Ratio of W+N jets to Z0/γ*+N jets versus N as a precision test of the standard model

Physical Review D

Volumn 68, Issue 3, 2003, Pages

  Abouzaid, Erin ^a   Frisch, Henry ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ENERGY; MODEL; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; MOLECULAR INTERACTION; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PHENOMENOLOGY; PHYSICS; THEORY;

EID: 17544395559     PISSN: 05562821     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.68.033014     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. S. L. Glashow, Nucl. Phys. 22, 579 (1961).
2. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 1264 (1967).
3. A. Salam, Proceedings of the 8th Nobel Symposium, Stockholm, 1979.
4. S. Berman, J. Bjorken, and J. Kogut, Phys. Rev. D 4, (1971).
5. CDF Collaboration, T. Affolder et al., Phys. Rev. D 63, 091101(R) (2001).
6. CDF Collaboration, D. Acosta et al., Phys. Rev. D 65, 052007 (2002).
7. CDF Collaboration, T. Affolder et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1110 (2000).
8. D0 Collaboration, S. Abachi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3271 (1996).
9. CDF Collaboration, T. Affolder et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 071806 (2002).
10. CDF Collaboration, D. Acosta et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4975 (1999).
11. D0 Collaboration, B. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4975 (1999).
12. CDF Collaboration, T. Affolder et al., Phys. Rev. D 62, 012004 (2000).
13. D0 Collaboration, B. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2051 (1998).
14. CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4327 (1997).
15. D0 Collaboration, B. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2088 (2000).
16. CDF Collaboration, T. Affolder et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2056 (2000).
17. CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 225 (1994).
18. CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. D 50, 2966 (1994).
19. CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2626 (1995).
20. D0 Collaboration, S. Abachi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2632 (1995).
21. CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5748 (1998).
22. CDF Collaboration, D. Acosta et al., Phys. Rev. D 65, 091102(R) (2002).
23. 00/γ* (∼10).
24. 0 means both amplitudes, as the source of the resulting final state that is measured by nature cannot be untangled).
25. G. Altarelli, R. Ellis, M. Greco, and G. Martinelli, Nucl. Phys. B246, 12 (1984).
26. S. Geer and W. Stirling, Phys. Lett. 152B, 373 (1985).
27. R. Kleiss and W. J. Stirling, Nucl. Phys. B262, 235 (1985).
28. M. L. Mangano and S. Parke, Phys. Rev. D 41, 59 (1990).
29. F. A. Berends, H. Kuijf, B. Tausk, and W. T. Giele, Nucl. Phys. B357, 32 (1991).
30. F. A. Berends, W. T. Giele, H. Kuijf, R. Kleiss, and W. J. Stirling, Phys. Lett. B 224, 237 (1989).
31. R. K. Ellis, G. Martinelli, and R. Petronzio, Nucl. Phys. B211, 106 (1983).
32. P. B. Arnold and M. H. Reno, Nucl. Phys. B319, 37 (1989);
33. P. B. Arnold and M. H. Reno, Nucl. Phys. B330, 284(E) (1990).
34. P. Arnold, R. K. Ellis, and M. H. Reno, Phys. Rev. D 40, 912 (1989).
35. W. T. Giele, S. Keller, and E. Laenen, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 51C, 255 (1996).
36. R. K. Ellis and S. Veseli, Phys. Rev. D 60, 011501 (1999).
37. J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D 62, 114012 (2000).
38. M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti, and R. Pittau, Nucl. Phys. B632, 343 (2002).
39. M. L. Mangano, Nucl. Phys. B405, 536 (1993).
40. The choice of using exclusive N-jet channels (e.g., W+1 jet, W+2 jet, etc.) is attractive due to the difficulty of normalizing one such channel to the next in Monte Carlo event generators, which (at present) calculate the matrix elements for the individual exclusive channels. While the inclusive W+N-jet channels (e.g., W+3 or more jets) are more robust experimentally and (in principle) theoretically, many of the Tevatron's W +N-jet analyses of top quark properties are made in the exclusive W+1, W+2, etc., bins for this reason. Ideally, one would be able to work in the exclusive W+N-jet channels in a robust and precise way; hence the proposed ratio method.
41. T. Stelzer and W. Long, Comput. Phys. Commun. 81, 357 (1994).
42. F. Maltoni and T. Stelzer, J. High Energy Phys. 02, 027 (2003).
43. Ellis and Veseli [35].
44. J. M. Campbell and R. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D 62, 114012 (2000).
45. J. M. Campbell and R. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D 65, 113007 (2002).
46. 0/γ*+N jets) we have found; here they are used to normalize the W+N jets prediction to the Z+2jet data.
47. 2, so that energy, momentum, and mass are all measured in GeV.
48. CDF Collaboration, T. Affolder et al., Phys. Rev. D 64, 032001 (2001).
49. By "inclusive" we mean counting the number of jets≥N for each N; by "exclusive" we mean counting exactly N jets.
50. D0 Collaboration, B. Abbott, contributed to 18th International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions (LP 97), Hamburg, Germany, 1997.
51. CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. D 45, 1448 (1992).
52. The proton and antiproton beams each consist of 36 bunches distributed around the 1-km radius Tevatron ring. Protonantiproton interactions occur when the two beam cross each other; more than one collision can occur in a single crossing. The time response of the detectors is typically such that the effects of multiple interactions are integrated over, with only partial discrimination between interactions being possible by reconstructing charged tracks to different vertex positions.
53. 0/γ* cases cancel, and hence an estimate of the expected precision on the ratio.
54. As the calorimeter response is calibrated by jet balancing in η the energy scales have a maximum excursion versus η of a few percent. It is this uncertainty times the difference in the jet η distributions that sets the limit on the contributions to the ratio from the jet energy scale.
55. CDF Collaboration, T. Affolder et al., Phys. Rev. D 65, 092002 (2002).
56. S. Kopp, Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, 1994.
57. CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. D 52, 2624 (1995).
58. H. L. Lai et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 12, 375 (2000); we use the interpolation rather than the table.
59. A. Martin, R. Roberts, W. Stirling, and R. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. C 4, 463 (1998).
60. A. Martin, W. Stirling, and R. Roberts, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 10, 2885 (1995).
61. A more rigorous method would be appropriate at the time of an analysis of real data. See the following: M. Botje, Eur. Phys. J. C 14, 285 (2000);
62. W. T. Giele, S. A. Keller, and D. Kosower, hep-ph/0104052.
63. Also see CTEQ6 and A. D. Martin, R. G. Roberts, W. J. Stirling, and R. S. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. C 28, 455 (2003), which have PDFs with uncertainties.
64. Of course it is possible that a new source feeds both numerator and denominator in equal proportion; in that case this method has no sensitivity.
65. T distributions of W and Z production, and other quantities will also be better measured.