Skip to main content

Full text of "Combination of the top-quark mass measurements from the Tevatron collider"

See other formats


FERMILAB-PUB-12-336-E 



Combination of the top-quark mass measurements from the Tevatron collider 



T. Aaltonen, 12 V.M. Abazov, 48 B. Abbott, 112 B.S. Acharya, 31 M. Adams, 78 T. Adams, 74 G.D. Alexeev, 48 
G. Alkhazov, 52 A. Alton*", 96 B. Alvarez Gonzalez tz , 57 G. Alverson, 92 S. Amcrio, 35 D. Amidei, 96 A. Anastassov ta: , 76 
A. Annovi, 34 J. Antos, 53 G. Apollinari, 76 J. A. Appel, 76 T. Arisawa, 41 A. Artikov, 48 J. Asaadi, 119 W. Ashmanskas, 76 
A. Askew, 74 S. Atkins, 89 B. Aucrbach, 72 K. Augstcn, 9 A. Aurisano, 119 C. Avila, 7 F. Azfar, 66 F. Badaud, 13 
W. Badgctt, 76 T. Bae, 43 L. Bagby, 76 B. Baldin, 76 D.V. Bandurin, 74 S. Banerjee, 31 A. Barbaro-Galtieri, 68 
E. Barberis, 92 P. Baringer, 87 V.E. Barnes, 85 B.A. Barnett, 90 P. Barria* d , 36 J.F. Bartlett, 76 P. Bartos, 53 U. Bassler, 18 
M. Bauce* 6 , 35 V. Bazterra, 78 A. Bean, 87 F. Bedeschi, 36 M. Begalli, 2 S. Behari, 90 L. Bellantoni, 76 G. Bellettini* c , 36 
J. Bellinger, 125 D. Benjamin, 109 A. Beretvas, 76 S.B. Bcri, 29 G. Bernardi, 17 R. Bernhard, 22 I. Bertram, 61 
M. Besangon, 18 R. Beuselinck, 63 P.C. Bhat, 76 S. Bhatia, 99 V. Bhatnagar, 29 A. Bhatti, 105 D. Bisello* 6 , 35 
I. Bizjak, 64 K.R. Bland, 122 G. Blazey, 79 S. Blessing, 74 K. Bloom, 100 B. Blumenfeld, 90 A. Bocci, 109 
A. Bodek, 106 A. Boehnlein, 76 D. Boline, 107 E.E. Boos, 50 G. Borissov, 61 D. Bortoletto, 85 T. Bose, 91 
J. Boudrcau, 116 A. Boveia, 77 A. Brandt, 118 O. Brandt, 23 L. Brigliadori* a , 33 R. Brock, 98 C. Bromberg, 98 
A. Bross, 76 D. Brown, 17 J. Brown, 17 E. Brucken, 12 X.B. Bu, 76 J. Budagov, 48 H.S. Budd, 106 M. Buehler, 76 
V. Bucschcr, 25 V. Bunichev, 50 S. Burdin* 6 , 61 K. Burkett, 76 G. Busetto* 6 , 35 P. Bussey, 60 CP. Buszello, 58 
A. Buzatu, 4 A. Calamba, 115 C. Calancha, 56 E. Camacho-Perez, 45 S. Camarda, 54 M. Campanelli, 64 M. Campbell, 96 

F. Canelli, 77 B. Carls, 81 D. Carlsmith, 125 R. Carosi, 36 S. Carrillot" 1 , 73 S. Carron, 76 B. Casalt fe , 57 M. Casarsa, 38 
B.C.K. Casey, 76 H. Castilla-Valdez, 45 A. Castro* a , 33 P. Catastini, 93 S. Caughron, 98 D. Cauz, 38 V. Cavaliere, 81 

M. Cavalli-Sforza, 54 A. Cerr^/, 68 L. Cerritot 8 , 64 S. Chakrabarti, 107 D. Chakraborty, 79 K.M. Chan, 84 
A. Chandra, 121 E. Chapon, 18 G. Chen, 87 Y.C. Chen, 6 M. Chcrtok, 69 S. Chevalier-Thery, 18 G. Chiarelli, 36 

G. Chlachidze, 76 F. Chlebana, 76 D.K. Cho, 117 K. Cho, 43 S.W. Cho, 44 S. Choi, 44 D. Chokhcli, 48 B. Choudhary, 30 

W.H. Chung, 125 Y.S. Chung, 106 S. Cihangir, 76 M.A. Ciocci* d , 36 D. Claes, 100 A. Clark, 59 C. Clarke, 97 
J. Clutter, 87 G. Compostella* 6 , 35 M.E. Convcry, 76 J. Conway, 69 M. Cooke, 76 W.E. Cooper, 76 M. Corbo, 76 
M. Corcoran, 121 M. Cordelli, 34 F. Couderc, 18 M.-C. Cousinou, 15 C.A. Cox, 69 D.J. Cox, 69 F. Crescioli* c , 36 
A. Croc, 18 J. Cuevas^, 57 R. Culbertson, 76 D. Cutts, 117 D. Dagenhart, 76 A. Das, 67 N. d'Ascenzot™, 76 M. Datta, 76 
G. Davies, 63 P. de Barbara, 106 S.J. de Jong, 46 ' 47 E. De La Cruz-Burelo, 45 F. Deliot, 18 M. Dell'Orso* c , 36 
R. Demina, 106 L. Demortier, 105 M. Deninno, 33 D. Denisov, 76 S.P. Denisov, 51 M. d'Errico* 6 , 35 S. Desai, 76 
C. Deterre, 18 K. DeVaughan, 100 F. Devoto, 12 A. Di Canto* c , 36 B. Di Ruzza, 76 H.T. Diehl, 76 M. Diesburg, 76 
P.F. Ding, 65 J.R. Dittmann, 122 A. Dominguez, 100 S. Donati* c , 36 P. Dong, 76 M. D'Onofrio, 62 M. Dorigo, 38 
T. Dorigo, 35 A. Dubey, 30 L.V. Dudko, 50 D. Duggan, 101 A. Duperrin, 15 S. Dutt, 29 A. Dyshkant, 79 M. Eads, 100 
K. Ebina, 41 D. Edmunds, 98 A. Elagin, 119 J. Ellison, 71 V.D. Elvira, 76 Y. Enari, 17 A. Eppig, 96 R. Erbacher, 69 
S. Errede, 81 N. Ershaidat tdd , 76 R. Eusebi, 119 H. Evans, 82 A. Evdokimov, 108 V.N. Evdokimov, 51 G. Facini, 92 
S. Farrington, 66 M. Feindt, 24 L. Feng, 79 T. Fcrbel, 106 J.P. Fernandez, 56 F. Fiedler, 25 R. Field, 73 F. Filthaut, 46 * 47 
W. Fisher, 98 H.E. Fisk, 76 G. Flanagan^, 76 R. Forrest, 69 M. Fortner, 79 H. Fox, 61 M.J. Frank, 122 M. Franklin, 93 
J.C. Freeman, 76 S. Fucss, 76 Y. Funakoshi, 41 I. Furic, 73 M. Gallinaro, 105 J.E. Garcia, 59 A. Garcia-Bellido, 106 
J.A. Gartia-Gonzalez, 45 G.A. Garci'a-Guerra^, 45 A.F. Garfinkel, 85 P. Garosi* d , 36 V. Gavrilov, 49 P. Gay, 13 
W. Gcng, 15 - 98 D. Gcrbaudo, 102 C.E. Gcrber, 78 H. Gcrbcrich, 81 E. Gcrchtein, 76 Y. Gcrshtcin, 101 S. Giagu, 37 

V. Giakoumopoulou, 28 P. Giannetti, 36 K. Gibson, 116 CM. Ginsburg, 76 G. Ginthcr, 76 ' 106 N. Giokaris, 28 
P. Giromini, 34 G. Giurgiu, 90 V. Glagolev, 48 D. Glenzinski, 76 M. Gold, 103 D. Goldin, 119 N. Goldschmidt, 73 
A. Golossanov, 76 G. Golovanov, 48 G. Gomez, 57 G. Gomcz-Ceballos, 94 M. Goncharov, 94 O. Gonzalez, 56 
I. Gorelov, 103 A.T. Goshaw, 109 K. Goulianos, 105 A. Goussiou, 124 P.D. Grannis, 107 S. Greder, 19 H. Greenlee, 76 
!. Grenier, 20 S. Grinstein, 54 Ph. Gris, 13 J.-F. Grivaz, 16 A. Grohsjean* rf , 18 C. Grosso-Pilcher, 77 R.C Group, 123 ' 76 
i. Griinendahl, 76 M.W. Griinewald, 32 T. Guillemin, 16 J. Guimaraes da Costa, 93 G. Gutierrez, 76 P. Gutierrez, 112 
Hagopian, 74 S.R. Hahn, 76 J. Haley, 92 E. Halkiadakis, 101 A. Hamaguchi, 40 JY. Han, 106 L. Han, 5 F. Happacher, 34 
C Hara, 42 K. Harder, 65 D. Hare, 101 M. Hare, 95 A. Harel, 106 R.F. Harr, 97 K. Hatakeyama, 122 JM. Hauptman, 86 
C. Hays, 66 J. Hays, 63 T. Head, 65 T. Hebbeker, 21 M. Heck, 24 D. Hedin, 79 H. Hegab, 113 J. Heinrich, 114 
A.P. Heinson, 71 U. Heintz, 117 C. Hensel, 23 I. Heredia-De La Cruz, 45 M. Herndon, 125 K. Herner, 96 G. Hesketh«', 65 

S. Hewamanage, 122 M.D. Hildreth, 84 R. Hirosky, 123 T. Hoang, 74 J.D. Hobbs, 107 A. Hocker, 76 B. Hoeneisen, 11 
J. Hogan, 121 M. Hohlfeld, 25 W. Hopkins* 9 , 76 D. Horn, 24 S. Hou, 6 I. Howley, 118 Z. Hubacek, 9 ' 18 R.E. Hughes, 11 



K 



10 



2 



M 
D 



L Hurwitz, 77 U. Husemann, 72 N. Hussain, 4 M. Hussein, 98 J. Huston, 98 V. Hynck, 9 I. Iashvili, 104 Y. Ilchenko, 120 
R. Illingworth, 76 G. Introzzi, 36 M. Iori*^, 37 A.S. Ito, 76 A. Ivanov^, 69 S. Jabccn, 117 M. Jaffrc, 16 E. James, 76 
D. Jang, 115 A. Jayasinghc, 112 B. Jayatilaka, 109 E.J. Jcon, 43 M.S. Jcong, 44 R. Jcsik, 63 S. Jindariani, 76 K. Johns, 67 
E. Johnson, 98 M. Johnson, 76 A. Jonckheere, 76 M. Jones, 85 P. Jonsson, 63 K.K. Joo, 43 J. Joshi, 71 S.Y. Jun, 115 
A.W. Jung, 76 T.R. Junk, 76 A. Juste, 55 K. Kaadze, 88 E. Kajfasz, 15 T. Kamon, 43 - 119 RE. Karchin, 97 D. Karmanov, 50 
A. Kasmi, 122 P.A. Kaspcr, 76 Y. Kato to , 40 I. Katsanos, 100 R. Kehoc, 120 S. Kcrmichc, 15 W. Ketchum, 77 J. Keung, 114 

N. Khalatyan, 76 A. Khanov, 113 A. Kharchilava, 104 Y.N. Kharzhccv 48 V. Khotilovich, 119 B. Kilminstcr, 76 
D.H. Kim, 43 H.S. Kim, 43 J.E. Kim, 43 M.J. Kim, 34 S.B. Kim, 43 S.H. Kim, 42 Y.J. Kim, 43 Y.K. Kim, 77 N. Kimura, 41 
M. Kirby, 76 I. Kiselevich, 49 S. Klimenko, 73 K. Knoepfel, 76 J.M. Kohli, 29 K. Kondo* 41 D.J. Kong 43 J. Konigsberg, 73 
A.V. Kotwal, 109 A.V. Kozelov, 51 J. Kraus," M. Krcps, 24 J. Kroll, 114 D. Krop, 77 M. Kruse, 109 V. Krutelyovt c , 119 
T. Kuhr, 24 S. Kulikov, 51 A. Kumar, 104 A. Kupco, 10 M. Kurata, 42 T. Kurca, 20 V.A. Kuzmin, 50 S. Kwang, 77 
A.T. Laasanen, 85 S. Lami, 36 S. Lammel, 76 S. Lammers, 82 M. Lancaster, 64 R.L. Lander, 69 G. Landsberg, 117 
K. Lannon^, 110 A. Lath, 101 G. Latino* d , 36 P. Lebrun, 20 T. LeCompte, 75 E. Lee, 119 H.S. Lee, 44 H.S. Lee t9 , 77 
J.S. Lee 43 S.W. Lee, 86 W.M. Lee, 76 S.W. Leet bb , 119 X. Lei, 67 J. Lellouch, 17 S. Leo* c , 36 S. Leone, 36 J.D. Lewis, 76 
H. Li, 14 L. Li, 71 Q.Z. Li, 76 J.K. Lim, 44 A. Limosanit*, 109 C.-J. Lin, 68 D. Lincoln, 76 M. Lindgren, 76 J. Linnemann, 98 
V.V. Lipaev, 51 E. Lipeles, 114 R. Lipton, 76 A. Lister, 59 D.O. Litvintsev, 76 C. Liu, 116 H. Liu, 120 H. Liu, 123 
Q. Liu, 85 T. Liu, 76 Y. Liu, 5 A. Lobodcnko, 52 S. Lockwitz, 72 A. Loginov, 72 M. Lokajicek, 10 R. Lopes dc Sa, 107 
H.J. Lubatti, 124 D. Lucchesi^, 35 J. Lueck, 24 P. Lujan, 68 P. Lukcns, 76 R. Luna-Garcia^, 45 G. Lungu, 105 
A.L. Lyon, 76 J. Lys, 68 R. Lysak^, 53 A.K.A. Maciel, 1 R. Madar, 18 R. Madrak, 76 K. Maeshima, 76 P. Macstro* d , 36 

R. Magana-Villalba, 45 S. Malik, 105 S. Malik, 100 V.L. Malyshev, 48 G. Mancat Q , 62 A. Manousakis-Katsikakis, 28 
Y. Maravin, 88 F. Margaroli, 37 C. Marino, 24 M. Martinez, 54 J. Martinez-Ortega, 45 P. Mastrandrea, 37 K. Matera, 81 
M.E. Mattson, 97 A. Mazzacane, 76 P. Mazzanti, 33 R. McCarthy, 107 K.S. McFarland, 106 C.L. McGivern, 65 
P. Mclntyrc, 119 R. McNultyW , 62 A. Mehta, 62 P. Mehtala, 12 M.M. Meijcr, 46 ' 47 A. Melnitchouk," D. Menezes, 79 
P.G. Mcrcadantc, 3 M. Merkin, 50 C. Mcsropian, 105 A. Meyer, 21 J. Meyer, 23 T. Miao, 76 F. Miconi, 19 D. Mietlicki, 96 
A. Mitra, 6 H. Miyakc, 42 S. Moed, 76 N. Moggi, 33 N.K. Mondal, 31 M.N. Mondragont" 1 , 76 C.S. Moon, 43 R. Moore, 76 
M.J. Morcllo* 6 , 36 J. Morlock, 24 P. Movilla Fernandez, 76 A. Mukherjee, 76 M. Mulhearn, 123 Th. Mullcr, 24 P. Murat, 7 
M. Mussini* Q , 33 J. Nachtman tn , 76 Y. Nagai, 42 J. Naganoma, 41 E. Nagy, 15 M. Naimuddin, 30 I. Nakano, 39 



M. Mussim* Q , 33 J. Nachtman 1 '™, 76 Y. Nagai, 42 J. Naganoma, 41 E. Nagy, 15 M. Naimuddin, 30 I. Nakano, 39 
A. Napier, 95 M. Narain, 117 R. Nayyar, 67 H.A. Neal, 96 J.P. Negret, 7 J. Nett, 119 C. Neu, 123 M.S. Neubauer, 81 

P. Neustroev, 52 J. Nielsen^, 68 L. Nodulman, 75 S.Y. Noh, 43 O. Norniella, 81 T. Nunnemann, 26 L. Oakes, 66 
S.H. Oh, 109 Y.D. Oh, 43 I. Oksuzian, 123 T. Okusawa 40 R. Orava, 12 J. Orduna, 121 L. Ortolan, 54 N. Osman, 15 
J. Osta, 84 M. Padilla, 71 S. Pagan Griso* 6 , 35 C. Pagliarone, 38 A. Pal, 118 E. Palencia^, 57 V. Papadimitriou, 76 
A.A. Paramonov, 75 N. Parashar, 83 V. Parihar, 117 S.K. Park, 44 R. Partridge 16 , 117 N. Parua, 82 J. Patrick, 76 
A. Patwa, 108 G. Pauletta*^ , 38 M. Paulini, 115 C. Paus, 94 D.E. Pellett, 69 B. Penning, 76 A. Penzo, 38 M. Perfilov, 50 
Y. Peters, 65 K. Petridis, 65 G. Petrillo, 106 P. Petroff, 16 T.J. Phillips, 109 G. Piacentino, 36 E. Pianori, 114 J. Pilot, 111 
K. Pitts, 81 C. Plager, 70 M.-A. Pleier, 108 P.L.M. Podcsta-Lerma^, 45 V.M. Podstavkov, 76 L. Pondrom, 125 
A.V. Popov, 51 S. Poprocki t9 , 76 K. Potamianos, 85 A. Pranko, 68 M. Prewitt, 121 D. Price, 82 N. Prokopenko, 51 

F. Prokoshint cc 48 F. Ptohosf 1 , 34 G. Punzi* c , 36 J. Qian, 96 A. Quadt, 23 B. Quinn," A. Rahaman, 116 
V. Ramakrishnan, 125 M.S. Rangcl, 1 K. Ranjan, 30 N. Ranjan, 85 P.N. Ratoff, 61 I. Razumov, 51 I. Rcdondo, 56 
P. Rcnkcl, 120 P. Ronton, 66 M. Rcscigno, 37 T. Riddick, 64 F. Rimondi* a , 33 I. Ripp-Baudot, 19 L. Ristori, 36 * 76 
F. Rizatdinova, 113 A. Robson, 60 T. Rodrigo, 57 T. Rodriguez, 114 E. Rogers, 81 S. Rolli t! , 95 M. Rominsky, 76 
R. Roscr, 76 A. Ross, 61 C. Royon, 18 P. Rubinov, 76 R. Ruchti, 84 F. Rufhni* d , 36 A. Ruiz, 57 J. Russ, 115 V. Rusu, 76 
A. Safonov, 119 G. Sajot, 14 W.K. Sakumoto, 106 Y. Sakurai, 41 P. Salcido, 79 A. Sanchez-Hernandez 45 M.P. Sanders/ 

