Search for right-handed W bosons in top quark decay
V. M. Abazov,35B. Abbott,72M. Abolins,63B. S. Acharya,29M. Adams,50T. Adams,48M. Agelou,18J.-L. Agram,19 S. H. Ahn,31M. Ahsan,57G. D. Alexeev,35G. Alkhazov,39A. Alton,62G. Alverson,61G. A. Alves,2M. Anastasoaie,34 T. Andeen,52S. Anderson,44B. Andrieu,17Y. Arnoud,14A. Askew,48B. A˚ sman,40A. C. S. Assis Jesus,3O. Atramentov,55 C. Autermann,21C. Avila,8F. Badaud,13A. Baden,59B. Baldin,49P. W. Balm,33S. Banerjee,29E. Barberis,61P. Bargassa,76 P. Baringer,56C. Barnes,42J. Barreto,2J. F. Bartlett,49U. Bassler,17D. Bauer,53A. Bean,56S. Beauceron,17M. Begel,68
A. Bellavance,65S. B. Beri,27G. Bernardi,17R. Bernhard,49,* I. Bertram,41M. Besanc¸on,18R. Beuselinck,42 V. A. Bezzubov,38P. C. Bhat,49V. Bhatnagar,27M. Binder,25C. Biscarat,41K. M. Black,60I. Blackler,42G. Blazey,51
F. Blekman,42S. Blessing,48D. Bloch,19U. Blumenschein,23A. Boehnlein,49O. Boeriu,54T. A. Bolton,57 F. Borcherding,49G. Borissov,41K. Bos,33T. Bose,67A. Brandt,74R. Brock,63G. Brooijmans,67A. Bross,49 N. J. Buchanan,48D. Buchholz,52M. Buehler,50V. Buescher,23S. Burdin,49T. H. Burnett,78E. Busato,17C. P. Buszello,42
J. M. Butler,60J. Cammin,68S. Caron,33W. Carvalho,3B. C. K. Casey,73N. M. Cason,54H. Castilla-Valdez,32 S. Chakrabarti,29D. Chakraborty,51K. M. Chan,68A. Chandra,29D. Chapin,73F. Charles,19E. Cheu,44D. K. Cho,60 S. Choi,47B. Choudhary,23T. Christiansen,25L. Christofek,56D. Claes,65B. Cle´ment,19C. Cle´ment,40Y. Coadou,5
M. Cooke,76W. E. Cooper,49D. Coppage,56M. Corcoran,76A. Cothenet,15M.-C. Cousinou,15B. Cox,43 S. Cre´pe´-Renaudin,14D. Cutts,73H. da Motta,2M. Das,58B. Davies,41G. Davies,42G. A. Davis,52K. De,74P. de Jong,33
S. J. de Jong,34E. De La Cruz-Burelo,32C. De Oliveira Martins,3S. Dean,43J. D. Degenhardt,62F. De´liot,18 M. Demarteau,49R. Demina,68P. Demine,18D. Denisov,49S. P. Denisov,38S. Desai,69H. T. Diehl,49M. Diesburg,49 M. Doidge,41H. Dong,69S. Doulas,61L. V. Dudko,37L. Duflot,16S. R. Dugad,29A. Duperrin,15J. Dyer,63A. Dyshkant,51
M. Eads,51D. Edmunds,63T. Edwards,43J. Ellison,47J. Elmsheuser,25V. D. Elvira,49S. Eno,59P. Ermolov,37 O. V. Eroshin,38J. Estrada,49H. Evans,67A. Evdokimov,36V. N. Evdokimov,38J. Fast,49S. N. Fatakia,60L. Feligioni,60
A. V. Ferapontov,38T. Ferbel,68F. Fiedler,25F. Filthaut,34W. Fisher,66H. E. Fisk,49I. Fleck,23M. Fortner,51H. Fox,23 S. Fu,49S. Fuess,49T. Gadfort,78C. F. Galea,34E. Gallas,49E. Galyaev,54C. Garcia,68A. Garcia-Bellido,78J. Gardner,56
V. Gavrilov,36A. Gay,19P. Gay,13D. Gele´,19R. Gelhaus,47K. Genser,49C. E. Gerber,50Y. Gershtein,48D. Gillberg,5 G. Ginther,68B. Gmyrek,44T. Golling,22N. Gollub,40B. Go´mez,8K. Gounder,49A. Goussiou,54P. D. Grannis,69 S. Greder,3H. Greenlee,49Z. D. Greenwood,58E. M. Gregores,4Ph. Gris,13J.-F. Grivaz,16L. Groer,67S. Gru¨nendahl,49 M. W. Gru¨newald,30S. N. Gurzhiev,38G. Gutierrez,49P. Gutierrez,72A. Haas,67N. J. Hadley,59S. Hagopian,48I. Hall,72 R. E. Hall,46C. Han,62L. Han,7K. Hanagaki,49K. Harder,57A. Harel,26R. Harrington,61J. M. Hauptman,55R. Hauser,63
J. Hays,52T. Hebbeker,21D. Hedin,51J. M. Heinmiller,50A. P. Heinson,57U. Heintz,60C. Hensel,56G. Hesketh,61 M. D. Hildreth,54R. Hirosky,77J. D. Hobbs,69B. Hoeneisen,12M. Hohlfeld,24S. J. Hong,31R. Hooper,73P. Houben,33 Y. Hu,69J. Huang,53V. Hynek,9I. Iashvili,47R. Illingworth,49A. S. Ito,49S. Jabeen,56M. Jaffre´,16S. Jain,72V. Jain,70 K. Jakobs,23A. Jenkins,42R. Jesik,42K. Johns,44M. Johnson,49A. Jonckheere,49P. Jonsson,42A. Juste,49D. Ka¨fer,21 S. Kahn,70E. Kajfasz,15A. M. Kalinin,35J. Kalk,63D. Karmanov,37J. Kasper,60D. Kau,48R. Kaur,27R. Kehoe,75 S. Kermiche,15S. Kesisoglou,73A. Khanov,68A. Kharchilava,54Y. M. Kharzheev,35H. Kim,74T. J. Kim,31B. Klima,49
