Processing math: 100%
SciPost logo

SciPost Submission Page

Inclusive top cross sections in ATLAS

by Charlie Chen

Submission summary

Authors (as registered SciPost users): Charlie Chen
Submission information
Preprint Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.09663v2  (pdf)
Date accepted: 2024-12-19
Date submitted: 2024-11-19 18:34
Submitted by: Chen, Charlie
Submitted to: SciPost Physics Proceedings
Proceedings issue: The 17th International Workshop on Top Quark Physics (TOP2024)
Ontological classification
Academic field: Physics
Specialties:
  • High-Energy Physics - Experiment
Approach: Experimental

Abstract

The ATLAS collaboration at the LHC has published inclusive cross-section measurements for the single-top and t¯t production modes at center-of-mass energies of √s=5.02,8.16, 13, and 13.6 TeV. Single-top measurements are conducted in the t-channel and tW channel. In addition to the nominal cross-section measurements, various measurements of other interesting observables such as the Vtb element of the Cabibbo Kobayashi Maskawa (CKM) quark-mixing matrix, the ratio of the inclusive cross-sections between tq and t¯q, the ratio of inclusive cross-sections between t¯t and Z→ℓℓ, and the nuclear modification factor (defined as the ratio of the inclusive t¯t cross section in heavy-ion collisions to the inclusive t¯t cross-section in pp collisions) are also reported. These results are compared to their corresponding SM predictions, calculated at (N)NLO in QCD. All results are in good agreement with SM predictions.

Current status:
Accepted in target Journal

Editorial decision: For Journal SciPost Physics Proceedings: Publish
(status: Editorial decision fixed and (if required) accepted by authors)

Reports on this Submission

Report #1 by Anonymous (Referee 1) on 2024-12-8 (Invited Report)

Report

Dear editor, author,

thanks a lot to the author for furnishing these proceedings. I found them very clear and quite well written, but there are a few small mistakes and a few references missing. I recommend them to be published once the minor comments I suggest below are implemented.

Kind regards,
Your referee

Title: Inclusive top cross sections → Inclusive top [quark] cross sections
Abstract, 4th line: “nominal” is not necessarily the right word, suggest rephrasing
Abstract: 5th line: Vtb is not an observable. Suggest “other interesting parameters and observables”
Section 1, 1st paragraph: “and remains” → “and its study remains”
Section 1, 1st paragraph: of perturbative QCD at NNLO precision → suggest “up to NNLO precision” as some of the predictions shown are not NNLO
Section 3, 3rd paragraph: “calculated at NNLO as shown in Figure 1” → this is not correct, as Figure 1 shows NLO predictions
Section 2, 2nd paragraph: “Systematic uncertainties are included [...]” this sentence should go earlier when you describe the fit
Section 2, 3rd paragraph: please add a reference to the calculation of the SM prediction
Section 3, 1st paragraph: (with exactly one b-jet) => and exactly one b-jet
Equations (4) and (5): suggest breaking down the results in systematic and statistical uncertainties as for the other results
Equations (6) and (7): please add a reference to the calculation of the SM prediction
Equation (8): would it be possible to add a statement on the agreement of this measurement with the predictions?
Section 4, 1st paragraph: suggest rephrasing “special”, as all sqrt(s) values are equally special
Section 4, 1st paragraph: “This provides an independent test” → suggest rephrasing this, as some uncertainties may not be independent with respect to measurements at 13 TeV
Equations (12) and (13) would it be possible to add a statement on the agreement of this measurement with the predictions?
Section 7, 1st paragraph: at the NNLO level” → “up to NNLO level”
Section 7, 1st paragraph: “at the nominal center of mass energies” → suggest removing “nominal”, as one could argue the nominal is 13.6 or 14 TeV
Section 7, 1st paragraph: “An independent measurement” → suggest rewording “independent”

Recommendation

Ask for minor revision

  • validity: -
  • significance: -
  • originality: -
  • clarity: -
  • formatting: -
  • grammar: -

Author:  Charlie Chen  on 2024-12-10  [id 5036]

(in reply to Report 1 on 2024-12-08)
Category:
remark
answer to question

Dear Referee,

Thank you very much for your detailed reading of the document and your suggestions. I have implemented most of them and I am preparing to resubmit. I have a few comments in regards to some of your suggestions:

  • Equations (4) and (5): suggest breaking down the results in systematic and statistical uncertainties as for the other results
    • The results in the original document (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/JHEP05(2024)305) did not quote separately the systematic and statistical uncertainties. If suitable, in Table 3 of the original document there is a breakdown of the various uncertainty sources. I can include a sentence on the most dominant systematic uncertainties (statistical uncertainties are much smaller in comparison).
  • Equation (8): would it be possible to add a statement on the agreement of this measurement with the predictions?
    • This is possible however the predicted Rt value is sensitive to which PDF set is used (see Figure 8 of https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/JHEP05(2024)305). Therefore some predictions of Rt using different PDF sets agree better than others. As per your suggestion, I can add a sentence stating which ones have the best agreement with the measured Rt.
  • Equations (12) and (13) would it be possible to add a statement on the agreement of this measurement with the predictions?
    • For FLVVtb, I can add a sentence stating that the measured result agrees well with the SM prediction of unity. Regarding Rt, the previous comment also applies here, however the original publication does not contain a figure comparing the measured Rt to predictions calculated using different PDF sets.

Many thanks again for your suggestions,

B. Chen

Anonymous on 2024-12-11  [id 5037]

(in reply to Charlie Chen on 2024-12-10 [id 5036])
Category:
answer to question

Dear Authors,

thanks a lot for your questions, I'm looking forward for the updated draft.

  • On equations (4) and (5), I think a brief description of the size of the most relevant systematic uncertainties would suffice.
  • On equations (8) and (12), a short discussion on the level of agreement with the different pdfs would be very valuable.

Kind regards, Your referee

Author:  Charlie Chen  on 2024-12-11  [id 5038]

(in reply to Anonymous Comment on 2024-12-11 [id 5037])
Category:
remark

Dear Referee,

Thanks for your reply, I've made the appropriate changes and I am preparing to upload a revised version.

Regards,

B. Chen

Login to report or comment