Article
Reference
Forward-Backward Asymmetry in Top-Quark Production in pp Collisions at s√=1.96 TeV
CDF Collaboration
CLARK, Allan Geoffrey (Collab.), et al.
Abstract
We present measurements of the forward-backward charge asymmetry in top pair production using 1.9 fb−1 of pp collisions at s√=1.96 TeV recorded with the Collider Detector at Fermilab II. Correcting for acceptance and measurement dilutions we obtain parton-level asymmetries of App FB=0.17±0.08 in the pp frame and Att FB=0.24±0.14 in the tt frame. The values are consistent with the standard model expectation and disfavor exotic production mechanisms with significant negative values.
CDF Collaboration, CLARK, Allan Geoffrey (Collab.), et al . Forward-Backward Asymmetry in Top-Quark Production in pp Collisions at s√=1.96 TeV. Physical Review Letters , 2008, vol.
101, no. 20, p. 202001
DOI : 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.202001
Available at:
http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:38522
Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.
1 / 1
Forward-Backward Asymmetry in Top-Quark Production in p p Collisions at ffiffiffi p s
¼ 1:96 TeV
T. Aaltonen,24J. Adelman,14T. Akimoto,56M. G. Albrow,18B. A´ lvarez Gonza´lez,12S. Amerio,44a,44bD. Amidei,35 A. Anastassov,39A. Annovi,20J. Antos,15G. Apollinari,18A. Apresyan,49T. Arisawa,58A. Artikov,16W. Ashmanskas,18 A. Attal,4A. Aurisano,54F. Azfar,43P. Azzurri,47a,47dW. Badgett,18A. Barbaro-Galtieri,29V. E. Barnes,49B. A. Barnett,26 V. Bartsch,31G. Bauer,33P.-H. Beauchemin,34F. Bedeschi,47aP. Bednar,15D. Beecher,31S. Behari,26G. Bellettini,47a,47b
J. Bellinger,60D. Benjamin,17A. Beretvas,18J. Beringer,29A. Bhatti,51M. Binkley,18D. Bisello,44a,44bI. Bizjak,31 R. E. Blair,2C. Blocker,7B. Blumenfeld,26A. Bocci,17A. Bodek,50V. Boisvert,50G. Bolla,49D. Bortoletto,49 J. Boudreau,48A. Boveia,11B. Brau,11A. Bridgeman,25L. Brigliadori,44aC. Bromberg,36E. Brubaker,14J. Budagov,16
H. S. Budd,50S. Budd,25K. Burkett,18G. Busetto,44a,44bP. Bussey,22,rA. Buzatu,34K. L. Byrum,2S. Cabrera,17,q C. Calancha,32M. Campanelli,36M. Campbell,35F. Canelli,18A. Canepa,46D. Carlsmith,60R. Carosi,47aS. Carrillo,19,k
S. Carron,34B. Casal,12M. Casarsa,18A. Castro,6a,6bP. Catastini,47a,47cD. Cauz,55a,55bV. Cavaliere,47a,47c M. Cavalli-Sforza,4A. Cerri,29L. Cerrito,31,oS. H. Chang,28Y. C. Chen,1M. Chertok,8G. Chiarelli,47aG. Chlachidze,18
F. Chlebana,18K. Cho,28D. Chokheli,16J. P. Chou,23G. Choudalakis,33S. H. Chuang,53K. Chung,13W. H. Chung,60 Y. S. Chung,50Th. Chwalek,27C. I. Ciobanu,45M. A. Ciocci,47a,47cA. Clark,21D. Clark,7G. Compostella,44a
M. E. Convery,18J. Conway,8K. Copic,35M. Cordelli,20G. Cortiana,44a,44bD. J. Cox,8F. Crescioli,47a,47b C. Cuenca Almenar,8,qJ. Cuevas,12,nR. Culbertson,18J. C. Cully,35D. Dagenhart,18M. Datta,18T. Davies,22 P. de Barbaro,50S. De Cecco,52aA. Deisher,29G. De Lorenzo,4M. Dell’Orso,47a,47bC. Deluca,4L. Demortier,51J. Deng,17 M. Deninno,6aP. F. Derwent,18G. P. di Giovanni,45C. Dionisi,52a,52bB. Di Ruzza,55a,55bJ. R. Dittmann,5M. D’Onofrio,4
S. Donati,47a,47bP. Dong,9J. Donini,44aT. Dorigo,44aS. Dube,53J. Efron,40A. Elagin,54R. Erbacher,8D. Errede,25 S. Errede,25R. Eusebi,18H. C. Fang,29S. Farrington,43W. T. Fedorko,14R. G. Feild,61M. Feindt,27J. P. Fernandez,32
C. Ferrazza,47a,47dR. Field,19G. Flanagan,49R. Forrest,8M. Franklin,23J. C. Freeman,18I. Furic,19M. Gallinaro,52a J. Galyardt,13F. Garberson,11J. E. Garcia,47aA. F. Garfinkel,49K. Genser,18H. Gerberich,25D. Gerdes,35A. Gessler,27
S. Giagu,52a,52bV. Giakoumopoulou,3P. Giannetti,47aK. Gibson,48J. L. Gimmell,50C. M. Ginsburg,18N. Giokaris,3 M. Giordani,55a,55bP. Giromini,20M. Giunta,47a,47bG. Giurgiu,26V. Glagolev,16D. Glenzinski,18M. Gold,38 N. Goldschmidt,19A. Golossanov,18G. Gomez,12G. Gomez-Ceballos,33M. Goncharov,54O. Gonza´lez,32I. Gorelov,38
