text:
# A Field Theoretic Investigation of Spin in QCD

## 1 Introduction

The issue of the relativistic spin operators in quantum field theory in an arbitrary reference frame is quite complex. The spin operators can be constructed from the Pauli-Lubanski operators, however, they are interaction dependent in an arbitrary frame and it is quite difficult to separate the center of mass motion from internal motion for a composite system in the usual equal time formulation . Light-front formulation of quantum field theory is more suitable for the study of relativistic spin operators since boost is kinematical in this formulation. The interaction dependence of the light-front transverse spin operators come from the transverse rotation generators, which are dynamical (interaction dependent) in light-front theories in contrast to the equal-time case. The separation of the center of mass motion from the internal motion in this case is as simple as in non-relativistic theory.

## 2 Light-Front Spin Operators

In terms of Poincare generators, light-front spin operators can be written as ,

$`MT^i`$ $`=W^iP^iT^3,i=1,2`$ (1)
$`=ϵ^{ij}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F^jP^+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}E^jP^{}+K^3P^j)P^iT^3,`$
where $`W^\mu `$ is the Pauli-Lubanski operator, $`W^\mu =\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }M_{\nu \rho }P_\sigma `$ with $`ϵ^{+12}=2`$, $`M`$ is the mass operator; $`M^{\mu \nu }`$ are the generalized angular momentum and $`P^\mu `$ is the momentum 4-vector. The boost operators are $`M^+=2K^3,M^{+i}=E^i`$. Rotation operators are, $`M^{12}=J^3,M^i=F^i`$. The third component of the spin operator is the helicity operator which is defined as,

$`T^3={\displaystyle \frac{W^+}{P^+}}=J^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{P^+}}(E^1P^2E^2P^1).`$ (2)
In addition to the light-front Hamiltonian $`P^{}`$, the transvese rotation operators $`F^i`$ are dynamical (interaction dependent). As a result, the transverse spin operators are also interaction dependent.

In the light-front gauge $`A^+=0`$, the helicity operator is equal to its naive canonical form, independent of interaction, provided the fields vanish at infinity. This situation can be contrasted with the third component of the spin operator in the equal-time case, which is interaction dependent. Explicitly, the light-front helicity operator can be separated into quark and gluon orbital and intrinsic parts at the operator level and the helicity sum rule for the nucleon is given by ,

$`PS^{||}T_{f(i)}^3+T_{f(o)}^3+T_{g(o)}^3+T_{g(i)}^3PS^{||}=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}.`$ (3)
It can be verified that the matrix element of $`T_{f(i)}^3`$ is directly related to the first moment of the flavor singlet part of the longitudinally polarized structure function $`g_1(x,Q^2)`$.

In order to construct the transverse spin operators, one has to calculate the dynamical transverse rotation operators. The transverse spin operators cannot be separated into orbital and spin parts. We have shown that , in the light-front gauge, there exists a physically interesting decomposition for them,

$`T^i=T_I^i+T_{II}^i+T_{III}^i,`$ (4)
where $`T_{II}^i`$ and $`T_{III}^i`$ do not depend on the coordinates explicitly and arise from the fermionic and gluonic parts of the gauge invariant, symmetric energy momentum tensor respectively. In analogy with the helicity sum rule, we propose a transverse spin sum rule for the nucleon,

$`PS^{}T_I^i+T_{II}^i+T_{III}^iPS^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}.`$ (5)
The intrinsic fermionic part $`T_{II}^i`$ is directly related to the first moment of the flavor singlet part of the structure function $`g_T`$ measured in transverse polarized scattering. The difference from the helicity case is the non-trivial interaction dependence of the transverse spin operators, because of which the above relation has no partonic interpretation.

## 3 Renormalization of the Transverse Spin Operators

The transverse spin operators acquire divergences in perturbation theory and have to be renormalized. We have performed one loop renormalization of the full transverse spin operator by evaluating its matrix element for a quark state dressed with a gluon in light-front Hamiltonian perturbation theory . Explicit evaluation in an arbitrary reference frame shows that all the center of mass momentum dependence get canceled. Also the contribution from $`T_I^i`$ exactly cancels the contribution from $`T_{III}^i`$ and the entire contribution comes from $`T_{II}^i`$, which is given by,

$`P,S^iMT^iP,S^i={\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha _s}{4\pi }}C_fln{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}}\right),`$ (6)
where $`m`$ is the bare mass of the quark, $`C_f`$ is the color factor and $`\mu `$ is the hadronic factorization scale. The details of the calculation can be found in . Using the expression of the renormalized mass of the quark in terms of the bare mass ,

$`m_R=m\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha _s}{4\pi }}ln{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}}\right),`$ (7)
we verify the sum rule (5). This shows that only one counterterm is needed to renormalize the transverse spin operator, and that is the same as the linear mass counterterm in the light-front QCD Hamiltonian. Also, the mass of the quark plays a very important role in this case since the transverse spin operator is responsible for helicity flip and it is the terms linear in mass that causes helicity flip in light-front theory.

