Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 43 references

Simulating fictitious top mesons shows the Monte Carlo top mass sits 200–300 MeV from the pole mass.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 05:31 UTC pith:MPCQWED2

load-bearing objection Clever pure-MC calibration via fictitious T-mesons confirms the expected O(Λ_QCD) MC-to-pole ambiguity, but the signed 200–300 MeV shift flips sign between methods and depends on the fit range. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24935 v1 pith:MPCQWED2 submitted 2026-07-27 hep-ph

Top-quark mass interpretation from simulation of top-flavoured mesons

Gennaro Corcella , Alexander Lind This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords top quark masspole massMonte Carlo massHeavy Quark Effective Theorytop-flavoured mesonsPythiaB-lepton invariant masshadronisation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Direct top-mass measurements at colliders use Monte Carlo generators, so the extracted number is a Monte Carlo mass whose link to a field-theory definition such as the pole mass has never been settled. This paper forces top quarks to form fictitious top-flavoured mesons inside Pythia, then uses Heavy Quark Effective Theory to convert the meson mass into a pole mass. By matching the same final-state observable (the B-hadron–lepton invariant mass) in ordinary top-pair events and in the meson samples, the authors find that the generator’s input mass differs from the pole mass by only 200–300 MeV—the size of the QCD scale—at both the LHC and a future electron–positron collider. The result supplies an independent, purely Monte-Carlo calibration that agrees with the long-standing expectation that the measured mass is close to the pole mass once non-perturbative effects of order Λ_QCD are allowed for.

Core claim

When top quarks are forced to hadronise into colour-singlet T-mesons whose mass is fixed by HQET to the pole mass plus a universal shift Λ̄ ≈ 0.47 GeV, the Bℓ invariant-mass distributions of the subsequent spectator decays can be matched to those of ordinary top-pair events. The matching yields a relation in which the Pythia input mass differs from the pole mass by 200–300 MeV at both hadron and lepton colliders, independent of colour reconnection and most shower options.

What carries the argument

The HQET identity m_T ≈ m_pole + Λ̄ together with linear and χ² fits of the m_Bℓ spectrum that absorb the entire difference between free-top string fragmentation and T-meson spectator decay into a pure shift of the generator mass parameter.

Load-bearing premise

The whole difference in how free tops versus colour-singlet top mesons turn into hadrons can be soaked up by simply retuning the input mass, with no leftover shape mismatch that a mass shift cannot fix.

What would settle it

Repeat the identical m_Bℓ matching exercise inside a second generator that uses cluster rather than string hadronisation; if the extracted pole-to-Monte-Carlo shift changes by more than ~100 MeV, the claim that the shift is universal and of order Λ_QCD fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Direct top-mass measurements that rely on decay kinematics can be quoted as pole masses with an added 200–300 MeV theory uncertainty of order Λ_QCD.
  • The same numerical shift appears at the LHC and at a 1 TeV e⁺e⁻ collider, so initial-state radiation and underlying event do not dominate the mass interpretation.
  • A working Monte Carlo implementation of top-meson production and spectator decay becomes available for dedicated searches for top-flavoured hadrons.
  • Bottom-fragmentation spectra (x_B) differ by at most 10 % between free-top and T-meson samples, giving a concrete benchmark for future higher-order calculations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the shift survives a full Herwig cluster-hadronisation comparison, experimental combinations of direct and cross-section mass measurements can safely treat the residual Monte-Carlo-to-pole offset as a common 250 MeV systematic.
  • The method supplies a purely generator-based route to the same Λ_QCD-sized ambiguity already estimated from renormalon analyses, offering a cross-check that does not rely on effective-theory matching calculations.
  • Observables more sensitive to the high-m_Bℓ tail may reverse the sign of the extracted shift, suggesting that future work should quote both moment-based and shape-based calibrations side by side.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the interpretation of the top-quark mass measured with Monte Carlo event generators. The authors modify Pythia 8.3 (adapting the R-hadron machinery, Appendix A) to force top quarks to hadronise into fictitious heavy-light mesons T(tq̄) before decaying via a spectator model. Using HQET, the T-meson mass is related to the top pole mass through m_T ≈ m_pole + Λ̄, with Λ̄ = (0.473 ± 0.064) GeV fixed from B-meson inputs (Eqs. 3.5–3.14). They then compare the B-hadron + lepton invariant-mass distribution m_Bℓ in standard tt̄ samples and in T-meson samples, at pp (13.6 TeV) and e⁺e⁻ (1 TeV), using two methods: a linear fit to ⟨m_Bℓ⟩ (Eq. 4.9, Table 3) and a Pearson χ² shape fit (Eqs. 4.13–4.14). They conclude that the Pythia input mass differs from the pole mass by ~200–300 MeV, of order Λ_QCD, with mild dependence on colour reconnection and recoil scheme but strong dependence on b-quark radiation (§4.3). The b-fragmentation variable x_B is studied as a secondary application.

