(1/\ep+5/3). 

1437: %b0=11/6\,xn-2\,tr/3\,xlf

1438: \eeq

1439: The remainder is then written in terms of our functions as,

1440: \beqn

1441: &&A_{1}^{++}=

1442: \frac{\mt\,\la g\,e \ra \, [g\,n]}{\la g\,b \ra \, \la g\,t_0 \ra \, \la b\,t_0 \ra \, [b\,t_0]}\,\Big\{

1443: 	\frac{1}{\xn}\,\big[

1444:             L^6_1\,\delta_{tb}/2

1445:           + L^6_2 \left( \delta_{tb}/2 - \qtg\,\delta_{tb}/\taugb - \qtg\,\mt^2/2/\tautg \right) \nn \\

1446: &&          - C_0^A\,\taugb\,\delta_{tb}\,\mt^2/\tautg

1447:           - 2\,C_0^A\,\delta_{tb}\,\mt^2

1448:           + 2\,C_0^B\,\delta_{tb}\,\mt^2

1449:           + C_0^C\,\taugb\,\delta_{tb}\,\mt^2/\tautb

1450:           + l^1_{tb}\,\taugb\,\ttb/\tautg 

1451:           + l_Q\,\delta_{tb} \nn \\

1452: &&        - \ltg\,\ttg\,\delta_{tb}/\tautg

1453:           - \ltb\,\ttb\,\tautb/\tautg

1454:           + \ltb\,\taugb\,\delta_{tb}/\tautb

1455:           + l_Q\,\tautb\,\ttb/\tautg

1456:  \big]

1457: 	+C_F\,\big[

1458:             \ltg\,\qtb\,\ttg/\tautg

1459:           - \ltg\,\qsq 

1460:           - \delta_{tb} \nn \\

1461: &&          + \ltg\,\delta_{tb}

1462:           + 2\,\ltg\,\ttg\,\delta_{tb}/\tautg

1463:           + \qtg\,\delta_{tb}/\tautg

1464:           - 2\,\delta_{tb}\,\qsqhat/\tautg

1465:  \big]

1466: 	+\xn\,\big[

1467:           - L^6_3\,\delta_{tb}/2

1468:           - C_0^C\,\taugb\,\delta_{tb}\,\mt^2/\tautg

1469:  \big]

1470:  \Big\}  \nn \\

1471: && + \frac{\mt\,\la g\,e \ra \, [b\,n]}{\la g\,b \ra \, \la g\,t_0 \ra^2 \, [b\,t_0]} \, \Big\{

1472: 	\frac{1}{\xn}\,\big[

1473:             L^6_1\,\tautb/2

1474:           + L^6_2 \left( \delta_{tb} - \ttb/2 + \tautb\,\tautg/\taugb \right)          

1475:           + 2\,C_0^A\,\qtb\,\taugb\,\delta_{tb}\,\mt^2/\tautb/\tautg  \nn \\

1476: &&        + C_0^A\,\qtb\,\delta_{tb}\mt^2/\tautb

1477:           - C_0^B\,\qtb\,\delta_{tb}\mt^2/\tautb

1478:           - C_0^B\,\taugb\,\delta_{tb}\mt^2/\tautb

1479:           - 2\,C_0^C\,\taugb\,\delta_{tb}\,\mt^2/\tautg

1480:           - \ltb\,\tautg\,\delta_{tb}/\tautb  \nn \\

1481: &&          - \ltg\,\delta_{tb} \big]

1482: 	+C_F\,\big[

1483:           - 4\,C_0^C\,\taugb\,\delta_{tb}\,\mt^2/\tautg

1484:           + 2\,l^1_{Q}\,\taugb\,\qsq/\tautg

1485:           + l^1_{Q}\,\taugb

1486:           - 2\,\ltg\,\qtb

1487:           - 2\,\ltg\,\qtb\,\qsq/\tautg  \nn \\

1488: &&          + \ltg\,\tautg\,\qsq/\ttg

1489:           + l_Q\,\qtg\,\qtb/\tautg

1490:           + l_Q\,\qsq\,\qtb/\tautg

1491:           + l_Q\,\qtb

1492:           + l_Q\,\qsq

1493:           - \qtg\,\tautg/\ttg

1494:           + \taugb

1495:           - \delta_{tb}

1496:  \big]