In summary, we have studied the relativistic spin operators for a composite system in an arbitrary reference frame in light-front QCD. The transverse spin operators are interaction dependent and in the light-front gauge, they can be separated into three physically interesting parts, provided the fields vanish at the boundary. The helicity operator in the same gauge is interaction independent. In analogy with the helicity sum rule, we have proposed a transverse spin sum rule. We have renormalized the transverse spin operators upto one loop and shown that the counterterm that has to be added is the same as the linear mass counterterm in light-front QCD Hamiltonian.

## 4 Acknowledgments

This is based on the work done in collaboration with A. Harindranath and R. Ratabole. I would also like to thank the organisers of X-th International Light-Cone Meeting on Non-Perturbative QCD and Hadron Phenomenology for giving me the chance to present my work.


format: text

text:
# References

FROISSART-MARTIN BOUND

IN SPACES WITH COMPACT EXTRA DIMENSIONS
V.A.Petrov

Division of Theoretical Physics, IHEP, Protvino, Russia

## Abstract

We generalize the Froissart-Martin upper bound for the scattering amplitude in spaces with compactified extra dimensions.

Geometrically the Froissart-Martin upper bound in the Minkowsky space-time of arbitrary dimension $`D`$

$$\sigma _{tot}^D(s)const(R_0(s))^{D2}$$
(1)
defines the maximal “transverse area” at which colliding particles effectively feel each other.

The question arises what happens with Eq.(1) if some of $`D1`$ spatial111We don’t consider time-like extra dimensions (moreover compactified), as in this case microcausality, a key ingredient for analyticity, become ambiguous if not worse. dimensions are compactified?

We find more transparent from the physics point of view to use impact parameter representation for the scattering amplitude,

$$T(s,\stackrel{}{k}_T)4sd^{D2}Be^{i\stackrel{}{k}_T\stackrel{}{B}}\stackrel{~}{T}(s,\stackrel{}{B}).$$
(2)
where $`\sqrt{s}`$ is, as usual, the c.m.s. collision energy, and $`k_T^2t`$ is related to the transferred momentum.

From the unitarity condition

$$Im\stackrel{~}{T}(s,\stackrel{}{B})\left|\stackrel{~}{T}(s,\stackrel{}{B})\right|^2,$$

analyticity in the $`t`$-plane with a nearest singularity at $`t=t_0>0`$, and polynomial boundedness , $`\left|T\right|<s^N`$, one easily recovers the bound (1), with $`R_0(s)\frac{N\mathrm{log}s}{\sqrt{t_0}}`$.

Let us compactify for simplicity one transverse dimension in such a way that with $`\stackrel{}{B}(\stackrel{}{b},b_{D2}\beta )`$ one has

$$\stackrel{~}{T}(s,\stackrel{}{b},\beta +2\pi R)=\stackrel{~}{T}(s,\stackrel{}{b},\beta ),$$

where $`R`$ is the compactification scale. Conjugated integration in $`k_{D2}`$ converts into the sum

$$\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{e^{in\beta /R}}{2\pi R}.$$

$`(D2)`$th component plays now the rôle of the source of an additional mass spectrum (twice degenerated under $`nn`$) adding to the usual mass2 the term $`n^2/R^2`$. If $`R`$ is small (as it seems to be the case in reality) then these modifications to the spectrum do not influence the nearest singularity, and, hence, analyticity.

Below we consider the amplitude for scattering of “light” particles with $`n=0`$, which presumably correspond to usual observed particles. In this case we have from usual arguments

$`ImT(s,0)4s{\displaystyle d^{D3}b\underset{\pi R}{\overset{\pi R}{}}𝑑\beta \mathrm{\Theta }(R_0^2b^2\beta ^2)}=`$
$`=4s{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }((D3)/2)}{2\pi ^{D3}/2}}2\pi R_0^{D2}(s)\mathrm{\Phi }(R_0,R,D),`$ (3)
where

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑\xi \xi ^{D4}(1\xi ^2)^{1/2}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\xi \sqrt{\mathrm{max}[0,(1\pi ^2R^2/R_0^2(s))]}\right)+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{R_0(s)}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1\pi ^2R^2/R_0^2(s))_+^{D^3}}{D3}}.`$
At $`R<<R_0(s)`$ we get

$$ImT(s,0)constsR_0^{D3}(s)R.$$
(4)
In the opposite, somewhat academic, limit $`R/R_0\mathrm{}`$ we come back to Eq.(1)

$$ImT(s,0)constsR_0^{D2}(s).$$

It is evident that above derivation can be readily generalized to more than one compact extra dimensions. As well as that all the inference can be made more rigorous mathematically.

