The Top Mass: Interpretation and Theoretical Uncertainties

TL;DR

This paper discusses the interpretation of the Monte Carlo top quark mass, highlighting the theoretical uncertainties and proposing a conceptual framework to relate it to field theory masses, with an estimated additional uncertainty of about 1 GeV.

Contribution

It introduces a conceptual interpretation of the MC top mass as a heavy-light meson mass and provides a relation to field theory masses, addressing a key theoretical uncertainty.

Findings

MC top mass can be interpreted as a heavy-light meson mass

A relation to field theory top masses requires non-perturbative input

An additional uncertainty of about 1 GeV should be considered

Abstract

Currently the most precise LHC measurements of the top quark mass are determinations of the top quark mass parameter of Monte-Carlo (MC) event generators reaching uncertainties of well below $1$ GeV. However, there is an additional theoretical problem when using the MC top mass $m_t^{\rm MC}$ as an input for theoretical predictions, because a rigorous relation of $m_t^{\rm MC}$ to a renormalized field theory mass is, at the very strict level, absent. In this talk I show how - nevertheless - some concrete statements on $m_t^{\rm MC}$ can be deduced assuming that the MC generator behaves like a rigorous first principles QCD calculator for the observables that are used for the analyses. I give simple conceptual arguments showing that in this context $m_t^{\rm MC}$ can be interpreted like the mass of a heavy-light top meson, and that there is a conversion relation to field theory top quark masses that requires a non-perturbative input. The situation is in analogy to B physics where a similar relation exists between experimental B meson masses and field theory bottom masses. The relation gives a prescription how to use $m_t^{\rm MC}$ as an input for theoretical predictions in perturbative QCD. The outcome is that at this time an additional uncertainty of about $1$ GeV has to be accounted for. I discuss limitations of the arguments I give and possible ways to test them, or even to improve the current situation.