Repository logo
Log in(current)
Repository logoMIT Open ScholarshipDSpace@MIT
  1. Home
  2. MIT Open Access Articles
  3. MIT Open Access Articles
  4. Monte Carlo Top Quark Mass Calibration

Monte Carlo Top Quark Mass Calibration

Thumbnail Image
Download
Name

RADCOR2017_062.pdf

Description
Published version
Size

507.58 KB

Format

Adobe PDF

Checksum (MD5)

368e04df9ae2291929f9e104527a0824

sword-2019-04-29T20:24:00.original.xml (130 B)
Original SWORD entry document
Author(s)
Preisser, Moritz
•
Dehnadi, Bahman
•
Hoang, Andre
•
Mateu, Vicent
•
Stewart, Iain
Date Issued
March 2018
Journal
Proceedings of Science
Publisher
Sissa Medialab
Citation
Dehnadi, Bahman et al. "Monte Carlo Top Quark Mass Calibration." Proceedings of Science, 290 ©2018 The Author(s)
Version
Final published version
Abstract
The most precise top quark mass measurements use kinematic reconstruction methods, determining the top mass parameter of a Monte Carlo event generator, mtMC. Due to the complicated interplay of hadronization and parton shower dynamics in Monte Carlo event generators relevant for kinematic reconstruction, relating mtMC to field theory masses is a non-trivial task. In this talk we report on a calibration procedure to determine this relation using hadron level QCD predictions for 2-Jettiness in e+e- annihilation, an observable which has kinematic top mass sensitivity and a close relation to the invariant mass of the particles coming from the top decay. The theoretical ingredients of the QCD prediction are reviewed. Fitting e+e- 2-Jettiness calculations at NLL/NNLL order to Pythia 8.205, we find that mtMC agrees with the MSR mass (Formula Presented.) within uncertainties. At NNLL we find (Formula Presented.). mtMC can differ from the pole mass mtpole by up to 600MeV, and using the pole mass generally leads to larger uncertainties. At NNLL we find mtMC = mtpole +(0.57±0.28)GeV as the fit result. In contrast, converting (Formula Presented.) obtained at NNLL to the pole mass gives a result for mtpole that is substantially larger and incompatible with the fit result. We also explain some theoretical aspects relevant for employing the C-parameter as an alternative calibration observable.
MIT Department
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Center for Theoretical Physics
Terms of Use
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Persistent DSpace Link
https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/124649
DOI of Published Version
https://doi.org/10.22323/1.290.0062
Repository logo
PrivacyPermissionsAccessibilityContact us
Repository logo
Notify us about copyright concerns.