I express my gratitude to A.V.Kisselev, A.Martin, A.A.Logunov, N.E.Tyurin and Yu.S.Vernov for discussions.


text:
# Search for Electroweak Production of Single Top Quarks in 𝑝𝑝̄ Collisions

## Abstract

We present a search for electroweak production of single top quarks in the electron+jets and muon+jets decay channels. The measurements use $`90`$ pb-1 of data from Run 1 of the Fermilab Tevatron collider, collected at 1.8 TeV with the DØ detector between 1992 and 1995. We use events that include a tagging muon, implying the presence of a $`b`$ jet, to set an upper limit at the $`95\%`$ confidence level on the cross section for the $`s`$-channel process $`p\overline{p}\text{ }\text{ }tb+X`$ of 39 pb. The upper limit for the $`t`$-channel process $`p\overline{p}\text{ }\text{ }tqb+X`$ is 58 pb.

preprint: Fermilab-Pub-00/188-E

The DØ Collaboration

B. Abbott,50 M. Abolins,47 V. Abramov,23 B.S. Acharya,15 D.L. Adams,57 M. Adams,34 G.A. Alves,2 N. Amos,46 E.W. Anderson,39 M.M. Baarmand,52 V.V. Babintsev,23 L. Babukhadia,52 A. Baden,43 B. Baldin,33 P.W. Balm,18 S. Banerjee,15 J. Bantly,56 E. Barberis,26 P. Baringer,40 J.F. Bartlett,33 U. Bassler,11 A. Bean,40 M. Begel,51 A. Belyaev,22 S.B. Beri,13 G. Bernardi,11 I. Bertram,24 A. Besson,9 V.A. Bezzubov,23 P.C. Bhat,33 V. Bhatnagar,13 M. Bhattacharjee,52 G. Blazey,35 S. Blessing,31 A. Boehnlein,33 N.I. Bojko,23 E.E. Boos,22 F. Borcherding,33 A. Brandt,57 R. Breedon,27 G. Briskin,56 R. Brock,47 G. Brooijmans,33 A. Bross,33 D. Buchholz,36 M. Buehler,34 V. Buescher,51 V.S. Burtovoi,23 J.M. Butler,44 F. Canelli,51 W. Carvalho,3 D. Casey,47 Z. Casilum,52 H. Castilla-Valdez,17 D. Chakraborty,52 K.M. Chan,51 S.V. Chekulaev,23 D.K. Cho,51 S. Choi,30 S. Chopra,53 J.H. Christenson,33 M. Chung,34 D. Claes,48 A.R. Clark,26 J. Cochran,30 L. Coney,38 B. Connolly,31 W.E. Cooper,33 D. Coppage,40 M.A.C. Cummings,35 D. Cutts,56 O.I. Dahl,26 G.A. Davis,51 K. Davis,25 K. De,57 K. Del Signore,46 M. Demarteau,33 R. Demina,41 P. Demine,9 D. Denisov,33 S.P. Denisov,23 S. Desai,52 H.T. Diehl,33 M. Diesburg,33 G. Di Loreto,47 S. Doulas,45 P. Draper,57 Y. Ducros,12 L.V. Dudko,22 S. Duensing,19 S.R. Dugad,15 A. Dyshkant,23 D. Edmunds,47 J. Ellison,30 V.D. Elvira,33 R. Engelmann,52 S. Eno,43 G. Eppley,59 P. Ermolov,22 O.V. Eroshin,23 J. Estrada,51 H. Evans,49 V.N. Evdokimov,23 T. Fahland,29 S. Feher,33 D. Fein,25 T. Ferbel,51 H.E. Fisk,33 Y. Fisyak,53 E. Flattum,33 F. Fleuret,26 M. Fortner,35 K.C. Frame,47 S. Fuess,33 E. Gallas,33 A.N. Galyaev,23 P. Gartung,30 V. Gavrilov,21 R.J. Genik II,24 K. Genser,33 C.E. Gerber,34 Y. Gershtein,56 B. Gibbard,53 R. Gilmartin,31 G. Ginther,51 B. Gómez,5 G. Gómez,43 P.I. Goncharov,23 J.L. González Solís,17 H. Gordon,53 L.T. Goss,58 K. Gounder,30 A. Goussiou,52 N. Graf,53 G. Graham,43 P.D. Grannis,52 J.A. Green,39 H. Greenlee,33 S. Grinstein,1 L. Groer,49 P. Grudberg,26 S. Grünendahl,33 A. Gupta,15 S.N. Gurzhiev,23 G. Gutierrez,33 P. Gutierrez,55 N.J. Hadley,43 H. Haggerty,33 S. Hagopian,31 V. Hagopian,31 K.S. Hahn,51 R.E. Hall,28 P. Hanlet,45 S. Hansen,33 J.M. Hauptman,39 C. Hays,49 C. Hebert,40 D. Hedin,35 