Amnon Harel

1. AFB at the Tevatron Amnon Harel 4th International Workshop on Top Quark Physics September 25 - 30, 2011 Sant Feliu de Guixols, Spain

2. AFB at the Tevatron You are here Amnon Harel 4th International Workshop on Top Quark Physics September 25 - 30, 2011 Sant Feliu de Guixols, Spain

3. Forward-Backward? Is it the top or the antitop that is produced preferentially in the direction of the incoming proton? t - t Choose an angular variable in some rest frame, and define: Amnon Harel

4. - q SM motivations • It’s not about the incoming protons • It’s about the incoming quarks • at the Tevatron: t q - t Amnon Harel

5. - q SM motivations It’s not about the incoming protons It’s about the incoming quarks and their QCD charges Color flow’s angle of deflection “charge asymmetry” t q - t Amnon Harel

6. - - q q SM motivations It’s not about the incoming protons It’s about the incoming quarks and their QCD charges Color flow’s angle of deflection Forward: t q - t Backward: - t q t Color flow’s angle of deflection Amnon Harel

7. At order : no preference At order : SM predictions Enhances F Interference terms with Enhances B with • incl. flavor creation, etc. • collision frame ≈ frame Kuhn and Rodrigo, PRL 81 (1998): • LO (i.e. ) + NNLL • frame (also in lab frame) Ahrens et al., arXiv:1106.6051: • frame (also in lab frame) Hollik and Pagani, arXiv:1107.2606: Amnon Harel

8. SM motivations • 1.“Retro” style: a test of the discrete symmetries of the strong force at high energies(is QCD really the theory of the strong force?) • 2. Test of challenging SM calculations • this is also an argument against the measurement The above reasons got some of us into this measurement But why are you listening to this talk? Amnon Harel

9. SM motivations • 1.“Retro” style: a test of the discrete symmetries of the strong force at high energies(is QCD really the theory of the strong force?) • 2. Test of challenging SM calculations • this is also an argument against the measurement • 3. Small SM predictions  can identify beyond the SM physics • Already happened for AFB and EW physics in the 80s! • AFB in e+e- μ+μ- • Ec.m.=35GeV • Indication for Z resonance e.g. Adrian also reminded us of the LEP precedence – but little learned there Amnon Harel

10. l+ ν b W+ t - t - W- b q q’ Inclusive AFB in lepton+jets A greatflavor tag Most powerful channel: lepton (e/μ) + jets Start with the (conceptually) simplest measurements: • Inclusive measurements with the angular variable: • i.e. frame • Combines information from both top quarks • Invariant to boosts along the beam axis • and so: arXiv:1107.4995 Submitted to Phys. Rev. D Phys. Rev. D 83, (2011) 112003 Amnon Harel

11. l+jets Selection • Require: • 1 lepton with ET ≥ 20GeV • CDF: |η| < 1.1 • DØ: |ηe| < 1.1, |ημ| < 2.0 • pT imbalance (MET) > 20GeV • ≥ 4 jets with ET ≥ 20GeV • CDF: |η| < 2.0 • DØ: |η| < 2.5 • ≥ 1 b-tagged jet 1260 events 22% background 977 est. signal 1581 events 29% background 1126 est. signal Amnon Harel

12. l+jets l+ ν b W+ t - t - W- b q q’ Reconstruction Final state partons Detected objects assign Assign objects to final state partons using χ2 test statistic that accounts for experimental resolutions, b-tags, MW=80.4GeV & mt=170GeV Object E and direction varied and propagated into reconstruction (“kinematic fitter”) Varies object E in χ2 χ2 includes ΓW and Γt Assignment  All final state 4-vectors available. In particular, Amnon Harel

13. l+jets Extracting detector-level AFB • Subtract estimated background • Estimates from x-sec measurements • W+jets estimated from Npre-b-tag • Fit for sample composition and AFB • Discriminant for W+jets vs. signal Plot from Tom Schwarz Amnon Harel

14. l+jets Detector-level AFBs Was central to previous DØ results • Inconvenient - can’t compare directly to calculations • but possible, see PRL 100, 142002 (2008), and PRD 83, (2011)114027 Amnon Harel