A. T. Goshaw,17K. Goulianos,51A. Gresele,44a,44bS. Grinstein,23C. Grosso-Pilcher,14R. C. Group,18U. Grundler,25 J. Guimaraes da Costa,23Z. Gunay-Unalan,36C. Haber,29K. Hahn,33S. R. Hahn,18E. Halkiadakis,53B.-Y. Han,50 J. Y. Han,50R. Handler,60F. Happacher,20K. Hara,56D. Hare,53M. Hare,57S. Harper,43R. F. Harr,59R. M. Harris,18
M. Hartz,48K. Hatakeyama,51J. Hauser,9C. Hays,43M. Heck,27A. Heijboer,46B. Heinemann,29J. Heinrich,45 C. Henderson,33M. Herndon,60J. Heuser,27S. Hewamanage,5D. Hidas,17C. S. Hill,11,dD. Hirschbuehl,27A. Hocker,18
S. Hou,1M. Houlden,30S.-C. Hsu,10B. T. Huffman,43R. E. Hughes,40U. Husemann,61J. Huston,36J. Incandela,11 G. Introzzi,47aM. Iori,52a,52bA. Ivanov,8E. James,18B. Jayatilaka,17E. J. Jeon,28M. K. Jha,6aS. Jindariani,18W. Johnson,8
M. Jones,49K. K. Joo,28S. Y. Jun,13J. E. Jung,28T. R. Junk,18T. Kamon,54D. Kar,19P. E. Karchin,59Y. Kato,42 R. Kephart,18J. Keung,46V. Khotilovich,54B. Kilminster,40D. H. Kim,28H. S. Kim,28J. E. Kim,28M. J. Kim,20 S. B. Kim,28S. H. Kim,56Y. K. Kim,14N. Kimura,56L. Kirsch,7S. Klimenko,19B. Knuteson,33B. R. Ko,17S. A. Koay,11 K. Kondo,58D. J. Kong,28J. Konigsberg,19A. Korytov,19A. V. Kotwal,17M. Kreps,27J. Kroll,46D. Krop,14N. Krumnack,5
M. Kruse,17V. Krutelyov,11T. Kubo,56T. Kuhr,27N. P. Kulkarni,59M. Kurata,56Y. Kusakabe,58S. Kwang,14 A. T. Laasanen,49S. Lami,47aS. Lammel,18M. Lancaster,31R. L. Lander,8K. Lannon,40A. Lath,53G. Latino,47a,47c
I. Lazzizzera,44a,44bT. LeCompte,2E. Lee,54S. W. Lee,54,pS. Leone,47aJ. D. Lewis,18C. S. Lin,29J. Linacre,43 M. Lindgren,18E. Lipeles,10A. Lister,8D. O. Litvintsev,18C. Liu,48T. Liu,18N. S. Lockyer,46A. Loginov,61 M. Loreti,44a,44bL. Lovas,15R.-S. Lu,1D. Lucchesi,44a,44bJ. Lueck,27C. Luci,52a,52bP. Lujan,29P. Lukens,18G. Lungu,51
L. Lyons,43J. Lys,29R. Lysak,15E. Lytken,49P. Mack,27D. MacQueen,34R. Madrak,18K. Maeshima,18K. Makhoul,33 T. Maki,24P. Maksimovic,26S. Malde,43S. Malik,31G. Manca,30A. Manousakis-Katsikakis,3F. Margaroli,49C. Marino,27
C. P. Marino,25A. Martin,61V. Martin,22,jM. Martı´nez,4R. Martı´nez-Balları´n,32T. Maruyama,56P. Mastrandrea,52a T. Masubuchi,56M. E. Mattson,59P. Mazzanti,6aK. S. McFarland,50P. McIntyre,54R. McNulty,30,iA. Mehta,30 P. Mehtala,24A. Menzione,47aP. Merkel,49C. Mesropian,51T. Miao,18N. Miladinovic,7R. Miller,36C. Mills,23 M. Milnik,27A. Mitra,1G. Mitselmakher,19H. Miyake,56N. Moggi,6aC. S. Moon,28R. Moore,18M. J. Morello,47a,47b
J. Morlok,27P. Movilla Fernandez,18J. Mu¨lmensta¨dt,29A. Mukherjee,18Th. Muller,27R. Mumford,26P. Murat,18 M. Mussini,6a,6bJ. Nachtman,18Y. Nagai,56A. Nagano,56J. Naganoma,58K. Nakamura,56I. Nakano,41A. Napier,57
V. Necula,17C. Neu,46M. S. Neubauer,25J. Nielsen,29,fL. Nodulman,2M. Norman,10O. Norniella,25E. Nurse,31 L. Oakes,43S. H. Oh,17Y. D. Oh,28I. Oksuzian,19T. Okusawa,42R. Orava,24K. Osterberg,24S. Pagan Griso,44a,44b C. Pagliarone,47aE. Palencia,18V. Papadimitriou,18A. Papaikonomou,27A. A. Paramonov,14B. Parks,40S. Pashapour,34
J. Patrick,18G. Pauletta,55a,55bM. Paulini,13C. Paus,33Th. Peiffer,27D. E. Pellett,8A. Penzo,55aT. J. Phillips,17 G. Piacentino,47aE. Pianori,46L. Pinera,19K. Pitts,25C. Plager,9L. Pondrom,60O. Poukhov,16,aN. Pounder,43 F. Prakoshyn,16A. Pronko,18J. Proudfoot,2F. Ptohos,18,hE. Pueschel,13G. Punzi,47a,47bJ. Pursley,60J. Rademacker,43,d A. Rahaman,48V. Ramakrishnan,60N. Ranjan,49I. Redondo,32B. Reisert,18V. Rekovic,38P. Renton,43M. Rescigno,52a S. Richter,27F. Rimondi,6a,6bL. Ristori,47aA. Robson,22T. Rodrigo,12T. Rodriguez,46E. Rogers,25S. Rolli,57R. Roser,18 M. Rossi,55aR. Rossin,11P. Roy,34A. Ruiz,12J. Russ,13V. Rusu,18H. Saarikko,24A. Safonov,54W. K. Sakumoto,50 O. Salto´,4L. Santi,55a,55bS. Sarkar,52a,52bL. Sartori,47aK. Sato,18A. Savoy-Navarro,45T. Scheidle,27P. Schlabach,18
A. Schmidt,27E. E. Schmidt,18M. A. Schmidt,14M. P. Schmidt,61,aM. Schmitt,39T. Schwarz,8L. Scodellaro,12 A. L. Scott,11A. Scribano,47a,47cF. Scuri,47aA. Sedov,49S. Seidel,38Y. Seiya,42A. Semenov,16L. Sexton-Kennedy,18 A. Sfyrla,21S. Z. Shalhout,59T. Shears,30P. F. Shepard,48D. Sherman,23M. Shimojima,56,mS. Shiraishi,14M. Shochet,14