A.P. Heinson,30 U. Heintz,44 T. Heuring,31 R. Hirosky,34 J.D. Hobbs,52 B. Hoeneisen,8 J.S. Hoftun,56 S. Hou,46 Y. Huang,46 A.S. Ito,33 S.A. Jerger,47 R. Jesik,37 K. Johns,25 M. Johnson,33 A. Jonckheere,33 M. Jones,32 H. Jöstlein,33 A. Juste,33 S. Kahn,53 E. Kajfasz,10 D. Karmanov,22 D. Karmgard,38 R. Kehoe,38 S.K. Kim,16 B. Klima,33 C. Klopfenstein,27 B. Knuteson,26 W. Ko,27 J.M. Kohli,13 A.V. Kostritskiy,23 J. Kotcher,53 A.V. Kotwal,49 A.V. Kozelov,23 E.A. Kozlovsky,23 J. Krane,39 M.R. Krishnaswamy,15 S. Krzywdzinski,33 M. Kubantsev,41 S. Kuleshov,21 Y. Kulik,52 S. Kunori,43 V.E. Kuznetsov,30 G. Landsberg,56 A. Leflat,22 F. Lehner,33 J. Li,57 Q.Z. Li,33 J.G.R. Lima,3 D. Lincoln,33 S.L. Linn,31 J. Linnemann,47 R. Lipton,33 A. Lucotte,52 L. Lueking,33 C. Lundstedt,48 A.K.A. Maciel,35 R.J. Madaras,26 V. Manankov,22 H.S. Mao,4 T. Marshall,37 M.I. Martin,33 R.D. Martin,34 K.M. Mauritz,39 B. May,36 A.A. Mayorov,37 R. McCarthy,52 J. McDonald,31 T. McMahon,54 H.L. Melanson,33 X.C. Meng,4 M. Merkin,22 K.W. Merritt,33 C. Miao,56 H. Miettinen,59 D. Mihalcea,55 A. Mincer,50 C.S. Mishra,33 N. Mokhov,33 N.K. Mondal,15 H.E. Montgomery,33 R.W. Moore,47 M. Mostafa,1 H. da Motta,2 E. Nagy,10 F. Nang,25 M. Narain,44 V.S. Narasimham,15 H.A. Neal,46 J.P. Negret,5 S. Negroni,10 D. Norman,58 L. Oesch,46 V. Oguri,3 B. Olivier,11 N. Oshima,33 P. Padley,59 L.J. Pan,36 A. Para,33 N. Parashar,45 R. Partridge,56 N. Parua,9 M. Paterno,51 A. Patwa,52 B. Pawlik,20 J. Perkins,57 M. Peters,32 O. Peters,18 R. Piegaia,1 H. Piekarz,31 B.G. Pope,47 E. Popkov,38 H.B. Prosper,31 S. Protopopescu,53 J. Qian,46 P.Z. Quintas,33 R. Raja,33 S. Rajagopalan,53 E. Ramberg,33 P.A. Rapidis,33 N.W. Reay,41 S. Reucroft,45 J. Rha,30 M. Rijssenbeek,52 T. Rockwell,47 M. Roco,33 P. Rubinov,33 R. Ruchti,38 J. Rutherfoord,25 A. Santoro,2 L. Sawyer,42 R.D. Schamberger,52 H. Schellman,36 A. Schwartzman,1 J. Sculli,50 N. Sen,59 E. Shabalina,22 H.C. Shankar,15 R.K. Shivpuri,14 D. Shpakov,52 M. Shupe,25 R.A. Sidwell,41 V. Simak,7 H. Singh,30 J.B. Singh,13 V. Sirotenko,33 P. Slattery,51 E. Smith,55 R.P. Smith,33 R. Snihur,36 G.R. Snow,48 J. Snow,54 S. Snyder,53 J. Solomon,34 V. Sorín,1 M. Sosebee,57 N. Sotnikova,22 K. Soustruznik,6 M. Souza,2 N.R. Stanton,41 G. Steinbrück,49 R.W. Stephens,57 M.L. Stevenson,26 F. Stichelbaut,53 D. Stoker,29 V. Stolin,21 D.A. Stoyanova,23 M. Strauss,55 K. Streets,50 M. Strovink,26 L. Stutte,33 A. Sznajder,3 W. Taylor,52 S. Tentindo-Repond,31 J. Thompson,43 D. Toback,43 S.M. Tripathi,27 T.G. Trippe,26 A.S. Turcot,53 P.M. Tuts,49 P. van Gemmeren,33 V. Vaniev,23 R. Van Kooten,37 N. Varelas,34 A.A. Volkov,23 A.P. Vorobiev,23 H.D. Wahl,31 H. Wang,36 Z.-M. Wang,52 J. Warchol,38 G. Watts,60 M. Wayne,38 H. Weerts,47 A. White,57 J.T. White,58 D. Whiteson,26 J.A. Wightman,39 D.A. Wijngaarden,19 S. Willis,35 S.J. Wimpenny,30 J.V.D. Wirjawan,58 J. Womersley,33 D.R. Wood,45 R. Yamada,33 P. Yamin,53 T. Yasuda,33 K. Yip,33 S. Youssef,31 J. Yu,33 Z. Yu,36 M. Zanabria,5 H. Zheng,38 Z. Zhou,39 Z.H. Zhu,51 M. Zielinski,51 D. Zieminska,37 A. Zieminski,37 V. Zutshi,51 E.G. Zverev,22 and A. Zylberstejn12

1Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina

2LAFEX, Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

3Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

4Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

5Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia

6Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

7Institute of Physics, Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic

8Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador

9Institut des Sciences Nucléaires, IN2P3-CNRS, Universite de Grenoble 1, Grenoble, France

10CPPM, IN2P3-CNRS, Université de la Méditerranée, Marseille, France

11LPNHE, Universités Paris VI and VII, IN2P3-CNRS, Paris, France

12DAPNIA/Service de Physique des Particules, CEA, Saclay, France

13Panjab University, Chandigarh, India

14Delhi University, Delhi, India

15Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, India

16Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

17CINVESTAV, Mexico City, Mexico

18FOM-Institute NIKHEF and University of Amsterdam/NIKHEF, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

19University of Nijmegen/NIKHEF, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

20Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kraków, Poland

21Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia

22Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

23Institute for High Energy Physics, Protvino, Russia

24Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom

25University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721

26Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and University of California, Berkeley, California 94720

27University of California, Davis, California 95616

28California State University, Fresno, California 93740

29University of California, Irvine, California 92697

30University of California, Riverside, California 92521

31Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306

32University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822

33Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510

34University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607

35Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois 60115

36Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208

37Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405

38University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556

39Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011

40University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045

41Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506

42Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, Louisiana 71272

43University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742

44Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215

45Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115

46University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109

47Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824

48University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588

49Columbia University, New York, New York 10027

50New York University, New York, New York 10003

51University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627

52State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794

53Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973

54Langston University, Langston, Oklahoma 73050

55University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019

56Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912

57University of Texas, Arlington, Texas 76019

58Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843

59Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005

60University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195

The top quark is the charge $`+2/3`$ weak-isospin partner of the bottom quark in the third generation of fermions of the standard model (SM). It is extremely massive at $`174.3\pm 5.1`$ GeV , and, with an expected width of $`1.5`$ GeV , it decays before hadronization almost exclusively into a $`W`$ boson and a $`b`$ quark. At the Tevatron $`p\overline{p}`$ collider, most top quarks are pair-produced via the strong interaction through an intermediate gluon. This was the mode used in its observation  and subsequent studies of its properties, including measurements of the $`t\overline{t}`$ production cross section of $`5.9\pm 1.7`$ pb by the DØ collaboration , and $`6.5_{1.4}^{+1.7}`$ pb by the CDF collaboration . A second production mode is predicted to exist, where top quarks are created singly through an electroweak $`Wtb`$ vertex . Many processes beyond the SM can boost the single top quark cross section . In the absense of a cross section excess, measurement of the electroweak production of single top quarks could provide the magnitude of the CKM matrix element $`V_{tb}`$ , since the cross section is proportional to $`\left|V_{tb}\right|^2`$. In this Letter, we describe a search for single top quarks at the Tevatron, using data collected from 1992–1995 at a $`p\overline{p}`$ center-of-mass energy of 1.8 TeV.

The standard model predicts three modes for the production of single top quarks at a hadron collider. The first is the $`s`$-channel process $`q^{}\overline{q}tb`$, illustrated in Fig. 1(a). For a top quark mass $`m_t`$ of 175 GeV, this has a cross section calculated at next-to-leading-order (NLO) of $`0.73\pm 0.10`$ pb . Following the decay of the top quark, these events contain a $`W`$ boson and two $`b`$ quarks that hadronize into two central jets with high transverse momentum ($`p_T`$). The second production mode, shown in Fig. 1(b) and sometimes referred to as “$`W`$-gluon fusion”, is a $`t`$-channel process, $`q^{}gtqb`$. The NLO cross section is $`1.70\pm 0.24`$ pb . This process produces a $`W`$ boson, a forward light-quark jet, and two central $`b`$ jets, one with high $`p_T`$ and the other with low $`p_T`$. We have searched for both production modes, with decay of the $`W`$ boson into $`e\nu `$ or $`\mu \nu `$, and identification of a $`b`$ jet via a tagging muon. A third mode occurs via both the $`s`$-channel and $`t`$-channel, $`bgtW`$, with a final state containing two $`W`$ bosons and a single $`b`$ jet. The leading-order cross section for this process is only 0.15 pb , and, with $`90`$ pb-1 of available data, there is no possibility of separating it from background. Throughout this Letter, we use “$`tb`$” to refer to both $`t\overline{b}`$ and the charge-conjugate process $`\overline{t}b`$, and “$`tqb`$” to both $`tq\overline{b}`$ and $`\overline{t}\overline{q}b`$.