L. Santi*f, 38 A.S. Santos* 1 , 1 K. Sato, 42 G. Savage, 76 V. Savelievt™, 76 A. Savoy-Navarrot aa , 76 L. Sawyer, 89 
T. Scanlon, 63 R.D. Schamberger, 107 Y. Scheglov, 52 H. Schellman, 80 P. Schlabach, 76 S. Schlobohm, 124 A. Schmidt/ 
E.E. Schmidt, 76 C. Schwanenberger, 65 T. Schwarz, 76 R. Schwienhorst, 98 L. Scodellaro, 57 A. Scribano* d , 36 
F. Scuri, 36 S. Seidel, 103 Y. Seiya 40 J. Sekaric, 87 A. Semenov, 48 H. Severini, 112 F. Sforza*'', 36 E. Shabalina, 23 
S.Z. Shalhout, 69 V. Shary, 18 S. Shaw, 98 A.A. Shchukin, 51 T. Shears, 62 PF. Shepard, 116 M. Shimojima^, 42 
R.K. Shivpuri, 30 M. Shochet, 77 I. Shreyber-Tecker, 49 V. Simak, 9 A. Simonenko, 48 P. Sinervo, 4 P. Skubic, 112 
P. Slattery, 106 K. Sliwa, 95 D. Smirnov, 84 J.R. Smith, 69 K.J. Smith, 104 F.D. Snider, 76 G.R. Snow, 100 J. Snow, 111 
S. Snyder, 108 A. Soha, 76 S. Soldner-Rembold, 65 H. Song, 116 L. Sonnenschein, 21 V. Sorin, 54 K. Soustruznik, 8 
P. Squillacioti* d , 36 R. St. Denis, 60 M. Stancari, 76 J. Stark, 14 B. Stelzer, 4 O. Stelzer-Chilton, 4 D. Stentzt*, 76 
D.A. Stoyanova, 51 M. Strauss, 112 J. Strologas, 103 G.L. Strycker, 96 Y. Sudo, 42 A. Sukhanov, 76 I. Suslov 48 L. Suter, 
P. Svoisky, 112 M. Takahashi, 65 K. Takemasa, 42 Y. Takeuchi, 42 J. Tang, 77 M. Tecchio, 96 PK. Teng, 6 J. Thomtf, 7 * 



3 



J. Thome, 115 G.A. Thompson, 81 E. Thomson, 114 M. Titov, 18 D. Toback, 119 S. Tokar, 53 V.V. Tokmenin, 48 
K. Tollefson, 98 T. Tomura, 42 D. Tonclli, 76 S. Torre, 34 D. Torretta, 76 P. Totaro, 35 M. Trovato* e , 36 Y.-T. Tsai, 106 
K. Tschann-Grimm, 107 D. Tsybychcv, 107 B. Tuchming, 18 C. Tully, 102 F. Ukcgawa, 42 S. Uozumi, 43 L. Uvarov, 52 
S. Uvarov, 52 S. Uzunyan, 79 R. Van Kooten, 82 W.M. van Leeuwen, 46 N. Varelas, 78 A. Varganov, 96 E.W. Varnes, 67 
LA. Vasilyev, 51 F. Vazquez^™, 73 G. Velev, 76 C. Vellidis, 76 P. Verdier, 20 A.Y. Verkheev, 48 L.S. Vertogradov, 48 
M. Verzocchi, 76 M. Vesterinen, 65 M. Vidal, 85 I. Vila, 57 D. Vilanova, 18 R. Vilar, 57 J. Vizan, 57 M. Vogel, 103 
P. Vokac, 9 G. Volpi, 34 P. Wagner, 114 R.L. Wagner, 76 H.D. Wahl, 74 T. Wakisaka, 40 R. Wallny, 70 M.H.L.S. Wang, 76 
S.M. Wang, 6 A. Warburton, 4 J. Warchol, 84 D. Waters, 64 G. Watts, 124 M. Wayne, 84 J. Weichert, 25 
L. Welty-Rieger, 80 W.C. Wester III, 76 A. White, 118 D. Whitesont 6 , 114 F. Wick, 24 D. Wicke, 27 A.B. Wickhmd, 75 
E. Wicklund, 76 S. Wilbur, 77 H.H. Williams, 114 M.R.J. Williams, 61 GW. Wilson, 87 J.S. Wilson, 110 P. Wilson, 76 
B.L. Winer, 110 P. Wittichtf, 76 M. Wobisch, 89 S. Wolbers, 76 H. Wolfe, 110 D.R. Wood, 92 T. Wright, 96 X. Wu, 59 

Z. Wu, 122 T.R. Wyatt, 65 Y. Xic, 76 R. Yamada, 76 K. Yamamoto, 40 D. Yamato, 40 S. Yang, 5 T. Yang, 76 
U.K. Yangt r , 77 W.-C. Yang, 65 Y.C. Yang 43 W.-M. Yao, 68 T. Yasuda, 76 Y.A. Yatsunenko, 48 W. Ye, 107 Z. Ye, 76 
G.P. Yeh, 76 H. Yin, 76 K. Yi^", 76 K. Yip, 108 J. Yoh, 76 K. Yorita, 41 T. Yoshidat', 40 S.W. Youn, 76 G.B. Yu, 109 
I. Yu, 43 J.M. Yu, 96 S.S. Yu, 76 J.C. Yun, 76 A. Zanetti, 38 Y. Zeng, 109 J. Zennamo, 104 T. Zhao, 124 T.G. Zhao, 65 
B. Zhou, 96 C. Zhou, 109 J. Zhu, 96 M. Zielinski, 106 D. Zieminska, 82 L. Zivkovic, 117 and S. Zucchelli* a33 

(CDF and DO Collaborations f *) 

1 LAFEX, Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 
2 Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 

Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo Andre, Brazil 
* Institute of Particle Physics: McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, 
Canada H3A 2T8; Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, 
Canada V5A 1S6; University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, 
Canada M5S 1A7; and TRIUMF, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 2A3 
5 University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, People's Republic of China 
''Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan 11529, Republic of China 
Universidad de los Andes, Bogota, Colombia 
8 Charles University, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, 
Center for Particle Physics, Prague, Czech Republic 
9 Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic 
10 Center for Particle Physics, Institute of Physics, 
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic 
11 Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador 
12 Division of High Energy Physics, Department of Physics, 
University of Helsinki and Helsinki Institute of Physics, FIN-00014, Helsinki, Finland 
13 LPC, Universite Blaise Pascal, CNRS/IN2P3, Clermont, France 
H LPSC, Universite Joseph Fourier Grenoble 1, CNRS/IN2P3, 
Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble, Grenoble, France 
15 CPPM, Aix-Marseille Universite, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France 
16 LAL, Universite Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Orsay, France 
17 LP N HE, Univer sites Paris VI and VII, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France 
18 CEA, Irfu, SPP, Saclay, France 
19 IPHC, Universite de Strasbourg, CNRS/IN2P3, Strasbourg, France 
20 IPNL, Universite Lyon 1, CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne, France and Universite de Lyon, Lyon, France 
2 III. Physikalisches Institut A, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany 
22 Physikalisches Institut, Universitdt Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany 
23 II. Physikalisches Institut, Georg-August-Universitat Gottingen, Gottingen, Germany 
2Jt Institut fur Experimentelle Kernphysik, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany 
2S Institut fur Physik, Universitdt Mainz, Mainz, Germany 
26 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitdt Miinchen, Miinchen, Germany 
21 Fachbereich Physik, Bergische Universitdt Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany 
University of Athens, 157 71 Athens, Greece 
29 Panjab University, Chandigarh, India 
S0 Delhi University, Delhi, India 
31 Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, India 
' ' University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland 
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Bologna, * a University of Bologna, 1-40127 Bologna, Italy 
*Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, 1-00044 Frascati, Italy 
35 Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Padova-Trento, * b University of Padova, 1-35131 Padova, Italy 



4 



36 Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Pisa, * c University of Pisa, 
* d University of Siena and * e Scuola Normale Superiore, 1-56127 Pisa, Italy 
:r ' 'Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Roma 1, 
* j Sapienza Universita di Roma, 1-00185 Roma, Italy 
S8 Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Trieste/ U dine, 
1-34100 Trieste, * 9 University of Udme, 1-33100 Udme, Italy 
89 Okayama University, Okayama 700-8530, Japan 
40 Osaka City University, Osaka 588, Japan 
* Waseda University, Tokyo 169, Japan 
42 University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan 
43 Center 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; Chonbuk National University, Jeonju 561-756, Korea 
44 Korea Detector Laboratory, Korea University, Seoul, Korea 
45 CINVESTAV, Mexico City, Mexico 
4> 'Nikhef, Science Park, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 
41 Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands 
48 Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia 
49 Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia 
S0 Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia 
51 Institute for High Energy Physics, Protvino, Russia 
52 Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia 
58 Comenius University, 842 48 Bratislava, Slovakia; Institute of Experimental Physics, 040 01 Kosice, Slovakia 
54 Institut de Fisica d'Altes Energies, ICREA, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, E-08193, Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain 
55 Institucio Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avangats (ICREA) and Institut de Fisica d'Altes Energies (IFAE), Barcelona, Spain 
5 Centro de Investigaciones Energeticas Medioambientales y Tecnologicas, E-28040 Madrid, Spain 
51 Instituto de Fisica de Cantabria, CS I C- University of Cantabria, 39005 Santander, Spain 
J Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden 
59 University of Geneva, CH-1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland 
60 Glasgow University, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom 

61 Lancaster University, Lancaster LAI 4YB, United Kingdom 

62 University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZE, United Kingdom 
68 Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom 

4 University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom 
The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom 
66 University of Oxford, Oxford 0X1 3RH, United Kingdom 
67 University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA 
68 Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA 
69 University of California, Davis, Davis, California 95616, USA 
70 University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90024, USA 
71 University of California Riverside, Riverside, California 92521, USA 

72 Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA 

73 University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA 
74 Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306, USA 

75 Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439, USA 
76 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA 
77 Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA 
78 University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607, USA 
79 Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois 60115, USA 
80 Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA 

81 University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA 
82 Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, USA 
88 Purdue University Calumet, Hammond, Indiana 46323, USA 
84 University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, USA 
85 Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, USA 
86 Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA 
87 University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, USA 
88 Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506, USA 
89 Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, Louisiana 71272, USA 
90 The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, USA 
91 Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA 



5 



92 Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA 
93 Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA 
9J > Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA 
95 Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts 02155, USA 
96 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA 
97 Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201, USA 
98 Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA 
"University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi 38677, USA 
100 University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588, USA 
101 Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08855, USA 
102 Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA 
103 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA 
m State University of New York, Buffalo, New York 14260, USA 
105 The Rockefeller University, New York, New York 10065, USA 
University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14-627, USA 
107 State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA 
108 Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973, USA 
109 Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA 
n "The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA 

111 Langston University, Langston, Oklahoma 73050, USA 
112 University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019, USA 
113 Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078, USA 
lj * University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA 
115 Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA 
116 University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, USA 
117 Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912, USA 
118 University of Texas, Arlington, Texas 76019, USA 
119 Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA 
120 Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275, USA 
121 Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005, USA 
122 Baylor University, Waco, Texas 76798, USA 

123 University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904, USA 

124 University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA 
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA 

The top quark is the heaviest known elementary particle, with a mass about 40 times larger than 
the mass of its isospin partner, the bottom quark. It decays almost 100% of the time to a W boson 
and a bottom quark. Using top-antitop pairs at the Tevatron proton-antiproton collider, the CDF 
and DO collaborations have measured the top quark's mass in different final states for integrated 
luminosities of up to 5.8 fb _1 . This paper reports on a combination of these measurements that 
results in a more precise value of the mass than any individual decay channel can provide. It 
describes the treatment of the systematic uncertainties and their correlations. The mass value 
determined is 173.18 ± 0.56 (stat) ± 0.75 (syst) GeV or 173.18 ± 0.94 GeV, which has a precision of 
±0.54%, making this the most precise determination of the top quark mass. 

PACS numbers: 14.65.Ha, 13.85.Ni, 13.85.Qk, 12.15.Ff 



'Deceased 

t\Vith CDF visitors from t a Istituto Nazionale di Fisica 
Nuclcarc, Sczione di Cagliari, 09042 Monserrato (Cagliari), 
Italy, ^University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, USA, 
t c Univcrsity of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 
93106, USA, ^University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, 
CA 95064, USA, ^Institute of Physics, Academy of sciences 
of the Czech Republic, Czech Republic, t/ CERN, CH-1211 
Geneva, Switzerland, t 9 Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, 
USA, "^University of Cyprus, Nicosia CY-1678, Cyprus, "^Office 
of Science, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585, 
USA, ^University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland, t^ETH, 
8092 Zurich, Switzerland, t ! University of Fukui, Fukui City, 
Fukui Prefecture, Japan 910-0017, t m Universidad Iberoamericana, 



Mexico D.F., Mexico, t n University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 
52242, USA, t°Kinki University, Higashi-Osaka City, Japan 577- 
8502, "^Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA, 
t^Ewha Womans University, Seoul, 120-750, Korea, t r University 
of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom, t s Quccn 
Mary, University of London, London, El 4NS, United Kingdom, 
^'University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia, t^Muons, 
Inc., Batavia, IL 60510, USA, t"Nagasaki Institute of Applied 
Science, Nagasaki, Japan, l™National Research Nuclear University, 
Moscow, Russia, T x Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, 
USA, ^University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA, 
t z Universidad de Oviedo, E-33007 Oviedo, Spain, taa CNR g_ 
IN2P3, Paris, F- 75205 France, t^Texas Tech University, Lubbock, 
TX 79609, USA, tccTj n i verS Kiad Tccnica Fcdcrico Santa Maria, 



6 



I. INTRODUCTION 



A. The top quark 



The standard model (SM) of particle physics describes 
the elementary particles and their interactions. The top 
quark (t) has a special place in the hierarchy of particles 
because it is far more massive than any of the other 
fundamental objects. It is the up-type quark, partnered 
with the down-type bottom quark (b), forming the third 
generation of quarks which was predicted by Kobayashi 
and Maskawa in 1973 [lfto accomodate CP violation 
in neutral kaon decays Q- At particle colliders the 
top quark is produced mainly in top-antitop (tt) pairs. 
First evidence of top quark production was reported by 
the CDF collaboration Q and the top quark was first 
observed in this production mode by the CDF [|| and 
DO [j| collaborations at the Tevatron proton-antiproton 
collider. Since then, great efforts have been focused 
on measuring its properties with ever higher precision. 
In addition to its large mass (to*), the top quark is 
also singular because it decays before it can hadronizc: 
there are no mesons or baryons containing valence top 
quarks. The top quark decays almost exclusively to a 
W boson and a b quark, with the fraction determined 
by the near-unity value of the CKM quark mixing 
matrix [HH element V tb (« 0.9992) Q. Its other decays 
are limited by the small values of V ts « 0.0387 and 
Vtd ~ 0.0084 [31, assuming three-family unitarity of the 
CKM matrix. The W boson decays to a charged lepton 
and its associated neutrino, or to a quark- antiquark pair, 
and the final states of tt events are thus characterized as: 
"lepton+jets'^ (tt -> £+vbqq'b and qq'b£-Db); "alljets" 
(tt ->■ qcfbqq'b), and "dileptons" (tt ->■ vbt 9b) . In 
this notation the charged lepton £ represents an electron 
or muon, and q is a first- or second-generation quark. The 
W boson also decays to a r lepton and a r neutrino. If the 
r decays to an electron or muon, the event contributes to 
the lepton categories, and if the r decays into hadrons, 
it contributes to the lepton+jets or alljets categories. A 
fourth category labelled "^r+jets" is used to measure mt 
when there are jets and a large imbalance in transverse 
momentum in the event ($t), but no identified lepton. 
It comprises tt — > T + vbr~ Db, T + ubqq'b, and qq'bT~vb 
final states, accounting for 40% of the tt signal events in 
the ^T+jcts category, or l + vbqq'b, qq'b£~Db, where the 
electron or muon are not reconstructed, accounting for 



110v Valparaiso, Chile, t dd Yarmouk University, Irbid 211-63, 
Jordan, 

^and DO visitors from t a Augustana College, Sioux Falls, SD, 
USA, t 6 The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK, * C UPIITA- 
IPN, Mexico City, Mexico, * d DESY, Hamburg, Germany, ,* e SLAC, 
Menlo Park, CA, USA, ^University College London, London, UK, 
t s Centro de Investigacion en Computacion - IPN, Mexico City, 
Mexico, f'ECFM, Universidad Autonoma de Sinaloa, Culiacan, 
Mexico and ^Univcrsidadc Estadual Paulista, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 



60% of the tt signal in this category. Additional contri- 
butions to arise from the neutrino(s) produced in r 
decays. 

In dilepton events, there are typically two jets from 
the two b quarks, one from each top quark decay. In 
lepton+jcts events, there are typically four jets, including 
two b jets and two light-quark jets from VF-boson decay. 
Alljets events most often contain six jets, the two b jets 
and four light-quark jets. The $r+jets events usually 
have four or five jets. Additional gluon or quark jets can 
arise due to radiation from initial or final state colored 
particles, including the top quarks. About 23% of the 
tt events have an extra jet with sufficient energy to pass 
the selection criteria and about 5% of the events have 
two additional jets. These extra jets complicate the 
measurement of mt and degrade its resolution. Figure Q] 
illustrates leading-order (LO) production of tt events at 
the Fcrmilab Tevatron Collider, and Fig. [2] shows the 
relevant tt decay modes. 




9 



9 




FIG. 1: Examples of tree Feynman diagrams for tt 
production. At the Tevatron collider, the qq channel 
contributes 81% to the total tt inclusive cross section and 
the gg channel the remaining 19% 




e, \i~ t, q 



FIG. 2: Leading-order Feynman diagram for tt decay. The 
dilepton modes (ee, e/i, /i/x) have a combined branching 
fraction of ~ 4%, the electron+jets and muon+jets modes 
combined correspond to ~ 30%, and the alljets mode has a 
branching fraction of « 46%. The r modes are shared among 
the ^?T+jets and the other channels in the analyses. 