Y. Shon,60I. Shreyber,37A. Sidoti,47aP. Sinervo,34A. Sisakyan,16A. J. Slaughter,18J. Slaunwhite,40K. Sliwa,57 J. R. Smith,8F. D. Snider,18R. Snihur,34A. Soha,8S. Somalwar,53V. Sorin,36J. Spalding,18T. Spreitzer,34 P. Squillacioti,47a,47cM. Stanitzki,61R. St. Denis,22B. Stelzer,9O. Stelzer-Chilton,43D. Stentz,39J. Strologas,38 D. Stuart,11J. S. Suh,28A. Sukhanov,19I. Suslov,16T. Suzuki,56A. Taffard,25,eR. Takashima,41Y. Takeuchi,56R. Tanaka,41
M. Tecchio,35P. K. Teng,1K. Terashi,51J. Thom,18,gA. S. Thompson,22G. A. Thompson,25E. Thomson,46P. Tipton,61 V. Tiwari,13S. Tkaczyk,18D. Toback,54S. Tokar,15K. Tollefson,36T. Tomura,56D. Tonelli,18S. Torre,20D. Torretta,18 P. Totaro,55a,55bS. Tourneur,45Y. Tu,46N. Turini,47a,47cF. Ukegawa,56S. Vallecorsa,21N. van Remortel,24,bA. Varganov,35
E. Vataga,47a,47dF. Va´zquez,19,kG. Velev,18C. Vellidis,3V. Veszpremi,49M. Vidal,32R. Vidal,18I. Vila,12R. Vilar,12 T. Vine,31M. Vogel,38I. Volobouev,29,pG. Volpi,47a,47bF. Wu¨rthwein,10P. Wagner,2R. G. Wagner,2R. L. Wagner,18 J. Wagner-Kuhr,27W. Wagner,27T. Wakisaka,42R. Wallny,9S. M. Wang,1A. Warburton,34D. Waters,31M. Weinberger,54
J. Weinelt,27W. C. Wester III,18B. Whitehouse,57D. Whiteson,46,eA. B. Wicklund,2E. Wicklund,18G. Williams,34 H. H. Williams,46P. Wilson,18B. L. Winer,40P. Wittich,18,gS. Wolbers,18C. Wolfe,14T. Wright,35X. Wu,21 S. M. Wynne,30A. Yagil,10K. Yamamoto,42J. Yamaoka,53U. K. Yang,14,lY. C. Yang,28W. M. Yao,29G. P. Yeh,18J. Yoh,18 K. Yorita,14T. Yoshida,42G. B. Yu,50I. Yu,28S. S. Yu,18J. C. Yun,18L. Zanello,52a,52bA. Zanetti,55aI. Zaw,23X. Zhang,25
Y. Zheng,9,cand S. Zucchelli6a,6b (CDF Collaboration)s
1Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan 11529, Republic of China
2Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439, USA
3University of Athens, 157 71 Athens, Greece
4Institut de Fisica d’Altes Energies, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, E-08193, Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain
5Baylor University, Waco, Texas 76798, USA
6aIstituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Bologna, I-40127 Bologna, Italy
6bUniversity of Bologna, I-40127 Bologna, Italy
7Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts 02254, USA
8University of California, Davis, Davis, California 95616, USA
9University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90024, USA
10University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093, USA
11University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California 93106, USA
12Instituto de Fisica de Cantabria, CSIC-University of Cantabria, 39005 Santander, Spain
13Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA
14Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA
15Comenius University, 842 48 Bratislava, Slovakia;
Institute of Experimental Physics, 040 01 Kosice, Slovakia
16Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, RU-141980 Dubna, Russia
17Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA
18Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA
19University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA
20Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, I-00044 Frascati, Italy
21University of Geneva, CH-1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland
22Glasgow University, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom
202001-2
23Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA
24Division of High Energy Physics, Department of Physics, University of Helsinki and Helsinki Institute of Physics, FIN-00014, Helsinki, Finland
25University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA
26The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, USA
27Institut fu¨r Experimentelle Kernphysik, Universita¨t Karlsruhe, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany
28Center for High Energy Physics: Kyungpook National University, Daegu 702-701, Korea;
Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, Korea;
Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 440-746, Korea;
Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon, 305-806, Korea;
Chonnam National University, Gwangju, 500-757, Korea
29Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA
30University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZE, United Kingdom
31University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom
32Centro de Investigaciones Energeticas Medioambientales y Tecnologicas, E-28040 Madrid, Spain
33Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA
34Institute of Particle Physics: McGill University, Montre´al, Canada H3A 2T8;
and University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada M5S 1A7
35University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA
36Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA
37Institution for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, ITEP, Moscow 117259, Russia
38University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA
39Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA
40The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA
41Okayama University, Okayama 700-8530, Japan
42Osaka City University, Osaka 588, Japan
43University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3RH, United Kingdom
44aIstituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Padova-Trento, I-35131 Padova, Italy
44bUniversity of Padova, I-35131 Padova, Italy
45LPNHE, Universite Pierre et Marie Curie/IN2P3-CNRS, UMR7585, Paris, F-75252 France
46University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
47aIstituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Pisa, I-56127 Pisa, Italy
47bUniversity of Pisa, I-56127 Pisa, Italy
47cUniversity of Siena, I-56127 Pisa, Italy
47dScuola Normale Superiore, I-56127 Pisa, Italy
48University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, USA
49Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, USA
50University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627, USA
51The Rockefeller University, New York, New York 10021, USA
52aIstituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Roma 1, I-00185 Roma, Italy
52bSapienza Universita` di Roma, I-00185 Roma, Italy
53Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08855, USA
54Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA
55aIstituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Trieste/Udine, Italy
55bUniversity of Trieste/Udine, Italy
56University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan
57Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts 02155, USA
58Waseda University, Tokyo 169, Japan
59Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201, USA
60University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA
61Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA (Received 17 June 2008; published 12 November 2008)
We present measurements of the forward-backward charge asymmetry in top pair production using 1:9 fb1ofppcollisions atpffiffiffis
¼1:96 TeVrecorded with the Collider Detector at Fermilab II. Correcting for acceptance and measurement dilutions we obtain parton-level asymmetries ofApFBp ¼0:170:08in theppframe andAtFBt ¼0:240:14in thettframe. The values are consistent with the standard model expectation and disfavor exotic production mechanisms with significant negative values.
DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.202001 PACS numbers: 12.38.Qk, 13.87.Ce, 14.65.Ha
The top quark, discovered in 1995 by both Tevatron experiments [1], is the only known fermion with a mass of the order of the electroweak breaking scale. This sug- gests that it may play a special role in new physics. A detailed investigation of the production mechanism of top quarks will give insights into whether top quarks are pro- duced via new physics processes.