15. l+jets Unfolding inclusive AFB is easy Measure a distribution: (in N bins) corrections Some components well measured, some not  N - dimensional info Typical unfolding problem: how to summarize? No problem:AFB is the summary Can add regularization to suppress fluctuations A 2D plot Amnon Harel

16. l+jets Unfolding • 5026 bin regularized unfolding • extended TUnfold for variable binning • Improves statistical strength • expected (if BSM) • and observed (1.9SD  2.4SD) 4 bin unfolding. edges: -3,-1,0,1,3 Acceptance matrix (diagonal) Migration matrix Amnon Harel

17. l+jets Fine-bin unfolding • Binning is crucial to unfolding (an implicit regularization) • Narrow bins near Δy=0 boundary to fully describe migrations • Wide bins at high |Δy| due to limited MC statistics • Regularization term based on continuous curvature of density • Curvature  sum of absolute value of discrete 2nd derivative • Density = diff. x-sec rather than bin counts  need to account for bin widths • Regularization strength balances • statistical strength • bias – we correct for bias on AFB, but it’s still an issue since… • Bias is model dependent • Examines dozens of generator-level distributions (i.e. alternative models) • Systematic uncertainties cover all realistic cases • To invalidate systematic uncertainties: sharp bin-to-bin jumps. • 26 generator level bins… • s-channel narrow resonances have sharp edges – but already ruled out (Tuesday) Amnon Harel

18. l+jets Production-level AFBs Inclusive, Δy-based AFBs Dileptons - In a few slides… CDF Note #10584 Amnon Harel

19. l+jets Mass dependence – det. level • BSM contributions to AFB will change its dependence on • BSM contributions often through BSM+SM interference • CDF introduced cut at , cut value optimized on MC CDF di-lepton data also suggests a mass dependence: Amnon Harel

20. l+jets Mass dependence – CDF prod. Having observed a mass dependence, CDF reports also at production level. 4 bin unfolding A 3σ discrepancy: vs. • lots excitement and it’s at high mass •  lots of BSM papers Statistical significance at high mass 3.4 SD – not enhanced by unfolding Amnon Harel

21. l+jets |Δy| dependence Parton level Amnon Harel

22. di-lepton Di-lepton selection CDF note 10436 • Require: • 2 lepton with ET ≥ 20 GeV, • |ηe| < 1.1 or 1.2 < |ηe| < 2.8, |ημ| < 1.1 • pT imbalance (MET) > 25or50GeV • depending on angular separation • ≥ 2 jets with ET ≥ 15GeV,|η| < 2.5 • HT>200GeV • scalar sum: lepton, jet ETs + MET Amnon Harel

23. di-lepton l+ ν b W+ t - t - W- b l- ν Di-lepton reconstruction Final state partons Detected objects assign Again: kinematic fitting, χ2 test statistic. But fewer observables difficult reconstruction also use a-priori distributions of and Excellent Δy reconstruction achieved! Amnon Harel

24. di-lepton AFB in dileptons AFB extracted in two steps: • Background subtraction: • Assume AFB is linear in Δy, to find • Validated for Pythia, NLO QCD, axigluon models • 2.6σ from zero, 2.3 σ from prediction (AFB=6%) Amnon Harel

25. l+jets Di-lepton channel l+jets channel Lepton-based AFBs • New angular variables  new AFBs • Lepton based  Excellent resolution  Simple unfolding & interpretation • Sensitive to the top pair AFB and their polarization, but less sensitive to θ* |qy|<1.5 limits acceptance corrections Almost the same numbers: >3σ away from MC@NLO Amnon Harel

26. l+jets Hadronic-top based AFB l+ New angular variables  new AFBs Use only the “hadronic” top  Better resolution more stable unfolding ν flavor tag b W+ Detected objects t - t - W- b q q’ production level • Sensitive to collision frame’s boost • Superior resolution compensates • Observed less mass dependence Amnon Harel

27. l+jets Angular coherence off Angular coherence on A related observable • Noted: • Is gluon radiation the same in forward an backward events? • experimental constraints are few and indirect Due to 4 jet requirement • If correlation exists, backward events selected more often than forward events • One of the leading systematic uncertainties • newly identified  conservative estimate by turning dependence off  -1.6%(absolute) • all measurements are statistics dominated  will not invalidate any measurement Amnon Harel