B. Top-quark mass origin and definitions 

One of the fundamental properties of an elementary 
particle is its mass. In the SM, fermions acquire mass 



7 



through interactions with the Higgs field 0. Absolute 
values of these masses are not predicted by the SM. In 
theoretical calculations, a particle's mass can be defined 
in more than one way, and it depends on how higher- 
order terms in perturbative quantum chromodynamics 
(QCD) calculations are renormalized. In the modified 
minimal subtraction scheme (MS), for example, the 
mass definition reflects short-distance effects, whereas in 
the pole-mass scheme the mass definition reflects long- 
distance effects [ll[ . The concept of the pole mass is not 
well defined since color confinement does not provide S- 
matrix poles at m = m t [l2j . Direct mass measurements 
that are inputs to the combination described in this 
paper rely on Monte Carlo (MC) generators to extract 
mt- Hence the measured mass corresponds in fact to the 
mass parameter in the MC. Work is proceeding to address 
the exact difference between the measured mass and the 
pole mass, as presented for example in Appendix C of 
Ref. |13j . One alternative way to address this problem 
is to extract mt from a measurement of the tt cross 
section [l4|- The DO collaboration has recently shown 
that the directly measured mass of the top quark is closer 
to the pole mass extracted from a measurement of the tt 
cross section than to an MS mass extracted in a similar 
way [l4[. Hence, within the precision of theory and data, 
the directly measured mt is best interpreted as the top- 
quark pole mass. 

CPT invariance predicts that a particle and its 
antiparticle partner have the same mass. This has been 
checked for the top quark by the DO, CDF, and CMS 
collaborations and the masses are found to hold within 
the measurement uncertainties, with Am t = m± — fflf = 
0.84 ± 1.87 GeV Am, = -3.3 ± 1.7 GeV [H], and 
Am t = -0.44±0.53 GeV [3], respectively. Thus, the top 
quark mass combination in this paper assumes mt = mi. 

C. Predictions based on the top-quark mass 

The internal consistency of the SM can be tested by 
using different observables to predict the values of others, 
and then compare the expectations with their measured 
values. For example, the relation between the mass 
of the W boson {My/) and sin 2 6\y (the electroweak 
mixing angle) includes higher-order radiative corrections 
involving m t , hence the smaller the uncertainty on the 
measured m t , the stronger is the test of consistency. 

Since 1997, the LEP Electroweak Working Group 
(LEPEWWG) has used the the observed top-quark and 
the W boson masses and other precision electroweak 
variables to extract constrains on the Higgs boson mass 
(M H ) in the SM QJ]. This has been extended to the 
minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) [l9[ 
and the GFITTER collaboration has applied the 
technique to set limits on a wide variety of theories 
beyond the SM |20| . Figure [3^, shows the combined 
constraint due to M\y and m t (as of March 2012) on the 
Higgs boson mass. Figure ISb shows the constraint from 
Mw and m* separately (as of March 2012) on the Higgs 



boson mass, and a global constraint originating from all 
the other electroweak variables, showing the importance 
of the Mw and m t variables to contrain the Higgs boson 
mass. 



80.44 
80.42 
80.40 
80.38 
80.36 
80.34 
80.32 
80.30 



_| Not excluded at 95% C.L. by direct searches /y 


M^,: LEP+Tevatron, m : Tevatron . // 


68% C.L. 


<$// 














V / 







165 



170 



175 



180 



185 190 
m, [GeV] 




190 200 
m, [GeV] 

FIG. 3: Panel (a) shows constraints from LEP and Tevatron 
measurements of Mw and m t (Tevatron only) on Mh within 
the SM. The regions in mass of the Higgs boson still allowed 
after the direct searches at LEP, Tevatron and LHC are also 
shown. Panel (b), from Ref. [2(j, indicates with the large 
countours (blue) the contraints on the Higgs boson, from 
global fits to electroweak data without including the direct 
measurements of Mw and mt from the Tevatron. 

D. History of measurement of m t 

Before 1995, global fits to electroweak data from the 
CERN and SLAC e+e" colliders (LEP and SLC) and 
from other experiments produced estimates of mt that 
ranged from w 90 GeV to « 190 GeV 0. At the 
time of the first observation of the top quark in 1995, 
the fits indicated a mass close to the current Tevatron 
value of mt, but with an uncertainty of « ±10% and an 



8 



assumption of 300 GcV mass of the Higgs boson [231 . 
CDF measured m t = 176 ± 8(stat) ± 10(syst) GeV~|l 
(total uncertainty of 7%) and DO measured m t = 
199±2?(stat) ± 22(syst) GeV [H] (total uncertainty of 
15%). 

Since then, the CDF and DO collaborations have 
developed many novel measurement techniques, 
and published nearly 50 journal papers on their 
measurements of mt. Recently, the CMS collabo- 
ration at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) published 
a measurement using 102 dilepton events [23[ and 
finds m t = 175.5 ± 4.6(stat) ± 4.6(syst) GeV 
(total uncertainty of 3.7%). The ATLAS collabo- 
ration at the LHC has submitted a measurement of 
ra t = 174.5 ± 0.6 ± 2.3 GeV (total uncertainty of 1.4%) 
using nearly 12,000 lepton+jets events (24|. The most 
precise measurements from the Tevatron in a single 
decay channel use lepton+jets events and a matrix 
element method as introduced in Ref. [25| and an in-situ 
calibration of the jet energy scale. CDF's matrix element 
measurement [26| uses 5.6 fb _1 of integrated luminosity 
to find m t = 173.00 ± 0.65(stat) ± 1.06(syst) GeV 
(total uncertainty of 0.72%). DO's measurement [27j 
uses 3.6 fb _1 of integrated luminosity to obtain 
m t = 174.94 ± 0.83(stat) ± 1.24(syst) GeV (total 
uncertainty of 0.85%). Figure 0] shows the publication 
history of the direct measurements of mt at the Tevatron. 

E. Overview of mass measurements 

This paper reports on the combination of previously 
published measurements of m t . Details of the analyses 
are therefore not repeated as this information is available 
in recent reviews [28|], as well as in the publications of 
each of the results. We will, however, summarize the 
basic techniques used for the measurements. 

The cross section for ti production in proton- 
antiproton (pp) interactions at 1.96 TcV is 7.2 pb (29l . 
[30I ] - The mean transverse momentum (pt) of the ti 
system at parton level is k, 20 GcV, which is attributed 
to initial-state radiation (i.e., gluon emission). The 
mean transverse momentum of the top quarks at parton 
level is « 95 GeV 13111 . Top quarks have a lifetime of 
« 0.3 x 10~ 24 s (32l. |33| . which is an order of magnitude 
smaller than the time scale for parton evolution and 
hadronization. Hence, when top quarks decay, they 
transfer their kinematic characteristics to the W boson 
and b quark, and the measured energy-momentum four- 
vectors of the final state particles can be used to 
reconstruct the mass of the top quark, except for the 
presence of initial or final-state radiation. 

In alljets events, the four- vector of every jet emerging 
from quarks can be reconstructed, but neutrinos emitted 
in semileptonic decays of b quarks and jet energy 
resolution effects will lead to lost energy. In lepton+jets 
events, the momentum of the neutrino from the W — > 
£f£ decay is not detected. The transverse component 
can be inferred from the negative of the vector sum 
of all transverse momenta of particles detected in the 



calorimeter and muon detectors. We estimate the 
longitudinal momentum of i>i by constraining the mass 
of the charged lepton and neutrino system to the world 
average value of M\y 0j- We also use My/ to choose 
the two light jets from W —> qq' decay, and use that 
information for an in-situ calibration of jet energies. In 
dilepton events, the analysis is more complicated because 
there are two final-state neutrinos from the leptonic 
decays of both W bosons. Therefore, the longitudinal 
and transverse momentum components of the neutrinos 
can not be determined without the application of more 
sophisticated tools. These involve assuming a value for 
m t to solve the event kinematics and assigning a weight 
to each mt hypothesis to determine the most likely value 
of m t consistent with the hypothesis that the event is a 
ti event. 

A major issue in ti final state reconstruction is 
the correct mapping of the reconstructed objects to 
the partons from the decays of the top quark and 
W boson. The problem arises because often the 
jet charge and flavor cannot be uniquely determined. 
This creates combinatorial ambiguities in the ti event 
reconstruction which vary from 90 possible jet-to-parton 
assignments for the alljets final state to 2 in the 
dilepton channel. In the lepton+jets and dilepton final 
states, additional ambiguities may arise from multiple 
kinematical solutions for the longitudinal component of 
the neutrino momentum. 

Two methods are used to measure the value of mt- 
In the first method, the reconstructed mass distribution 
in data, or a variable correlated with m t , such as 
the decay length of the B hadron or the transverse 
momentum of a lepton, is compared to template distri- 
butions composed of contributions from background 
and simulation of ti events. One template is used to 
represent background and another for each putative value 
of m t . The second method uses event probabilities 
based on the LO matrix element for the production of 
ti. For each event, a probability is calculated as a 
function of m t that this event is from ti production, as 
based on the corresponding production and decay matrix 
element. Detector resolution is taken into account in 
the calculation of these probabilities through transfer 
functions that correlate parton-levcl energies and their 
measured values. The value of mt is then extracted from 
the joint probability calculated for all selected events, 
based on the probability for signal and background 
(also defined through its matrix element). This method 
produces the most accurate results, but the computations 
are time-consuming. 

F. Combination overview 

This paper describes the combination of statistically- 
independent top-quark mass measurements from the 
Fermilab Tevatron Collider. Measurements are 
independent if they are based on different data sets, 
e.g., from CDF and from DO, or from Tevatron Run I 
(1992-1996) and Run II (2001-2011). They are also 



9 



> 
O 



re 

o 

a. 

o 




CDF 
D0 

Lepton+jets 
Alljets 
Dileptons 

Decay length 
Lepton+track 
Lepton+jets + dilepton 
Tevatron combination 



Publication Date 

FIG. 4: The CDF and DO published direct measurements of the top quark mass as a function of time. 



independent within one data set if the event selections 
are designed to be exclusive, i.e., no event can pass more 
than one category of selections. At times, more than 
one measurement is published using the same data and 
decay channel. In this situation, the result with smallest 
overall uncertainty is chosen for the combination. Twelve 
measurements are used in the combination described 
here, eight from the CDF collaboration and four from 
DO. These comprise five lepton+jets measurements 
(CDF and DO, Run II and Run I, and a CDF Run II 
result based on the decay length of B hadrons); two 
alljets measurements (CDF Run II and Run I); four 
dilepton measurements (CDF and DO, Run II and 
Run I); and a ^r+jets measurement (CDF Run II). We 
combine these measurements using an analytic method 
called the best linear unbiased estimator (BLUE) [3^ - 
[36| . This technique forms a linear combination of the 
separate unbiased mass measurements to produce the 
best estimate of mt with the smallest uncertainty. This 
procedure follows a series of 11 such mass combinations 
presented in [37l - l47| , updated each year since 2004 as new 
measurements of m t became available. The combination 
presented here is the first to be published in a peer- 
reviewed journal. 

II. INPUTS TO THE COMBINATION 
A. The independent mass measurements 

The mass measurements included in the combination 
are shown in Table [fl [MHIiHIz|. These 12 channels 
are chosen because they are statistically independent, 
which maximizes the improvement in the combination, 
and because enough information is available to separate 



out the components of systematic uncertainty for proper 
treatment in the combination. 

The DO measurement from 2005 in the alljets 
channel (Run I) HH of m, = 178.5 ± 13.7(stat) ± 
7.7(syst) GeV (total uncertainty of 8.8%) is not included 
in the combination because some subcomponents of the 
systematic uncertainty are not available. 

The CDF measurement from Run II based on decay- 
length analysis [57[ differs from the others in that it 
uses the mean decay length of B hadrons in 6-tagged 
lepton+jets events as the mt-sensitivc variable. It is 
independent of energy information in the calorimeter, 
and its main source of systematic uncertainty is 
uncorrelated with the dominant ones from the jet 
energy scale calibration in other measurements. This 
measurement of m t is essentially uncorrelated with 
the higher precision CDF result from the lepton+jets 
channel. The overlap between the data samples used for 
the decay-length method and the lepton+jets sample has 
therefore no effect. 

B. Data 

The data were collected with the CDF f5(| and 
DO [13, HH detectors at the Tevatron pp collider at 
Fermilab between 1992 and 2009. The Tevatron "center- 
of-mass" energy was 1.8 TeV in Run I from 1992 to 
1996 and 1.96 TeV in Run II from 2001. A silicon 
microstrip tracker around the beampipe at the center of 
each detector was used to reconstruct charged-particle 
tracks (only in Run II at DO). Tracks spatially matched 
to calorimeter jets are checked for originating from a 
secondary vertex, or for evidence that they originate 
from decays of long-lived heavy-flavor hadrons containing 



10 



TABLE I: Top quark mass measurements used as input to determine the combined value of mt from the Tevatron and the 
combined result. 



Decay 


Tevatron 


Experiment 


Integrated 


Number of 


Background 






m t 






Uncertainty Reference 


channel 


period 




luminosity 


events 


[%] 




[GcV] 






on mt 




or method 






[fb- 1 ] 
















[%] 




Lepton+jets 


Run II 


CDF 


5.6 


1087 


17 


173.00 


i 


0.65 


i 


1.06 


0.72 


26] 


Lepton+jets 


Run II 


DO 


3.6 


615 


27 


174.94 


t 


0.83 


■1. 


1.24 


0.85 


27 


Lepton+jets 


Run I 


CDF 


0.1 


70 


51 


176.1 


i 


5.1 


i 


5.3 


4.2 


mm 


Lepton+jets 


Run I 


DO 


0.1 


22 


22 


180.1 




3.6 




3.9 


2.9 


mm 


Alljets 


Run II 


CDF 


5.8 


2856 


71 


172.47 


i 


1.43 


i 


1.40 


1.2 


mm 


Alljcts 


Run I 


CDF 


0.1 


136 


79 


186.0 


i 


10.0 


\ 


5.7 


6.2 


51] 


Dileptons 


Run II 


CDF 


5.6 


392 


23 


170.28 




1.95 




3.13 


2.2 


mm 


Dileptons 


Run II 


DO 


5.3 


115 


21 


174.00 


i 


2.36 


i 


1.44 


1.6 


mm 


Dileptons 


Run I 


CDF 


0.1 


8 


16 


167.4 


■I. 


10.3 


t 


4.9 


6.8 


mm 


Dileptons 


Run I 


DO 


0.1 


6 


25 


168.4 


i 


12.3 


4 


3.6 


7.6 


mm 


#T+jets 


Run II 


CDF 


5.7 


1432 


32 


172.32 


i 


1.80 


i 


1.82 


1.5 


'-(■A 


Decay length 


Run II 


CDF 


1.!) 


375 


30 


166.90 


1 


9.00 


± 


2.82 


5.7 


57] 


Combination 






< 5.8 


7420 


44 


173.18 


1 


0.56 


1 


0.75 


0.54 





b quarks from the decay of top quarks [59l . l62j . Electrons 
and jets produce particle showers in the calorimeters, 
and the collected information is used to measure their 
energies. Muons traverse the calorimeters and outer 
muon detectors that are used to reconstruct their tracks. 
Both CDF and DO have central axial magnetic fields 
in the tracking region (DO only in Run II), in which 
the momenta of charged particles are determined from 
the curvature of their tracks. The CDF magnet has a 
diameter of 3 m and extends 4.8 m along the beamlinc, 
with a field strength of 1.4 T, and the DO magnet 
has a diameter of 1.0 m and length of 2.7 m to fit 
inside the Run I calorimeter with a field strength of 
2.0 T. The CDF detector's larger tracking volume with a 
higher density of measurements gives better transverse- 
momentum resolution for charged-particlc tracks. The 
transverse-momentum resolution is ~ 3.5% at CDF and 
ps 10 % at DO for a muon with p T = 50 GeV. The 
trigger and event-selection criteria depend on the tt 
final states, details of which appear in the publications 
listed in TablclU The experiments collected O(10 14 ) hard 
collisions, from which 7420 events are selected because 
they have the characteristics expected for tt pairs, of 
which ss 56% are expected to be true tt events. 

C. Models for tt signal 

The tt signal in Run I was simulated u sing the 
LO generator herwig [IH with the MRSD [(35f and 
CTEQ4M [H parton distribution functions (PDF) used 
by CDF and DO, respectively. The HERWIG generator 
implements the hard scattering processes qq^ti and 
gg^-tt, adding initial-state and final-state radiation 
through leading- log QCD evolution (6?J ■ The top 
quark and W boson in herwig decay according to the 
branching fractions listed by the Particle Data Group Q , 
and the final-state partons are subsequently fragmented 
into jets. The MC events are then processed through a 
fast simulation or a GEANT model [68| of the detectors 
and then through event reconstruction programs. 



For the tt signal in Run II, CDF uses pythia (6§| 
with the CTEQ5L [z3| PDF, and DO uses the leading- 
log generator ALPGEN [zH with the CTEQ6L1 PDF 
and pythia for parton showering. ALPGEN contains 
more tree-level graphs in higher-order a s than PYTHIA. 
ALPGEN has parton-jet matching (72|, which avoids 
double-counting of partons in overlapping regions of jet 
kinematics. CDF sets the event generation factorization 
and renormalization scales Q 2 to m 2 + p\ + (P 2 + 
PaJ)/2, where p± is the transverse momentum charac- 
terizing the scattering process, and P 2 and P| are the 
virtualities of the incoming partons. DO sets the scales 
to m 2 + (p 2 -), where (p 2 -) is the average of the square of 
transverse momentum of all other light partons produced 
in association with the tt pair. The pythia model 
treats each step of the tt decay chain it— >Wb, W^-lv or 
qq') separately and does not preserve spin correlations. 
ALPGEN uses exact matrix elements for each step and 
thereby correctly describes the spin information of the 
final-state partons. The fragments of the proton and 
antiproton or "underlying event" are added separately to 
each hard collision. CDF uses the "Tune A" settings [73| 
in pythia while DO uses a modified version of the tune. 
Both collaborations use angular ordering for modeling 
parton-showering in PYTHIA, and not pr-ordered models. 
The underlying event is therefore not interleaved with the 
parton showers as in models of color reconnection [74| . 

D. Background models 

In the lepton+jets channel, the dominant background 
is from W^+jets production. Smaller contributions arise 
from multijet events, Z+jets, single top-quark (tqb and 
tb), and diboson production (WW, WZ, and ZZ). The 
alljets channel has mainly multijet events as background. 
The largest background in the dilcpton channel is from 
•Z+jets events, which include Drell-Yan production. 
Backgrounds from diboson production and from events 
with jets identified as leptons are very small in the 
dilcpton channel. The ^y+jets channel has multijet 



11 



events and T^+jets as main backgrounds. 