In this Letter we present two analyses studying the forward-backward charge asymmetry of top quark pairs in pp collisions at pffiffiffis
¼1:96 TeV at the Fermilab Tevatron. In standard model QCD a charge asymmetry AC arises in next-to-leading order ttX production.
Because the strong interaction is invariant under charge conjugationACis equivalent to a forward-backward asym- metryAFB. Recent calculations predict a slightly positive total AFB¼5:01:5% in the Tevatron pp rest frame [2,3], with the theoretical uncertainty driven by the size of corrections at higher orders. This small totalAFB com- bines a positive asymmetry from the interference of the Born and virtual (box) corrections (tt) with a negative asymmetry from interference of initial and final state ra- diation amplitudes (ttþg) [4].
While the total AFB value expected by the standard model is hardly measurable at the presently achievable precision, we are sensitive to large AFB values (of order 30%) predicted in some models with new physics, e.g.
Z0-like states with parity violating couplings [5] and theo- ries with chiral color [2,6]. In contrast to searches for heavy resonances in the spectrum of the mass of the top pair [7], a measurement ofAFBis sensitive to both narrow and broad resonances. In addition, the presence of a massive gluon may be visible in the asymmetry even above the collision energy due to interference with the standard model gluon.
Since a longitudinal boost changes the top quark direc- tion, AFB is frame dependent. Undetected collinear gluon radiation makes the fundamental initial parton frame ex- perimentally inaccessible. However, the tt and the pp frame are experimentally accessible and according to [2]
theAFBvalues in thepp frame are predicted to be reduced by30%relative to thettframe.
We present here the first measurement of the top-quark productionAFB, fully corrected to the parton level, in both the pp and tt frames. Correction to the intrinsic parton value allows direct comparison to theoretical prediction, and measurements in two frames probe the consistency and the frame dependence of the effect. A recent study [8]
measures a quantity which is related to thettframe asym- metry but is uncorrected for acceptance and resolution effects. The resultð1281Þ%is larger than expected, within errors, but difficult to interpret.
We use1:9 fb1 of pp collision data recorded by the Collider Detector at Fermilab II (CDF). The detector is a forward-backward symmetric system consisting of a mag- netic spectrometer surrounded by projective calorimeters and muon detectors [9]. Charged track reconstruction in a
1.4 T axial field uses a large open cell drift chamber and silicon microstrip detectors for displaced secondary vertex detection. We use coordinates where is the azimuthal angle and is the polar angle with respect to the proton beamzaxis. Transverse energy isET ¼Esin, the rapid- ity isY¼12ln½ðEþpzÞ=ðEpzÞ, and the pseudorapidity is¼ ln½tanð=2Þ.
We collect a sample of candidate events in the leptonþ jets topology tt! ðWþbÞðWbÞ ! ðqq0bÞð‘‘bÞ [10], where one W-boson decays leptonically and the other hadronically, by triggering on a central (jj 1:0) elec- tron with ET>18 GeV or central muon with transverse momentum pT>18 GeV=c. After offline reconstruction we select events with an isolated electron with ET 20 GeVor muon withpT 20 GeV=c, missing transverse energyE6 T 20 GeV[11] consistent with a neutrino from Wdecay, and at least four hadronic jets withjj 2:0and ET 20 GeV. Jets are clustered in fixed cones of radius R ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðÞ2þ ðÞ2
p 0:4 and jet energies are cor- rected to parton-level values [12]. At least one jet must bebtagged, i.e., contain a reconstructed secondary vertex consistent with the decay of a bottom hadron in the jet [13].
We find484candidate events.
The expected tt signal is studied using the PYTHIA,
HERWIG, and MC@NLO event generators [14] and a full detector simulation [15]. The top quark mass is set equal to Mt¼175 GeV=c2. The rates and kinematics of back- ground processes are well modeled with simulation and data control samples [16] which will be discussed later. We expect a total of 8723background events, leaving att signal of 39732 events, consistent with our previous cross-section measurement of8:21:0 pb[17].
Mass constraints on theWbosons from top quark decay fix the jet parton assignment and allow complete recon- struction of thettkinematics. For theppframe analysis we use the algorithm employed in the top quark mass mea- surement of Ref. [18]. Measured jet energies float within expected resolutions,b-tagged jets are taken as fragmented b quarks, both W boson masses Mð‘Þ and Mðqq0Þ are constrained to 80:4 GeV=c2, and the top quark mass is constrained to 175 GeV=c2. For thettframe analysis we use the technique described in Refs. [19] which employs constraints on the W boson masses, the reconstructed t-t mass difference (but notMt), the total transverse energy, and theblikelihood of the jets [20]. In simulatedttsamples the two procedures resolve the top direction with similar accuracy. The resolution on the direction of the hadroni- cally decaying top quarkth, expressed in terms of rapidity, isYðthÞ ’0:29. The leptonically decaying top quark sys- tem tl, which includes the indirectly measured neutrino, has Yðt‘Þ ’0:46 and significant non-Gaussian tails (15%).