Significance. If the central relation can be made internally consistent, the result is a useful, genuinely independent data point in the long-running debate on the meaning of the Monte-Carlo top mass, and the 200–300 MeV scale agrees with SCET-based calibrations and renormalon estimates. The work has concrete methodological strengths: the Pythia modification is documented in Appendix A with explicit parameter settings and is reproducible in principle; the consistency checks (independence of ΔΛ̄, Fig. 4; independence of the T-sample spectra from m_Pythia, Fig. 5) are exactly the right internal validations; the dependence on generator options is studied rather than assumed away (Figs. 13–16); and the cross-check of the procedure at pp and e⁺e⁻ colliders probes robustness against ISR/UE/colour reconnection. The study is also falsifiable: its assumptions can be tested against other generators and, eventually, against T-hadron searches. The significance is currently limited by the internal inconsistency between the two extraction methods and by the self-calibrating character of the setup, both described in the major comments.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1.1–4.1.2] Table 3 vs Eqs. (4.13)–(4.14): the paper's two extraction methods give opposite-signed mass shifts with comparable magnitudes. The linear fit to ⟨m_Bℓ⟩ yields m_pole ≃ m_Pythia + (0.2–0.3) GeV (e.g. m_Pythia = 173.0 GeV → m_pole ≈ 173.24–173.33 GeV), while the χ² shape fit yields m_Pythia = m_pole + (0.320 ± 0.015) GeV, i.e. m_pole ≈ m_Pythia − 0.3 GeV. The quoted fit errors (~15 MeV) make clear this is not a statistical fluctuation. The text acknowledges the sign flip in one sentence after Eq. (4.14) but never resolves or interprets it, and the abstract, Eq. (4.9) and the conclusions state a '200–300 MeV' offset as if it were a signed calibration. As it stands the central quantitative claim does not have a well-defined sign. The authors must either identify the origin of the discrepancy (presumably the different weighting of the endpoint region, where the shape mismatch is largest, cf.
  2. [§4.1.2] §4.1.2, Fig. 9 and Fig. 10: the best-fit χ²_min/dof ~ 20–30 demonstrates that the standard and T-meson m_Bℓ distributions have genuinely different shapes, i.e. the hadronisation difference is demonstrably not absorbable into a pure mass shift — the very assumption stated after Eq. (4.8) on which the whole calibration rests. Compounding this, Fig. 10 shows the extracted m_Pythia − m_pole sweeping from about −1.5 GeV to +0.25 GeV as the upper cut m_max(Bℓ) is varied from 105 to 145 GeV: the signed shift, not merely its error, is a function of an arbitrary analysis choice. The quoted final uncertainty (Δm_t ≃ 100 MeV, Eq. 4.10) includes only fit and ΔΛ̄ errors and does not reflect this range dependence. The paper should propagate the fit-range and observable dependence into the headline uncertainty, or justify a specific range choice on physics grounds.
  3. [§3–§4] §3, Eqs. (3.5)–(3.6), and §4.1: the pole mass is not extracted from any data; it is inserted by hand through the imposed relation m_T = m_pole + Λ̄, with the only field-theory input (Λ̄, λ1, λ2) taken from B physics (Eqs. 3.7–3.14). The exercise therefore measures the mismatch between two Pythia-internal hadronisation prescriptions (string fragmentation of a free top vs. forced colour-singlet T-meson formation plus spectator decay), and its interpretation as an m_Pythia/m_pole calibration rests on the unverified assumption that the fictitious T-meson spectator model faithfully embodies pole-mass physics for a quark that in reality never hadronises. The authors are candid that this is a purely Monte-Carlo study complementary to SCET analyses, but the abstract and §5 phrasing ('interpretation of the measured top mass') overstates this. A concrete strengthening would be a closure test: run