The DØ detector  has three major components: a central tracking system including a transition radiation detector (TRD), a uranium/liquid-argon calorimeter, and a muon spectrometer. For the measurement in the electron channel, we use $`91.9\pm 4.1`$ pb-1 of data collected with a trigger that required an electromagnetic (EM) energy cluster in the calorimeter, a jet, and missing transverse momentum ($`\overline{)}E_T`$). For events passing the final selection, the efficiency of the trigger is 90–$`93\%`$, depending on the location of the EM cluster in the calorimeter. In the muon channel, we use $`88.0\pm 3.9`$ pb-1 of data acquired with several triggers, which required $`\overline{)}E_T`$ or a muon with a jet. The combined efficiency of these triggers is 96–$`99\%`$. A third data sample, obtained with a trigger requiring just three jets, is used for measuring one of the backgrounds. Since the multijet cross section is very large, this trigger was prescaled, and we have 0.8 pb-1 of such data. Each of the three samples contains approximately one million events.

To determine whether an EM energy cluster was generated by an electron, we require it to be isolated from other activity in the calorimeter and use a five-variable likelihood function to discriminate electrons from background. This likelihood includes the fraction of cluster energy contained in the EM region of the calorimeter ($`>90\%`$ for electrons), the cluster shape (it must resemble an electron and not a pion), the presence of a well-matched track between the cluster and a primary $`p\overline{p}`$ interaction vertex (to discriminate against photons), the $`dE/dx`$ energy loss along the track (consistent with a single particle and not from a photon conversion into a pair of charged particles), and the TRD response (matching that of an electron and not a pion). An electron is then required to have transverse energy $`E_T>20`$ GeV, and to be within the optimal region of the calorimeters with detector pseudorapidity $`|\eta ^{\mathrm{det}}|<1.1`$ or $`1.5<|\eta ^{\mathrm{det}}|<2.5`$ . When an electron is isolated, it is more likely to have originated from the decay of a $`W`$ boson than from a $`b`$ hadron. The efficiency of the combined electron identification requirements is $`60\%`$.

Jets, reconstructed with a cone algorithm of radius $`R=0.5`$ , must fail the electron requirements. The jet with highest transverse energy is required to have $`E_T>15`$ GeV and $`|\eta ^{\mathrm{det}}|<3.0`$. The second jet has to have $`E_T>10`$ GeV and $`|\eta ^{\mathrm{det}}|<4.0`$. Other jets in the event are counted if they have $`E_T>5`$ GeV and $`|\eta ^{\mathrm{det}}|<4.0`$. We set the $`E_T`$ thresholds low and the $`|\eta ^{\mathrm{det}}|`$ region wide to maximize acceptance for signal; however, the efficiency to reconstruct jets close to the 5 GeV threshold is low.

We identify a muon by the pattern of hits in the spectrometer drift tubes, and require an impact parameter $`<20`$ cm between the spectrometer track and the primary vertex, a matching track in the calorimeter consistent with a minimum-ionizing particle, a matching central track, a signal in the scintillators surrounding the spectrometer within $`\pm 12`$ ns of the beam-crossing time, and penetration through one of the spectrometer toroids for momentum analysis. Most of these requirements are designed to reject cosmic rays and particles backscattered from the beamline magnets. Muons must be within the central region of the spectrometer, with $`|\eta ^{\mathrm{det}}|<1.7`$. A muon is called “isolated” if $`\mathrm{\Delta }R(\mu ,\mathrm{jet})0.5`$  for all jets with $`E_T>5`$ GeV. An isolated muon must have $`p_T>20`$ GeV and is attributed to the decay of a $`W`$ boson. A “tagging” muon has $`\mathrm{\Delta }R<0.5`$ and $`p_T>4`$ GeV. It is attributed to the semileptonic decay of a $`b`$ hadron in a jet, and thus identifies a $`b`$ jet. The efficiency of the combined muon identification requirements is $`44\%`$ for isolated muons.

Because a leptonically-decaying $`W`$ boson is supposed to be present in each signal event, we require $`\overline{)}E_T>15`$ GeV as evidence of a neutrino.

We use the NLO single top quark production cross sections to estimate that about 66 $`s`$-channel and 153 $`t`$-channel events were produced at DØ during Run 1. Of these, we expect that about 15 $`s`$-channel and 35 $`t`$-channel events passed the trigger requirements and were recorded for analysis.