1497:  \nn \\

1498: &&	+\xn\,\big[

1499:             L^6_3\,\tautb/2

1500:           - L^6_3\,\delta_{tb}

1501:  \big]

1502:  \Big\}

1503:  \nn \\

1504: && + \frac{\mt\,\la b\,e \ra \, [b\,n]}{\la g\,b \ra \, \la g\,t_0 \ra \, \la b\,t_0 \ra \, [b\,t_0]} \, \Big\{

1505: 	\frac{1}{\xn}\,\big[

1506:           - L^6_2\,\qtb\,\mt^2/2/\tautg

1507:           + C_0^A\,\qtb^2\,\delta_{tb}\,\mt^2/\tautb/\tautg

1508:           - C_0^B\,\qtb\,\delta_{tb}\,\mt^2/\tautb  \nn \\

1509: &&          - l^1_{Q}\,\taugb\,\qsq/\tautg

1510:           + \ltb\,\qsq\,\delta_{tb}/\tautb

1511:           - l_Q\,\qsq\,\qtb/\tautg

1512:           + \ltg\,\qtb\,\qsq/\tautg

1513:  \big]

1514: 	+C_F\,\big[

1515:             \ltg^2\,\taugb^2/\tautg

1516:           + 2\,l^1_{Q}\,\taugb^2\,\qsq/\tautg^2  \nn \\

1517: &&          - 3\,l^1_{Q}\,\taugb^2/\tautg

1518:           - 2\,l^1_{Q}\,\taugb

1519:           + 4\,\ltg\,\qtb\,\qsq/\tautg

1520:           - 2\,\ltg\,\qtb^2\,\qsq/\tautg^2

1521:           - 2\,\ltg\,\ttg\,\qtb^2/\tautg^2

1522:           + 2\,\ltg\,\qtb^2/\tautg  \nn \\

1523: &&          - \ltg\,\tautg\,\qsq/\ttg

1524:           + l_Q\,\qtg\,\qtb^2\,\mt^2/\tautg^2/\qsqhat

1525:           + l_Q\,\qsq\,\qtg\,\qtb^2/\tautg^2/\qsqhat

1526:           - 2\,l_Q\,\qsq\,\qtb/\tautg

1527:           + l_Q\,\qtb^2\,\mt^2/\tautg/\qsqhat  \nn \\

1528: &&          + l_Q\,\qsq\,\qtb^2/\qsqhat/\tautg

1529:           - \qtb\,\delta_{tb}/\tautg

1530:           - \qtb^2/\tautg

1531:           + \tautg\,\qsq/\ttg

1532:  \big]

1533:  \Big\}.

1534: \eeqn

1535: The expressions for the other amplitudes are similar but slightly

1536: longer, requiring the addition of a further 5 functions to describe them

1537: compactly. We do not reproduce them here, but they are available as Fortran

1538: files from the authors on request.

1539: 

1540: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1541: 

1542: %\cite{Altarelli:2000ye}

1543: \bibitem{Altarelli:2000ye}

1544:   G.~Altarelli and M.~L.~Mangano (editors),

1545:   ``Standard model physics (and more) at the LHC'',

1546:   Geneva, Switzerland, October 14-15,  1999.

1547: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=4463579}{SPIRES entry}

1548: 

1549: %\cite{Campbell:1999ah}

1550: \bibitem{Campbell:1999ah}

1551: J.~M.~Campbell and R.~K.~Ellis,

1552: %``An update on vector boson pair production at hadron colliders,''

1553: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 113006 (1999)

1554: [arXiv:hep-ph/9905386].

1555: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905386;%%

1556: 

1557: %\cite{Campbell:2000bg}

1558: \bibitem{Campbell:2000bg}

1559: J.~M.~Campbell and R.~K.~Ellis,

1560: %``Radiative corrections to Z b anti-b production,''

1561: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 114012 (2000)

1562: [arXiv:hep-ph/0006304].

1563: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006304;%%

1564: 

1565: %\cite{Campbell:2002tg}

1566: \bibitem{Campbell:2002tg}

1567: J.~Campbell and R.~K.~Ellis,

1568: %``Next-to-leading order corrections to W + 2jet and Z + 2jet production  at

1569: %hadron colliders,''

1570: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 113007 (2002)

1571: [arXiv:hep-ph/0202176].