J. M. Kohli,27M. Kopal,72V. M. Korablev,38J. Kotcher,70B. Kothari,67A. Koubarovsky,37A. V. Kozelov,38 J. Kozminski,63A. Kryemadhi,77S. Krzywdzinski,49Y. Kulik,49A. Kumar,28S. Kunori,59A. Kupco,11T. Kurcˇa,20
J. Kvita,9S. Lager,40N. Lahrichi,18G. Landsberg,73J. Lazoflores,48A.-C. Le Bihan,19P. Lebrun,20W. M. Lee,48 A. Leflat,37F. Lehner,49,* C. Leonidopoulos,67J. Leveque,44P. Lewis,42J. Li,74Q. Z. Li,49J. G. R. Lima,51D. Lincoln,49
S. L. Linn,48J. Linnemann,63V. V. Lipaev,38R. Lipton,49L. Lobo,42A. Lobodenko,39M. Lokajicek,11A. Lounis,19 P. Love,41H. J. Lubatti,78L. Lueking,49M. Lynker,54A. L. Lyon,49A. K. A. Maciel,51R. J. Madaras,45P. Ma¨ttig,26
C. Magass,21A. Magerkurth,62A.-M. Magnan,14N. Makovec,16P. K. Mal,29H. B. Malbouisson,3S. Malik,65 V. L. Malyshev,35H. S. Mao,6Y. Maravin,49M. Martens,49S. E. K. Mattingly,73A. A. Mayorov,38R. McCarthy,69 R. McCroskey,44D. Meder,24A. Melnitchouk,64A. Mendes,15M. Merkin,37K. W. Merritt,49A. Meyer,21J. Meyer,22 M. Michaut,18H. Miettinen,76J. Mitrevski,67J. Molina,3N. K. Mondal,29R. W. Moore,5T. Moulik,56G. S. Muanza,20
M. Mulders,49Y. D. Mutaf,69E. Nagy,15M. Narain,60N. A. Naumann,34H. A. Neal,62J. P. Negret,8S. Nelson,48 P. Neustroev,39C. Noeding,23A. Nomerotski,49S. F. Novaes,4T. Nunnemann,25E. Nurse,43V. O’Dell,49D. C. O’Neil,5
V. Oguri,3N. Oliveira,3N. Oshima,49G. J. Otero y Garzo´n,50P. Padley,76N. Parashar,58S. K. Park,31J. Parsons,67 R. Partridge,73N. Parua,69A. Patwa,70G. Pawloski,76P. M. Perea,47E. Perez,18P. Pe´troff,16M. Petteni,42R. Piegaia,1
M.-A. Pleier,68P. L. M. Podesta-Lerma,32V. M. Podstavkov,49Y. Pogorelov,54A. Pomposˇ,72B. G. Pope,63 W. L. Prado da Silva,3H. B. Prosper,48S. Protopopescu,70J. Qian,62A. Quadt,22B. Quinn,64K. J. Rani,29K. Ranjan,28
P. A. Rapidis,49P. N. Ratoff,41S. Reucroft,61M. Rijssenbeek,69I. Ripp-Baudot,19F. Rizatdinova,57S. Robinson,42 R. F. Rodrigues,3C. Royon,19P. Rubinov,49R. Ruchti,54V. I. Rud,37G. Sajot,14A. Sa´nchez-Herna´ndez,32M. P. Sanders,54
A. Santoro,3G. Savage,49L. Sawyer,58T. Scanlon,42D. Schaile,25R. D. Schamberger,69H. Schellman,52 P. Schieferdecker,25C. Schmitt,26C. Schwanenberger,22A. Schwartzman,66R. Schwienhorst,63S. Sengupta,48 H. Severini,72E. Shabalina,50M. Shamim,57V. Shary,18A. A. Shchukin,38W. D. Shephard,54R. K. Shivpuri,28 D. Shpakov,61R. A. Sidwell,57V. Simak,10V. Sirotenko,49P. Skubic,72P. Slattery,68R. P. Smith,49K. Smolek,10 G. R. Snow,65J. Snow,71S. Snyder,70S. So¨ldner-Rembold,43X. Song,51L. Sonnenschein,17A. Sopczak,41M. Sosebee,74 K. Soustruznik,9M. Souza,2B. Spurlock,74N. R. Stanton,57J. Stark,14J. Steele,58K. Stevenson,53V. Stolin,36A. Stone,50 D. A. Stoyanova,38J. Strandberg,40M. A. Strang,74M. Strauss,72R. Stro¨hmer,25D. Strom,52M. Strovink,45L. Stutte,49
S. Sumowidagdo,48A. Sznajder,3M. Talby,57P. Tamburello,44W. Taylor,5P. Telford,43J. Temple,44M. Tomoto,49 T. Toole,59J. Torborg,54S. Towers,69T. Trefzger,24S. Trincaz-Duvoid,17B. Tuchming,18C. Tully,66A. S. Turcot,43 P. M. Tuts,67L. Uvarov,39S. Uvarov,39S. Uzunyan,51B. Vachon,5R. Van Kooten,53W. M. van Leeuwen,33N. Varelas,50
E. W. Varnes,44A. Vartapetian,74I. A. Vasilyev,38M. Vaupel,26P. Verdier,20L. S. Vertogradov,35M. Verzocchi,59 F. Villeneuve-Seguier,42J.-R. Vlimant,17E. Von Toerne,57M. Vreeswijk,33T. Vu Anh,16H. D. Wahl,48L. Wang,59 J. Warchol,54G. Watts,78M. Wayne,54M. Weber,49H. Weerts,63N. Wermes,22A. White,74V. White,49D. Wicke,49