  4. [§4.3] §4.3, Figs. 13–14: the sensitivity scan shows that vetoing b-quark radiation moves the extracted shift by up to ~1 GeV, i.e. several times the headline 200–300 MeV effect and an order of magnitude above the quoted Δm_t. While b-radiation is physical and vetoing it is artificial, the comparison demonstrates that the extracted 'calibration' is defined only relative to a fixed set of generator settings (default Pythia 8.3 string fragmentation, shower cutoff, colour reconnection). Since a calibration of 'the' Monte-Carlo mass is the stated aim, the paper should quantify how the central relation degrades under legitimate tune-to-tune variations (not only on/off switches), or explicitly restrict the claim to the default tune used.
minor comments (8)
  1. [§3] Eq. (3.6): the definition of Λ̄ contains a spurious term m_t ('Λ̄ = m_t + m_B − m_b + ...'). The numerical value Λ̄ = 0.473 GeV corresponds to the correct expression without m_t (m_B − m_b + (λ1 + 3λ2)/(2m_b) ≈ 0.500 − 0.061 + 0.034 GeV), so this appears to be a typo, but it should be corrected since the equation is the defining relation of the paper.
  2. [§3] Eq. (3.13): λ2(mb) is quoted with units of GeV, but λ2 has units of GeV². Also, the standard definition λ2 = (m_B*² − m_B²)/4 = m_B(m_B* − m_B)/2 ≈ 0.119 GeV² uses m_B, not m_b pole/2; the small numerical difference should be commented on or the choice justified.
  3. [§4.1.1] Eq. (4.10) and surrounding text: uncertainties stated to be 'uncorrelated' are added linearly ('one can just sum the terms'). Uncorrelated errors should be added in quadrature; the linear sum overestimates Δm_t (~100 MeV vs ~70 MeV). Given the much larger unresolved systematics (major comments 1–2) this is not decisive, but the statement should be corrected.
  4. [§3] Eq. (3.12): λ1 = (−0.58 ± 0.23) GeV² is taken from a 1999 determination (ref. [45]); modern inclusive/global fits give values closer to −0.2 GeV². Since λ1 enters Λ̄ through the 1/m_b term, the sensitivity of Λ̄ to this choice (and hence of the ΔΛ̄ = 64 MeV error quoted in Eq. 3.14) deserves at least a remark.
  5. [§4.1.1] §4.1: ⟨m_Bℓ⟩ and ⟨m²_Bℓ⟩ are ordinary (integer) moments of the distribution, not Mellin moments in the standard sense; the terminology should be corrected.
  6. [§4.1.2] §4.1.2: the fit range is quoted as 5 < m_Bℓ < 145 GeV, but all m_Bℓ histograms begin at 20 GeV; please clarify the actual lower edge used. Relatedly, state explicitly that only electrons are used (ℓ = e, §2) and how the 10⁶ generated events relate to the dilepton branching fraction applied.
  7. [general] Typos and presentation: 'tautologic' → 'tautological' (§4.1); 'uncertanties' → 'uncertainties' (§4.2); 'Her wig' appears with a space throughout; Eq. (4.15) has a mismatched parenthesis and ambiguous denominators ('1 − m_W²/m_t + m_b²/m_t²'); the captions of Figs. 11–12 label x_B with units [GeV] although x_B is dimensionless.
  8. [§4.2] Fig. 7 vs Fig. 12: the best-fit m_Pythia values shown (e.g. 172.799 vs 172.805 GeV for the pp linear fit) differ slightly between the m_Bℓ and x_B comparisons; presumably interpolation differences, but a footnote would avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Mild self-definitional labeling: the 'pole mass from T-meson samples' is the input m_T−Λ̄ by construction; the 200–300 MeV figure is a Pythia-internal self-calibration under an absorbability assumption, not a forced circular derivation.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [§3 Eq. (3.5); §4.1 opening; Abstract; Eq. (4.9)]
    "In the T-meson sample we shall assume the relation m_T ≈ m_pole_t + Λ̄, as in eq. (3.5). ... relate the top mass in standard t t-bar events to the pole mass extracted from top-meson samples ... m_pole_t ≃ (a/a') m_Pythia_t + (b−b')/a' − Λ̄ ± Δm_t"

