Paper detail

Snowmass2021 - White Paper, Implications of Energy Peak for Collider Phenomenology: Top Quark Mass Determination and Beyond

We first review the decade-old, broad collider physics research program dubbed energy-peaks. We consider the energy distribution of a massless particle in the lab frame arising from the two-body decay of a heavy particle produced unpolarized, whose boost distribution is arbitrary. Remarkably, the location of the peak of this child particle's energy distribution is identical to its single-valued energy in the rest frame of the parent, which is a function of the parent's mass and that of the other decay product. We summarize generalizations to other types of decay and a variety of applications to BSM. The energy-peak idea can also furnish a measurement of the top quark via the energy of the bottom quark from its decay, which, based on the "parent-boost-invariance," is less sensitive to details of the production mechanism of the top quark (cf.~most other methods assume purely SM production of the top quarks, hence are subject to uncertainties therein, including a possible BSM contribution). The original proposal along this line was to simply use the $b$-jet energy as a very good approximation to the bottom quark energy. This method has been successfully implemented by the CMS collaboration. However, the $b$-jet energy-peak method is afflicted by the jet-energy scale (JES) uncertainty. Fortunately, this drawback can be circumvented by using the decay length of a $B$-hadron contained in the $b$-jet as a proxy for the bottom quark energy. An interesting proposal is to then appropriately dovetail the above two ideas resulting in a "best of both worlds" determination of the top quark mass, i.e., based on a measurement of the $B$-hadron decay length, but improved by the energy-peak concept: this would be free of JES uncertainty and largely independent of the top quark production model. We summarize here the results of such an analysis which is to appear in a forthcoming paper.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.