1572: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202176;%%

1573: 

1574: %\cite{Belyaev:1998dn}

1575: \bibitem{Belyaev:1998dn}

1576: A.~S.~Belyaev, E.~E.~Boos and L.~V.~Dudko,

1577: %``Single top quark at future hadron colliders: Complete signal and  background

1578: %study,''

1579: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 075001 (1999)

1580: [arXiv:hep-ph/9806332].

1581: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806332;%%

1582: 

1583: %\cite{Tait:1999cf}

1584: \bibitem{Tait:1999cf}

1585: T.~M.~P.~Tait,

1586: %``The t W- mode of single top production,''

1587: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 034001 (2000)

1588: [arXiv:hep-ph/9909352].

1589: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909352;%%

1590: 

1591: %\cite{Belyaev:2000me}

1592: \bibitem{Belyaev:2000me}

1593: A.~Belyaev and E.~Boos,

1594: %``Single top quark t W + X production at the LHC: A closer look,''

1595: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 034012 (2001)

1596: [arXiv:hep-ph/0003260].

1597: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003260;%%

1598: 

1599: %\cite{Giele:1995kr}

1600: \bibitem{Giele:1995kr}

1601: W.~T.~Giele, S.~Keller and E.~Laenen,

1602: %``QCD Corrections to W Boson plus Heavy Quark Production at the Tevatron,''

1603: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 372}, 141 (1996)

1604: [arXiv:hep-ph/9511449].

1605: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9511449;%%

1606: 

1607: %\cite{Zhu:2002uj}

1608: \bibitem{Zhu:2002uj}

1609:   S.~Zhu,

1610:   %``Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to b g $\to$ t W- at the CERN Large

1611:   %Hadron Collider,''

1612:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 524}, 283 (2002)

1613:   [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 537}, 351 (2002)].

1614:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B524,283;%%

1615: 

1616: %\cite{Campbell:2004ch}

1617: \bibitem{Campbell:2004ch}

1618: J.~Campbell, R.~K.~Ellis and F.~Tramontano,

1619: %``Single top production and decay at next-to-leading order,''

1620: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 094012 (2004)

1621: [arXiv:hep-ph/0408158].

1622: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408158;%%

1623: 

1624: %\cite{Ellis:1980wv}

1625: \bibitem{Ellis:1980wv}

1626: R.~K.~Ellis, D.~A.~Ross and A.~E.~Terrano,

1627: %``The Perturbative Calculation Of Jet Structure In E+ E- Annihilation,''

1628: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 178} (1981) 421.

1629: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B178,421;%%

1630: 

1631: %\cite{Catani:1996jh}

1632: \bibitem{Catani:1996jh}

1633: S.~Catani and M.~H.~Seymour,

1634: %``The Dipole Formalism for the Calculation of QCD Jet Cross Sections at 

1635: %Next-to-Leading Order,''

1636: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 378} (1996) 287

1637: [hep-ph/9602277].

1638: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9602277;%%

1639: 

1640: %\cite{Catani:1997vz}

1641: \bibitem{Catani:1997vz}

1642: S.~Catani and M.~H.~Seymour,

1643: %``A general algorithm for calculating jet cross sections in NLO QCD,''

1644: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 485} (1997) 291

1645: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 510} (1997) 291]

1646: [hep-ph/9605323].

1647: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9605323;%%

1648: 

1649: %%\cite{Catani:2002hc}

1650: \bibitem{Catani:2002hc}

1651: S.~Catani, S.~Dittmaier, M.~H.~Seymour and Z.~Trocsanyi,

1652: %``The dipole formalism for next-to-leading order QCD calculations with  massive

1653: %partons,''

1654: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 627}, 189 (2002)

1655: [arXiv:hep-ph/0201036].

1656: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201036;%%

1657: 

1658: %\cite{Gottschalk:1980rv}

1659: \bibitem{Gottschalk:1980rv}

1660: T.~Gottschalk,

1661: %``Chromodynamic Corrections To Neutrino Production Of Heavy Quarks,''

1662: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 23}, 56 (1981).