Our analysis starts with a simple baseline selection of events that pass the triggers and have at least one reconstructed electron or isolated muon, and at least two jets with $`E_T>5`$ GeV and $`|\eta ^{\mathrm{det}}|<4.0`$. For the results presented in this Letter, we also demand at least one tagging muon (“$`/\mu `$”), to indicate the possible presence of a $`b`$ jet. These minimal requirements reduce the $`1`$ million events in each channel to 116 $`e`$+jets/$`\mu `$ events and 110 $`\mu `$+jets/$`\mu `$ events. The acceptance for single top quark events for these selections is 0.2–$`0.3\%`$ per channel, which should yield $`1`$ tagged event ($`tb`$ and $`tqb`$, with electron and muon $`W`$ decays combined). The expected number of events is small because the probability to identify at least one tagging muon in a single top quark event is only 6–$`11\%`$. After these selections, $`90\%`$ of the background in the electron channel is from QCD multijet production with a jet misidentified as an electron, $`5\%`$ from $`t\overline{t}`$ events, and $`5\%`$ from $`W`$+jets (including $`WW`$ and $`WZ`$ diboson events), where about two thirds of the $`W`$+jets events have a light quark or gluon jet with a false tagging muon, and a quarter of the tagging muons are from $`c`$ quark decays. In the muon channel, the background is $`8\%`$ from $`W`$+jets events, $`6\%`$ from QCD $`b\overline{b}`$ events where a muon from a $`b`$ decay mimics an isolated muon, and $`4\%`$ from $`t\overline{t}`$ events. The remaining $`82\%`$ of the background is from QCD multijet events with a coincident cosmic ray or beam-halo particle misidentified as an isolated muon.

Next, we apply a set of loose criteria to remove mismeasured events and to reject backgrounds that do not have the same final-state characteristics as our signal. We reject events with more than one isolated lepton and any isolated photons. We remove events with $`\overline{)}E_T`$ close to 15 GeV and aligned with or opposite to a jet, or opposite an electron or isolated muon. We also reject events that have muons with clearly mismeasured $`p_T`$. We require two, three, or four jets. To remove the remaining contamination from cosmic rays in the isolated muon channel, we reject events where the isolated muon and tagging muon are back-to-back; in particular, we require $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (\mathrm{isol}\mu ,\mathrm{tag}\mu )<2.4`$ rad. These criteria, together with the jet $`E_T`$ and $`|\eta ^{\mathrm{det}}|`$ requirements and the $`\overline{)}E_T`$ threshold, reject $`86\%`$ of the baseline multijet “electron” events, $`95\%`$ of the cosmic ray and misreconstructed isolated “muon” events, $`90\%`$ of the $`b\overline{b}`$ “isolated” muon events, $`27\%`$ of the $`W`$+jets events in the electron channel, $`81\%`$ in the muon channel, and 55–$`73\%`$ of the $`t\overline{t}`$ background. The signal acceptances are reduced by 14–$`51\%`$. There remain 21 $`e`$+jets/$`\mu `$ and 8 $`\mu `$+jets/$`\mu `$ candidates in the data.

Based on independent studies (see below), we apply the following requirements to obtain the best significance of signal over square-root of background in each channel:

Electron Channel

* $`E_T(\mathrm{jet1})+E_T(\mathrm{jet2})+E_T(e)+\overline{)}E_T>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}125}`$ GeV
* $`E_T(\mathrm{jet3})+5\times E_T(\mathrm{jet4})<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}47}`$ GeV
* $`E_T(\mathrm{jet1})+4\times \overline{)}E_T>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}155}`$ GeV

Muon Channel

* $`E_T(\mathrm{jet1})+E_T(\mathrm{jet2})+E_T(\mathrm{jet3})+E_T(\mathrm{jet4})>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}70}`$ GeV
* $`E_T(\mathrm{jet3})+5\times E_T(\mathrm{jet4})<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}47}`$ GeV

The first criterion in each set was chosen by studying reconstructed comphep  Monte Carlo (MC) $`W`$+jets events, the second by examining herwig  $`t\overline{t}`$ MC events, and the third variable in the electron channel was determined from studies of QCD multijet data. The distributions were compared with signal MC from comphep. The cutoffs were optimized on combined samples of untagged and tagged events. Figure 2 shows the distribution of the second variable, designed to minimize $`t\overline{t}`$ background, for electron and muon events combined after all other selections have been applied.

After final selections, there is no evidence of an excess of signal over background, and we therefore use the results to set limits on the $`s`$-channel and $`t`$-channel single top quark cross sections. To do this, we must first determine the signal acceptance and the background in each channel.

We obtain the signal acceptances using MC samples of $`s`$-channel and $`t`$-channel single top quark events from the comphep event generator, with the pythia package  used to simulate fragmentation, initial-state and final-state radiation, the underlying event, and leptonic decays of the $`W`$ boson. The MC events are processed through a detector simulation program based on the geant  package and a trigger simulation, and are then reconstructed. We apply all selections directly to the reconstructed MC events, except for several particle identification criteria, which we correct using factors measured in other DØ data. Table I shows the acceptance for single top quark events after all selection requirements and corrections.