D. A. Wijngaarden,34G. W. Wilson,56S. J. Wimpenny,47J. Wittlin,60M. Wobisch,49J. Womersley,49D. R. Wood,61 T. R. Wyatt,43Q. Xu,62N. Xuan,54S. Yacoob,52R. Yamada,49M. Yan,59T. Yasuda,49Y. A. Yatsunenko,35Y. Yen,26 K. Yip,70H. D. Yoo,73S. W. Youn,52J. Yu,74A. Yurkewicz,69A. Zabi,16A. Zatserklyaniy,51M. Zdrazil,69C. Zeitnitz,24
D. Zhang,49X. Zhang,72T. Zhao,78Z. Zhao,62B. Zhou,62J. Zhu,69M. Zielinski,68D. Zieminska,53A. Zieminski,53 R. Zitoun,69V. Zutshi,51and E. G. Zverev37
(D0 Collaboration)
1Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina 2LAFEX, Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fı´sicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
3Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 4Instituto de Fı´sica Teo´rica, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil
5University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
6Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, People’s Republic of China 7
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, People’s Republic of China 8Universidad de los Andes, Bogota´, Colombia
9Center for Particle Physics, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic 10Czech Technical University, Prague, Czech Republic
11Center for Particle Physics, Institute of Physics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic 12Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
13Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire, IN2P3-CNRS, Universite´ Blaise Pascal, Clermont-Ferrand, France 14Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, IN2P3-CNRS, Universite de Grenoble 1, Grenoble, France
15CPPM, IN2P3-CNRS, Universite´ de la Me´diterrane´e, Marseille, France 16IN2P3-CNRS, Laboratoire de l’Acce´le´rateur Line´aire, Orsay, France
17LPNHE, IN2P3-CNRS, Universite´s Paris VI and VII, Paris, France 18DAPNIA/Service de Physique des Particules, CEA, Saclay, France
19IReS, IN2P3-CNRS, Universite´ Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg, France, and Universite´ de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France 20Institut de Physique Nucle´aire de Lyon, IN2P3-CNRS, Universite´ Claude Bernard, Villeurbanne, France
21Physikalisches Institut A, RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany 22Physikalisches Institut, Universita¨t Bonn, Bonn, Germany 23Physikalisches Institut, Universita¨t Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
24Institut fu¨r Physik, Universita¨t Mainz, Mainz, Germany 25Ludwig-Maximilians-Universita¨t Mu¨nchen, Mu¨nchen, Germany 26Fachbereich Physik, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany
27Panjab University, Chandigarh, India 28Delhi University, Delhi, India
29Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, India 30University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland 31Korea Detector Laboratory, Korea University, Seoul, Korea
33FOM-Institute NIKHEF and University of Amsterdam/NIKHEF, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 34Radboud University Nijmegen/NIKHEF, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
35Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia 36Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
37Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia 38Institute for High Energy Physics, Protvino, Russia 39Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia
40Lund University, Lund, Sweden, Royal Institute of Technology, and Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden, and Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
41Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom 42Imperial College, London, United Kingdom 43University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
44University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, U.S.A.
45Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, U.S.A. 46California State University, Fresno, California 93740, U.S.A.
47University of California, Riverside, California 92521, U.S.A. 48Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306, U.S.A. 49Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, U.S.A.
50University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607, U.S.A. 51Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois 60115, U.S.A.
52Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, U.S.A. 53Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, U.S.A. 54University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, U.S.A.
55Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, U.S.A. 56University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, U.S.A. 57Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506, U.S.A. 58Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, Louisiana 71272, U.S.A. 59University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.
60Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, U.S.A. 61Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, U.S.A.
62University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, U.S.A. 63Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, U.S.A.
64University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi 38677, U.S.A. 65University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588, U.S.A. 66Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, U.S.A.
67Columbia University, New York, New York 10027, U.S.A. 68University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627, U.S.A. 69State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794, U.S.A.
70Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973, U.S.A. 71Langston University, Langston, Oklahoma 73050, U.S.A. 72University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019, U.S.A.
73Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912, U.S.A. 74University of Texas, Arlington, Texas 76019, U.S.A. 75Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275, U.S.A.
76Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005, U.S.A. 77University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901, U.S.A.
78University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, U.S.A. (Received 20 May 2005; published 29 July 2005)
We present a measurement of the fraction fof right-handed W bosons produced in top quark decays, based on a candidate sample of tt events in the lepton+jets decay mode. These data correspond to an integrated luminosity of 230 pb 1, collected by the D0 detector at the Fermilab Tevatron p pCollider at
s p
1:96 TeV. We use a constrained fit to reconstruct the kinematics of the tt and decay products, which allows for the measurement of the leptonic decay angle for each event. By comparing the cos distribution from the data with those for the expected background and signal for various values of f, we find f 0:00 0:13stat 0:07syst. This measurement is consistent with the standard model prediction of f 3:6 104.