In all channels contributions from multijet events are 
modeled using data. Most other background sources 
are modeled through MC simulation. In Run I, both 
collaborations used vecbos [7|| to model VK+jets events. 
VECBOS is a precursor of ALPGEN and provides one of 
the first models of events with many high-momentum 
final-state partons. pythia was used to model Z+jets, 
Drell-Yan, and diboson processes. Background from 
events with single top quark was negligible. In Run II, 
both collaborations used ALPGEN for the simulation of 
the W^+jets background. The treatment of heavy-flavor 
jets is implemented more accurately in ALPGEN and 
parton-jet matching also improves the simulation. For 
the Z+jets background, CDF uses pythia and DO uses 
ALPGEN. For dibosons, both collaborations use PYTHIA. 
Processes with single top-quark are modeled by CDF 
using madevent (76| (based on madgraph \7W). and 
by DO with singletop [zl| (based on comphep [79j]). 

The uncertainty in the description of the VF+jets 
background has three main components: (i) the 
uncertainty on the scale Q 2 , which affects both the overall 
normalization and the differential jet distributions in 
pseudorapidity r\ (80j and pt', (ii) the uncertainty in the 
correction for flavor content of jets to higher order; and 
(iii) the limitation in the MC model we are using to 
reproduce the jet pt and rj distributions in data at low 
Pt and large \rj\. 

E. Jet properties 

After the top quarks decay, the final-state quarks 
and gluons hadronize to produce multiple charged and 
neutral particles that traverse the central tracking 
systems into the calorimeters, where they produce many 
lower-momentum particles through interactions in the 
absorbers of the calorimeters. The observed particles 
tend to cluster in jets that can be assigned to the initial 
partons. For jet reconstruction, the CDF collaboration 
uses a clustering algorithm in (77, 4>) space [8l[ with a cone 
radius of 

CDF K = Vi^v) 2 + (A</>) 2 = 0.4, 

where 4> is the azimuthal angle around the beamline, r\ 
is the pseudorapidity, and A77 or A</> are the widths of 
the cone. DO uses a mid poin t iterative seed-based cone 
algorithm in (y, (f>) space [82J with a radius defined by 

DO Tl = V(Ay) 2 + (A0) 2 = 0.5, 

where the rapidity y = l/2\n((E + p L ) / (E~p L )), E 
is the jet energy, and ph is its longitudinal momentum 
component. 

The jet energy resolution in the central region 
(|ry| < 1) is approximately the same for CDF and 
DO; for CDF it is a(E T )/E T = hO%/yjE T {GeV) © 
3%. For jets in the forward region, however, the 
energy resolution at DO is similar to that in the central 
region, while at CDF it is not as good (ct(Et)/ Et — 



70%/ ^E T (GeV) © 4%). CDF's calorimeter covers 
\r)\ < 3.8 whereas DO's calorimeter covers |?7| < 4.2. 
The DO calorimeter is more homogeneous, so that the 
imbalance in transverse momentum (see Section III G[) 
usually has better resolution at DO. For both CDF and 
DO, to reject jets with mismeasured energy, selections 
on energy deposition are required when clustering the 
energy from the calorimeter cells into jets. When a 
muon is reconstructed within the jet cone, a correction is 
applied to the jet energy to account for the muon and its 
associated neutrino assumed to arise from heavy-quark 
decay. 

Jet energy scale calibrations are applied after 
jet reconstruction. CDF calibrates the transverse 
momentum using test-beam data and single-particle 
simulated events and corrects the jet energy to the parton 
level. Consequently, CDF docs not calibrate the jet 
energy scale in MC events. DO calibrates the energy using 
photon+jets and two-jet data and calibrates jets in data 
as well as in MC to the observed particle level. Particle 
jets arc clustered from stable particles after fragmen- 
tation, including particles from the underlying event, but 
excluding undetected energy from muons and neutrinos. 

CDF's jet calibration [83[ applies two scale factors 
and three offsets to convert the measured transverse 
momentum of a jet to that of the parton that initiated 
the jet. DO's jet calibration [84[ applies three scale 
factors and one offset to the jet energy to convert to the 
particle jet energy scale. The calibrations are expressed 
as follows: 

r<TW parton Pt ^rel — /-< , r~< 

CDF p T = -± Cue + Cbc, 

-ftabs 

D q ^particle _ E3Ct ~ CMLUE 
-Rabs Riel Foe 

The absolute response i? a bs corrects for energy lost in 
uninstrumcntcd regions between calorimeter modules, for 
differences between electromagnetically and hadronically 
interacting particles, as well as for module-to-module 
irregularities. The relative response i? re i is a scale factor 
that corrects forward relative to central jets and Cmi 
is a correction for multiple interactions in the same 
bunch crossing. The function Cue is a correction for 
the jet energy added from the underlying event. DO 
has one offset correction, Cmi,ue, which includes the 
effects of multiple interactions, the underlying event, 
noise from radioactive decays of the uranium absorber, 
and the effect of collisions from previous bunch crossings 
(pile up). The functions Coc and Foe are corrections 
for shower particles scattered in or out of the cone of 
radius 1Z. CDF's correction accounts for MC modeling 
that affects how the parton energy is translated into 
particle jet energy, whereas DO's correction accounts 
for a detector effect caused by the finite cell size in 
the calorimeter coupled with the cone size for the jet 
algorithm. The combined jet energy scale corrections 
increase the measured jet energies by about 20-50%, 
depending on pt and rj. 



12 



The overall uncertainties on the jet energy scale 
corrections vary from about 2.7% for CDF and 1.1% for 
DO for central jets of transverse energy of 100 GcV to 
3.3% for CDF and 2.2% for DO for forward jets. Central 
jets of 25 GeV have correction uncertainties of 5.9% 
for CDF and 1.4% for DO. For both experiments, the 
uncertainty on the corrections for absolute response i? a bs 
dominate these uncertainties. 

At DO, the jet energy resolution in data is inferior 
than predicted by the detector simulation. Therefore, 
the energies of MC jets are smeared so that the resulting 
resolution in MC matches that in data. Similarly, the 
reconstruction efficiency for jets in data is lower than is 
predicted by the detector simulation, so an appropriate 
fraction of MC jets are randomly removed. Both effects 
are corrected for as functions of jet p? and pseudo- 
rapidity. 

DO Run II analyses include an energy correction to 
simulated jets that depends on jet flavor. There are 
corrections for b jets, other-quark flavor jets (it, d, 
s, and c), and gluon jets implemented in both the 
lepton+jets and dilepton analyses. Such corrections 
refine the simulation by improving the matching of jet 
energies in MC to data. The differences arise from the 
varying electromagnetic fractions and widths of the jets. 
The corrections depend on jet transverse energy and 
pseudorapidity and range from —6% to +2% (27| . 

Both collaborations perform an in-situjet energy scale 
calibration in lepton+jets events for the matrix-element 
mass extraction of mt, and in CDF's alljets and ^T+jets 
measurements of mt ■ The invariant mass of the two jets is 
constrained to a Breit-Wigner distribution for the W 
qq' decay, set to the world average value for the IV-boson 
mass The energies of all jets in the event are then 
rescaled to complete this calibration. 

F. &-quark jet properties 

To separate top-quark events from background and to 
decrease the ambiguity in jet-to-parton matching, it is 
important to identify 6-quark jets. Every ti event has 
two b jets, whereas such jets are rare in background. As 
B hadrons have a mean lifetime of « 10 -12 seconds, 
b jets can be tagged through secondary vertices of 
the B decay a few mm away from the primary pp 
interaction. CDF's 6- tagging algorithm uses the signif- 
icance of the displacement of the secondary vertex in the 
transverse (r 4>) plane for the lepton+jets and ^T+jets 
channels [59|, as well as a jet-probability algorithm for 
|?T+jcts events (63|. One parameter defines the signif- 
icance of the separation of the primary and secondary 
vertices for events with one and two b jets. For jets 
that are within the acceptance of the silicon microstrip 
tracker (i.e., "taggable" jets), this algorithm identifies 
50% of real b jets and 9% of real charm jets, while falsely 
tagging 1% of light jets. DO tags jets by combining 
nine track and secondary-vertex-related variables using 
a neural network [62| . For jets within the acceptance 
of the silicon microstrip detector, this yields efficiencies 



of 65% and 20% for real b and charm jets, respectively, 
while falsely tagging 3% of light jets. 

To identify heavy flavor jets in data and in MC events, 
the tagging algorithm is applied by CDF and DO directly 
to the jets, except for simulated V^+light jets events, 
where CDF uses tag-rate functions measured in multijet 
data, since the rate for directly-tagged MC events is very 
low. After applying direct tagging to b and c jets in 
MC events, DO corrects the tagging efficiencies to match 
those observed in data by randomly dropping the tagging 
of 13% of such jets. For light-flavor jets, DO assigns a a 
per jet mistag weight. 

G. Properties of other event observables 

The uncertainty on m t depends not only on an 
accurate measurement of jet energies and proper 
assignment of flavor, but also on the reconstruction and 
calibration of the other elements of the event, including 
electrons, muons, and the imbalance in transverse 
momentum, taking into account the presence of any 
simultaneous pp interactions in the same bunch crossing. 

The mean number of pp collisions per bunch crossing 
is w 2 in Run I and k 5 in Run II. Such additional 
collisions affect the observed characteristics of the hard 
scatter of interest, and must be included in the MC 
simulation. These extra collisions result mostly in 
the production of low-p^ particles. CDF simulates 
such additional interactions using the pythia model of 
minimum-bias events and overlays them onto the hard 
scatters using a Poisson mean appropriate to the instan- 
taneous luminosity of the data. In a similar manner DO 
overlays randomly-triggered data events with the same 
luminosity profile as the data onto the MC simulated 
events. 

Electrons are identified by matching clusters of 
energy deposited in the electromagnetic layers of the 
calorimeters with tracks that point from the primary 
collision vertex to the clusters. The spatial shapes of the 
showers must agree with those expected for electrons, as 
studied in test beam data. The energy of an electron is 
determined as a combination of the total energy of the 
cluster and the momentum measured from the curvature 
of the matching track. The reconstruction efficiency is 
determined using Z —} ee data by identifying one tight 
charged lepton as tag and using the other charged lepton 
as a probe (tag-and-probe method). The electron energy 
is also recalibrated using such Z events. 

Muons are reconstructed from a central track and 
matched to a track in the outer muon chambers. In 
DO, both the inner and outer trajectories pass through 
magnetic fields and so the transverse momenta of the 
two are therefore required to match. The reconstruction 
efficiency and calibration of px are determined using 
a tag-and-probe method applied on J/ip — > fifj, and 
Z — > pp, events in a manner similar to that used for 
electrons. 

As indicated above, all ti decay channels except for 
alljets events have a large $t- All jet energy calibration 



13 



corrections arc also propagated to $t in each event. 



III. COMBINATION OF MASS 
MEASUREMENTS 

A. BLUE combination method 

The basic idea of the technique, called the best linear 
unbiased estimator (BLUE) method [34T - [36l ] . used to 
obtain the combined mass m™ mb , an "estimator" of the 
true mass m* ruo , is to calculate a linear weighted sum of 
the results from separate measurements: 



12 
i=l 



(1) 



The m\ are the twelve CDF and DO measurements i of 
mt and 



12 

i=l 



(2) 



The weights are determined using the value of m c t omb that 



true value m* rue 



(m™ mb -m* rue )' 



Variance (m c t omh ) + [Bias(m™ mb )] , (3) 

where the two terms represent the weighted variance and 
bias in the twelve input m t values with 

12 

Variance (mt° mb ) w} Variance(mj) , (4) 



i=l 



and 



Variance(mJ) = [c(tiJ)]' 



(5) 



where a (ml) are the uncertainties on the twelve input 
values given in Table HI 

On average, we expect the input mass measurements 
to be unbiased and we therefore assume 



Bias(m™ mb ) = J2 w i Bias (to j 



(6) 



Equation (3) shows that the BLUE method defines the 
best estimate through a minimization of the variance of 
TOt for an assumed unbiased set of measurements. The 
minimum corresponds to setting the weights to 



W; 



1 /Variance (to J ) 
J2i=i 1 /Variance (toJ) 



(7) 



for uncorrelated input values. Since the input m t values 
arc correlated, the variance in Eq. (4) has to be replaced 
with a covariancc matrix: 

Variance (m 4 comb ) = 

12 12 

u>i Wj Covariance^TOj, , (8) 

i=i j=i 
which is defined as 



Covariance! mj, m\ 



Minimizing Eq. (3) yields 

yV —1 Covariance^ 1 (m\, m\ \ 

W i = 7 A ; 

Ei=i Y,]ti Covariance" 1 [m\, m 3 t j 



(9) 



(10) 



minimizes the squared difference relative to the unknown matrix) , and 



where Covariance \mlml) arc the elements of the 
inverse of the covariance matrix (also known as the error 



Covariance 



a(mfy(ml) (11) 



with Correlation 



the correlation coefficient 



between m\ and m\ . The following sections show 
how the correlation matrix is derived by examining 
the uncertainty components and their individual 
correlations. 

B. Measurement uncertainties 

The uncertainty on any m t measurement has a 
statistical component from the limited number of 
events available for the measurement and a systematic 
component from the uncertainties assigned to the 
calibration of input quantities, to the model of the signal, 
and to the calibration of the mass extraction method. 
Since the first measurements of mt [1, @ , the systematic 
component has been slightly larger than the statistical 
one. As more data became available, the statistical 
uncertainties on m t improved as did the calibrations 
of systematic uncertainty, and the two components 
therefore improved together. 

The systematic uncertainty on each m t measurement 
in this combination is divided into 14 parts. Some 
of them have origin in only one source whereas others 
include several related sources of uncertainties. For 
the latter the patterns of correlation among different 
channels, Tcvatron Run I and Run II, or experiments 
are the same for all sources included in these systematic 
components. The uncertainty on jet energy scale (JES), 



14 



on the other hand, is split into seven components, which 
do not appply to all measurements, given the significantly 
different approaches to jet energy calibration between 
CDF and DO and the change in the DO procedure between 
Run I and Run II. 

Table [TT] gives the uncertainty of each of the twelve 
top quark mass measurements for the different contri- 
butions to uncertainty, and their effect on the final 
combination. The components of uncertainty are 
defined in the following and can be classified as 
uncertainties in detector response (jet energy scale, 
jet and lepton modeling), uncertainties from modeling 
signal and background (signal modeling, multiple 
interactions model, background estimated from theory 
and background based on data), uncertainties from 
method of mass extraction and statistical uncertainties. 
A detailed description of the methods to evaluate these 
systematic uncertainties is presented in the Appendix. 

1. Jet energy scale 

1.1 Light-jet response (1) 

One subcomponent of the uncertainty in JES 
covers the absolute calibration for CDF's Run I and 
Run II measurements. It also includes small contri- 
butions from the uncertainties associated with modeling 
multiple interactions within a single bunch crossing and 
corrections for the underlying event. 

1.2 Light-jet response (2) 

Another subcomponent of this uncertainty includes 
DO's Run I and Run II calibrations of absolute response 
(energy dependent), the relative response (^-dependent), 
and the out-of-cone showering correction which is 
a detector effect. This uncertainty term for CDF 
includes only the small relative response calibration (77- 
dependent) for Run I and Run II. 

1.3 Out-of-cone correction 

This subcomponent of the JES uncertainty quantifies 
the out-of-cone showering corrections to the MC showers 
for all of CDF's and for DO's Run I measurements that is 
obtained by varying the model for light-quark fragmen- 
tation. 

1.4 Offset 

This subcomponent originates from the offset in DO's 
Run I calibration, which corrects for noise from uranium 
decay, pile-up from previous collisions, and for multiple 
interactions and the model for the underlying event. In 
Run I, the uncertainties are large, but in Run II, owing to 
the smaller integration time for calorimeter electronics, 
they are negligible. CDF's calorimeter does not have the 
same sources of noise and sensitivity to pile-up as DO so 
CDF measurements do not have this term. 

1.5 Model for b jets 

This subcomponent comes from the uncertainty on 
the semilcptonic branching fraction in b decays and from 
differences between two models of 6-jet hadronization. 

1.6 Response to b/q/g jets 



This subcomponent accounts for the difference in 
electromagnetic versus hadronic response of b jets, light- 
quark and gluon jets. CDF corrects for jet flavor as part 
of the main calibration, and defines the uncertainty based 
on the remaining difference in response between b jets and 
light-flavor jets, whereas DO corrects the response for b, 
light-quark (u, d, s, and c) and gluon jets as a function 
of jet pt and r\. 

1.7 In-situ light-jet calibration 

The last part of the uncertainty in jet energy scale is 
from the in-situ calibration of mt- It corresponds to the 
statistical uncertainty from the limited number of events 
used in the fit when using the W-boson mass to constrain 
the energies of the light quarks from the W decay. 

2. Jet modeling 

The uncertainty in jet modeling has two components 
for DO. This uncertainty is negligible for CDF. 

(i) The jet energy resolution is smeared for MC jets 
to match the resolution observed in data and the 
uncertainty on the smearing functions is propagated to 
m t . 

(ii) The identification efficiency in MC events is corrected 
to match that found in data and the uncertainty on the 
correction functions is propagated to m*. 

3. Lepton modeling 

This uncertainty has two components: 

(i) The electron and muon pt scales are calibrated to 
the J/tp and Z-boson mass by both CDF and DO. 
This uncertainty on the calibration is included in the 
measurements of m t . 

(ii) DO smears the muon momentum resolution in MC 
events to match that in data and the uncertainty on this 
correction is included in this term. The uncertainty on 
the electron resolution has a negligible impact on the 
measurements of mt- 

4. Signal modeling 

There are six components to this uncertainty. They 
are combined into one term because the correlations 
between channels arc similar for each component: 

(i) Knowledge of the PDF parametrization. 

(ii) The quark annihilation and gluon fusion fractions 
that differ significantly between leading-log and next-to- 
leading order (NLO) QCD calculations (Run II). 

(iii) The amount of initial and final-state radiation in MC 
signal events differs from that in data and is adjusted 
through the value of Aqcd used in the shower and the 
scales of time and space- like showers. 

(iv) Higher-order QCD corrections to initial and final- 
state radiation differ from precise parton-level models 
and this is not accounted for by the choice of scale for 
the calculations (Run II). 