We measure the direction of the top quark in the pp center-of-mass frame using the cosine of the polar angle between the hadronic top quark and the proton beam, 202001-4
cosp. The sign of thethelectric charge is opposite that of Q‘, the leptonic charge observed in thetldecay. Assuming CPinvariance, we find one top quark anglecos¼ Q‘ cospin each event and calculate the asymmetry in thepp center-of-mass frame [21]
ApFBp ¼Nðcos >0Þ Nðcos <0Þ
Nðcos >0Þ þNðcos <0Þ: (1) This technique has the simplicity of relying only on the hadronic top quark reconstruction, but has the drawback of measuring asymmetries which are diluted by 30% com- pared to thettframe.
The tt rest frame measurement exploits the Lorentz invariant difference between thet andtrapiditiesYt and Yt. We use the reconstructed rapidity oft‘ andthin each event, assumeCP invariance, and determine Y¼Yt Yt¼Q‘ ðYt‘YthÞfrom which we calculate the asym- metry in the approximate (LO)ttrest frame [22]
AtFBt ¼NðY >0Þ NðY <0Þ
NðY >0Þ þNðY <0Þ: (2) To connect this with other asymmetry measurements, we note that in the case of ideal resolutionAtFBt reproduces the asymmetry measured in the equivalent Collins-Soper frame [23]. While it is sensitive to the larger tt frame asymmetry,Y combines the uncertainties of both quark reconstructions, including the neutrino-related complica- tions of thet‘quark system.
The expected measurement performance is evaluated using simulated samples. In TableIwe compare asymme- tries found after selection and reconstruction to parton- level asymmetries calculated using perfect acceptance and resolution. The uncertainties reflect the simulation statistics. With the parton-shower generators PYTHIA and
HERWIG we see no intrinsic charge asymmetry at the parton level, as expected, and verify that any forward- backward bias from selection and reconstruction is small.
With the MC@NLO generator, which includes the small QCD-induced charge asymmetry, we find parton-level val- ues consistent with theoretical expectation in magnitude and the level of frame dependence. With large statistics the measured values are sensitive to the small asymmetry, but diluted by acceptance and reconstruction effects. Dilution corrections, as well as the expected sensitivity in our finite data set, are discussed later. The calibration of the simula- tion to the physical detector geometry and acceptance has been checked in studies of electroweak processes [24]. For
example, the leptonic charge asymmetry in W!l agrees with our simulated physics and detector model within the statistical uncertainty of0:004.
The AFB measured in data must be corrected for back- ground contributions which include asymmetric weak pro- cesses.Wþjets events with tagged heavy flavor (Wþhf) or mistagged light partons (Wþlf) are modeled using
ALPGEN[25] interfaced toPYTHIAparton showering, along withbtagging and mistagging rates parametrized from jet data. Small electroweak backgrounds (EW),WW,WZ,ZZ and single-top, are modeled with PYTHIA and with
MADEVENT[26], respectively. The non-W (QCD) electron background is studied using data events with five jets where one jet models a misreconstructed electron; the same sample is used for non-W muons after reweighting the lepton acceptance. The background levels and asym- metries expected in the two analyses are shown in TableII.
The combined results are listed in the last row.
Figure1shows the measured distributions of cosand Y in the 484b-taggedttcandidates, along with predic- tions based on simulated tt events from the MC@NLO
generator in combination with our non-ttbackground mod- els. The measured asymmetries are displayed in TableIII.
The background-corrected values, derived by subtracting the composite model shape bin-by-bin, show a positive asymmetry which is larger than but consistent with the
MC@NLO predictions within uncertainties. Our background-correctedAtFBt , although measured in a slightly different visible phase space, is very consistent with the measurement from the D0 Collaboration [8]. Subdividing the data by lepton types and lepton charges shows a con- sistent positive asymmetry across all samples.
To study the two contributionsttandttþgwith differ- ent expected sign in AFB, we split our data sample into events without any additional hard jet (Njets ¼4, 85%tt) and events with at least one additional hard jet (Njets 5, 53%ttþg). Our background-correctedApFBp andAtFBt val- TABLE II. Backgrounds, estimated number of events Nexp, and their effective asymmetries.
Process Nexp ApFBp AtFBt
Wþhf 3710 0:0870:005 0:0450:003 Wþlf 205 0:0440:008 0:0060:015 EW 121 0:0220:014 0:0150:044 QCD 1816 0:0080:004 0:0060:010 Total 8723 0:0530:004 0:0210:007 TABLE I. Measured asymmetries in large simulatedttsamples.