28. l+jets Angular coherence off Angular coherence on Bins width ≈ ½ resolution Top pair pT modeling • Drastic change needed to get simulation closer to data •  top pair pT badly modeled (AFB measurements still OK – see prev. slide) •  effect in the same direction as AFB – hints at QCD origin? data • But: a check – not a full measurement • reconstruction not tweaked for observable •  very low resolution • discriminant correlated with top pair pT • partial systematic uncertainties • no unfolding QCD Calls for a dedicated measurement of top pair pT Amnon Harel

29. l+jets Conclusions • Several “top forward backward asymmetries” measured • they are all very correlated • Deviations from SM predictions of ~2-3σ • Two >3σ differences: • 1) CDF: l+jets, high mass, Δy-based • exciting as indicates BSM • but mass dependence is marginal in DØ data • 2) DØ: l+jets, inclusive, lepton-based • but less sensitive to most BSM scenarios than Δy-based AFB Amnon Harel

30. l+jets Conclusions • Several “top forward backward asymmetries” measured • they are all very correlated • Deviations from SM predictions of ~2-3σ • Two >3σ differences: • 1) CDF: l+jets, high mass, Δy-based • exciting as indicates BSM • but mass dependence is marginal in DØ data • 2) DØ: l+jets, inclusive, lepton-based • but less sensitive to most BSM scenarios than Δy-based AFB • SM predictions creeping upwards? • combining CDF & DØ on the back of an envelop: tension with LO prediction >3σ, but withHollik & Pagani <3σ • More data on the way • More channels • Analysis improvements? Homework assignment: Cook up a BSM scenario where the CDF di-lepton result supports both 1&2 Stay tuned! Amnon Harel

31. Back up slides Amnon Harel

32. l+jets Cross checks Should we combine and ? • Black vs. red – a check of CP violation • Should be opposite in this presentation Amnon Harel

33. l+jets Cross checks CDF data (no bkg. sub.) Amnon Harel

34. l+jets More on unfolding • Binning is crucial to unfolding (an implicit regularization) • Narrow bins near Δy=0 boundary to fully describe migrations • Wide bins at high |Δy| due to limited MC statistics • Regularization term based on continuous curvature of density • Curvature  sum of absolute value of discrete 2nd derivative • Density = diff. x-sec rather than bin counts  need to account for bin widths • introduced functionality into TUnfold • Regularization strength balances • statistical strength • bias – we correct for bias on AFB, but it’s still an issue since… • Bias is model dependent • Examines dozens of generator-level distributions (i.e. alternative models) • Systematic uncertainties cover all realistic cases • To invalidate systematic uncertainties: sharp bin-to-bin jumps. • 26 generator level bins… • s-channel narrow resonances have sharp edges – but already rules out (Tuesday) Amnon Harel

35. l+jets AFB Tables Amnon Harel

36. CDF Tevatron MainInjector DØ Experimental Apparatus Fermilab Tevatron Collider The detectors Magnet polarities regularly flipped • The collisions • Ec.m.= 1.96TeV General purpose detectors Top physics relies on tracking, calorimetry and muon detectors. Amnon Harel

37. l+jets Unfolding AFB is easy • Starting at the end: can check whether the unfolding works well by examining several SM MCs and viable BSM scenarios. • same wide-bin unfolding works for all viable models • bias from regularized unfolding (a-priori “smoothing”) can be quantified • BTW: in both cases, narrow resonances would have spoiled everything. Typical unfolding Unfolding for AFB • How much distortion is acceptable? • Showing a distribution  what bin errors? • correlations are important • statistical scatter vs. hypothesis testing • What additional information to supply? Compare to stat(AFB) Not showing distributionAFB is a summary None needed Opinions differ. I refer discussion to: Details on DØ unfolding in other slide Amnon Harel

38. l+jets Production-level AFBs Inclusive, Δy-based AFBs Dileptons - In a few slides… CDF Note #10584 Amnon Harel

39. l+jets Production-level AFBs Amnon Harel