DOI:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.011104 PACS numbers: 14.65.Ha, 14.70.Fm, 12.15.Ji, 12.38.Qk
The top quark is by far the heaviest of the known fermions and is the only one that has a Yukawa coupling of order unity to the Higgs boson in the standard model. The top quark is also unique in that it decays through the electroweak interaction before it can hadronize. In the standard model, the top quark decays via the V A charged current interaction, and almost always to a W boson and b quark. We search for evidence of new physics in the t ! Wb decay by measuring the helicity of the W boson. The W bosons produced from these decays are predominantly in either a longitudinal or a left-handed helicity state with fractions f0 and f, respectively. For
any linear combination of V and A currents at the tWb vertex [1], f0 m2 t 2M2 W m2t m2b 0:703 0:012; (1)
where mt is the mass of the top quark for which we use 175 5 GeV (consistent with the world average [2]), MW is the mass of the W boson, and mb is the mass of the bottom quark. In this analysis, we fix f0at 0.7 and measure the positive helicity fraction f. In the standard model, f
is suppressed by a factor of mb=mt2 and is predicted at
next-to-leading order to be 3:6 104[3]. A measurement of fthat differs significantly from this value would be an
unambiguous indication of new physics. For example, an
f value of 0:3 would indicate a purely V A charged
current interaction. A possible theoretical model that in-cludes a V A contribution at the tWb vertex is an
SU2L SU2R UY1 extension of the standard model [4]. Direct measurements of the longitudinal frac-tion found f0 0:91 0:39 [5] and f0 0:56 0:31 [6].
A recent direct measurement of fset a limit of f< 0:18
at the 95% C.L. [7]. In addition, measurements of the b !
sdecay rate have indirectly limited the V A contribu-tion in top quark decays to less than a few percent [8]. However, direct measurements of the V A contribution are still necessary because the limit from b ! s assumes that the electroweak penguin contribution is dominant.
The angular distribution ! of the W boson decay prod-ucts with weak isospin I3 1=2 (charged lepton or d, s quark) in the rest frame of the W boson can be described by introducing the angle with respect to the top quark direction [1]: !cos 3 41 cos 2f 0 3 81 cos 2f 3 81 cos 2f : (2)
Because of backgrounds and reconstruction effects, the distribution of cos we observe differs from !cos. However, the shape of the measured cos distribution depends on fand this dependence can be used to measure
f. We do this by selecting a data sample enriched in tt
events, reconstructing the four vectors of the two top
quarks and their decay products using a kinematic fit, and then calculating cos. This distribution in cos is compared with templates for different f values using a
binned maximum likelihood method.
The D0 detector [9] comprises three main systems: the central-tracking system, the calorimeters, and the muon system. The central-tracking system is located within a 2 T solenoidal magnet. The next layer of detection involves three liquid-argon/uranium calorimeters: a central section (CC) covering pseudorapidities [10] jj & 1, and two end calorimeters (EC) extending coverage to jj 4, all housed in separate cryostats. The muon system is located beyond the calorimetry, and consists of a layer of tracking detectors and scintillation trigger counters before 1.8 T toroids, followed by two more similar layers after the toroids.
This measurement uses a data sample recorded by the D0 experiment corresponding to 230 15 pb1 of p p
collisions at ps 1:96 TeV. We consider tt candidate events selected in the lepton+jets channel where one of the W bosons from t or t decays into an electron or muon and a corresponding neutrino and the other W boson decays hadronically. The final state is therefore character-ized by one charged lepton (e or ), at least four jets (two of which are b jets), and significant missing transverse energy (E6 T).
Two separate analyses are performed and the results are combined. One analysis uses kinematic information to select tt events (‘‘kinematic analysis’’) and the other uses
b jet identification as well as kinematic information in order to improve the signal to background ratio (‘‘b-tagged analysis’’). A b jet is identified by a displaced secondary vertex close to an associated jet [11]. The kine-matic analysis vetoes b-tagged events to simplify the com-bination of results with the b-tagged analysis. In both analyses, selected events arise predominantly from three sources: tt production, W jets production, and multijet production where one of the jets is misidentified as a lepton and spurious E6 T appears due to mismeasurement of the transverse energy in the event.
The event selection [12] requires an isolated lepton (e or
) with transverse momentum pT> 20 GeV, no other lepton with pT> 15 GeV in the event, ET> 20 GeV,
and at least four jets. Leptons are categorized in two classes, ‘‘loose’’ and ‘‘tight,’’ the latter being a subset of the first. Loose electrons are required to have jj < 1:1 and are identified by their energy deposition and isolation in the calorimeter, their transverse and longitudinal shower shapes, and information from the tracking system. For tight identification, a discriminant combining the above infor-mation must be consistent with the expectations for a high-pT isolated electron. Loose muons are identified us-ing the information from the muon and the trackus-ing sys-tems. They are required to have jj < 2:0 and to be isolated from jets. Tight muons must also pass stricter
isolation requirements based on the energy of calorimeter clusters and tracks around the muon. Only tight leptons are used in the final event selection. Jets are required to pass a rapidity [10] cut of jyj < 2:5 and, in the kinematic analysis, must have pT> 20 GeV. The requirement that a b jet is
present significantly reduces the background contamina-tion in the b-tagged analysis and allows the use of a lower jet pT cut of pT> 15 GeV which increases the efficiency for signal events.