Generator Parton-levelApFBp ReconstructedApFBp Parton-levelAtFBt ReconstructedAtFBt
PYTHIA 0:0000:003 0:0070:006 0:0000:001 0:0050:003
HERWIG 0:0000:006 0:0130:012 0:0030:002 0:0030:006
MC@NLO 0:0380:002 0:0150:016 0:0490:002 0:0170:007
ues for this study are presented in Table III. The Njets dependence is not as strong as seen in [8], but the limited statistics does not allow a firm conclusion.
The distributions in Fig.1are distorted from their true parton-level shapes by acceptance bias and reconstruction errors. We use a matrix inversion technique to derive the parton-level distributions andttasymmetries. If an event in bin j at parton level is collected with efficiency j and migrates to biniat the measurement level with probability Sij, the bin-by-bin parton-level distributions Pj can be found from the background-corrected data distributions Diby the inverse transformation
Pj¼1j S1ji Di: (3) We simplify each distribution to four bins, with two bins on either side of the crossover at cos¼Y¼0. The effi- ciencies and migration matrixSijare derived by comparing the parton and reconstructed level quantities using the zero asymmetryPYTHIAttsimulations. In thecosðYÞanaly- sis roughly 13% (25%) of events change signs, but the matrix is symmetric within uncertainties. The symmetry of the matrix, which follows from the forward-backward
symmetry of the detector, ensures that the inversion is insensitive to small errors in the modeling of the migration parameters.
The expected performance of the complete calculation is evaluated with simulated samples. Sensitivity to the asymmetry model is studied using PYTHIA samples that have been reweighted in the top-quark production angle for a range of possible asymmetry functions and magnitudes varying between 0.0 and 0.30. Sensitivity to the QCD- induced asymmetry is studied with MC@NLO. The effect of extra jets is studied with exclusivettþ0parton andttþ 1 parton samples made with the ALPGENgenerator. Each sample was reconstructed, measured, and propagated back to the parton level with the procedures described above. For all conditions the procedure returns mean val- ues within 0.02 of the true value. The predicted statistical precisions in our 1:9 fb1 data set are ApFBp¼0:09and AtFBt ¼0:13.
Additional sources of uncertainty are evaluated using simulated samples with reasonable variations on the as- sumptions for background shape and normalization, signal shapes, the top quark mass, the parton distribu- TABLE III. Predicted (MC@NLOþnon-tt) and measured asymmetries without further corrections.
Njets PredictedApFBp MeasuredApFBp PredictedAtFBt MeasuredAtFBt Recontructed data 4 0:0010:010 0:0990:045 0:0100:007 0:0870:045 Background subtracted 4 0:0150:016 0:1300:055 0:0170:007 0:1190:064
¼4 0:0320:018 0:1200:064 0:0380:008 0:1320:075 5 0:0270:032 0:1600:109 0:0330:012 0:0790:123 FIG. 1. The two top-quark production angle variables,cosfor theppframe andYfor thettframe. The solid line is the prediction forttwith MC@NLO model of the QCD-induced charge asymmetry and tt¼8:2 pb, plus the expected non-ttbackgrounds. The dashed curve shows the prediction whenttis reweighted according to the form1þAFBcosusing measured values ofAFB.
202001-6
tion functions, the amount of initial and final state gluon radiation, and the calorimeter energy scale. The largest uncertainty in the ApFBp analysis is the background nor- malization and the largest in the AtFBt analysis is the Y shape modeling, being roughlyAFB’0:02in each. The total systematic uncertainty is AFB ¼0:04 for both techniques.
Applying our algorithm to the inclusive background- subtracted distributions in Fig. 1, we find parton-level asymmetries of ApFBp¼0:170:070:04 and AtFBt ¼ 0:240:130:04, where the uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively. In Fig. 1, the dashed lines show that the data are in good agreement with models derived by reweighting the generated top-quark production angle in the symmetric PYTHIAsample with form 1þ AFBcosusing the measuredAFB.
In conclusion, we have measured a forward-backward and (equivalent) charge asymmetry in a strong process at high energy using reconstructedttevents produced inpp collisions at pffiffiffis
¼1:96 TeV. We find forward-backward parton-level asymmetries ofApFBp ¼0:170:08in thepp frame andAtFBt ¼0:240:14in the ttframe. Our results show the expected frame dependence, are consistent (2) with the small ( 0:05) charge asymmetry expected from QCD, and they disfavor exotic sources of top-quark production with significant negativeAFB values [2].
We thank the Fermilab staff and the technical staffs of the participating institutions for their vital contributions.
