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 $t\overline{t}$ production modes at center-of-mass energies of $\sqrt{s} = 5.02, 8.16$, $13$, 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 $V_{tb}$ element of the Cabibbo Kobayashi Maskawa (CKM) quark-mixing matrix, the ratio of the inclusive cross-sections between $tq$ and $t\overline{q}$, the ratio of inclusive cross-sections between $t\overline{t}$ and $Z\rightarrow \ell\ell$, and the nuclear modification factor (defined as the ratio of the inclusive $t\overline{t}$ cross section in heavy-ion collisions to the inclusive $t\overline{t}$ 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 $R_t$ 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 $R_t$ 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 $R_t$.
  • Equations (12) and (13) would it be possible to add a statement on the agreement of this measurement with the predictions?
    • For $F_{LV}V_{tb}$, I can add a sentence stating that the measured result agrees well with the SM prediction of unity. Regarding $R_t$, the previous comment also applies here, however the original publication does not contain a figure comparing the measured $R_t$ 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