The acceptance for $`t\overline{t}`$ pairs is calculated in a manner similar to that for signal and then converted to a number of events using the integrated luminosity for each channel and DØ’s value of the $`t\overline{t}`$ cross section .

The QCD multijet background with a jet misidentified as an electron is measured using multijet data. The events are weighted by the probability that a jet mimics an electron for each jet that passes the electron $`E_T`$ and $`|\eta ^{\mathrm{det}}|`$ requirements. These probabilities are determined from the same multijet sample, but for $`\overline{)}E_T<15`$ GeV, and are found to be $`(0.0160\pm 0.0016)\%`$ for $`|\eta ^{\mathrm{det}}|<1.1`$, and $`(0.0622\pm 0.0048)\%`$ for $`|\eta ^{\mathrm{det}}|>1.5`$. We normalize the integrated luminosity of the multijet sample so as to match the data sample used in the search for the signal, and correct for a small difference in trigger efficiency between the two samples.

The QCD $`b\overline{b}`$ background arises when both $`b`$ quarks decay semileptonically to a muon, and one muon is misidentified as isolated. There are two ways for such events to mimic the signal. First, one of the $`b`$ jets may not be reconstructed, and its muon can therefore appear to be isolated. Second, a muon can be emitted wide of its jet and be reconstructed as an isolated muon. The background from each source is measured using data collected with the same triggers as used for the muon signal. The events are required to pass all selections, except that the muon, which otherwise passes the isolated muon requirements, is within a jet. Events with truly isolated muons are excluded. Each event is then weighted by the probability that a nonisolated muon is reconstructed as an isolated one. This probability is measured using the same data sample, but for $`\overline{)}E_T<15`$ GeV, and found to be $`(2.94\pm 0.53)\%`$ for the case of a “lost jet,” and $`(1.38\pm 0.25)\%`$ for a “wide $`\mu `$,” for muons with $`p_T<32`$ GeV. The probabilities are parametrized as a function of the muon $`p_T`$. We calculate a weighted average of the two results to obtain the number of expected background events.

The background from $`W`$+jets is estimated by applying a set of tag-rate functions to untagged signal candidates that pass all final event selections. These tag-rate functions are measured using multijet data and correspond to the relative probability that a jet of given $`E_T`$ and $`\eta ^{\mathrm{det}}`$ has a tagging muon, for two run periods when the muon chambers had different operating efficiencies. We then correct the samples for a small difference in trigger efficiency between untagged and tagged events. We also correct the muon channel by a factor of $`0.688\pm 0.034`$ to account for the effect of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ cutoff used to minimize cosmic ray backgrounds, a selection that cannot be applied directly. Finally, to avoid double counting, we subtract the fraction of events expected from $`t\overline{t}`$ and QCD backgrounds and single top quark signals. The remaining fraction of $`W`$+jets in the untagged signal candidates is 66–$`92\%`$, depending on the location of the electron or isolated muon.

The numbers of events expected for the two signals and three backgrounds are shown in Table I, together with the final numbers of events in the candidate data samples, for the electron and muon channels.

To calculate limits on the cross sections for single top quark production in the $`s`$-channel and $`t`$-channel modes, we use the numbers of observed events, the signal acceptances and backgrounds, and the integrated luminosities. Covariance matrices are used to describe the correlated uncertainties on these quantities. We use a Bayesian approach, with a flat prior for the single top quark cross section and a multivariate Gaussian prior for the other quantities. We calculate the likelihood functions in each decay channel and combine them to obtain the following $`95\%`$ confidence level upper limits:

* $`\sigma (p\overline{p}\text{ }\text{ }tb+X)<39`$ pb
* $`\sigma (p\overline{p}\text{ }\text{ }tqb+X)<58`$ pb

To conclude, we have searched for electroweak production of single top quarks and find no evidence for such production. We set upper limits on the cross sections for $`s`$-channel production of $`tb`$ and $`t`$-channel production of $`tqb`$. The limits are consistent with expectations from the standard model.

We are grateful to T. Stelzer, Z. Sullivan, S. Willenbrock, and C.-P. Yuan for valuable discussions on theoretical aspects of the analysis. We thank the staffs at Fermilab and at collaborating institutions for contributions to this work, and acknowledge support from the Department of Energy and National Science Foundation (USA), Commissariat à L’Energie Atomique and CNRS/Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (France), Ministry for Science and Technology and Ministry for Atomic Energy (Russia), CAPES and CNPq (Brazil), Departments of Atomic Energy and Science and Education (India), Colciencias (Colombia), CONACyT (Mexico), Ministry of Education and KOSEF (Korea), CONICET and UBACyT (Argentina), A.P. Sloan Foundation, and the A. von Humboldt Foundation.