(v) Our model for jet hadronization is based on angular 
ordering in PYTHIA with Tune A underlying event tuning. 
Parton showering and the underlying event can also be 
simulated with HERWIG and JIMMY (8f|[86[. The effect of 



15 



TABLE II: The uncertainty in GeV from each component for the twelve measurements of mt and the resulting Tevatron 
combination. The total uncertainties are obtained by adding the components in quadrature. The entries "n/a" stand for 
"not applicable" and "n/e" for "not evaluated." The non-evaluated uncertainties were not considered as significant sources of 
uncertainty for Run I measurements. 




Channel 


Run 


Exp. 




Jet 


energy scale systematics 








Other systematics 














Lepton+jets 


II 


CDF 


0.41 


0.01 


0.27 


n/a 


0.23 


0.13 


0.58 


0.00 


0.14 


0.56 


0.10 


0.27 


0.06 


0.10 


0.65 


0.80 


0.67 


1.23 


Lcpton+jets 


11 


DO 


n/a 


0.63 


n/a 


n/a 


0.07 


0.26 


0.46 


0.36 


0.18 


0.77 


0.05 


0.19 


0.23 


0.16 


0.83 


0.83 


0.94 


1.50 


Lcpton+jets 


I 


CDF 


3.4 


0.7 


2.7 


n / a 


0.6 


n/e 


n/a 


n/c 


n / c 


2.7 


n / c 


1.:! 


n/e 


0.0 


5.1 


4.4 


2.8 


7.3 


Lcpton+jets 


I 


DO 


n/a 


2.5 


2.0 


1.3 


0.7 


n/e 


n/a 


n/c 


n/e 


1.3 


n/e 


1.0 


n/e 


0.6 


3.6 


3.5 


1.6 


5.3 


Alljets 


II 


CDF 


0.38 


0.04 


0.24 


n/a 


0.15 


0.03 


0.95 


0.00 


n/a 


0.64 


0.08 


0.00 


0.56 


0.38 


1.43 


1.06 


0.91 


2.00 


Alljcts 


I 


CDF 


4.0 


0.3 


3.0 


n/a 


0.6 


n/e 


n/a 


n/c 


n/a 


2.1 


n / c 


1.7 


n/e 


0.6 


10.0 


5.0 


2.6 


11.5 


Dilcptons 


11 


CDF 


2.01 


0.58 


2.13 


n/a 


0.33 


0.14 


n/a 


0.00 


0.27 


0.80 


0.23 


0.24 


0.14 


0.12 


1.95 


3.01 


0.88 


3.69 


Dilcptons 


II 


DO 


n/a 


0.56 


n/a 


n/a 


0.20 


0.40 


0.55 


0.50 


0.35 


0.86 


0.00 


0.00 


0.20 


0.51 


2.36 


0.90 


1.11 


2.76 


Dilcptons 


I 


CDF 


2.7 


0.6 


2.6 


n/a 


0.8 


n/e 


n/a 


n/c 


n/c 


3.0 


n / c 


0.3 


n/e 


0.7 


10.3 


3.9 


3.0 


11.4 


Dilcptons 


I 


DO 


n/a 


1.1 


2.0 


1.3 


0.7 


n / e 


n/a 


n/c 


n / c 


1.9 


n/e 


1.1 


n/e 


1.1 


12.3 


2.7 


2.3 


12.8 


#T+jets 


II 


CDF 


0.45 


0.05 


0.20 


n/a 


0.00 


0.12 


1.54 


0.00 


n/a 


0.78 


0.16 


0.00 


0.12 


0.14 


1.80 


1.64 


0.78 


2.56 


Decay length 


11 


CDF 


0.24 


0.06 


n/a 


n/a 


0.15 


n/e 


n/a 


0.00 


n / a 


0.90 


0.00 


0.80 


0.20 


2.50 


9.00 


0.25 


2.80 


9.43 


Tevatron Combination 


0.12 


0.19 


0.04 


0.00 


0.15 


0.12 


0.39 


0.11 


0.10 


0.51 


0.00 


0.14 


0.11 


0.09 


0.56 


0.49 


0.57 


0.94 



the difference on mt between the two models is included 
in this term. 

(vi) Final-state partons and remnants of the protons and 
antiprotons are connected through color strings, which 
affect the distributions of jets. Since this effect is not 
included in the model for tt signal, the value of mt has 
an uncertainty from this omission (Run II). 

5. Multiple interactions model 

The number of soft pp events overlaid on each MC 
event has a Poisson distribution. The mean number 
does not equal exactly the number seen in data since the 
luminosity increased as the Tevatron run progressed. The 
top-quark mass is measured as a function of the number 
of multiple interactions in signal events by CDF and the 
signal MC events are reweighted to match the distri- 
bution seen in data by DO and the related uncertainties 
are included here. 

6. Background from theory 

There are four components in this uncertainty: 

(i) Difference between NLO calculations of the fraction of 
heavy-flavor jets in W^+jets events. The ALPGEN model 
underestimates this fraction. 

(ii) Impact of factorization and rcnormalization scales 
on the VF+jets simulation, which affects the background 
model for distributions characterizing jets. 

(iii) The theoretical cross sections used to normalize all 
MC estimated background processes (except for IF+jcts 



for CDF and DO lepton+jets measurements, and Drell- 
Yan production for CDF dilepton measurements), 
(iv) Impact of difference between the MC modeling of 
background kinematic distributions and those observed 
in data. 

7. Background based on data 

This refers primarily to uncertainties from the normal- 
ization of certain background components to data. These 
include multijet backgrounds in the lepton+jets, alljcts, 
and ^T+jets analyses, the W^+jets background in the DO 
lcpton+jets analyses, and the Drell-Yan backgrounds in 
the CDF dilepton analyses. 

DO also considers the following four components of 
uncertainty: 

(i) the uncertainty from correcting the MC events to 
match the trigger efficiency in data which is based on 
the turn-on response for each trigger element. 

(ii) the uncertainty from applying tag-rate and 
taggability corrections to MC events to make the 
efficiencies match the data for each jet flavor. 

(iii) the uncertainty on the tt signal fractions in the 
samples used to calibrate the measurements. 

(iv) the uncertainty on the fraction of multijet events 
included in the pseudocxperiments used for calibration. 

8. Calibration method 

The extracted values of m t are calibrated using a 
straight-line fit to the relationship between input mass 



TABLE III: Correlations in systematic uncertainties (in percent) among the different measurements 
of nit. 



16 



Q 



c 



b 


En 


fc 








a 





Q 


o 




o 


o 


o 


O 


Q 


O 


C 




























3 


5 




3 


3 


s 


K 


si 


K 


K 


e 



c 



c 

o 



J 



[0 


03 






- 


Z 





5 








+^ 






a 


a 






oj 




3 


a 


3 


s 



+ 

h 



Calibration method Statistical uncertainty 
Not correlated among any measurements 

In-situ light-jet calibration (JES) 



Lcpton+jcts 


Run 


II 


CDF 


100 



































Lcpton+jets 


Run 


II 


DO 





100 

















100 














Lcpton+jcts 


Run 


I 


CDF 








100 





























Lcpton+jcts 


Run 


I 


DO 











100 


























Alljcts 


Run 


II 


CDF 














100 























Alljcts 


Run 


I 


CDF 

















100 




















Dilcptons 


Run 


II 


CDF 




















100 

















Dilcptons 


Run 


II 


DO 





100 

















100 














Dilcptons 


Run 


I 


CDF 


























100 











Dilcptons 


Run 


I 


DO 





























100 








#T+jets 


Run 


II 


CDF 
































100 





Decay length 


Run 


II 


CDF 



































100 


















Background based on data 










Lepton+jcts 


Run 


II 


CDF 


100 
































100 


Lcpton+jcts 


Run 


11 


DO 





100 
































Lcpton+jcts 


Run 


I 


CDF 








100 





























Lcpton+jcts 


Run 


I 


DO 











100 


























A 11 

AllJCtS 


Run 


ii 


CDF 














100 























A 11 

AllJCtS 


Run 


i 


CDF 

















100 




















Dilcptons 


Run 


ii 


CDF 




















100 

















Dilcptons 


Run 


ii 


DO 























100 














Dilcptons 


Run 


i 


CDF 


























100 











Dilcptons 


Run 


i 


DO 





























100 








$T +jctS 


Run 


ii 


CDF 
































100 





Decay length 


Run 


ii 


CDF 


100 
































100 


















Background from theory 










Lepton+jcts 


Run 


ii 


CDF 


100 


100 


100 


100 























100 


Lcpton+jcts 


Run 


ii 


DO 


100 


100 


100 


100 























100 


Lcpton+jcts 


Run 


i 


CDF 


100 


100 


100 


100 























100 


Lcpton+jcts 


Run 


i 


DO 


100 


100 


100 


100 























100 


Alljcts 


Run 


a 


CDF 














100 


100 




















Alljcts 


Run 


i 


CDF 














100 


100 




















Dilcptons 


Run 


a 


CDF 




















100 


100 


100 


100 








Dilcptons 


Run 


ii 


DO 




















100 


100 


100 


100 








Dilcptons 


Run 


i 


CDF 




















100 


100 


100 


100 








Dilcptons 


Run 


i 


DO 




















100 


100 


100 


100 








#T+jets 


Run 


ii 


CDF 
































100 





Decay length 


Run 


ii 


CDF 


100 


100 


100 


100 























100 










Light-jot 


response 


(2) (JES) 


Offset (JES) 


Response 


to b/q/g jets (JES) 












Jot modeling 


£ Lcpton 


modeling Multiple 


interactions model 




Lcpton+jcts 


Run 


ii 


CDF 


100 











100 





100 











100 


100 


Lcpton+jcts 


Run 


ii 


DO 





100 

















100 














Lcpton+jets 


Run 


i 


CDF 








100 








100 








100 











Lcpton+jets 


Run 


i 


DO 











100 

















100 








Alljets 


Run 


n 


CDF 


100 











100 





100 











100 


100 


Alljcts 


Run 


i 


CDF 








100 








100 








100 











Dilcptons 


Run 


ii 


CDF 


100 











100 





100 











100 


100 


Dilcptons 


Run 


ii 


DO 





100 

















100 














Dilcptons 


Run 


i 


CDF 








100 








100 








100 











Dilcptons 


Run 


i 


DO 











100 

















100 








#T+jets 


Run 


ii 


CDF 


100 











100 





100 











100 


100 


Decay length 


Run 


ii 


CDF 


100 











100 





100 











100 


100 



17 



TABLE IV: Correlations in systematic uncertainties (in percent) among the different measurements 
of mt (continued). 




Lcpton-t-jcts 


Run II 


CDF 


100 





100 


Lcpton+jets 


Run II 


DO 





100 





Lcpton+jets 


Run I 


CDF 


100 





100 


Lcpton+jets 


Run I 


DO 





100 





Alljots 


Run II 


CDF 


100 





100 


Alljots 


Run I 


CDF 


100 





100 


Dilcptons 


Run II 


CDF 


100 





100 


Dilcptons 


Run II 


DO 





100 





Dilcptons 


Run I 


CDF 


100 





100 


Dilcptons 


Run I 


DO 





100 





#T+jets 


Run II 


CDF 


100 





100 


Decay length Run II 


CDF 


100 





100 



Light-jet response (1) (JES) 






100 


100 


100 





100 





100 


100 


10(1 











100 





100 











100 


100 


100 





100 





100 


100 


100 











100 





100 











100 


100 


100 





100 





100 


100 





100 


100 


100 





100 





100 


100 





100 


100 


100 





100 





100 


100 


100 











100 





100 











100 


100 


100 





100 





100 


100 


100 











100 





100 











100 


100 


100 





100 





100 


100 





100 


100 


100 





100 





100 


100 



Out-of-cone correction (JES) Model for b jets (JES) Signal modeling 
100% correlated among all measurements 



18 



and measured mass in simulated pseudoexperiments. 
This term includes the systematic uncertainties from the 
slope and offset of this calibration. 

9. Statistical uncertainty 

The statistical uncertainties are determined from 
the number of data events in each of the twelve 
measurements. 

Figure [5] shows the relative contribution for each major 
uncertainty to the analysis channels in Run II. The 
Appendix provides more detail on how each of the sources 
of the uncertainties is estimated. 



c in 

l] 
o ^ 

O 
o Q- 



100% 
90% 
80% 
70% 
60% 
50% 
40% 
30% 
20% 
10% 
0% 



■ ■ ■ ■ 

■ III 

1 1 1 1 



Source of uncertainty 

Statistics 
Method of mass extraction ■ 
Modeling background ■ 
Modeling signal 
Jet energy scale ■ 



Channels 



FIG. 5: The average uncertainties for CDF and DO for 
each Run II measurement and for the Tevatron combination, 
separated according to major components (see Table ["VTTTl in 
the Appendix for details on the systematic categories. In this 
figure, the jet and lepton modeling systematic uncertainties 
are grouped into the modeling background category.). 



C. Uncertainty correlations 

Tables IIIII and IIVI indicate how uncertainties are 
correlated between measurements. There are seven 
patterns of correlation: 

(i) Statistical uncertainty and calibration method 
uncertainty are not correlated among the measurements. 

(ii) Correlations among DO measurements that 
implement the same final jet energy corrections for 
the uncertainty from in-situ light-jet calibration. 

(iii) Correlations among CDF measurements that use the 
same data samples for the uncertainty from background 
based on data. 

(iv) Correlations among all measurements in the same 
tt decay channel for the uncertainty from background 
estimated from theory. 

(v) Correlations of measurements within the same 
experiment for a given run period for the uncertainties 
from light-jet response (2), offset, response to b/q/g jets, 
jet modeling, lepton modeling and multiple interactions 
model. 



(vi) Correlations for measurements within the same 
experiment such as the uncertainty from light-jet 
response (1). 

(vii) Correlations among all measurements such as the 
uncertainties from out-of-cone correction, model for b jets 
and signal modeling. 

We assume that all sources correspond to either no 
or 100% correlation. A check of this assumption (see 
Section I IV Bp shows that it has negligible effect on the 
combined value and uncertainty of mt- 

D. Measurement correlations 

The uncertainties shown in Table [TT] and their 
correlations shown in Tables IIIII and IIVI provide the 
correlations among the twelve input values of m t . The 
correlation matrix for these measurements, as returned 
by the combination procedure, is shown in Table [V] 
The inversion of the covariance matrix built with the 
correlation matrix defines the measurement weights, as 
described in Section lillAI 

E. Measurement weights 

As discussed in Section MI Al the combined mass 
TO comb j g defined through the set of weights that minimize 
the squared difference between r?"i£ omb and the true value 
of m t , which is equivalent to minimizing the sum of the 
covariance matrix elements. Table [V] gives the weights 
u>i for each of the input measurements as determined 
in this minimization. A weight of zero means that an 
input measurement has no effect on m™ b . The Run I 
measurement weights are negative which reflects the fact 
that the correlations for these and other measurements 
are larger than the ratio of their total uncertainties [351 ]. 
In this case, the less precise measurement may acquire 
a negative weight. Input measurements with negative 
weights still affect the value of m£ omb and reduce the 
total uncertainty. By design, the sum of the weights is 
set to unity. 



IV. RESULTS OF THE COMBINATION 

A. Tevatron top-quark mass result 

Combining the twelve independent measurements of 
mt from the CDF and DO collaborations yields 



n comb 



173.18 ± 0.56 (stat) ±0.75 (syst) GeV 
173.18 ±0.94 GeV. 



The uncertainties are split into their components in 
Table [TTJ and Fig. [5j The jet energy scale contributes 
0.49 GeV to the total systematic uncertainty. Of this, 
0.39 GeV arises from limited statistics of the in-situ 
JES calibration and 0.30 GeV from the remaining contri- 
butions. Figure |H] summarizes the input m t values and 
the combined result. 



19 



TABLE V: Correlations in % among the input mt measurements and their weights in the BLUE combination. 

Q0Q0QQQ0Q0QQ 
UQOQOUOQUQOO 



CO 

d 


r, 

d 


d 


d 







o 


z 












a 








o 


03 


a-' 


3 


Q 


5 


3 



e| Q Weight 



Lepton+jets 


Run II 


CDF 


100 


27 


45 


25 


25 


26 


44 


12 


26 


44 


24 


8 


55.50 


Lepton+jets 


Run II 


DO 


27 


400 


21 


44 


16 


9 


14 


39 


13 


7 


45 


6 


26.66 


Lepton+jets 


Run I 


CDF 


45 


24 


400 


26 


25 


32 


54 


12 


2!) 


44 


22 


7 


-4.72 


Lepton+jets 


Run I 


DO 


25 


44 


26 


400 


12 


14 


27 


7 


15 


16 


40 


5 


-0.06 


Alljets 


Run II 


CDF 


25 


16 


25 


42 


100 


15 


25 


10 


15 


7 


44 


4 


13.99 


AUjets 


Run I 


CDF 


26 


9 


32 


14 


15 


100 


38 


(i 


19 


7 


44 


4 


-0.80 


Dilcptons 


Run II 


CDF 


44 


14 


54 


27 


25 


38 


400 


7 


32 


4:s 


22 


6 


1.44 


Dileptons 


Run II 


DO 


12 


39 


42 


7 


10 


6 


7 


100 


8 


5 


40 


-i 


2.28 


Dileptons 


Run I 


CDF 


26 


13 


29 


15 


15 


10 


32 


8 


100 


8 


44 


4 


-1.05 


Dilcptons 


Run I 


DO 


44 


7 


41 


16 


7 


7 


13 


5 


8 


400 


6 


2 


-0.15 


#T+jets 


Run II 


CDF 


24 


15 


22 


10 


14 


14 


22 


10 


14 


6 


400 


4 


6.65 


Decay length 


Run II 


CDF 


8 


6 


7 


5 


4 


4 


6 


3 


4 


2 


4 


400 


0.29 



Lepton+jets 


Run II 


CDF 


Lepton+jets 


Run II 


D0 


Lepton+jets 


Run 1 


CDF 


Lepton+jets 


Run 1 


D0 


Alljets 


Run II 


CDF 


Alljets 


Run 1 


CDF 


Dileptons 


Run II 


CDF 


Dileptons 


Run II 


D0 


Dileptons 


Run 1 


CDF 


Dileptons 


Run 1 


D0 


//j+jets 


Run II 


CDF 


Decay length Run II 


CDF 



Tevatron Combination 2012 




173.00 ± 0.65 ± 1.06 GeV 
174.94 ± 0.83 ± 1.24 GeV 

176.1 ± 5.1 ± 5.3 GeV 
180.1 ± 3.6 ± 3.9 GeV 
172.47 ± 1.43 ± 1.40 GeV 

4-H 186.0 ±10.0 ± 5.7 GeV 

170.28 ± 1.95 ± 3.13 GeV 

174.00 ± 2.36 ± 1.44 GeV 

167.4 ±10.3 ± 4.9 GeV 

168.4 ±12.3 ± 3.6 GeV 

172.32 ± 1.80 ± 1.82 GeV 

166.90 ± 9.00 ± 2.82 GeV 

173.18 ± 0.56 ± 0.75 GeV 
% 2 /dof=8.3/11 



160 170 180 190 

Mass of the Top Quark [GeV] 



FIG. 6: The twelve input measurements of mt from the Tevatron collider experiments along with the resulting combined value 
of m£ omb . The grey region corresponds to ±0.94 GeV. 