The top quark and the W boson four-momenta are reconstructed using a kinematic fit which is subject to the following constraints: two jets must form the invariant mass of the W boson, the lepton and the E6 T together with the neutrino pzcomponent must form the invariant mass of the W boson, and the masses of the two reconstructed top quarks must be equal to 175 GeV. The pzcomponent of the neutrino is reconstructed by exploiting the fact that the masses of the two top quarks are both set to be 175 GeV, and solving the resulting quadratic equation for pz[13]. In the case where the two pzsolutions lead to different results of the kinematic fit, the one with the lower !2(of the fit) is
kept. Among the 12 possible jet combinations, the solution with the minimal !2 from the kinematic fit is chosen;
Monte Carlo studies show this yields the correct solution in about 60% of all cases.
The tt signal events for seven different values of f,
f 0:00; . . . ; 0:30 in steps of 0.05, are generated with the ALPGENMonte Carlo (MC) program [14] for the parton-level process (leading order) andPYTHIA[15] for simula-tion of subsequent hadronizasimula-tion. The mass of the top quark is set to mt 175 GeV. As the interference term between V A and V A is suppressed by the small mass of the b quark and is therefore negligible [16], these samples can be used to create cos templates for any f
value by a linear interpolation of the templates. All seven templates from these samples are normalized to unit area and a linear fit to the contents of each cos bin as a function of f is performed. This procedure effectively
averages over statistical fluctuations in the generated MC samples, thus providing a more precise model of the cos distribution. The MC samples used to model events with W bosons produced in association with jets (W jets) are also generated with ALPGEN, requiring the W boson to decay leptonically. The factorization scale Q is set to Q2
M2 W
P
m2 T [14].
To determine the number of multijet background events, we compare samples selected with loose and tight leptons. Going from loose to tight samples decreases the number of events from N‘ to Nt. The relative selection efficiency between the loose and the tight lepton criteria is different for true leptons (%‘) and jets faking an isolated lepton (%j). We use these efficiencies, known from data control samples [12], to estimate the number of multijet back-ground events: Nm %‘N‘ Nt=%‘ %j. The kine-matic analysis calculates Nm for each bin in the cos
distribution from the data sample to obtain the shape of the multijet costemplates. For the b-tagged analysis, the multijet template is formed from data events after the event selection except that the leptons are required to satisfy the loose and to fail the tight criteria.
To discriminate between tt pair production and back-ground, a discriminantD is built [12] using input variables which exploit the differences in event topology: HT (de-fined as the scalar sum of the jet pT values), the minimum dijet mass of the jet pairs, the !2from the kinematic fit, the
centrality (defined as HT=HE where HE is the sum of the jet energies) [17], K0Tmin(defined as the distance in ) space, where ) is the azimuthal angle, between the closest pair of jets multiplied by the pT of the lowest-pT jet in the pair and divided by the transverse energy of the recon-structed W boson) [13], and aplanarity and sphericity (calculated from the four leading jets and the lepton). The last two variables characterize the event shape and are defined, for example, in Ref. [18]. Only the four leading jets in pT are considered in computing these variables to reduce the dependence on systematic effects from the modeling of soft radiation and underlying event processes. All of these variables are used for the discriminant in the kinematic analysis. Only HT, centrality, the minimum dijet mass, and !2 are used in the b-tagged analysis. The
dis-criminant is built separately for the kinematic and b-tagged analyses, using the method described in Refs. [12,13]. The distributions of signal (S) and background (B) events in each of the above variables are normalized to unity. For each variable vi we fit a polynomial to the logarithm of
S=Bas a function of vi. The discriminant is defined as
D v1; v2; . . . expP i lnSvi=Bvifit expP i lnSvi=Bvifit 1 : (3)
We select events for which D > 0:6 in the kinematic analysis, and D > 0:25 in the b-tagged analysis. These values are chosen to minimize the expected statistical uncertainty in the measurement of f as determined by
simulations of the analysis.