1663: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D23,56;%%

1664: 

1665: %\cite{Schmidt:1995mr}

1666: \bibitem{Schmidt:1995mr}

1667: C.~R.~Schmidt,

1668: %``Top quark production and decay at next-to-leading order in e+ e-

1669: %annihilation,''

1670: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54}, 3250 (1996)

1671: [arXiv:hep-ph/9504434].

1672: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9504434;%%

1673: 

1674: %\cite{Pittau:1997mv}

1675: \bibitem{Pittau:1997mv}

1676:   R.~Pittau,

1677:   %``A simple method for multi-leg loop calculations. II: A general

1678:   %algorithm,''

1679:   Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\  {\bf 111}, 48 (1998)

1680:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9712418].

1681:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712418;%%

1682: 

1683: %\cite{Campbell:1996zw}

1684: \bibitem{Campbell:1996zw}

1685:   J.~M.~Campbell, E.~W.~N.~Glover and D.~J.~Miller,

1686:   %``One-loop tensor integrals in dimensional regularisation,''

1687:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 498}, 397 (1997)

1688:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9612413].

1689:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9612413;%%

1690: 

1691: %\cite{Boos:2003yi}

1692: \bibitem{Boos:2003yi}

1693:   E.~Boos and T.~Plehn,

1694:   %``Higgs-boson production induced by bottom quarks,''

1695:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 094005 (2004)

1696:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0304034].

1697:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304034;%%

1698:   

1699: %\cite{Nason:1987xz}

1700: \bibitem{Nason:1987xz}

1701:   P.~Nason, S.~Dawson and R.~K.~Ellis,

1702:   %``The Total Cross-Section For The Production Of Heavy Quarks In

1703:   %Hadronic Collisions,''

1704:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 303} (1988) 607.

1705:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B303,607;%%

1706: 

1707: %\cite{Kauer:2001sp}

1708: \bibitem{Kauer:2001sp}

1709:   N.~Kauer and D.~Zeppenfeld,

1710:   %``Finite-width effects in top quark production at hadron colliders,''

1711:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 014021 (2002)

1712:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0107181].

1713:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107181;%%

1714: 

1715: %\cite{Lai:1999wy}

1716: \bibitem{Lai:1999wy}

1717: H.~L.~Lai {\it et al.}  [CTEQ Collaboration],

1718: %``Global {QCD} analysis of parton structure of the nucleon: CTEQ5 parton

1719: %distributions,''

1720: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 12}, 375 (2000)

1721: [arXiv:hep-ph/9903282].

1722: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903282;%%

1723: 

1724: %\cite{Maltoni:2002qb}

1725: \bibitem{Maltoni:2002qb}

1726:   F.~Maltoni and T.~Stelzer,

1727:   %``MadEvent: Automatic event generation with MadGraph,''

1728:   JHEP {\bf 0302}, 027 (2003)

1729:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0208156].

1730:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208156;%%

1731: 

1732: %\cite{Azzi:2004rc}

1733: \bibitem{Azzi:2004rc}

1734: P.~Azzi {\it et al.}  [CDF Collaborattion],

1735: %``Combination of CDF and D0 results on the top-quark mass,''

1736: arXiv:hep-ex/0404010.

1737: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0404010;%%

1738: 

1739: %\cite{Pumplin:2002vw}

1740: \bibitem{Pumplin:2002vw}

1741: J.~Pumplin, D.~R.~Stump, J.~Huston, H.~L.~Lai, P.~Nadolsky and W.~K.~Tung,

1742: %``New generation of parton distributions with uncertainties from global  QCD

1743: %analysis,''

1744: JHEP {\bf 0207}, 012 (2002)

1745: [arXiv:hep-ph/0201195].

1746: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201195;%%

1747: 

1748: %\cite{Martin:2002aw}

1749: \bibitem{Martin:2002aw}

1750: A.~D.~Martin, R.~G.~Roberts, W.~J.~Stirling and R.~S.~Thorne,

1751: %``Uncertainties of predictions from parton distributions. I: Experimental

1752: %errors. ((T)),''

1753: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 28}, 455 (2003)

1754: [arXiv:hep-ph/0211080].