We assess the consistency of the input mt test statistic, defined as follows: 
measurements with their combination using a \ 2 

Xcomb = K - ™r mb f 



x Covariance 1 {m\ 1 ml S j (m{ - m£ omb ^ , 



20 



TABLE VI: Separate calculations of raf 
experiment, and their x 2 probabilities. 



for each tt decay mode, by run period, and by 



Subset 



Consistency \ 
(Degrees of freedom — 1) 



X" probability 



h 
"-4 



En 
Q 



C 



Lepton+jets 173.4 ± 1.0 



Alljets 

Dileptons 

^T+jets 

Run II 

Run I 

CDF 

DO 



172.7 ± 1.9 
171.1 ± 2.1 
172.1 ± 2.5 
173.6 ± 1.0 
180.0 ±4.1 
172.5 ± 1.0 
174.9 ± 1.4 



0.14 
1.51 
0.28 



0.40 
0.04 



1.51 
0.40 



0.12 



0.28 
0.04 
0.12 



2.56 



71% 22% 60% 

71% 53% 85% 

22% 53% 73% 

60% 85% 73% 



<)% 



11% 



where ml is a column vector of the twelve m t 
inputs, m£ omb is a matching column vector for the 
measurements adjusted in the previous minimization, 
and the superscript T denotes the transpose. We find 

Xcomb = 8-3 for 11 degrees of freedom, 

which is equivalent to a 69% probability for agreement 
(i.e., p- value for the observed x 2 value) among the twelve 
input measurements. 



B. Consistency checks 

We check one aspect of the assumption that biases 
in the input m t are on average zero (see section IIII Ap 
by calculating separately the combined m™ mb for each 
tt decay mode, each run period, and each experiment. 
The results are shown in Table I VII The resulting m™ mb 
values are calculated using all twelve input measurements 
and their correlations. The \ 2 test statistic provides 
the compatibility of each subset with the others and is 
defined as: 

2 

Xsubl,sub2 

(mj ubl - m^ ub2 ) 2 Covariance" 1 (m™ bl , mf lb2 ) . 

The x 2 values in Table I VII show that biases in the input 
measurements are not large. 

To check the impact of the assumption that the 
systematic uncertainty terms are either 0% or 100% 
correlated between input measurements, we change all 
off-diagonal 100% values to 50% (see Tables IIIII and 
IIVP and recalculate the combined top-quark mass. This 
extreme change shifts the central mass value up by 
0.17 GeV and reduces the uncertainty negligibly. The 
chosen approach is therefore conservative. 



C. Summary 

We have combined twelve measurements of the mass 
of the top quark by the CDF and DO collaborations at 
the Tevatron collider and find: 

m comb = 173 18 ± 5g ( gtat ) ± Q 75 ( gyst ) Ge y 

which corresponds to a precision of 0.54%. The result 
is shown in Table IVHI together with previous combined 
results for comparison. The input measurements for 
this combination use up to 5.8 fb _1 of integrated 
luminosity for each experiment, while 10 fb _1 are now 
available. We therefore expect the final combination 
to improve in precision with the use of all the data, 
but also from analyzing all tt decay channels in both 
experiments, and from the application of improved 
measurement techniques, signal and background models, 
and calibration corrections to all channels that will 
reduce systematic uncertainties. Currently, there are also 
some overlaps of the systematic effects that are included 
in different uncertainty categories. In addition to the in- 
still light-jet calibration systematic uncertainty that will 
scale down with the increase of analyzed luminosity, these 
levels of double counting are expected to be reduced for 
the next combination. The combination presented here 
has a 0.54% precision on m* making the top quark the 
particle with the best known mass in the SM. 

Acknowledgments 

We thank the Fcrmilab staff and technical staffs 
of the participating institutions for their vital contri- 
butions and acknowledge support from the DOE 
and NSF (USA), ARC (Australia), CNPq, FAPERJ, 
FAPESP and FUNDUNESP (Brazil), NSERC (Canada), 
NSC, CAS and CNSF (China), Colciencias (Colombia), 
MSMT and GACR (Czech Republic), the Academy 
of Finland, CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France), BMBF 
and DFG (Germany), DAE and DST (India), SFI 



21 



TABLE VII: Mass measurements of the top quark from 1999 
until this publication at the Tevatron collider. 



Year Integrated m t Uncertainty Reference 





Luminosity 
[fh _1 l 




[GeV] 






on 




1999 


0.1 


174.3 


± 


3.2 


± 


4.0 


2.9% 


'37] 


2004 


0.1 


178.0 


1 


2.7 


± 


3.3 


2.4% 


38] 


2005 


0.3 


172.7 


± 


1.7 


± 


2.4 


1.7% 


'39] 


2006 


0.7 


172.5 


J 


1.3 


± 


1.9 


1.3% 


40] 


2006 


1.0 


171.4 


■1 


1.2 


± 


1.8 


1.2% 


41] 


2007 


2.1 


170.9 


± 


1.1 


± 


1.5 


1.1% 


42] 


2008 


2.1 


172.6 


i 


0.8 


± 


1.1 


0.8% 


43] 


2008 


2.1 


172.4 




0.7 


± 


1.0 


0.7% 


44] 


2009 


3.6 


173.1 


■1 


0.6 


± 


1.1 


0.7% 


45] 


2010 


5.6 


173.32 


1 


0.56 


± 


0.89 


0.61% 


46] 


2011 


5.8 


173.18 


J 


0.56 


± 


0.75 


0.54% 


47] 




5.8 


173.18 


± 


0.56 


± 


0.75 


0.54% This 


paper 



(Ireland), INFN (Italy), MEXT (Japan), the Korean 
World Class University Program and NRF (Korea), 
CONACyT (Mexico), FOM (Netherlands), MON, NRC 
KI and RFBR (Russia), the Slovak R&D Agency, 
the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion, and Programa 
Consolider-Ingenio 2010 (Spain), The Swedish Research 
Council (Sweden), SNSF (Switzerland), STFC and the 
Royal Society (United Kingdom), and the A.P Sloan 
Foundation (USA). 



APPENDIX: EVALUATION OF SYSTEMATIC 
UNCERTAINTIES 

Systematic uncertainties arise from inadequate 
modeling of signal and backgrounds, and the inability to 
reproduce the detector response with simulated events. 
Systematic uncertainties also arise from ambiguities in 
reconstructing the top quarks from their jet and lepton 
remnants. We minimize such uncertainties by using 
independent data to calibrate the absolute response of 
the detector, and we use state-of-the-art input from 
theory for modeling the signal and backgrounds. We use 
alternative models for signal and different parameters 
for modeling backgrounds to check our assumptions. 

Tabic IVIIII lists the uncertainties from the Run II 
lepton+jets measurements for CDF and DO that arc 
based on the matrix element technique (2(| |27|- These 
two measurements provide most of the sensitivity to the 
combined mt result and are discussed below. Before 
explaining how each individual systematic uncertainty is 
estimated, we will first discuss how the uncertainties from 
different sources are propagated to mt and how they are 
calculated using ensembles of pscudoexperimcnts. 

Uncertainties related to the performance of the 
detector and calibration of the reconstructed objects, 
such as jet energy scale (JES), the modeling of jets, 
leptons, and triggers, and calibration of the ^-tagging 
algorithms, are evaluated by shifting the central values 
of their respective parameters by ±1 standard deviations 



(a) that correspond to the uncertainties on each value. 
This is done using Monte Carlo (MC) ti events for nit = 
172.5 GeV. The integrations over the matrix element 
are performed again for each shifted sample and define 
shifts in mt that correspond to each independent source 
of systematic uncertainty. These uncertainties are not 
determined at other m t values and it is assumed that 
their dependence on mt is minimal. 

For uncertainties that arise from ambiguities in the 
modeling of the ti signal, which include the uncertainties 
from initial and final-state radiation, higher-order QCD 
corrections, 6-jet hadronization, light-jet hadronization, 
the underlying event model, and color reconncction, we 
generate simulated ti events using alternative models 
also at m t = 172.5 GeV. These events are processed 
through detector simulation, arc reconstructed and the 
probability density is calculated by integration over the 
matrix elements. 

For the uncertainties from the choice of parton distri- 
bution functions, the ratio of contribution from quark 
annihilation and gluon fusion, and models for overlapping 
interactions, we rewcight the fully reconstructed 
simulated ti MC events at m t = 165, 170, 172.5, 175, and 
180 GeV to reflect the uncertainty on ±1ct range on each 
parameter, and extract its impact on mt- 

Each method used to measure m t is calibrated 
using ti MC events generated at m t = 
165,170,172.5,175,180 GeV, which provide the 
relationship between input and "measured" masses. 
A straight line is fitted to these values, representing 
a response function that is used to correct the m t 
measurement in data. 

Systematic uncertainties are evaluated using studies 
of ensembles of pscudoexperiments. For each of the 
shifted or rcweightcd sets of events, and those based on 
alternative models or different generated m t , we create an 
ensemble of at least 1000 pscudoexperiments, by means 
of binomially-smeared signal and background fractions 
that match the expectation in the data sample and with 
the total number of events in each pseudoexperiment 
equal to the number of events observed in data. We use 
the ensembles of such pseudoexperiments to assess the 
difference between generated and measured mass, and to 
calibrate the method of mass extraction. 

For the uncertainty on background, we change the 
fraction of background events in the pseudoexperiments 
within their uncertainties and remeasure the top-quark 
mass. 

For the BLUE combination method, the uncertainties 
must be defined symmetrically around the central mass 
value, and this requirement determines part of the 
following definitions of uncertainty. 

For the uncertainties obtained in ensemble studies with 
shifted or reweighted parameters, m^ corresponds to the 
+1<7 shift in the input parameter and m^ corresponds to 
the —1(7 shift. The systematic uncertainty on the value of 
m t from these parameters is defined as ± \mf — to^I/2, 
unless both shifts arc in the same direction relative to the 



22 



TABLE VIII: Individual components of uncertainty on CDF and DO mt 
measurements in the lepton+jets channel for Run II data [26l . |27| . 





Uncertainty [G 1 


sV] 


Systematic 


CDF (5.6 fb" 1 ) 


DO 


(3.6 fb- 1 ) 


Source 


m t = 173.00 GeV 


m t = 


174.94 GeV 



DETECTOR RESPONSE 
Jet energy scale 



Light-jet response (1) 


n A i 


n/a 


Light- j ct response (2) 


n ni 

U.Ul 


U.DO 


Out- of- cone correction 


27 




iVloclcl for b jets 


0.23 


0.07 


Semileptonic b decay 


0.16 


0.04 


b-jet hadronization 


0.16 


0.06 


Response to b/q/g jets 


0.13 


0.26 


In-situ light-jet calibration 


0.58 


0.46 


Jet modeling 


0.00 


0.36 


Jet energy resolution 


0.00 


0.24 


Jet identification 


0.00 


0.26 


Lcpton modeling 


0.14 


0.18 


MODELING SIGNAL 






Signal modeling 


0.56 


0.77 


Parton distribution functions 


0.14 


0.24 


Quark annihilation fraction 


0.03 


n/a 


Initial and final-state radiation 


0.15 


0.26 


Higher-order QCD corrections 


n/a 


0.25 


Jet hadronization and underlying event 


0.25 


0.58 


Color reconnection 


37 


28 


Multiple interactions model 


0.10 


0.05 


MODELING BACKGROUND 






Background from theory 


0.27 


0.19 


Higher-order correction for heavy flavor 


0.03 


0.07 


Factorization scale for W-hjets 


0.07 


0.16 


Normalization to predicted cross sections 


0.25 


0.07 


Distribution for background 


0.07 


0.03 


Background based on data 


0.06 


0.23 


Normalization to data 


0.00 


0.06 


Trigger modeling 


0.00 


0.06 


b-tagging modeling 


0.00 


0.10 


Signal fraction for calibration 


n/a 


0.10 


Impact of multiset background on the calibration 


n/a 


0.14 


METHOD OF MASS EXTRACTION 






Calibration method 


0.10 


0.16 


STATISTICAL UNCERTAINTY 
UNCERTAINTY ON JET ENERGY SCALE 
OTHER SYSTEMATIC UNCERTAINTIES 


0.65 
0.80 
0.67 


0.83 
0.83 
0.94 


TOTAL UNCERTAINTY 


1.23 


1.50 



CDF's calibration of the absolute jet energy scale uses 
the single-pion response to calibrate jets in data and 
to tune the model of the calorimeter in the simulation. 
Uncertainties of these processes form the greatest part 
of the JES uncertainty. Small constant terms are 
added to account for the model of jet fragmentation, for 
calorimeter simulation of electromagnetically decaying 
particles, and to take into account small variations of 
the absolute calorimeter response over time. The total 
resulting uncertainty on the absolute JES is 1.8% for 
20 GeV jets rising to 2.5% for 150 GeV jets. 

At high Tevatron instantaneous luminosities, more 
than one pp interaction occurs during the same bunch 
crossing, and the average number of interactions depends 
linearly on instantaneous luminosity and changed from 
w 1 to 8 between the start and the end of Run II. If 
the final-state particles from these extra pp interactions 



nominal value, in which case the systematic uncertainty 
is defined as the larger of \mf — m t \ or \wl[ — m t \. 

For the values obtained from a comparison between 
two or more models, the systematic uncertainty is taken 
as ± of the largest difference among the resulting masses 
(without dividing by two). 

1. Jet energy scale 

The following seven terms (1.1 - 1.7) refer to the jet 
energy scale: 

1.1 Light-jet response (1) 

This uncertainty includes the absolute calibration of 
the CDF JES for Run I and Run II and the smaller effects 
on JES from overlapping interactions and the model for 
the underlying event. 



23 



overlap with the jets from a tt event, the energy of 
these jets is increased, thereby requiring the correction. 
The uncertainty on this correction depends on vertex- 
reconstruction efficiency and the rate for misidentifying 
vertices. The impact of these effects is checked on data 
samples, including W — > ev 1 minimum bias, and multijet 
events with a trigger threshold of 100 GeV. CDF finds 
an uncertainty of 0.05 GeV per jet. This uncertainty was 
estimated early in Run II. With increasing instantaneous 
luminosity, this correction was insufficient, and another 
systematic uncertainty term was introduced through the 
"multiple-interactions-model" term, which is described 
later. 

CDF includes the impact of the underlying event on 
JES in this component of uncertainty. The proton and 
antiproton remnants of the collision deposit energy in 
the calorimeter, and these can contribute to the energy 
of the jets from tt decay, which must be subtracted before 
m t can be measured accurately. CDF compares the 
"Tune A" underlying event model [73| in pythia 
with the jimmy model [H, [H| in herwig [13 using 
isolated tracks with pt > 0.5 GeV. The data agree well 
with Tune A, which is expected since it was tuned to 
CDF data, but differ from jimmy by about 30%. This 
difference is propagated to the absolute calibration of 
JES and yields a 2% uncertainty for low-pr jets, and 
less than 0.5% for 35 GeV jets. 

MC tt events are generated by CDF with jet energies 
shifted by the above three uncertainties, and the resulting 
shifts in m t are used to estimate the uncertainty. The 
overall uncertainty on m* from these combined sources is 
0.24% for lepton+jets, 0.22% for alljets, 1.18% for CDF 
Run II dilepton data, and 0.26% for ^T+jets for Run II 
data of CDF. 

1.2 Light-jet response (2) 

This uncertainty term represents almost all parts of 
DO Run I and Run II calibrations of JES. The absolute 
energy scale for jets in data is calibrated using 7+jct 
data with photon px > 7 GeV and |f? 7 | < 1.0, and jet 
Pt > 15 GeV and \ru e t\ < 0.4, using the projection 
fraction" method j84j. Simulated samples of 7+jcts and 
Z+jets events are compared to data, and used to correct 
the energy scale for jets in MC events. The JES is 
also corrected as a function of rj for forward jets relative 
to the central jets using 7+jets and dijets data. Out- 
of-cone particle scattering corrections are determined 
with 7+jets data and simulated events, without using 
overlays of underlying events, to avoid double-counting 
of this effect. Templates of deposited energy are formed 
for particles belonging to and not belonging to a jet 
using 23 annular rings around the jet axis for TZ(y, <j>) — 
sj (Ay) 2 + (A0) 2 < 3.5. All of these calibration steps are 
combined and the total uncertainty on JES is calculated 
for light jets and heavy-flavor jets (independent of the 
type of jet). The resulting DO uncertainty on m t for 
Run II lepton+jets events is 0.36% and 0.86% for dilepton 
data. 



This uncertainty term also includes the relative jet 
energy correction as a function of jet 77 for CDF. This 
is measured using dijet data, along with pythia and 
herwig simulations of tt events generated with shifted 
jet energies, and lead to the following uncertainties on 
Run II measurements of m t : 0.01% for lepton+jets, 
0.02% for alljets, 0.34% for dileptons, and 0.03% for 
^T+jets. 

1.3 Out-of-cone corrections 

For all CDF measurements and for DO Run I, this 
uncertainty component accounts for energy lost outside 
the jet reconstruction cone, and uses the difference 
between two models of light-quark and gluon fragmen- 
tation and simulation of the underlying event. DO 
changed the way it measures the out-of-cone uncertainty 
between Run I and Run II, and this uncertainty for DO 
Run II measurements is therefore included in the light-jet 
response (2) term, described previously. 

Energy is lost from the cone of jet reconstruction when 
a quark or gluon is radiated at large angle relative to 
the original parton direction, or when the fragmentation 
shower is wider than the cone, or when low momentum 
particles are bent out of the cone by the axial magnetic 
field of the detector. Energy is gained in the cone from 
initial-state radiation and from remnants of spectator 
partons, called collectively at CDF the underlying event. 
The two models compared by CDF in Run II are PYTHIA 
with Tune A for the underlying event, and herwig with 
the jimmy modeling of the underlying event. For the 
narrow cone size of TZ = 0.4 used in measurements of 
m t , more energy is lost from the cone than gained. The 
correction is measured using pythia dijet events and 
data in the region 0.4 < TZ < 1.3. A small constant 
is added to compensate for energy outside the TZ > 1.3 
region ("splash out"). The correction is largest for jets 
at low transverse momentum: +18% for px = 20 GeV 
jets and < 4% for jets with pt > 70 GeV. A detailed 
description of the method can be found in Ref . [83| . 