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and National Science Foundation; the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare; the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan; the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; the National Science Council of the Republic of China; the Swiss National Science Founda- tion; the A. P. Sloan Foundation; the Bundesministerium fu¨r Bildung und Forschung, Germany; the Korean Science and Engineering Foundation and the Korean Research Foundation; the Science and Technology Facilities Coun- cil and the Royal Society, U.K.; the Institut National de Physique Nucleaire et Physique des Particules/CNRS; the Russian Foundation for Basic Research; the Ministerio de Educacio´n y Ciencia and Programa Consolider-Ingenio 2010, Spain; the European Community’s Human Potential Programme; the Slovak R&D Agency; and the Academy of Finland.
aDeceased.
bVisitor from Universiteit Antwerpen, B-2610 Antwerp, Belgium.
cVisitor from Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100864, China.
dVisitor from University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TL, United Kingdom.
eVisitor from University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.
fVisitor from University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA.
gVisitor from Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
hVisitor from University of Cyprus, Nicosia CY-1678, Cyprus.
iVisitor from University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland.
jVisitor from University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, United Kingdom.
kVisitor from Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico D.F., Mexico.
lVisitor from University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom.
mVisitor from Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki, Japan.
nVisitor from University de Oviedo, E-33007 Oviedo, Spain.
oVisitor from Queen Mary, University of London, London, E1 4NS, United Kingdom.
pVisitor from Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA.
qVisitor from IFIC(CSIC-Universitat de Valencia), 46071 Valencia, Spain.
rVisitor from Royal Society of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH22PQ, United Kingdom.
shttp://www-cdf.fnal.gov
[1] F. Abe et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2626 (1995); S. Abachi et al.(D0 Collaboration), Phys.
Rev. Lett.74, 2632 (1995).
[2] O. Antunano, J. H. Kuhn, and G. Rodrigo, Phys. Rev. D 77, 014003 (2008).
[3] M. T. Bowen, S. Ellis, and D. Rainwater, Phys. Rev. D73, 014008 (2006); S. Dittmaier, P. Uwer, and S. Weinzierl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 262002 (2007); L. G. Almeida, G.
Sterman, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D 78, 014008 (2008).
[4] R. W. Brown, D. Sadhev, and K. O. Mikaelian, Phys. Rev.
Lett.43, 1069 (1979); F. Halzen, P. Hoyer, and C. S. Kim, Phys. Lett. B195, 74 (1987); J. H. Kuhn and G. Rodrigo, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 49 (1998); J. H. Kuhn and G. Rodrigo, Phys. Rev. D59, 054017 (1999).
[5] J. L. Rosner, Phys. Lett. B387, 113 (1996).
[6] P. H. Frampton and S. L. Glashow, Phys. Lett. B190, 157 (1987); L. M. Sehgal and M. Wanninger, Phys. Lett. B 200, 211 (1988).
[7] T. Aaltonenet al.(CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.
100, 231801 (2008); T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 77, 051102 (2008); V. M.
Abazovet al.(D0 Collaboration), arXiv:0804.3664.
[8] V. M. Abazovet al.(D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.
100, 142002 (2008).
[9] D. E. Acostaet al.(CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D71, 032001 (2005).
[10] The inclusion of the charge conjugate process should be assumed.
[11] Missing transverse energy,6ET, is defined as the magnitude of the vector P
iEiT~ni whereEiT are the magnitudes of
transverse energy contained in each calorimeter toweri, and ~niis the unit vector from the interaction vertex to the tower in the transverse (x,y) plane.
[12] A. Bhattiet al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect.
A566, 375 (2006).
[13] D. E. Acostaet al.(CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D71, 052003 (2005).
[14] T. Sjostrand et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 135, 238 (2001); G. Corcellaet al., J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2001) 010; S. Frixione and B. R. Webber, J. High Energy Phys.
06 (2002) 029; S. Frixione, P. Nason, and B. R. Webber, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2003) 007.
[15] A. Sill itet al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 447, 1 (2000).
[16] A. Abulenciaet al.(CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.
97, 082004 (2006).
[17] CDF Collaboration, CDF Public Report No. 8795, 2007.
[18] A. Abulenciaet al.(CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.
96, 022004 (2006).
[19] D. Hirschbuehl, Ph.D. thesis, Universita¨t Karlsruhe [Fermilab-Thesis-2005-80, 2005]; A. Abulencia et al.
(CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D75, 052001 (2007).
[20] A. Abulenciaet al.(CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D74, 072006 (2006).
[21] T. A. Schwarz, Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan [Fermilab-Thesis-2006-51, 2006].
[22] J. Weinelt, master’s thesis, Universita¨t Karlsruhe [Fermilab-Masters-2006-05, 2006].
[23] J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, Phys. Rev. D 16, 2219 (1977).
[24] D. E. Acostaet al.(CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D71, 051104 (2005); T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D77, 011108 (2008).
[25] M. L. Manganoet al., J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2003) 001.
[26] J. Alwallet al., J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2007) 028.
202001-8