    The quantity called 'pole mass extracted from top-meson samples' is never measured or fitted from the T-sample kinematics. It is the free parameter used to set the simulated meson mass via the definitional assignment m_T = m_pole + Λ̄. Matching standard-sample m_Bℓ to the T-sample therefore compares two internal Pythia configurations and re-expresses their difference as an m_Pythia–m_pole offset solely by that labeling; the pole mass does not enter the generator except as this input tag.

  2. fitted input called prediction [§4.1.1 Eqs. (4.1)–(4.9) and Table 3; also §4.1.2 Eqs. (4.13)–(4.14)]
    "The difference in hadronisation dynamics between the standard t t-bar and T-meson samples is absorbed by the extracted mass discrepancy between the corresponding m_Pythia_t and m_T. One can hence relate m_Pythia_t and m_T and, by applying eq. (3.5), express the so-called Pythia mass in terms of the pole mass."

    Linear coefficients (a,b) and (a',b') are fitted to the same generator's ⟨m_Bℓ⟩ response versus the input mass in each sample; Eq. (4.9) is then pure algebra on those fit coefficients plus the input Λ̄. The numerical 200–300 MeV shift is therefore the residual of two internal response fits under the absorbability assumption, not an independent external prediction. (The χ² shape fit yields an opposite-sign shift of similar size, underscoring that the number is fit-choice-dependent rather than forced by data.)

full rationale

The paper's chain is a Monte Carlo comparison of two Pythia hadronisation prescriptions (free-top string fragmentation vs forced colour-singlet T-meson + spectator decay), with the T mass labeled as a pole mass via the external HQET relation m_T≈m_pole+Λ̄ (Λ̄ taken from B-physics). That labeling step is mildly self-definitional: nothing in the simulation independently 'extracts' a pole mass; m_pole is an input tag. The subsequent linear/χ² matching of ⟨m_Bℓ⟩ or the m_Bℓ shape then converts the residual mismatch between the two Pythia modes into a quoted m_Pythia–m_pole shift. This is a legitimate (if assumption-heavy) self-calibration, not a vicious circle: HQET parameters and the functional form of the mass relation are external, the generator response is a real computation, and the paper does not smuggle a uniqueness theorem or rename a known empirical law. The opposite-signed shifts from the two fit methods and the strong range dependence of the χ² result are serious correctness/robustness problems, but they are not circularity. Score 3 reflects one clear self-definitional labeling step that colours the central claim without collapsing the derivation to a tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on three external pillars (HQET mass formula and its B-physics inputs, the spectator-decay model, and Pythia’s default string/hadronisation machinery) plus one invented object (the fictitious T-meson). No large set of free parameters is fitted to top data; Λ̄ is taken from B mesons. The main modelling choice that is not independently constrained is that a pure mass shift absorbs all differences between free-top and T-meson hadronisation.