The uncertainty on these corrections is measured by 
comparing 7 + jets data to the two simulations. The 
largest difference between either of the models and data 
is taken as the uncertainty (the difference between the 
two models is very small). For jets with pt = 20 GeV, 
the uncertainty on the jet energy scale is 6%, and for 
jets above 70 GeV, it is 1.5%. These translate into 
uncertainties on CDF Run II m t measurements of 0.16% 
for the lepton+jets measurement, 0.14% for alljets, 1.25% 
for dileptons, and 0.12% for ^T+jets. 

1.4 Energy offset 

This uncertainty term is specific to DO Run I 
measurements. It includes the uncertainty arising from 
uranium decays noise in the calorimeter and from the 
correction for multiple interaction to JES. These lead to 
uncertainties in m t of 0.72% for lepton+jets and 0.77% 
for dilepton events. In Run II, the integration time for 
the calorimeter electronics is short, after the upgrade to 



24 



shorter bunch-crossing time (3.5 fis to 396 ns). This effect 
results in a negligible uncertainty on the offset for DO 
Run II measurements of mt ■ 

1.5 Model for b jets 

(i) Semileptonic b decay 

The uncertainty on the semileptonic branching fraction 
(10.69 ± 0.22) x 10~ 2 (PDG 2007 values) of B hadrons 
affects the value of m t . Both collaborations reweight 
ti events by ± the uncertainty on the central value 
(±2.1%), and take half the resulting mass difference as 
the uncertainty on m t : 0.09% for CDF and 0.03% for DO. 

(ii) b-jet hadronization 

For its nominal m t measurements, CDF uses the 
default pythia model of b-jct fragmentation based on the 
Bowler model HH (r q = 1.0, a = 0.3, b = 0.58), where 
r q is the Bowler fragmentation-function parameter and a 
and b are Lund fragmentation function parameters. DO 
uses a model with these parameters tuned to data from 
ALEPH, DELPHI, and OPAL ^ (r q = 0.897 ± 0.013, 
a = 1.03 ± 0.08, b = 1.31 ± 0.08). To measure the 
uncertainty on these models, CDF compares its m t values 
to those measured with the LEP parameters used by 
DO, and to those from the SLD experiment at SLC [89| 
(r q = 0.980 ± 0.010, a = 1.30 ± 0.09, b = 1.58 ± 0.09). 
DO compares the measured m t with the LEP parameters 
to the one from SLC. The resulting uncertainties on the 
mt extracted from the lepton+jets channel are 0.09% for 
CDF and 0.03% for DO. 

For some analyses, the determination of the 
uncertainties in (i) and (ii) may be affected by statistical 
fluctuations of the MC samples. 

1.6 Response to b/q/g jets 

The calibrations of JES described in the first two 
paragraphs of the Appendix are derived on samples 
dominated by "light quark" and gluon jets and applied to 
all jets. However the calorimeter response to heavy-flavor 
jets differs in that these particles often decay semilepton- 
ically and the b jet will have some energy lost through the 
escaping neutrino. Bottom quark jets can also contain 
an electron that showers in a pattern different than for 
hadronic particles, or the jet may contain a muon that 
does neither produce a shower nor gets absorbed in the 
calorimeter. Bottom jets also differ from light jets in the 
distribution of their shower and particle content. Since 
every ti event contains two b jets, it is important to 
understand their energy calibration after the application 
of the previous overall corrections. 

CDF measures an uncertainty from the difference 
between the 6-jets response and light-flavor jets response 
in Run II. CDF takes sets of MC ti events and 
cluster particles into jets classifying each such particle 
jet as a b jet or a light jet [81(. Single-particle 
response for data and for MC events are applied to 
the formed particle jets to predict the energy measured 



in the calorimeter. A double ratio is calculated: 

(pdata /;p MC )h .^/^data/pMC)^ which ig found tQ 

be 1.010. The uncertainty on m t is measured by 
generating new tt samples with the fo-jet scale shifted by 
this 1% difference, which results in 0.1% uncertainty in 
mt for the lepton+jets measurement. 

For Run II measurements, DO corrects the transverse 
momentum distributions of jets differently in four regions 
of detector pseudorapidity to make the MC response 
match that in data (after the main JES calibration) as a 
function of jet flavor: b jets, light-quark jets (u, d, s, c) 
and gluon jets [13] • The correction functions are shifted 
up and down by their uncertainties and the extracted 
shifts in mt are used to define the resulting uncertainty 
on m t of 0.15% for the lepton+jets measurement and 
0.23% for the dilepton measurement. 

1.7 In-situ light-jet calibration 

In ti events where one or both W bosons decay to qq', 
the world average value of My/ 0] is used to constrain the 
jet energy scale for light-quark jets in-situ [9(J[9l|]. CDF 
and DO perform simultaneous measurements of mt and 
Myy, and fit a linear function to the JES for light-quark 
jets that is applied to all the jets to improve precision of 
m t . 

CDF measures the in-situ rescaling factor indepen- 
dently in their lepton+jets, alljets, and ^T+jets analyses 
and so these terms are uncorrelated. DO applies the 
rescaling derived from their lepton+jets measurement 
to dilepton events, and these uncertainties are therefore 
correlated. 

The uncertainty from the in-situ calibration is 
determined through a two-dimensional minimization of 
a likelihood that is a function of top-quark mass and 
JES. The extracted JES is then shifted relatively to 
its measured central value and a one-dimensional fit is 
performed to the top-quark mass. The difference in 
quadrature between the uncertainty on mt from the first 
and second fits is taken as the uncertainty on mt from the 
in-situ calibration, giving 0.34% for CDF's lepton+jets 
measurement, 0.27% for DO's lepton+jets result, 0.55% 
for CDF's alljets, 0.89% for their ^T+jets measurement, 
and 0.32% for DO's dilepton measurement. 

2. Jet modeling 

Applying jet algorithms to MC events, CDF finds that 
the resulting efficiencies and resolutions closely match 
those in data. The small differences propagated to m t 
lead to a negligible uncertainty of 0.005 GcV, which is 
then ignored. DO proceeds as follows. 

(i) Jet energy resolution 

The modeling of the jet energy resolution is corrected 
in DO to match that in data. The value of mt is then 
remcasured using MC samples with jet energy resolution 
corrections shifted up and down by their uncertainties, 
resulting in an uncertainty on mt of 0.18%. 



25 



(ii) Jet identification 

DO applies correction functions to MC events to match 
the jet identification efficiency in data. The uncertainty 
on m t is estimated by reducing the corrections by la and 
rcmcasuring the mass in the adjusted MC samples. The 
efficiency can only be shifted down and not up because 
jets can be removed from the simulated events but not 
added. The uncertainty on m t is therefore set to ± the 
single-sided shift and is 0.15%. 

3. Lepton modeling 

(i) Momentum scale for leptons 

In Run II, the electron and muon channels for CDF 
and the muon channels for DO are used to calibrate 
the lepton momentum scales by comparing the invariant 
dilepton mass m tU 2 = \J {En + E n ) 2 - (wi + P12) 2 for 
J/ip — s> It and Z ->• It decays in MC events with 
data. The positions of the resonances observed in the 
mu distributions reflect the absolute momentum scales 
for the leptons. CDF and DO perform a linear fit as a 
function of the mean value of transverse momentum to 
the two mass points (3.0969 GeV and 91.1876 GeV Q), 
assuming that any mismatch is due to an uncertainty 
in the calibration of the magnetic field. DO also fits 
a quadratic relation assuming that the difference in 
scale arises from misalignment of the detector. The 
value of nit is measured using MC ti ensembles without 
rescaling lepton pt and with lepton pt values rescaled 
using these fitted relations. Half of the largest difference 
in extracting mt is taken as its systematic uncertainty 
resulting from lepton pr scale. For muon measurements 
from DO, the largest shift is observed for the linear 
paramctrization. In Run I, this source of uncertainty was 
neglected as it was negligible relative to other sources of 
uncertainty. 

In DO Run II measurement of the M^-boson mass in the 
electron decay channel, it was found that 0.26 radiation 
lengths of material was left out in the GEANT modeling 
of the solenoid [92j . The Z-boson mass peak was used to 
calculate a quadratic correction to the electron energy by 
comparing MC events generated with additional solenoid 
material to data. This correction was then propagated 
to the mt measurement. 

The uncertainties on the m; measurements from the 
lepton momentum scale are 0.08% for CDF lepton+jets 
measurements and 0.10% for DO, and 0.16% for CDF 
dilepton measurements and 0.28% for DO dilepton 
results. 

(ii) Lepton momentum resolution 

The muon momenta in simulated events at DO are 
smeared to match the resolution in data. The uncertainty 
on this correction corresponds to an uncertainty on mt 
of 0.17%. 

4. Signal modeling 



(i) Parton distribution functions 

In Run I, the uncertainties from choice of parton distri- 
bution functions (PDF) are determined by measuring 
the chan ge i n m t using the MRS A' set [93f instead of 
MRSDg [6l or CTEQ4M 



and are found to be 
negligible. 

In Run II, the uncertainty is measured by CDF 
by comparing CTEQ5L results with MRST98L 
by changing the value of a s in the MRST98L model, 
and by varying the 20 eigenvectors in CTEQ6M 
The total uncertainty is obtained by combining these 
sources in quadrature. DO measures this uncertainty 
by reweighting the pythia model to match possible 
excursions in the parameters represented by the 20 
CTEQ6M uncertainties, and taking the quadratic sum 
of the differences. The resulting uncertainty on m t is 
0.08% for CDF and 0.14% for DO. 

(ii) Fractional contributions from quark annihilation and 
gluon fusion 

In Run I, this source of uncertainty in ti production 
is not considered. In Run II, CDF estimates the effect 
on m t by reweighting the gluon fusion fraction in the 
PYTHIA model from 5% to 20% [H[ . The uncertainty on 
mt is found to be 0.02%. This uncertainty is included by 
DO in the systematic component (iv) below, where the 
effects of higher-order QCD corrections are discussed. 

(iii) Initial and final-state radiation 

Initial and final-state radiation refers to additional 
gluons radiated from the incoming or outgoing partons 
or from the top quarks. Jets initiated by these gluons 
affect the measured value of m t because they can be 
misidentified as jets from the final-state partons in top- 
quark decay. Extensive checks were performed in Run I 
measurements to assess the effects of initial and final- 
state radiation by varying parameters in herwig. 

In Run II, uncertainties from initial and final-state 
radiation are assessed by both collaborations using a 
CDF measurement [96[ in Drell-Yan dilepton events that 
have the same qq initial state as most ti events, but 
no final-state radiation. The mean pt of the produced 
dilepton pairs is measured as a function of the dilepton 
invariant mass, and the values of Aqcd and the Q 2 scale 
in the MC that matches best the data when extrapolated 
to the ti mass region are found. CDF's best-fit values are 
Aqcd (5 flavors) = 292 MeV with 0.5 x Q 2 and A QC d 
(5 flavors) = 73 MeV with 2.0 x Q 2 for ±er excursions 
around the mean dilepton px values. Since the initial 
and final-state shower algorithms are controlled by the 
same QCD evolution equation [67| . the same variations 
of Aqcd and Q 2 scale are used to estimate the effect 
of final-state radiation. The resulting uncertainty for 
modeling of the initial and final-state radiation is 0.09% 
for CDF and 0.15% for DO. The correction algorithm 
does not distinguish between "soft" (out of cone) and 
"hard" (separate jet) radiation, and there is therefore 
some overlap between the uncertainty on m t for the out- 



26 



of-cone jet energy correction and for gluon radiation. 
There is also some overlap between the uncertainty for 
initial and final-state radiation and the uncertainty on 
higher-order QCD corrections for high-p^ radiation. 

(iv) Higher-order QCD corrections 

Higher-order QCD corrections to tt production are not 
used for Run I measurements as only LO generators 
were available at that time. DO measures higher- 
order jet-modeling uncertainties in Run II by comparing 
nit extracted with ALPGEN and herwig for evolution 
and fragmentation to the value obtained from events 
generated with MC@NLO [1], which uses herwig parton 
showering with a NLO model for the hard-scattering 
process. This component of uncertainty also includes (for 
DO) the uncertainty from the fraction of quark-antiquark 
to gluon-gluon contributions to the initial state. CDF 
also studies differences in nit using MC@NLO, and finds 
that the uncertainties in distributions in the number 
of jets and the transverse momentum of the tt system 
overlap with the uncertainty from initial and final-state 
radiation. Future measurements of m t are expected to 
treat these uncertainties separately. The uncertainty 
on m t from higher order contributions and initial-state 
qq/gg ratio is 0.14% for DO. 

(v) Jet hadronization and underlying event 

In Run I. CDF measured the uncertainty in the 
model for parton showering and hadronization and the 
underlying event by comparing the value of m t based 
on herwig to that on pythia [§3, and DO compared 
HERWIG results to those from isajet [sH . 

In Run II, CDF estimates these uncertainties by 
comparing m t obtained using pythia with Tune A of the 
underlying event model to results from herwig with a 
tuned implementation of the underlying-event generator 
jimmy. DO estimates these uncertainties by comparing 
identical sets of hard-scatter events from ALPGEN coupled 
to HERWIG instead of to pythia. For the uncertainty on 
nit i this corresponds to 0.40% for CDF and 0.33% for 

do! 

(vi) Color reconnection 

There are up to six final-state quarks in tt events, 
in addition to initial and final-state radiation. When 
hadronization and fragmentation occur, there are color 
interactions among these partons and the color-remnants 
of the proton and antiproton. This process is referred to 
as "color reconnection" . It changes the directions and 
distributions of final-state jets |99l. llOOj . which affects 
the reconstructed value of m t [74j . 

The uncertainty on color reconnection was not 
evaluated for Run I because appropriate MC tools were 
not available at that time. Both collaborations estimate 
this effect in Run II by comparing the value of m t 
extracted from ensembles of tt events generated by 
pythia using the difference between two parton shower 
simulations: (i) angular ordering for jet showers (same as 



used in the nominal mt measurements) using the A-pro 
underlying-event model (Tu ne A but updated using the 
"Professor" tuning tool jlQl|), (") ACR-PRO. ACR-PRO 
is identical to A-pro except that it includes color 
reconnection in the model. The resulting uncertainties 
on mt are 0.32% for CDF and 0.16% for DO. 

5. Multiple interactions model 

Monte-Carlo simulated events are overlaid with 
Poisson-distributcd low-pr events (pythia MC events for 
CDF, "zero-bias" data for DO) to simulate the presence 
of simultaneous additional pp interactions. The mean 
number of overlaid events is chosen at the time of event 
generation, but in data, the number of such interactions 
changes with instantaneous luminosity of the Tevatron. 

CDF measures m t as a function of the number of 
multiple interactions, finding a change of 0.07±0.10 GeV 
per primary vertex. For CDF's measurements, the 
average number of primary vertices in data is 2.20 and for 
simulated events it is 1.85, leading to an uncertainty on 
m t of 0.02%. CDF adds to this in quadrature a term to 
cover the difference in jet energy response as a function 
of the number of multiple interactions of 0.06%, giving a 
total uncertainty of 0.06%. 

DO rcweights the simulated events to make the instan- 
taneous luminosity distribution match that in data. The 
resulting uncertainty on mt is 0.03%. 

6. Background from theory 

(i) Higher-order correction for heavy flavor 

DO corrects the leading-log VF+jets cross section from 
ALPGEN to NLO precision before normalizing this 
background to data. This increases the fraction of Wbb 
and Wcc events in VF+jets by a factor of 1.47 ± 0.50. 
CDF normalizes the ly+heavy-flavor jets background to 
data independent of the other components in VF+jets, 
which has a similar effect. The resulting uncertainties on 
m t are 0.11% for CDF and 0.04% for DO. 

(ii) Factorization scale for W +jets 

The transverse momenta of the jets in VF+jets events 
are sensitive to the factorization and rcnormalization 
scales chosen for the calculations. These two scales are 
set equal to each other, with Q 2 = + J2Pt- To 
determine the uncertainty on m t , the scale is changed 
from (Q/2) 2 to (2 x Q) 2 , the MC events regenerated, 
and the mass remeasured. Changing the scale does not 
affect the fraction of VF+jets in the model but does affect 
the transverse momentum distributions of the jets. The 
uncertainties on m t are 0.02% for CDF and 0.09% for 
DO. 

(in) Normalization to predicted cross sections 

CDF divides the background into seven independent 
parts: W+heavy-flavor jets, W + light-flavor jets, single 
top tqb and tb, Z+jets, dibosons (WW, WZ, and ZZ), 
and multijet contributions. This uncertainty term covers 



27 



the normalization of the components modeled with MC 
simulated events (not multijets). The small backgrounds 
from single-top, Z+jets, and diboson production are 
normalized to NLO calculations. The uncertainties on 
the cross sections are 10% for tqb, 12% for tb, 14% for 
Z+jets, and 10% for dibosons. The VF+jets background 
is normalized to data before implementation of 6-tagging 
using a fit to the distribution for $t in the event. 
The uncertainty on this normalization cannot be easily 
disentangled from the other sources and so it is kept in 
this category. The combined uncertainty on m t from 
these normalizations is 0.09%. 

DO also normalizes single-top, Z+jets, and diboson 
contributions, in all analysis channels, and Drell- 
Yan in the dilepton channel, to next-to-leading order 
cross sect ions , using values from the mcfm event 
generator [102]. The uncertainties on the cross sections 
take into account the uncertainty on PDF and on the 
choice of factorization and renormalization scales, which 
together propagate through to m t an uncertainty of 
0.04%. 

(iv) Background differential distributions 

For CDF, different methods were used to estimate 
the uncertainty due to the overall background shape. 
In the recent lepton+jets analysis, this uncertainty was 
assessed by dividing randomly the background events 
into subsets, building the background likelihood from one 
of the subsets and reconstruct the mt from the second 
subset. In the next step, the difference in mt obtained 
from the second subset and the nominal mt value is 
evaluated. This contributes an uncertainty of 0.03%. 
CDF also estimates an uncertainty from the limited MC 
statistics used to measure the background. This yields 
an additional 0.03% uncertainty on m t . 

For DO, the pr and 77 distributions of jets in VF+jets 
events do not fully reproduce those in data. An 
uncertainty to cover these deviations is based on the 
difference between the model for background and data 
in the 77 distribution of the third jet in three-jet events. 
The resultant uncertainty on m t is 0.09%. 