We then perform a binned maximum likelihood fit to compare the observedD distribution in the data to the sum
TABLE I. Number of events observed for each component (signal and backgrounds) of the kinematic and b-tagged samples, and the number of data events, after the cut on the discriminant D discussed in the text. The fits are made before the final cut on D, so the sum of the components need not agree exactly with the observed numbers of events.
Event Class Kinematic b-tagged
tt 16:5 5:8 40:8 8:1
Wjets 14:3 3:0 11:5 4:1
Multijet 5:0 2:1 1:5 0:5
of the distributions expected from tt, W jets, and multijet events. The number of multijet events is constrained to a Poisson distribution with mean Nm. The likelihood is then maximized with respect to the number of tt, W jets, and multijet events. We multiply these numbers by the effi-ciency for each type of event to pass theD selection to determine the composition of the sample used for measur-ing cos. Table I lists the composition of each sample as well as the number of observed events in the data. The cosdistribution obtained in data after the full selection is shown in Fig. 1 for the kinematic and in Fig. 2 for the
b-tagged analysis.
A binned maximum likelihood fit of signal and back-ground cos templates to the data was used to measure
f. We compute the binned Poisson likelihood (Lf) of
the data to be consistent with the sum of signal and background templates, normalized to the numbers given in Table I, at each of the seven chosen fvalues. In both
analyses, a parabola is fit to the lnLf points to
determine the likelihood as a function of f.
Systematic uncertainties are evaluated in ensemble tests by varying the parameters (see Table II) which can affect the shape of the cos distributions or the relative contri-bution from the three sources (tt, W jets and QCD). Ensembles are formed by drawing events from a model with the parameter under study varied. These are compared to the standard cos templates in a maximum likelihood fit. The average shift in the resulting fvalue is taken as the
systematic uncertainty and is shown in Table II. The total systematic uncertainty is then taken into account in the likelihood by convoluting the latter with a Gaussian with a width that corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty. The top quark mass and the jet energy calibration (JEC) are the leading sources of systematic uncertainty. The mass of the top quark has been varied by 5 GeV with respect to
mt 175 GeV and the JEC by 1- around the nominal value. The statistical uncertainty on the cos templates has been taken as a systematic uncertainty. It is estimated by fluctuating them according to their statistical uncer-tainty. Uncertainties in the modeling of the b-tag algorithm lead to uncertainties in the flavor composition of the
W jets background and in the cos distribution itself due to the pT and dependence of the b-tag algorithm [11]. An uncertainty in the flavor composition translates into a different shape of the cos distribution and a difference in the signal to background ratio. In order to estimate the systematic uncertainty due to gluon radiation in tt events, an alternative signal sample of tt jet has been generated with ALPGEN, and mixed with the default
ttsample using the leading order cross sections for both processes. Effects of the choice of factorization scale Q in the generation of the W jets events have been evaluated by using a sample where Q2 hp
Ti2 [14]. There is a systematic uncertainty due to the final sample composition obtained by the fit to the discriminant D. The kinematic
*
θ
cos
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
Events
0
5
10
15
20
DØ data l+jets (V-A) → t t l+jets (V+A) → t t backgroundFIG. 2. cos distribution observed in the b-tagged analysis. The standard model prediction is shown as the solid line, while a model with a pure V A interaction would result in the distri-bution given by the dashed line.
TABLE II. Systematic uncertainties on f for the two inde-pendent analyses and for the combination.
Source Kinematic b-tagged Combined
Jet energy calibration 0.03 0.04 0.04
Top quark mass 0.04 0.04 0.04
Template statistics 0.05 0.02 0.03 b-tag 0.03 0.02 0.02 ttmodel 0.01 0.02 0.02 Wjets model 0.01 0.01 0.01 Sample composition — 0.02 0.01 Calibration 0.01 0.01 0.01 Total 0.08 0.07 0.07
*
θ
cos
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
Events
0
5
10
15
DØ data l+jets (V-A) → t t l+jets (V+A) → t t backgroundFIG. 1. cosdistribution observed in the kinematic analysis. The standard model prediction is shown as the solid line, while a model with a pure V A interaction would result in the distri-bution given by the dashed line.
analysis treats this uncertainty as a statistical uncertainty and includes it in the definition of the likelihood as de-scribed in Ref. [19] while in the b-tagged analysis this uncertainty is studied by changing the compositions within their errors. The difference found between the input f
value and the reconstructed f value in ensemble tests is
taken as systematic uncertainty on the calibration of the analysis.
The result of the maximum likelihood fit to the cos distribution observed in the data is shown in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b) for the kinematic and b-tagged samples, respectively. The statistical uncertainties from the two individual analy-ses are 0.22 for the kinematic and 0.17 for the b-tagged analysis. The lnLf curves for the kinematic and
b-tagged measurements are combined, as shown in Fig. 3(c). The systematic uncertainties are assumed to be fully correlated except for the systematics on calibration of the individual analyses which are uncorrelated, and the Monte Carlo model systematics which are partially corre-lated. Assuming a fixed value of 0.7 for f0, the combined result for fis
f 0:00 0:13stat 0:07syst: (4)
The observed combined statistical uncertainty (0.13) is in
good agreement with the expectation (0.12) inferred from ensemble tests. We also calculate a Bayesian confidence interval (using a flat prior distribution which is nonzero only in the physically allowed region of f 0:0 0:3)
which yields
f< 0:25 at 95% C:L: (5)
The W boson positive helicity fraction f that we have
measured in tt decays in the lepton+jets channel is con-sistent with the standard model prediction of f 3:6
104[3].
We thank the staffs at Fermilab and collaborating insti-tutions, and acknowledge support from the DOE and NSF (U.S.A.); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); FASI, Rosatom and RFBR (Russia); CAPES, CNPq, FAPERJ, FAPESP, and FUNDUNESP (Brazil); DAE and DST (India); Colciencias (Colombia); CONACyT (Mexico); KRF (Korea); CONICET and UBACyT (Argentina); FOM (The Netherlands); PPARC (United Kingdom); MSMT (Czech Republic); CRC Program, CFI, NSERC, and WestGrid Project (Canada); BMBF and DFG (Germany); SFI (Ireland); Research Corporation, Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, and the Marie Curie Fellowships.
[1] G. L. Kane, G. A. Ladinsky, and C.-P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D
45, 124 (1992); R. H. Dalitz and G. R. Goldstein,ibid. 45,
1531 (1992); C. A. Nelson et al., Phys. Rev. D 56, 5928 (1997).
[2] Review of particle physics, S. Eidelman et al., Phys. Lett. B 592, 1 (2004).
[3] M. Fischer et al., Phys. Rev. D 63, 031501(R) (2001).
[4] M. Beg et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1252 (1977); S. H. Nam, Phys. Rev. D 66, 055008 (2002).
[5] T. Affolder et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 216 (2000).
[6] V. M. Abazov et al. (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 617, 1 (2005).
[7] D. Acosta et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 71, 031101 (2005).
[8] K. Fujikawa and A. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D 49, 5890 (1994); P. Cho and M. Misiak, Phys. Rev. D 49, 5894 (1994); C. Jessop, SLAC Report No. SLAC-PUB-9610, 2002. -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 18.5 19 DØ + f -lnL a) -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 6 7 8 9 10 DØ + f -l n L b) -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 25 26 27 28 DØ + f -lnL c)
FIG. 3. lnL curve obtained in the (a) kinematic analysis, (b) b-tagged analysis, and (c) kinematic and b-tagged analyses combined. The dashed line includes only the statistical uncertainty while the solid line also includes the systematic uncertainties. The physically allowed region for fis indicated by the gray area.
[9] V. M. Abazov et al. (D0 Collaboration),‘‘The Upgraded D0 Detector,’’ (to be published).
[10] Rapidity y and pseudorapidity are defined as functions of the polar angle with respect to the proton beam and the parameter . as y; . 1
2ln1 . cos=1 . cos and y; 1, where . is the ratio of a particle’s momentum to its energy.
[11] V. M. Abazov et al. (D0 Collaboration), hep-ex/0504058. [12] V. M. Abazov et al. (D0 Collaboration), hep-ex/0504043. [13] B. Abbott et al. (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 58,
052001 (1998).
[14] M. L. Mangano et al., J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2003) 001. [15] T. Sjo¨strand et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 135, 238
(2001).
[16] J. G. Ko¨rner, (private communication).
[17] B. Abbott et al. (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 60, 012001 (1999).
[18] V. Barger et al., Phys. Rev. D 48, R3953 (1993). [19] P. Bhat et al., Phys. Lett. B 407, 73 (1997).