free parameters (3)
  • Λ̄ (HQET binding shift) = 0.473 ± 0.064 GeV
    Fixed from B-meson pole-mass and hyperfine data via Eqs. 3.6–3.14; central value 0.473 GeV with ±0.064 GeV uncertainty. Propagates directly into every m_T and into the final Δm_t.
  • λ1 (HQET kinetic parameter) = −0.58 ± 0.23 GeV²
    Taken from external fit (ref. [45]) as −0.58 ± 0.23 GeV² and used in the Λ̄ extraction; not refitted here.
  • Pythia non-perturbative defaults (string fragmentation, colour reconnection, shower cutoff) = Pythia 8.317 defaults
    Left at Pythia 8.317 defaults except for explicit on/off variations in §4.3; the quoted 200–300 MeV shift is defined relative to those defaults.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption HQET heavy-light meson mass formula m_Q = m_q + Λ̄ − (λ1 + n λ2)/(2 m_q) + O(1/m_q²) holds for a fictitious top meson with the same universal parameters as B mesons (Eqs. 3.1–3.5).
    Standard HQET, but applied outside its usual validated domain (bottom/charm) to an unphysical top meson whose lifetime is artificially lengthened.
  • domain assumption T-meson decay proceeds by the spectator model with the light quark inert and the bound top decaying as t → bW (Fig. 1, §2).
    Borrowed from B-physics; necessary to define the final-state Bℓ system that is compared to ordinary top decay.
  • ad hoc to paper Differences between ordinary string fragmentation of free tops and T-meson formation+spectator decay are entirely re-absorbable into a shift of the input mass parameter when a single observable is matched (§4.1.1).
    This is the modelling step that converts a shape discrepancy into a quoted mass difference; it is not derived from QCD.
  • domain assumption Pythia’s parton shower and string model furnish a sufficiently realistic description of both free-top and T-meson samples for the residual mass shift to be physically meaningful.
    Implicit throughout; the paper never claims the result is generator-independent (Herwig comparison is left to future work).
invented entities (1)
  • Fictitious top-flavoured mesons T±/T0 with fixed user-set mass and forced formation before decay no independent evidence
    purpose: Provide a hadron whose mass is related to the top pole mass by HQET, thereby giving an internal Monte-Carlo handle on the MC-to-pole conversion.
    Top mesons do not exist in nature because Γ_t ≫ Λ_QCD; they are introduced solely as a theoretical probe. No collider search or lattice calculation is used to constrain them.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 28232 in / 3739 out tokens · 87427 ms · 2026-07-31T05:31:48.962630+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The interpretation of the top quark mass measurements in terms of well-known field theory definitions has been the topic of a long-standing discussion. In this paper we reconsider this issue and simulate fictitious top-flavoured mesons, whose mass can be related to any top mass definition, such as the pole mass, by means of Heavy Quark Effective Theory. We explore final-state observables for top-pair production in $e^+e^-$ and hadron collisions, and relate the top mass in standard $t\bar t$ events to the pole mass extracted from top-meson samples simulated with Pythia 8.3. Our results are in agreement with the expectation of an uncertainty about $200$-$300$ MeV, hence of the order of $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 39 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    de Blas, M

    J. de Blas, M. Pierini, L. Reina and L. Silvestrini,Impact of the Recent Measurements of the Top-Quark and W-Boson Masses on Electroweak Precision Fits,Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022) 271801 [2204.04204]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Degrassi, S

    G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, J. Elias-Miro, J.R. Espinosa, G.F. Giudice, G. Isidori et al.,Higgs mass and vacuum stability in the Standard Model at NNLO,JHEP08(2012) 098 [1205.6497]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Domènech, M

    G. Domènech, M. Goodsell and C. Wetterich,Neutrino masses, vacuum stability and quantum gravity prediction for the mass of the top quark,JHEP01(2021) 180 [2008.04310]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Rodrigues, M

    J.G. Rodrigues, M. Benetti, R. de Souza and J. Alcaniz,Higgs inflation: Constraining the top quark mass and breaking the H0-σ8 correlation,Phys. Lett. B852(2024) 138607 [2301.11788]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Bierlich et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3,SciPost Phys

    C. Bierlich et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3,SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022(2022) 8 [2203.11601]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Bellm et al.,Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note,Eur

    J. Bellm et al.,Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note,Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 196 [1512.01178]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Bewick et al.,Herwig 7.3 release note,Eur

    G. Bewick et al.,Herwig 7.3 release note,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 1053 [2312.05175]. [8]Particle Data Groupcollaboration,Review of particle physics,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 030001. [9]ATLAScollaboration,Measurement of the top quark mass with the ATLAS detector usingt¯t events with a high transverse momentum top quark,2502.18216. [10]CMScollaboration,Review of...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [12]

    Fuster, A

    J. Fuster, A. Irles, D. Melini, P. Uwer and M. Vos,Extracting the top-quark running mass usingt ¯t+1-jet events produced at the Large Hadron Collider,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 794 [1704.00540]. [13]D0collaboration,Determination of the pole and M Smasses of the top quark from thet¯t cross section,Phys. Lett. B703(2011) 422 [1104.2887]. – 24 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  9. [14]

    Moch and P

    S. Moch and P. Uwer,Theoretical status and prospects for top-quark pair production at hadron colliders,Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 034003 [0804.1476]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  10. [15]

    Langenfeld, S

    U. Langenfeld, S. Moch and P. Uwer,Measuring the running top-quark mass,Phys. Rev. D 80(2009) 054009 [0906.5273]. [16]ATLAS, CMScollaboration,Combination of inclusive top-quark pair production cross-section measurements using ATLAS and CMS data at√s= 7 and 8 TeV,JHEP07 (2023) 213 [2205.13830]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  11. [17]

    Czakon, T

    M. Czakon, T. Generet, A. Mitov and R. Poncelet,NNLO B-fragmentation fits and their application tot tproduction and decay at the LHC,JHEP03(2023) 251 [2210.06078]. [18]CMScollaboration,Measurement of the top quark pole mass using tt+jet events in the dilepton final state in proton-proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV,JHEP07(2023) 077 [2207.02270]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [19]

    Corcella,The top-quark mass: challenges in definition and determination,Front

    G. Corcella,The top-quark mass: challenges in definition and determination,Front. in Phys. 7(2019) 54 [1903.06574]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  13. [20]

    Nason,Theory Summary,PoSTOP2015(2016) 056 [1602.00443]

    P. Nason,Theory Summary,PoSTOP2015(2016) 056 [1602.00443]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [21]

    Nason,The Top Mass in Hadronic Collisions, inFrom My Vast Repertoire ...: Guido Altarelli’s Legacy, A

    P. Nason,The Top Mass in Hadronic Collisions, inFrom My Vast Repertoire ...: Guido Altarelli’s Legacy, A. Levy, S. Forte and G. Ridolfi, eds., pp. 123–151 (2019), DOI [1712.02796]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  15. [22]

    Hoang,What is the Top Quark Mass?,Ann

    A.H. Hoang,What is the Top Quark Mass?,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.70(2020) 225 [2004.12915]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [23]

    Hoang and I.W

    A.H. Hoang and I.W. Stewart,Top Mass Measurements from Jets and the Tevatron Top-Quark Mass,Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.185(2008) 220 [0808.0222]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  17. [24]

    Dehnadi, A.H

    B. Dehnadi, A.H. Hoang, O.L. Jin and V. Mateu,Top quark mass calibration for Monte Carlo event generators — an update,JHEP12(2023) 065 [2309.00547]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [25]

    Stewart, F.J

    I.W. Stewart, F.J. Tackmann and W.J. Waalewijn,N-Jettiness: An Inclusive Event Shape to Veto Jets,Phys. Rev. Lett.105(2010) 092002 [1004.2489]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  19. [26]

    Sjöstrand, S

    T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J.R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2,Comput. Phys. Commun.191(2015) 159 [1410.3012]. [27]Sherpacollaboration,Event Generation with Sherpa 2.2,SciPost Phys.7(2019) 034 [1905.09127]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  20. [28]

    Fleming, A.H

    S. Fleming, A.H. Hoang, S. Mantry and I.W. Stewart,Top Jets in the Peak Region: Factorization Analysis with NLL Resummation,Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 114003 [0711.2079]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  21. [29]

    Fleming, A.H

    S. Fleming, A.H. Hoang, S. Mantry and I.W. Stewart,Jets from massive unstable particles: Top-mass determination,Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 074010 [hep-ph/0703207]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  22. [30]

    Neubert,Heavy quark effective theory, in20th Johns Hopkins Workshop on Current Problems in Particle Theory: Non-Perturbative Particle Theory and Experimental Tests, pp

    M. Neubert,Heavy quark effective theory, in20th Johns Hopkins Workshop on Current Problems in Particle Theory: Non-Perturbative Particle Theory and Experimental Tests, pp. 39–78, 10, 1996 [hep-ph/9610385]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  23. [31]

    Manohar and M.B

    A.V. Manohar and M.B. Wise,Heavy quark physics, vol. 10, Cambridge University Press (2000), 10.1017/9781009402125

    doi:10.1017/9781009402125 2000

  24. [32]

    Butenschoen, B

    M. Butenschoen, B. Dehnadi, A.H. Hoang, V. Mateu, M. Preisser and I.W. Stewart,Top Quark Mass Calibration for Monte Carlo Event Generators,Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016) 232001 [1608.01318]. – 25 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  25. [33]

    Beneke,More on ambiguities in the pole mass,Phys

    M. Beneke,More on ambiguities in the pole mass,Phys. Lett. B344(1995) 341 [hep-ph/9408380]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  26. [34]

    Beneke,A Quark mass definition adequate for threshold problems,Phys

    M. Beneke,A Quark mass definition adequate for threshold problems,Phys. Lett. B434 (1998) 115 [hep-ph/9804241]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  27. [35]

    Beneke, P

    M. Beneke, P. Marquard, P. Nason and M. Steinhauser,On the ultimate uncertainty of the top quark pole mass,Phys. Lett. B775(2017) 63 [1605.03609]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [36]

    Hoang, C

    A.H. Hoang, C. Lepenik and M. Preisser,On the Light Massive Flavor Dependence of the Large Order Asymptotic Behavior and the Ambiguity of the Pole Mass,JHEP09(2017) 099 [1706.08526]. [37]FCCcollaboration,FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2,Eur. Phys. J. ST228(2019) 261

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  29. [38]

    Andersson, G

    B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman and T. Sjostrand,Parton Fragmentation and String Dynamics,Phys. Rept.97(1983) 31

    1983

  30. [39]

    Webber,A QCD Model for Jet Fragmentation Including Soft Gluon Interference,Nucl

    B.R. Webber,A QCD Model for Jet Fragmentation Including Soft Gluon Interference,Nucl. Phys. B238(1984) 492. [40]CMScollaboration,Search for heavy pseudoscalar and scalar bosons decaying to a top quark pair in proton-proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV,2507.05119. [41]ATLAScollaboration,Observation of a cross-section enhancement near thet ¯tproduction threshold...

    arXiv 1984

  31. [43]

    Aguilar-Saavedra,Toponium hunter’s guide,Phys

    J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra,Toponium hunter’s guide,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 054032 [2407.20330]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [44]

    Marquard, A.V

    P. Marquard, A.V. Smirnov, V.A. Smirnov and M. Steinhauser,Quark Mass Relations to Four-Loop Order in Perturbative QCD,Phys. Rev. Lett.114(2015) 142002 [1502.01030]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  33. [45]

    Jeong and C.S

    K.K. Jeong and C.S. Kim,Determination of HQET parameter lambda(1) from inclusive semileptonic B meson decay spectrum,Phys. Rev. D59(1999) 114019 [hep-ph/9811475]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  34. [46]

    Nefediev,Extraction of nonperturbative parameters for D(*) mesons from lattice data, Phys

    A. Nefediev,Extraction of nonperturbative parameters for D(*) mesons from lattice data, Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 094021 [2404.11158]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [47]

    Corcella, M.L

    G. Corcella, M.L. Mangano and M.H. Seymour,Jet activity in t anti-t events and top mass reconstruction at hadron colliders,JHEP07(2000) 004 [hep-ph/0004179]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  36. [48]

    Corcella and F

    G. Corcella and F. Mescia,A Phenomenological Study of Bottom Quark Fragmentation in Top Quark Decay,Eur. Phys. J. C65(2010) 171 [0907.5158]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  37. [49]

    Biswas, K

    S. Biswas, K. Melnikov and M. Schulze,Next-to-leading order QCD effects and the top quark mass measurements at the LHC,JHEP08(2010) 048 [1006.0910]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  38. [50]

    Corcella, R

    G. Corcella, R. Franceschini and D. Kim,Fragmentation Uncertainties in Hadronic Observables for Top-quark Mass Measurements,Nucl. Phys. B929(2018) 485 [1712.05801]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [51]

    Cowan,Statistical data analysis, Oxford University Press, USA (1998)

    G. Cowan,Statistical data analysis, Oxford University Press, USA (1998)

    1998

  40. [52]

    Corcella and A.D

    G. Corcella and A.D. Mitov,Bottom quark fragmentation in top quark decay,Nucl. Phys. B 623(2002) 247 [hep-ph/0110319]. – 26 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  41. [53]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. Corcella and A.D. Mitov,Soft gluon resummation for bottom fragmentation in top quark decay,JHEP12(2002) 015 [hep-ph/0209204]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  42. [54]

    Corcella and V

    G. Corcella and V. Drollinger,Bottom-quark fragmentation: Comparing results from tuned event generators and resummed calculations,Nucl. Phys. B730(2005) 82 [hep-ph/0508013]. [55]ATLAScollaboration,Measurement of the top-quark mass using a leptonic invariant mass in pp collisions at√s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,JHEP06(2023) 019 [2209.00583]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  43. [56]

    Argyropoulos and T

    S. Argyropoulos and T. Sjöstrand,Effects of color reconnection ont¯tfinal states at the LHC, JHEP11(2014) 043 [1407.6653]. [57]CMScollaboration,Measurement of the top quark mass in the all-jets final state at√s=13 TeV and combination with the lepton+jets channel,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 313 [1812.10534]. [58]ATLAScollaboration,Measurement of the top quark ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014