Table of Contents
Fetching ...

The Dijet Mass Spectrum and a Search for Quark Compositeness in bar{p}p Collisions at sqrt{s} = 1.8 TeV

D0 Collaboration, B. Abbott

Abstract

Using the DZero detector at the 1.8 TeV pbarp Fermilab Tevatron collider, we have measured the inclusive dijet mass spectrum in the central pseudorapidity region |eta_jet| < 1.0 for dijet masses greater than 200 Gev/c^2. We have also measured the ratio of spectra sigma(|eta_jet| < 0.5)/sigma(0.5 < |eta_jet| < 1.0). The order alpha_s^3 QCD predictions are in good agreement with the data and we rule out models of quark compositeness with a contact interaction scale < 2.4 TeV at the 95% confidence level.

The Dijet Mass Spectrum and a Search for Quark Compositeness in bar{p}p Collisions at sqrt{s} = 1.8 TeV

Abstract

Using the DZero detector at the 1.8 TeV pbarp Fermilab Tevatron collider, we have measured the inclusive dijet mass spectrum in the central pseudorapidity region |eta_jet| < 1.0 for dijet masses greater than 200 Gev/c^2. We have also measured the ratio of spectra sigma(|eta_jet| < 0.5)/sigma(0.5 < |eta_jet| < 1.0). The order alpha_s^3 QCD predictions are in good agreement with the data and we rule out models of quark compositeness with a contact interaction scale < 2.4 TeV at the 95% confidence level.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 1 equation, 4 figures, 2 tables.

Figures (4)

  • Figure 1: $d^{3} \sigma / d \hbox{$M$} d \eta_{1} d \eta_{2}$ for $\hbox{$\mid \! \eta_{\rm jet} \! \mid$}<1.0$. The DØ data are shown by the solid circles, with error bars representing the $\pm$$1\sigma$ statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature (in most cases smaller than the symbol). The histogram represents the jetrad prediction.
  • Figure 2: The correlations between systematic uncertainties in bins of dijet mass (see Table \ref{['table_1']}) for $\hbox{$\mid \! \eta_{\rm jet} \! \mid$}<1.0$. The correlations are calculated using the average systematic uncertainty. The discontinuities arise from the uncorrelated errors (adjacent to correlations of 1.0) and luminosity matching.
  • Figure 3: The difference between the data and the prediction ( jetrad) divided by the prediction for $\hbox{$\mid \! \eta_{\rm jet} \! \mid$} < 1.0$. The solid circles represent the comparison to the calculation using CTEQ3M with $\mu = 0.5 \hbox{$E_{T}^{\rm max}$}$. The shaded region represents the $\pm$$1\sigma$ systematic uncertainties. The effects of changing the renormalization scale and choosing a different pdf are also shown (each curve shows the difference between the alternative prediction and the standard prediction).
  • Figure 4: The ratio of cross sections for $\hbox{$\mid \! \eta_{\rm jet} \! \mid$}<0.5$ and $0.5<\hbox{$\mid \! \eta_{\rm jet} \! \mid$} <1.0$ for data (solid circles) and theory (various lines). The error bars show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature, and the crossbar shows the size of the statistical error.