7. Background based on data 

(i) Normalization to data 

In the lepton+jets, alljets, $r+jets, and decay- 
length channels, backgrounds from multijet events are 
normalized to data. In the lepton+jets analyses 
at DO, the W+jets background model is combined 
with the contribution from multijet events, and both 
arc normalized simultaneously to data, so that their 
uncertainties in normalization arc anticorrelatcd. In 
dilepton analyses at CDF, the Drell-Yan background is 
normalized to data. For the lepton+jets analyses, CDF 
uncertainty on m t from the normalization of the multijet 
backgrounds to data is 0.03% and DO's uncertainty for 
the normalization of VF+jets and multijets to data is 
0.13%. 



(ii) Trigger modeling 

CDF expects a negligible uncertainty on m t from the 
modeling of the trigger. DO simulates the trigger turn- 
on efficiencies for MC events by applying weights as a 
function of the transverse momentum of each object in 
the trigger. The uncertainty is measured by setting all 
the trigger efficiencies to unity and recalculating the value 
oimt, which shifts m t by 0.03%. 

(iii) b-tagging modeling 

CDF applies the 6- tagging algorithm directly to MC 
events, and finds that any difference between the b- 
tagging behavior in MC and data has a negligible impact 
on the measurement of m t . DO applies the 6-tagging 
algorithm directly to MC events for recent Run II 
measurements. Previously 6-tagging was simulated with 
tag-probability, and in Run I, as DO did not have a silicon 
tracker, nonisolated muons were used to identify 6-jets. 
The tagging efficiency for simulated events is made to 
match that in data by randomly dropping b tags for b 
and c jets, while assigning a per-jet weight for tagging 
light-flavor jets as b jets. The uncertainties for these 
corrections are determined by shifting the efficiencies for 
tagging b and c jets by 5% and by 20% for light jets, 
which introduces an uncertainty on m t of 0.06%. 

(iv) Signal fraction for calibration 

DO measures the impact of the uncertainty in the 
ratio of signal to background events, which affects the 
calibration of m t . Changing the signal fraction within 
uncertainty results in an uncertainty on m t of 0.06%. 

(v) Impact of multijet background on the calibration 

Multijet background events are not used in DO samples 
that determine the calibration of m t for the lepton+jets 
measurement since the background probability for such 
events is much larger than the signal probability. The 
assumption that this has a small effect on mt is tested by 
selecting a multijet-enriched sample of events from data 
(by inverting the lepton isolation criteria) and adding 
these events when deriving the calibration. Applying this 
alternative calibration to data indicates that mt can shift 
by an uncertainty of 0.08%. 

8. Calibration method 

Monte Carlo ti ensembles are generated at different 
values of input m t (m t = 165, 170, 172.5, 175^180 GcV) 
and calibrations relate the input masses for tt events to 
the extracted masses using a straight line. For some 
of the m t measurements, there is an additional in-situ 
calibration of the JES to the light quarks in Vy-boson 
decay, which is then applied to alljets. The uncertainties 
from both calibrations are propagated to the uncertainty 
on m t , which for CDF are 0.04% and 0.05% respectively, 
giving a total of 0.06%. For DO, the uncertainty on m t 
is 0.13%. 



28 



[1] M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49, 
652 (1973). 

[2] J.H. Christenson, J.W. Cronin, V.L. Fitch, and 

R. Turlay, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 138 (1964). 
[3] F. Abe et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 50, 

2966 (1994); F. Abe et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. 

Rev. Lett. 73, 225 (1994). 
[4] F. Abe et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 

2626 (1995). 

[5] S. Abachi et al. (DO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 

74, 2632 (1995). 
[6] N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 531 (1963). 
[7] K. Nakamura et al. (Particle Data Group), J. Phys. G 

37, 075021 (2010). 
[8] S. Frixione and B.R. Webber, arXiv:0812.0770 [hep-ph]. 
[9] J. Pumplin, D.R. Stump, J. Huston, H.-L. Lai, 

P. Nadolsky, and W.-K. Tung, J. High Energy Phys. 

07, 012 (2002). 

[10] F. Englert and R. Brout, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 321 
(1964); P.W. Higgs, Phys. Lett. 12, 132 (1964); 
P.W. Higgs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 508 (1964); 
G.S. Guralnik, C.R. Hagen, and T.W.B. Kibble, Phys. 
Rev. Lett. 13, 585 (1964); P.W. Higgs, Phys. Rev. 145, 
1156 (1965). 

[11] U. Langenfeld, S. Moch, and P. Uwer, Phys. Rev. D 80, 
054009 (2009). 

[12] M.C. Smith and S.S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 
3825 (1997). 

[13] A. Buckley et al. Phys. Rept. 504, 145 (2011). 

[14] V.M. Abazov et al. (DO Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 

703, 422 (2011). 
[15] V.M. Abazov et al. (DO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 

103, 132001 (2009); Phys. Rev. D 84, 052005 (2011). 
[16] T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. 

Lett. 106, 152001 (2011). 
[17] S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), J. High 

Energy Phys. 1206, 109 (2012). 
[18] The ALEPH, CDF, DO, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD 

Collaborations, the LEP Electroweak Working Group, 

the Tevatron Electroweak Working Group, and the SLD 

Electroweak and Heavy Flavor Groups, arXiv:1012.2367 

[hep-ex] . http : / /lepewwg . web . cern . ch/LEPEWWG/ 
[19] private communication with S. Heinemeyer based on 

S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, and G. Weiglein, Phys. Rept. 

425, 265 (2006). 

http : //www. if ca. es/users/heinemey/uni/plots/ 
[20] M. Baak, M. Goebel, J. Haller, A. Hoeker, D. Ludwig, 

K. Monig, M. Schott, and J. Stelzer, Eur. Phys. J. C 

72, 2003 (2012). http://cern.ch/gfitter/ 
[21] C. Quigg, Physics Today 50N5, 20 (May 1997), 

arXiv:hep-ph/9704332, and references therein. 
[22] The LEP Collaborations ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL 

and the LEP Electroweak Working Group. CERN- 

PPE/94-187 (1994). and references therein. 
[23] S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), J. High 

Energy Phys. 1107, 049 (2011). 
[24] G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 

72, 2046 (2012). 
[25] J.C. Estrada Vigil, Ph.D. thesis, University of 

Rochester, 2001, FERMILAB-THESIS-2001-07. 
[26] T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. 



Lett. 105, 252001 (2010). 

[27] V.M. Abazov et al. (DO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 
84, 032004 (2011). 

[28] A.B. Galtieri, F. Margaroli, and I. Volobouev, Rep. 
Prog. Phys. 75 056201 (2012); G.V. Velev, J. of Phys. 
Conf. Ser. 323 012010 (2011); F. Deliot and D. A. 
Glenzinski, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 211 (2012); D. Wicke, 
Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1627 (2011). 

[29] V.M. Abazov et al. (DO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 
84, 012008 (2011); Phys. Lett. B 704, 403 (2011); Phys. 
Rev. D 82, 071102 (2010); T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF 
Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 83, 071102 (2011); 84, 
031101 (2011); 82, 052002 (2010); 81, 052011 (2010); 
84, 032003 (2011). 

[30] P.M. Nadolsky, H.-L. Lai, Q.-H. Cao, J. Huston, 
J. Pumplin, D. Stump, W.-K. Tung, and C.-P. Yuan, 
Phys. Rev. D 78, 013004 (2008); S. Moch and 
P. Uwer, Phys. Rev. D 78, 034003 (2008); M. Cacciari, 
S. Frixione, M.L. Mangano, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi, 
J. High Energy Phys. 0809, 127 (2008); N. Kidonakis 
and R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. D 78, 074005 (2008); 
V. Ahrens, A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert, B.D. Pecjak, 
and L.L. Yang, J. High Energy Phys. 1009, 097 
(2010); N. Kidonakis, Phys. Rev. D 82, 114030 (2010); 
V. Ahrens, A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert, B.D. Pecjak, and 
L.L. Yang, Phys. Lett. B 703, 135 (2011); M. Cacciari, 
M. Czakon, M. L. Mangano, A. Mitov and P. Nason, 
Phys. Lett. B 710, 612 (2012); M. Beneke, P. Falgari, 
S. Klein and C. Schwinn, Nucl. Phys. B 855, 695 (2012); 
M. Beneke, P. Falgari, S. Klein, J. Piclum, C. Schwinn, 
M. Ubiali and F. Yan, J. High Energy Phys. 1207, 
194 (2012); P. Baernreuther, M. Czakon and A. Mitov, 
arXiv:1204.5201 [hep-ph]. 

[31] V.M. Abazov et al. (DO Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 
693, 515 (2010). 

[32] T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. 
Lett. 102, 042001 (2009); 105, 232003 (2010); 
V.M. Abazov et al. (DO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 
106, 022001 (2011); Phys. Rev. D 85, 091104 (2012). 

[33] M. Jezabek and J.H. Kiihn, Phys. Rev. D 48, 191 
(1993). 

[34] H. Cramer, Mathematical Methods of Statistics, 
(Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1946), p. 554. 

[35] L. Lyons, D. Gibaut, and P. Clifford, Nucl. Instrum. 
Methods in Phys. Res. Sect. A 270, 110 (1988). 

[36] A. Valassi, Nucl. Instrum. Methods in Phys. Res. Sect. 
A 500, 391 (2003). 

[37] The Top Averaging Group for the CDF and DO Collab- 
orations, Fermilab Technical Memo No. 2084 (1999). 

[38] The CDF Collaboration, the DO Collaboration, and 
the Tevatron Electroweak Working Group, arXiv:hep- 
ex/040401. 

[39] The CDF Collaboration, the DO Collaboration, and 
the Tevatron Electroweak Working Group, Fermilab 
Technical Memo No. 2323-E (2005), arXiv:hep- 
ex/0507091. 

[40] The Tevatron Electroweak Working Group for the CDF 
and DO Collaborations, Fermilab Technical Memo No. 
2347-E (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0603039. 

[41] The Tevatron Electroweak Working Group for the CDF 
and DO Collaborations, Fermilab Technical Memo No. 



29 



2355-E (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0608032. 

The Tevatron Electroweak Working Group for the CDF 

and DO Collaborations, Fermilab Technical Memo No. [67] 

2380-E (2007), arXiv:hep-ex/0703034. 

The Tevatron Electroweak Working Group for the CDF 

and DO Collaborations, Fermilab Technical Memo No. 

2403-E (2008), arXiv:0803.1683 [hep-ex]. [68 

The Tevatron Electroweak Working Group for the CDF 

and DO Collaborations, Fermilab Technical Memo No. [69 

2413-E (2008), arXiv:0808.1089 [hep-ex]. 

The Tevatron Electroweak Working Group for the CDF 

and DO Collaborations, Fermilab Technical Memo No. 

2427-E (2009), arXiv:0903.2503 [hep-ex]. [70 

The Tevatron Electroweak Working Group for the CDF 

and DO Collaborations, Fermilab Technical Memo No. 

2466-E (2010), arXiv: 1007.3178 [hep-ex]. [71 

The Tevatron Electroweak Working Group for the CDF 

and DO Collaborations, Fermilab Technical Memo No. 

2504-E (2011), arXiv:1107.5255 [hep-ex]. 

T. Affolder et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [72 
63, 032003 (2001). 

V.M. Abazov et al. (DO Collaboration), Nature 429, 638 
(2004). 

T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 
714, 24 (2012). 

F. Abe et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [73 

79, 1992 (1997); see also Ref. [H] where the systematic 
uncertainty is re-evaluated. [74 
T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [75 
83, 111101 (2011). 

V.M. Abazov et al. (DO Collaboration), submitted to [76 
Phys. Rev. D, arXiv:1201.5172 [hep-ex]. 

F. Abe et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, [77 
271 (1999); 82, 2808 (1999) [erratum]. 

B. Abbott et al. (DO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [78 

80, 2063 (1998); Phys. Rev. D 60, 052001 (1999). 

T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. [79 
Lett. 107, 232002 (2011). 

T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 

81, 032002 (2010). 
V.M. Abazov et al. (DO Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B [80 
606, 25 (2005). 

D.E. Acosta et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 
71, 052003 (2005). [81 
S. Abachi et al. (DO Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. 
Methods in Phys. Res. Sect. A 338, 185 (1994); [82 
V.M. Abazov et al. (DO Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. 
Methods in Phys. Res. Sect. A 565, 463 (2006); 
V.M. Abazov et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods in Phys. 
Res. Sect. A 552, 372 (2005). [83 
S.N. Ahmed et al, Nucl. Instrum. Methods in Phys. 
Res. Sect. A 634, 8 (2011); R. Angstadt et al., Nucl. [84 
Instrum. Methods in Phys. Res. Sect. A 622, 298 (2011). 
V.M. Abazov et al. (DO Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. 
Methods in Phys. Res. Sect. A 620, 490 (2010). 
A. Abulencia et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [85 
74, 072006 (2006). 

G. Marchesini, B.R. Webber, G. Abbiendi, [l 
I.G. Knowles, M.H. Seymour, and L. Stanco, Comput. [87 
Phys. Commun. 67, 465 (1992). In Run I, CDF used 
version 5.6 and DO used version 5.7. 

A.D. Martin, W.J. Stirling, and R.G. Roberts, Phys. 
Lett. B 306, 145 (1993); B 309, 492 (1993) [erratum]. [l 

H. L. Lai, J. Huston, S. Kuhlmann, F. Olness, J. Owens, [89 



D. Soper, W.K. Tung, and H. Weerts, Phys. Rev. D 55, 
1280 (1997). 

V.N. Gribov and L.N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15, 
438 (1972); Yu.L. Dokshitzer, Sov. Phys. JETP 46, 641 
(1977); G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. B126, 
298 (1977). 

R. Brun, F. Carminati, and S. Giani, CERN Program 
Library Long Writeup W5013, 1994 (unpublished). 
T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, J. High Energy 
Phys. 05, 026 (2006). In Run II, CDF used version 6.216 
for top-pairs and diboson generation and version 6.326 
for showering, and DO used version 6.409. 
H.-L. Lai, J. Huston, S. Kuhlmann, J. Morfin, F. Olness, 
J.F. Owens, J. Pumplin, and W.-K. Tung, Eur. Phys. 
J. C 12, 375 (2000). 

M.L. Mangano, F. Piccinini, A.D. Polosa, M. Moretti, 
and R. Pittau, J. High Energy Phys. 07, 001 (2003). 
In Run II, CDF used version 2.10' and DO used 
version 2.11. 

S. Hoche, F. Krauss, N. Lavesson, L. Lonnblad, 
M. Mangano, A. Schalicke, and S. Schumann, 
Proceedings of the Workshop on the Implications of 
HERA for LHC Physics, edited by A. De Roeck 
and H. Jung, (DESY, Hamburg, 2005), pp. 288-299, 
arXiv:hep-ph /0602031 . 

T. Affolder et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 
65, 092002 (2002). 

P. Skands and D. Wicke, Eur. Phys. J. C 52, 133 (2007). 
FA. Berends, H. Kuijf, B. Tausk, and W.T. Giele, Nucl. 
Phys. B 357, 32 (1991). 

F. Maltoni and T. Stelzer, J. High Energy Phys. 02, 027 
(2003). 

T. Stelzer and W.F. Long, Comput. Phys. Commun. 81, 
357 (1994). 

E. E. Boos, V.E. Bunichev, L.V. Dudko, V.I. Savrin, and 
V.V. Sherstnev, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 69, 1317 (2006). 

E. Boos, V. Bunichev, M. Dubinen, L. Dudko, 
V. Edneral, V. Ilyin, A. Kryukov, V. Savrin, 
A. Semenov, and A. Sherstnev, Nucl. Instrum. Methods 
in Phys. Res. Sect. A 534, 250 (2004). 

The pseudorapidity 77 is defined as: 77 = — ln[tan(#/2)], 
where is the polar angle with respect to the proton 
beamline. 

F. Abe et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 45, 
1448 (1992). 

G. C. Blazey et at, Proceedings of the Workshop on 
QCD and Weak Boson Physics in Run II, edited by 
U. Baur, R.K. Ellis, and D. Zeppenfeld, pp. 47-77, 
(Fermilab, Batavia, 2000), FERMILAB-PUB-00-297. 

A. Bhatti et al, Nucl. Instrum. Methods in Phys. Res. 
Sect. A 566, 375 (2006). 

B. Abbott et al. (DO Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. 
Methods in Phys. Res. Sect. A 424, 352 (1999); 
V. M. Abazov et al. (DO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 
85, 052006 (2012). 

J.M. Butterworth, J.R. Forshaw, and M.H. Seymour, Z. 
Phys. C 72, 637 (1996). 

R. Field and R.C. Group, arXiv:hep-ph/0510198. 

G. Corcella, I.G. Knowles, G. Marchesini, S. Moretti, 

K. Odagiri, P. Richardson, M.H. Seymour, and 

B.R. Webber, arXiv:hep-ph/0210213. In Run I, CDF 

and DO used version 6.5. 

M.G. Bowler, Z. Phys. C 11, 169 (1981). 

Y. Peters, K. Hamacher, and D. Wicke, Fermilab 



30 



Technical Memo No. 2425-E (2006). 
[90] A. Abulencia et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 

73, 032003 (2006). 

[91] V.M. Abazov et al. (DO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 

74, 092005 (2006). 

[92] V.M. Abazov (DO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 
151804 (2012). 

[93] A.D. Martin, W.J. Stirling, and R.G. Roberts, Phys. 

Lett. B 356, 89 (1995). 
[94] A.D. Martin, R.G. Roberts, W.J. Stirling, and 

R.S. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J C 4, 463 (1998). 
[95] T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 

79, 031101 (2009). 
[96] A. Abulencia et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 

73, 032003 (2006). 



[97] T. Sjostrand, Comput. Phys. Commun. 82, 74 (1994). 

In Run I, CDF used version 5.7. 
[98] F.E. Paige, S.D. Protopopescu, H. Baer, and X. Tata, 

BNL-HET-98-18, Brookhaven, 1998 (unpublished). In 

Run I, CDF used version 6.36 and DO used version 7.21. 
[99] V.M. Abazov et al. (DO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 

83, 092002 (2011). 
[100] B.R. Webber, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 24, 287 

(1998). 

[101] P. Abreu et al. (DELPHI Collaboration), Z. Phys. C 73, 
11 (1996), http://professor.hepforge.org. 

[102] J. Campbell, K. Ellis, and C. Williams, Phys. Rev. D 
65, 113007 (2002).