1755: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211080;%%

1756: 

1757: %\cite{Dittmar:1996ss}

1758: \bibitem{Dittmar:1996ss}

1759:   M.~Dittmar and H.~K.~Dreiner,

1760:   %``How to find a Higgs boson with a mass between 155-GeV to 180-GeV at the

1761:   %LHC,''

1762:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55}, 167 (1997)

1763:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9608317].

1764:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9608317;%%

1765: 

1766: %\cite{Binoth:2005ua}

1767: \bibitem{Binoth:2005ua}

1768:   T.~Binoth, M.~Ciccolini, N.~Kauer and M.~Kramer,

1769:   %``Gluon-induced W W background to Higgs boson searches at the LHC,''

1770:   arXiv:hep-ph/0503094.

1771:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503094;%%  

1772: 

1773: %\cite{Duhrssen:2005bz}

1774: \bibitem{Duhrssen:2005bz}

1775:   M.~Duhrssen, K.~Jakobs, P.~Marquard and J.~J.~van der Bij,

1776:   %``The process gg $\to$ WW as a background to the Higgs signal at the LHC,''

1777:   arXiv:hep-ph/0504006.

1778:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504006;%%

1779: 

1780: \bibitem{AtlasTDR}

1781:   ATLAS Detector and Physics Performance TDR,

1782:   The ATLAS Collaboration (CERN/LHCC/99-14).

1783: 

1784: %\cite{Davatz:2004zg}

1785: \bibitem{Davatz:2004zg}

1786:   G.~Davatz, G.~Dissertori, M.~Dittmar, M.~Grazzini and F.~Pauss,

1787:   %``Effective K-factors for g g $\to$ H $\to$ W W $\to$ l nu l nu at the LHC,''

1788:   JHEP {\bf 0405}, 009 (2004)

1789:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0402218].

1790:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402218;%%

1791: 

1792: %\cite{Sjostrand:2000wi}

1793: \bibitem{Sjostrand:2000wi}

1794:   T.~Sjostrand, P.~Eden, C.~Friberg, L.~Lonnblad, G.~Miu, S.~Mrenna and E.~Norrbin,

1795:   %``High-energy-physics event generation with PYTHIA 6.1,''

1796:   Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\  {\bf 135}, 238 (2001)

1797:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0010017].

1798:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010017;%%

1799: 

1800: %\cite{Nelson:1986ki}

1801: \bibitem{Nelson:1986ki}

1802:   C.~A.~Nelson,

1803:   %``Correlation Between Decay Planes In Higgs Boson Decays Into W Pair (Into Z

1804:   %Pair),''

1805:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 37}, 1220 (1988).

1806:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D37,1220;%%

1807:   

1808: %\cite{Nagy:1998bb}

1809: \bibitem{Nagy:1998bb}

1810: Z.~Nagy and Z.~Trocsanyi,

1811: %``Next-to-leading order calculation of four-jet observables in electron

1812: %positron annihilation,''

1813: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 014020 (1999)

1814: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 62}, 099902 (2000)]

1815: [arXiv:hep-ph/9806317].

1816: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806317;%%

1817: 

1818: %\cite{Nagy:2003tz}

1819: \bibitem{Nagy:2003tz}

1820: Z.~Nagy,

1821: %``Next-to-leading order calculation of three-jet observables in hadron hadron

1822: %collision,''

1823: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 094002 (2003)

1824: [arXiv:hep-ph/0307268].

1825: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307268;%%

1826: 

1827: %\cite{'tHooft:1978xw}

1828: \bibitem{'tHooft:1978xw}

1829:   G.~'t Hooft and M.~J.~G.~Veltman,

1830:   %``Scalar One Loop Integrals,''

1831:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 153}, 365 (1979).

1832:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B153,365;%%

1833: 

1834: %\cite{Beenakker:2002nc}

1835: \bibitem{Beenakker:2002nc}

1836:   W.~Beenakker, S.~Dittmaier, M.~Kramer, B.~Plumper, M.~Spira and

1837: P.~M.~Zerwas,

1838:   %``NLO QCD corrections to t anti-t H production in hadron collisions. ((U)),''

1839:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 653} (2003) 151

1840:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0211352].

1841:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211352;%%

1842: 

1843: \end{thebibliography}

1844: \end{document}

1845: 

1846: 

1847: