text:
# Combination of CDF and DØ Results on 𝑊 Boson Mass and Width

## I Introduction

We present new combined results on the $`W`$ boson mass and width from the CDF and DØ experiments at the Fermilab Tevatron. We document the combination methodologies and summarize the results and the various sources of uncertainty, identifying those sources that produce correlated uncertainty between the two experiments’ results. We also present the combination with the UA2 and LEP results. These measurements represent some of the main goals of the electroweak physics program at the Tevatron collider.

The $`W`$ boson mass and width are important parameters in the electroweak gauge sector of the standard model(SM) . The $`W`$ boson, along with the $`Z`$ boson and the photon, provides a unified description of the electroweak interaction as a gauge interaction with the symmetry group $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)`$. If this were an unbroken symmetry, the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ bosons would be massless. The mass of the $`W`$ boson and its couplings, which determine its width, are therefore of substantial relevance to tests of the structure of the theory and the nature of electroweak symmetry breaking.

In the SM the $`W`$ boson mass is related to other parameters, and in the “on shell” scheme  it can be written as

$$M_W=\left(\frac{\pi \alpha }{\sqrt{2}G_F}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{M_Z}{\sqrt{M_Z^2M_W^2}\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Delta }r}},$$
(1)
where $`\alpha `$ is the electromagnetic coupling constant and $`G_F`$ is Fermi coupling constant measured in muon decay. The electroweak radiative correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ receives calculable contributions from loops containing the $`tb`$ quarks, the Higgs boson (which is the hypothetical agent of electroweak symmetry breaking), and any other hypothetical particles such as supersymmetric particles coupling to the $`W`$ boson. Since the top quark mass has been measured , the $`tb`$ loop correction can be calculated. A precise measurement of the $`W`$ boson mass therefore constrains the mass of the Higgs boson, which has not yet been experimentally observed. Should the Higgs boson be discovered in the future, the comparison between its directly measured mass and the indirect constraint will be a very interesting test of the SM. In the minimal supersymmetric extension of the standard model (MSSM), for example, loop corrections due to supersymmetric particles can contribute up to 250 MeV  to the predicted $`W`$ boson mass.

In the SM $`W`$ bosons decay leptonically: $`Wl\nu `$ where $`l\{e,\mu ,\tau \}`$, or hadronically: $`Wq^{}\overline{q}`$, where $`q,q^{}\{u,d,c,s,b\}`$. The leptonic partial width can be calculated  :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(We\nu )=\frac{G_FM_W^3}{6\sqrt{2}\pi }\left(1+\delta \right),$$
(2)
where the SM radiative correction $`\delta `$ is calculated to be less than 0.5%. Including the QCD radiative corrections for the quark decay channels, the SM prediction for the leptonic branching ratio  is:

$$B(We\nu )=\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}+6[\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}+\alpha _s(M_W)/\pi +𝒪(\alpha _s^2)]\right)^1.$$
(3)
Given the precision of these SM calculations, their comparison with the measured $`W`$ boson width provides an important test of the SM.

The precision of the $`W`$ boson mass and width measurements from the LEP experiments (ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL) and the Tevatron collider experiments (CDF and DØ) is similar, implying that our best knowledge comes from the combined results of all these experiments. The measurements are quite intricate with many inputs and incorporate constraints from data and physics models. In this situation a simple average of all measurements, with the assumption that they are completely independent, may be biased in the value or the uncertainty.

In this paper we present systematic analyses of the $`W`$ mass and width measurements published by the CDF and DØ experiments at Fermilab. Following a brief description of the observables in Section II, we discuss our methodology and calculations. In Section III, we consider the $`W`$ boson mass as the parameter of interest and consider all other parameters needed for its measurement as external inputs, including the $`W`$ width. We review the uncertainties on these external parameters as described in the respective CDF and DØ publications, identifying the relevant correlations. This information is used to construct the covariance matrix for combining the $`W`$ mass measurements.

In Section IV, we perform the same analysis for the direct measurement of the $`W`$ boson width. This is again a one-parameter analysis, where in particular the $`W`$ mass is treated as an external input.

In Section V, we present a new methodology for treating the $`W`$ boson mass and width simultaneously in a two-parameter analysis. This method departs from the previously published results in that no external information is used for either of these parameters. This has two significant advantages over the one-parameter analyses that are usually performed: (i) theoretical model dependence is reduced, making the results more meaningful and easier to interpret, and (ii) correlation with other methods of measuring the $`W`$ mass and width is reduced, making subsequent comparisons and combinations more powerful. We also demonstrate that the joint two-parameter analysis results in no loss of precision, compared to the separate one-parameter analyses of the $`W`$ mass and width.

In Section VI, we review the analyses of the ratio ($`R`$) of $`W`$ and $`Z`$ boson cross sections in the leptonic channels, as published by the CDF and DØ collaborations. With some SM assumptions and measured inputs, this ratio can be converted into a measurement of the leptonic branching ratio of the $`W`$ boson, and further into a measurement of the $`W`$ boson width. We present an analysis of the correlated uncertainties and the external inputs used to extract the $`W`$ width. Assumptions made in the extraction of the $`W`$ width from $`R`$ are compared and contrasted with the direct lineshape measurement in Section II.

We conclude the paper with Section VII, discussing future implementations of the methodologies presented here. We suggest certain additional information that can be published by the individual collaborations regarding details of their analyses. We also mention those aspects where the collaborations may adopt analysis practices that are more consistent with each other. We hope that these comments will be useful for future efforts.

## II Tevatron Observables

We summarize here the observables described by CDF and DØ in their respective publications . The directly measured $`W`$ boson mass and width  correspond to the pole mass $`M_W`$ and pole width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ in the Breit-Wigner line shape with energy-dependent width, as defined by the differential cross section

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dQ}}=_{q\overline{q}}(Q){\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{(Q^2M_W^2)^2+Q^4\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^2/M_W^2}},`$ (4)
where $`Q`$ is the center-of-mass energy of the annihilating partons. $`_{q\overline{q}}(Q)`$ represents the partonic luminosity in hadron-hadron collisions

$`_{q\overline{q}}(Q)={\displaystyle \frac{2Q}{s}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}{\displaystyle _{Q^2/s}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}f_i(x,Q^2)f_j(Q^2/sx,Q^2),`$ (5)
where $`i`$ and $`j`$ represent parton flavors, $`f_{i,j}`$ represent the respective parton distribution functions, $`x`$ is the momentum fraction of the parton, and $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the hadron-hadron center-of-mass energy.

The $`W`$ decay channels used for these measurements  are the $`e\nu `$ channel (by CDF and DØ) and the $`\mu \nu `$ channel (by CDF). The $`W`$ boson mass and width are extracted by analyzing the Jacobian edge and the high mass tail respectively of the transverse mass ($`m_T`$) distribution

$`m_T(l^\pm \nu )=\sqrt{2p_T(l^\pm )p_T(\nu )\left(1\mathrm{cos}\left(\varphi (l^\pm )\varphi (\nu )\right)\right)},`$ (6)
where $`p_T`$ and $`\varphi `$ represent the transverse momentum and azimuthal angle respectively of the leptons. DØ has also measured the $`W`$ boson mass by analyzing the Jacobian edge in the electron and neutrino $`p_T`$ distributions. The CDF result for the $`W`$ boson mass is quoted using the $`m_T`$ fit, while the DØ result combines the $`m_T`$ fit and the lepton $`p_T`$ fits taking the correlations into account.

The $`W`$ boson width is also extracted  from the measured ratio of partial cross sections

$`R`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _WB(We\nu )}{\sigma _ZB(Zee)}}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _W}{\sigma _Z}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(Zee)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(We\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_W}}`$ (8)
by using as inputs the calculated ratio of total cross sections, the measured $`Zee`$ branching ratio from LEP and the SM calculation of the partial width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(We\nu )`$.

Eqn. 4 gives the differential cross section for the $`W`$ Drell-Yan process. The extraction of $`M_W`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ using Eqn. 4 assumes the following:

1. the $`W`$ boson propagator can be described by the relativistic Breit-Wigner distribution in quantum field theory, and
2. the production of $`W`$ bosons in hadron-hadron collisions can be described by a factorizable process, with no additional interactions between the initial and final states. Since the leptonic final states are used for the measurements, there is no strong interaction between the initial state and the final state. Electroweak corrections are considered in the analyses. Higher twist effects, which in principle alter the effective partonic luminosity factor $`_{q\overline{q}}(Q)`$, are in practice negligible for $`Q^2=M_W^2`$.
3. backgrounds to the $`W`$ Drell-Yan process from $`WW`$, $`WZ`$ and $`t\overline{t}`$ production are small; in practice, these rare processes are further suppressed by analysis selection cuts and produce essentially no contamination.

In addition to the above, the extraction of $`B(We\nu )`$ and from $`R`$ assumes that the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ boson couplings to the leptons and light quarks are known, so that the inclusive cross section ratio $`\sigma _W/\sigma _Z`$ can be calculated. The $`Z`$ boson leptonic branching ratio is well-measured at LEP. Uncertainties associated with $`\sigma _W/\sigma _Z`$ are discussed in Section VI.

## III $`W`$ Boson Mass

The Run 1 $`W`$ boson mass measurements from CDF  and DØ  are

$`M_W`$ $`=`$ $`80.433\pm 0.079\mathrm{GeV}(\mathrm{CDF}),`$ (9)
$`M_W`$ $`=`$ $`80.483\pm 0.084\mathrm{GeV}(\mathrm{D}\mathrm{Ø}).`$ (10)
We discuss the sources of uncertainty and classify them as being either uncorrelated between the two experimental results, or (partially or completely) correlated.

### A Uncorrelated Uncertainties

The measurement and analysis techniques used by both experiments rely extensively on internal calibration and collider data to measure detector response and constrain theoretical model inputs. The bulk of the uncertainty is therefore uncorrelated. We itemize the uncorrelated sources below. The following discussion also applies to the uncorrelated uncertainties in the direct measurement of the $`W`$ boson width (see Section IV).

* $`W`$ statistics in the kinematic distributions used for the mass fits.
* Detector energy response and resolution measured using resonances ($`Z`$, $`J/\psi `$, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ and $`\pi ^0`$). Model uncertainty from resonance line shapes is negligible. These data are used for the calibration of lepton energy response (calorimetry and tracking for electrons and tracking for muons). The $`Z`$ data are also used for calibrating the calorimeter response to the hadronic activity recoiling against the vector boson. In the CDF analysis, the lepton response and resolution and the hadronic recoil are modelled by empirical functions whose parameters are constrained independently for the electron and muon channel. Therefore in the internal CDF combination of these measurements, uncertainties in the lepton and recoil models are uncorrelated between channels. DØ performs independent empirical fits to their data which are uncorrelated with CDF fits.
* Selection biases and backgrounds are unique to each experiment and are measured mostly from collider data, with some input from detector simulation for estimating selection bias. These uncertainties are uncorrelated between the CDF electron and muon channel measurements. CDF has no selection bias for electrons (in contrast with DØ) because the selection cuts rely more heavily on tracking rather than calorimeter isolation, and because of a more inclusive $`We\nu `$ triggering scheme.
* The distribution of the transverse momentum ($`p_T`$) of the $`W`$ boson is a model input, which each experiment constrains individually by fitting the $`Z`$ boson $`p_T`$ distribution. Phenomenological models such as that of Ellis, Ross and Veseli  or that of Ladinsky and Yuan  are treated as empirical functions which, after folding in the detector response, adequately describe the observed $`p_T(Z)`$ distribution. The $`p_T`$ distribution is specified by model parameters along with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ and the parton distribution functions (PDFs). The uncertainty is dominated by $`Z`$ statistics, with small dependence on the PDFs and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. The latter introduces a small correlation between the two experiments which can be neglected at this level***Individual sources of uncertainty below about 3 MeV are typically not enumerated by the CDF and DØ experiments when the results are reported.. A potentially correlated uncertainty in the theoretical relationship between the $`W`$ boson and the $`Z`$ boson $`p_T`$ spectra is assumed to be negligible. There is a small (3 MeV) correlated component in the $`p_T(W)`$ uncertainty between the CDF electron and muon channel results.
* The sources of background are $`Zll`$ where one of the leptons is lost, $`W\tau \nu e/\mu +\nu \overline{\nu }\nu `$, and misidentified QCD jet events. The $`Zll`$ background is estimated using individual detector simulations. The uncertainty on the $`W\tau \nu e/\mu +\nu \overline{\nu }\nu `$ background is negligible. The jet misidentification background is estimated by using loosely defined lepton data samples which enhances the background contribution (DØ), or by selecting lepton candidates that fail quality cuts (CDF). While the techniques are similar in principle they differ in detail. CDF has also confirmed the jet misidentification background estimate using a photon conversion sample. The background uncertainties and cross-checks are statistics-limited and therefore independent.

Table I shows the contributions to the uncertainty which are uncorrelated between the CDF and DØ measurements, taken from the respective publications  of the 1994-95 data as examples. All of these uncertainties should reduce in the future with more data, as the detector simulation and production/decay model is tuned with higher precision, and backgrounds are reduced with tighter cuts.

### B Correlated Uncertainties

Sources of correlated uncertainty are associated with the modeling of $`W`$ production and decay, which we itemize below. The uncertainties are fully correlated between CDF and DØ, with possibly different magnitudes.

* The $`W`$ boson kinematic distributions used in the fits are invariant under longitudinal boosts because they are derived from transverse quantities. The sensitivity to the PDFs arises because of acceptance cuts on the charged lepton rapidity. As the rapidity acceptance increases the sensitivity to PDFs reduces. The DØ $`W`$ boson mass measurement includes electrons up to pseudorapidity $`|\eta |<2.5`$, and the CDF measurement includes electrons and muons up to $`|\eta |<1.0`$. The PDF uncertainty is correlated but different for the two measurements.
* The Breit-Wigner line shape has an uncertainty due to the variation in the mass dependence of the partonic luminosity. This is a small contribution which DØ quotes separately, but CDF subsumes into the overall PDF uncertainty.
* QED radiative corrections in leptonic $`W`$ boson decays are evaluated by both experiments using the Berends and Kleiss  calculation. The uncertainty is evaluated by comparing to the PHOTOS  program and/or the calculation of Baur et al. . The higher order QED effects have a different impact on the electron and muon channel measurements from CDF and the electron measurement from DØ due to differences in energy measurement techniques. We find that in the combined electron and muon channel result of CDF, the effective uncertainty due to QED radiative corrections is 11 MeV. This contribution is fully correlated with the corresponding uncertainty in the DØ result.
* The $`W`$ width input into the $`W`$ boson mass measurement is provided differently by CDF and DØ. CDF uses the SM prediction for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ for the fitted value of $`M_W`$ and the resulting uncertainty is negligible. DØ uses the indirect measurement of the $`W`$ width which is extracted from the DØ measurement of the ratio $`\sigma (We\nu )/\sigma (Zee)`$. Since the line-shape fits performed by CDF and DØ for the $`W`$ mass are sensitive to the assumed $`W`$ width, we require that both experimental results use a consistent treatment of the uncertainty associated with the width input. For the purpose of combining the results, we take the 10 MeV uncertainty quoted by DØ to be the correlated error.

Table II shows the correlated systematic uncertainties, taken from  and  respectively.

### C Combination of Results

We use the Best Linear Unbiased Estimate  method, which is also used in , to construct the covariance matrix between the CDF and DØ measurements. For each source of correlated error, we construct a 2-component vector $`\delta _i\stackrel{}{M}_W`$ whose components are the individual uncertainties quoted in Table II, $`i.e.`$ $`\delta _i\stackrel{}{M}_W=(\delta _iM_W^{\mathrm{CDF}},\delta _iM_W^{\mathrm{D}\mathrm{Ø}})`$ for the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ source of uncertainty. The contribution to the covariance matrix from each source is given by $`V_i=\delta _i\stackrel{}{M}_W(\delta _i\stackrel{}{M}_W)^T`$, where $`T`$ indicates the transpose. The various sources of error are assumed to be uncorrelated with each other, hence we add the individual covariance matrices $`V_i`$ to obtain $`V=_iV_i`$. This procedure gives us the off-diagonal term in the total covariance matrix $`V`$. The diagonal terms are obtained from the square of each measurement’s total error. The square root of the off-diagonal covariance matrix element $`\sqrt{V_{12}}`$ gives the total correlated error between the CDF and DØ measurements of 19 MeV. The correlation coefficient, defined by $`V_{12}/\sqrt{V_{11}V_{23}}`$, is $`19^2/(79\times 84)=0.054`$.

The combined $`W`$ mass $`M_W`$ for the set of two $`W`$ mass measurements $`m_i`$ and their covariance matrix $`V`$ is given by

$$M_W=(\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{2}{}}H_{ij}m_j)/(\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{2}{}}H_{ij}),$$
(11)
where $`HV^1`$ and $`i,j`$ run over the two $`W`$ mass measurements being combined. The combined error is given by

$$\sigma (M_W)=(\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{2}{}}H_{ij})^{1/2},$$
(12)
and the $`\chi ^2`$ for the combination is given by

$$\chi ^2=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{2}{}}(m_iM_W)H_{ij}(m_jM_W).$$
(13)
Using this procedure, we obtain the combined result for the Tevatron collider

$$M_W^{\mathrm{Tevatron}}=80.456\pm 0.059\mathrm{GeV},$$
(14)
with $`\chi ^2=0.2`$ and probability of 66%.

We note that the various $`W`$ mass measurements from DØ are internally combined by DØ  using the same technique that we describe above. CDF combines its internal measurements  using a slightly different formulation, where the measurements are combined using only the uncorrelated errors, and then the correlated errors are added in quadrature. When the correlated errors are small with positive correlation coefficients, as we have here, the two formulations give very similar results.

The result of Eqn. 14 is not very different from a simple average ignoring all correlations ($`80.456\pm 0.057`$ GeV). This is due to the uncertainties being dominated by the uncorrelated components. As mentioned before, the uncorrelated sources of uncertainty will reduce with higher statistics. Therefore correlated theoretical errors such as QED radiative corrections may dominate in the future, in which case the error analysis we have presented here becomes more important.

The combination of the Tevatron collider average with the UA2 measurement  of

$$M_W^{\mathrm{UA2}}=80.36\pm 0.37\mathrm{GeV}$$
(15)
with a common uncertainty of 19 MeV yields

$$M_W^{p\overline{p}}=80.454\pm 0.059\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(16)
Here we have taken the correlated component of the uncertainty between CDF and DØ as being fully correlated with the UA2 result, since all three hadron collider measurements are sensitive to the PDFs, QED radiative corrections and $`W`$ width in much the same way.

Further combination with the preliminary LEP average  of

$$M_W^{\mathrm{LEP}}=80.412\pm 0.042\mathrm{GeV}$$
(17)
assuming no correlated uncertainty gives

$$M_W^{\mathrm{world}}=80.426\pm 0.034\mathrm{GeV}$$
(18)
as the preliminary world average (with $`\chi ^2=0.34`$ and 56% probability). Figure 1 shows the $`W`$ boson mass results, compared with the indirect value of $`80.380\pm 0.023`$ GeV. The latter is obtained from a fit to all $`Z`$-pole data and the direct top mass measurements , as interpreted in the context of the SM.

## IV $`W`$ Boson Width

The direct measurement of the $`W`$ boson width is made by analyzing $`W`$ boson candidate events with transverse mass above the Jacobian peak, which occurs for $`m_T80`$ GeV. The fitting range extends roughly between 100 GeV and 200 GeV, where the resolution effects from the Jacobian peak are small. The $`W`$ boson width analysis shares most of the issues of $`W`$ production and decay modeling and the detector response with the $`W`$ boson mass analysis, and the sources of uncertainty are therefore similar.

As with the $`W`$ boson mass analysis, the model parameters are constrained by analysis of internal data by each experiment separately. Therefore most of the uncertainties (shown in Table III for the 1994-95 data  as examples) are uncorrelated. These uncertainties are also uncorrelated between the CDF electron and muon channel results.

The correlated sources of uncertainty are

* Parton distribution functions - the CDF and DØ analyses used different sets of PDFs to evaluate this uncertainty and quote different contributions. The $`W`$ boson acceptance is similar in the direct measurements of the $`W`$ boson width since both experiments require lepton $`p_T>20`$ GeV and $`|\eta |<1`$.
* $`W`$ boson mass
* QED radiative corrections

The Run 1 direct $`W`$ boson width measurements from CDF  and DØ  are

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ $`=`$ $`2.05\pm 0.13\mathrm{GeV}(\mathrm{CDF}),`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ $`=`$ $`2.231_{0.170}^{+0.175}\mathrm{GeV}(\mathrm{D}\mathrm{Ø}),`$ (20)
where the total uncertainty is quoted. The correlated uncertainties for the two measurements are shown in Table IV.

The likelihood fit returns a slightly asymmetric statistical error for the DØ result. We symmetrize it by taking the arithmetic average and combine in quadrature with the total systematic uncertainty to obtain a total uncertainty of 173 MeV for the DØ result. We use the procedure described in Section III C to construct the covariance matrix, and use it to obtain the combined result

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^{\mathrm{Tevatron}}=2.115\pm 0.105\mathrm{GeV},$$
(21)
with $`\chi ^2=0.7`$ and probability of 40%. The square root of the off-diagonal covariance matrix element gives the total correlated error of 26 MeV and a correlation coefficient of 0.03. As in the case of the $`W`$ mass combination, the uncorrelated errors dominate with the current statistics, and ignoring the correlation would produce a similar result ($`2.115\pm 0.104`$ GeV). However, in Run 2 at the Tevatron, which is expected to increase the statistics by a factor of $`20`$, the correlated uncertainties on the theoretical inputs may dominate.

Combination of the Tevatron average with the preliminary LEP average  of

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^{\mathrm{LEP}}=2.150\pm 0.091\mathrm{GeV}$$
(22)
assuming no correlated uncertainty gives

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^{\mathrm{world}}=2.135\pm 0.069\mathrm{GeV}$$
(23)
as the preliminary world average (with $`\chi ^2=0.063`$). Figure 2 shows the $`W`$ boson width results, compared with the SM prediction of $`2.0927\pm 0.0025`$ GeV .

## V Joint Analysis of $`W`$ Boson Mass and Width

In this section we describe the analysis for the joint direct measurement of the $`W`$ boson mass and the width. We do not allow external constraints on the mass and width parameters: instead we propagate the uncertainties on the direct observables to the uncertainties on the extracted Breit-Wigner parameters. This procedure will give us the values and uncertainties on $`M_W`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ extracted from “Tevatron data only”, as well as their covariance.

We introduce the following terminology to distinguish between the observables called $`M_W`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ (which are returned by the fits to the data spectra) and the Breit-Wigner parameters of the same names (which we want to extract). We define the vector of observables $`\stackrel{}{o}=(M_W^o,\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^o)`$ and the vector of Breit-Wigner parameters $`\stackrel{}{t}=(M_W^t,\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^t)`$. We approximate the functional dependence $`\stackrel{}{o}(\stackrel{}{t})`$ by a linear dependence, so that $`\stackrel{}{o}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{t}`$ are related by a linear transformation. For the error analysis, we are interested in transforming the variations in $`\stackrel{}{o}`$ to variations in $`\stackrel{}{t}`$. This transformation is given by the matrix of derivatives $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{o}/\stackrel{}{t}`$, such that

$$\delta \stackrel{}{o}=\mathrm{\Delta }\delta \stackrel{}{t}.$$
(24)
The matrix of derivatives $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{M_W^o}{M_W^t}& \frac{M_W^o}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^t}\\ & \\ \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^o}{M_W^t}& \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^o}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^t}\end{array}\right).$$
(25)
The values of the matrix elements of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ have been published by the CDF and DØ collaborations, using their Monte Carlo simulation programs . These simulation programs generate $`W`$ bosons according to the calculated mass, rapidity and $`p_T`$ distributions, generate the decay products according to calculated angular distributions, and subject them to parameterized detector response functions. The simulated decay leptons are used to predict the distributions of the observables in the data.

The simulation and fitting programs demonstrate that the diagonal elements of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are unity. The off-diagonal element $`\frac{M_W^o}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^t}`$ is given by We use the value of the derivative quoted by D0, since CDF does not quote it. We assume that the same derivative would apply for both experiments since the $`W`$ boson kinematics and experimental resolutions are similar. the 10 MeV variation in observed $`M_W`$ due to a 60 MeV variation in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^t`$ . The off-diagonal element $`\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^o}{M_W^t}`$ is given by the mean variation of 13 MeV The uncertainty in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ due to $`M_W`$ is quoted as 10 MeV and 15 MeV by CDF and DØ respectively, which are consistent with being equal given that both experiments round the quoted systematics to the nearest 5 MeV due to Monte Carlo statistics. The kinematics and acceptance for both experiments are very similar, hence we expect the true sensitivity to be the same, for which our best estimate is their average of 13 MeV. in observed $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ for a 39 MeV variation in $`M_W^t`$ . Thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is reported by CDF and DØ to be

$`\mathrm{\Delta }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0.17\\ 0.33& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (28)
We invert Eqn. 24 to obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }^1\delta \stackrel{}{o}=\delta \stackrel{}{t}`$ and take the expectation value of the product of each vector and its transpose

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^1<\delta \stackrel{}{o}(\delta \stackrel{}{o})^T>(\mathrm{\Delta }^1)^T=<\delta \stackrel{}{t}(\delta \stackrel{}{t})^T>,$$
(29)
where $`T`$ denotes the transpose and $`<\mathrm{}>`$ denotes the expectation value. The left-hand-side of Eqn. 29 contains the covariance matrix of the observables $`<\delta \stackrel{}{o}(\delta \stackrel{}{o})^T>`$, and we identify the right-hand-side with the covariance matrix of the extracted Breit-Wigner parameters.

The diagonal elements of $`<\delta \stackrel{}{o}(\delta \stackrel{}{o})^T>`$ are given by the variances of the individual Tevatron averages of the direct $`W`$ boson mass and width (see Eqns. 14 and 21), excluding the error contribution to $`M_W`$ due to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ and vice-versa. In order to evaluate the off-diagonal matrix element, we analyze the various contributions to the respective variances. The observables are obtained from fits to disjoint data samples§§§The $`W`$ mass fits are performed with the data satisfying $`m_T<90`$ GeV or lepton $`p_T<50`$ GeV, while the fits for the $`W`$ width are performed with data satisfying $`m_T>100`$ GeV. , so that their statistical uncertainties are uncorrelated. However, the observed values of $`M_W`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ depend on the same detector parameters (such as energy scales and resolutions) and the same theoretical parameters (such as parton distribution functions and QED radiative corrections). Hence the uncertainties in these “nuisance” parameters propagate into correlated uncertainties between the observables.

To compute the off-diagonal term, we evaluate the uncertainty contribution to the observed $`M_W`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ due to each of these nuisance parameters. The following procedure is followed: (i) remove the respective contribution from the CDF and DØ results separately, by setting each to zero, (ii) recompute the total error on the CDF+DØ average, and (iii) take the difference in quadrature between the original total error and the reduced total error. Table V shows the uncertainty contributions from each source to the CDF+DØ averages.

In the above procedure, we have followed the same assumption that is made by CDF and DØ in their publications - that the sources of uncertainty listed in Table V are mutually independent. This is a valid assumption given the statistics of these data. The lepton energy scale and resolution are derived from the observed peak position and width of the $`Z`$ boson mass distribution, which are essentially decoupled. The $`p_T(W)`$ uncertainty is dominated by the statistical error of the $`p_T(Zll)`$ measurement, although this may change in the future. The recoil model is tuned using transverse momentum balance in $`p_T(Zll)`$ events, where the lepton resolution is a small effect compared to the recoil resolution.

We use the information from Table V to evaluate the covariance term

$$<\delta M_W^o\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_W^o>=\underset{i}{}\delta _iM_W^o\delta _i\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^o,$$
(30)
where the sum is performed over the various sources in Table V, and $`\delta _iM_W^o`$ and $`\delta _i\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^o`$ are the respective error contributions to $`M_W^o`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^o`$ from source $`i`$. In this sum, the relative sign of each pair of factors $`\delta _iM_W^o`$ and $`\delta _i\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^o`$ determines the sign of the covariance contribution. The $`W`$ mass and width analyses were performed by each experiment in a closely related manner, using the same simulation programs for both analyses. The uncertainty contributions due to the nuisance parameters are completely correlated between the observed $`M_W`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$. Therefore $`\delta _iM_W^o`$ and $`\delta _i\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^o`$ have the same sign in all cases. To illustrate, in the cases of the lepton energy scale, lepton energy resolution, $`p_T(W)`$ and recoil modeling, an increase in the respective parameter increases the observed values of both $`M_W`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$. Similarly, in the cases of detector modeling, selection bias and QED radiative correction, the bias in the shape of the $`m_T`$ or lepton $`p_T`$ spectrum affects both observables in the same direction.

Table VI shows the systematic error contributions due to PDFs and backgrounds. We do not expect a strong correlation between the error contributions to the observed mass and width from these sources, because the observables are derived from different ranges in $`m_T`$. Thus, in the case of the PDFs, a different $`x`$ range is relevant in each case. Furthermore, in the case of the $`W`$ mass, the uncertainty in the PDFs propagates mainly through acceptance effects, while in the case of the $`W`$ width, the main effect is through the relative normalization of the high and low $`m_T`$ regions. In the case of backgrounds, QCD jet misidentification produces the dominant background whose shape is determined independently in the different $`m_T`$ regions. The sensitivity to the background shape and normalization is different in the fits for the mass and the width, since the shapes of the signal distributions are very different in the respective fitting windows. On the basis of these arguments, we take the contributions in Table VI to be uncorrelated. They are not used directly in this joint error analysis; we present them here for completeness and future reference.

Evaluating Eqn. 30, we find $`<\delta M_W^o\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_W^o>=43^2`$ MeV2, and the covariance matrix for $`M_W^o`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^o`$ is

$`<\delta \stackrel{}{o}(\delta \stackrel{}{o})^T>=`$ (31)
$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}(59^210^2)\mathrm{MeV}^2& 43^2\mathrm{MeV}^2\\ 43^2\mathrm{MeV}^2& (105^213^2)\mathrm{MeV}^2\end{array}\right),`$ (34)
where the removal of the 10 (13) MeV systematic on the individual measurement of $`M_W`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$) due to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ ($`M_W`$) variation is shown explicitly. Substituting this result and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ into Eqn. 29 gives the covariance matrix for the extracted Breit-Wigner parameters $`M_W^t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^t`$ :

$`<\delta \stackrel{}{t}(\delta \stackrel{}{t})^T>=\left(\begin{array}{cc}(59\mathrm{MeV})^2& (33\mathrm{MeV})^2\\ (33\mathrm{MeV})^2& (106\mathrm{MeV})^2\end{array}\right).`$ (37)
The negative sign of the covariance between $`M_W^t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^t`$ can be understood as follows: a higher value of the Breit-Wigner pole mass increases the predicted number of events at high $`m_T`$, causing the inferred $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^t`$ to reduce (given the number of observed events at high $`m_T`$). Similarly, a higher value of the Breit-Wigner width increases the expected number of events on the high side of the Jacobian edge, causing the inferred $`M_W^t`$ to reduce (given the observed position of the Jacobian edge).

We now describe the calculation of the $`M_W`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ central values in the joint analysis. We shift the observed value of each variable by the corresponding difference of the other variable from its assumed value, scaled by the appropriate partial derivative:

$`M^t`$ $`=`$ $`M^o+b(\mathrm{\Gamma }_A\mathrm{\Gamma }^t),`$ (38)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^t`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^o+a(M_AM^t).`$ (39)
$`M_A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A`$ denote the assumed values of the mass and width used in the width and mass analyses respectively. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^o`$ and $`M^o`$ are the values extracted in these individual analyses, and $`a`$ and $`b`$ denote the partial derivatives $`a=\mathrm{\Gamma }/M=0.33`$ and $`b=M/\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.17`$. Solving these simultaneous linear equations for $`M^t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^t`$, we obtain the central values in the joint analysis.

CDF and DØ used different assumed values of the $`W`$ mass and width in their respective analyses. For our simultaneous $`M_W\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ analysis, we need the individual Tevatron averages of $`M_W`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ for which the inputs are quoted using the same reference values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ and $`M_W`$ respectively. Thus we cannot use the results of Eqn. 21 and Eqn. 14 for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^o`$ and $`M^o`$ directly. To arrive at the appropriate averages, we use the partial derivatives mentioned above to “shift” the CDF and DØ measurements to common reference values of $`M_A=80.413`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A=2.080`$ GeV.

This reference point is calculated as follows. In the width analysis, DØ assumed a $`W`$ mass value of 80.436 GeV while CDF assumed a value of 80.400 GeV. We use the weights derived for combining the CDF and DØ width measurements (Sec. IV) to obtain the average $`M_A=80.413`$ GeV. Similarly, in the mass analysis, DØ assumed a $`W`$ width value of 2.062 GeV and CDF assumed a value of 2.096 GeV. Using the weights derived for combining the mass measurements (Sec. III), we obtain the average $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A=2.080`$ GeV.

For these coordinates of the reference point, the CDF and DØ $`W`$ mass measurements shift by about 3 MeV each, and the $`W`$ width measurements shift by about 4 MeV and 8 MeV respectively for CDF and DØ. The combination of these shifted values is then repeated according to the procedure described in Sec. III and IV. We obtain the new individual Tevatron averages of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^o=2.115`$ GeV and $`M^o=80.456`$ GeV. These values are identical to those quoted in Eqn. 21 and Eqn. 14, proving that our calculated reference point is consistent with the original choices made by CDF and DØ.

We can now solve the simultaneous linear equations given in Eqns. 39, to obtain

$`M_W^{\mathrm{Tevatron}}`$ $`=`$ $`80.452\pm 0.059\mathrm{GeV},`$ (40)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^{\mathrm{Tevatron}}`$ $`=`$ $`2.102\pm 0.106\mathrm{GeV},`$ (41)
as the Tevatron results of the joint analysis. The correlation coefficient is $`0.174`$.

Finally, it is of interest for future, higher precision measurements of $`M_W`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ to pursue this joint analysis technique. We expect most error contributions to scale with the statistics of the data. Assumptions that are made in providing external input for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ in the $`M_W`$ analysis are not necessary in this joint analysis technique. We also note that there is almost no loss of precision compared to the individual measurements. While this may seem surprising, the reason is the positive covariance induced between $`M_W^o`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^o`$ by the uncertainties in the nuisance parameters. This means that an error in any of the nuisance parameters moves $`M_W`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ in the same direction. But since an increase in one causes the other to reduce as mentioned above, this overall negative feedback suppresses the systematic uncertainties from the nuisance parameters on both $`M_W^t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^t`$. This reduction in other systematic errors compensates for the information lost in excluding external mass and width input.

## VI Indirect $`W`$ Boson Width and Leptonic Width

The CDF and DØ measurements of $`R`$ (see Eqn. 8) have been presented  elsewhere. We describe here the combination of the $`R`$ measurements and the extraction of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ from $`R`$ assuming the validity of the SM. We also combine this extracted value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ with the directly measured $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ from the $`m_T`$ spectrum shape.

### A Combination of $`R`$ Measurements

The published CDF  and DØ  measurements of $`R`$ in the electron channel are

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`10.90\pm 0.32(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.30(\mathrm{syst})(\mathrm{CDF}),`$ (42)
$`R`$ $`=`$ $`10.82\pm 0.41(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.36(\mathrm{syst})(\mathrm{D}\mathrm{Ø}\mathrm{Run}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\mathrm{a}),`$ (43)
$`R`$ $`=`$ $`10.43\pm 0.15(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.23(\mathrm{syst})(\mathrm{D}\mathrm{Ø}\mathrm{Run}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\mathrm{b}),`$ (44)
where Run 1a refers to the 1992-93 data and Run 1b refers to the 1994-95 data. The uncertainties are summarized in Table VII.

We combine the DØ results from Run 1a and Run 1b taking the systematics due to choice of PDF (0.3%), the uncertainty in $`M_W`$ (0.1%), the uncertainty in the boson $`p_T`$ spectrum (0.1%), clustering algorithm dependence (0.2%), physics generator issues (0.3%), electroweak radiative corrections (1.0%)  and Drell-Yan background (0.1%), as correlated error components, to obtain a total correlated uncertainty of 1.1%. The result for the combined DØ measurement is

$`R^{\mathrm{D}\mathrm{Ø}}`$ $`=`$ $`10.50\pm 0.23(\mathrm{uncorrelated})\pm 0.12(\mathrm{correlated})`$ (45)
$`=`$ $`10.50\pm 0.26.`$ (46)
This DØ result is then combined with the CDF measurement. In this combination, the systematics due to the choice of PDF (0.3%), the uncertainty in $`M_W`$ (0.1%) and higher-order electroweak corrections (1.0%) are treated as correlated uncertainties, to obtain a total correlated uncertainty of 1.0%. The average $`R`$ value is

$`R^{\mathrm{Tevatron}}`$ $`=`$ $`10.59\pm 0.20(\mathrm{uncorrelated})\pm 0.11(\mathrm{correlated})`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`10.59\pm 0.23.`$ (48)
### B Extraction of $`W`$ Boson Width

In the extraction of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ from $`R`$, the $`Zee`$ branching ratio is taken from the PDG  to be ($`3.363\pm 0.004`$)%. The inclusive cross section ratio $`\sigma _W/\sigma _Z`$ is calculated at NNLO using Van Neerven et al. , with the following inputs: $`M_W^{\mathrm{Tevatron}}=80.456\pm 0.059`$ GeV, $`M_Z=91.187`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W=2.06\pm 0.05`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z=2.490`$ GeV, and sin$`{}_{}{}^{2}\theta _{W}^{}=0.23124`$ . The renormalization and factorization scales are set to the boson mass. The calculated value of the ratio of inclusive cross sections is found to be

$$\frac{\sigma _W}{\sigma _Z}=3.360\pm 0.051.$$
(49)
The dominant uncertainties (quoted in parentheses) in the calculation of the cross section ratio are due to PDFs (0.45%), $`M_W`$ (0.09%), factorization scale (0.12%), renormalization scale (0.06%) and sin$`{}_{}{}^{2}\theta _{W}^{}`$ (1.43%). The uncertainties due to $`M_Z`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$ are negligible. The uncertainty due to any input is estimated by varying the input by $`\pm 1\sigma `$ and taking half of the difference between the results. The uncertainties due to the renormalization and factorization scales are estimated by varying the scales high and low by a factor of two. The uncertainty due to electroweak corrections is estimated by taking different conventions for sin$`{}_{}{}^{2}\theta _{W}^{}`$. For our central value we use sin$`{}_{}{}^{2}\theta _{eff}^{}`$ from LEP, which gives an effective Born approximation and minimizes higher order corrections. The on-shell value of sin$`{}_{}{}^{2}\theta _{W}^{}=1(M_W/M_Z)^2`$, however, is equivalent at tree level, but gives a $`Z`$ boson production cross section which is about 1.4% higher. We include this variation as a systematic uncertainty on the calculated $`\sigma _W/\sigma _Z`$.

The value of the $`We\nu `$ branching ratio extracted from the combined CDF and DØ measurement of $`R`$ using Eqn. 8 is

$$B(We\nu )=(10.61\pm 0.28)\%(\mathrm{Tevatron}).$$
(50)
For comparison, the SM value of the branching ratio  is

$`B(We\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(We\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(W)}}`$ (51)
$`=`$ $`[3+6\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _S}{\pi }}+1.409({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _S}{\pi }})^212.77({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _S}{\pi }})^3\}]^1`$ (52)
$`=`$ $`0.10820\pm 0.00007,`$ (53)
where we have used $`\alpha _S(M_W)=0.1224\pm 0.0028`$  This value of $`\alpha _S(M_W)`$ is obtained by evolving $`\alpha _S(M_Z)=0.1200\pm 0.0028`$ (Eqn. 10.50 of ) from $`M_Z=91.19`$ GeV to $`M_W=80.45`$ GeV using Eqn. 9.4 of ..

The SM calculation of the $`W`$ boson leptonic partial width is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(We\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_\mu M_W^3}{6\pi \sqrt{2}}}(1+\delta ^{SM})`$ (54)
$`=`$ $`227.1\pm 0.6\mathrm{MeV},`$ (55)
where $`G_\mu =(1.16637\pm 0.00001)\times 10^5`$ GeV-2 is the muon decay constant , $`\delta ^{SM}=0.0035\pm 0.0017`$ is the “oblique” correction to the tree level partial width , and $`M_W^{\mathrm{Tevatron}}=80.456\pm 0.059`$ GeV. Using this value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(We\nu )`$, the extracted value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^{\mathrm{Tevatron}}=2.141\pm 0.057\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(56)
For comparison, the SM prediction is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^{\mathrm{SM}}=2.099\pm 0.006\mathrm{GeV}`$, using Eqns. 53 and 55.

A comparison of the width extracted from $`R`$ with the directly measured width (Eqns. 21 and 41) provides an interesting test of the SM, since the two methods are quite different. In the former measurement assumptions are made about boson couplings, whereas the latter makes use of kinematics. This test is one of the main goals of the Tevatron electroweak physics program in the future, as the precision of both measurements improves with more data.

If one is willing to make all the SM assumptions mentioned in Sec. II, it is possible to combine the indirect and direct measurements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$. The result should be used with care; for instance, it may not be used in global fits where boson couplings are free parameters, or in analyses of data where new physics can affect the $`W`$ boson branching ratios.

Given these caveats, we discuss other aspects of combining the indirect and direct measurements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$. We consider the correlation induced by theoretical inputs used in the respective analyses:

* PDF uncertainties: we conclude that there is no significant correlation because different aspects of PDFs are relevant for each analysis. For the direct measurement of the width the PDFs influence the mass dependence of the Breit-Wigner line shape at high mass. For the extraction of the width from $`R`$, the PDF’s influence the boson acceptance via their rapidity distributions. The total cross section ratio $`\sigma _W/\sigma _Z`$ is affected by the $`u(x)/d(x)`$ ratio of PDFs.
* Electroweak corrections, factorization and renormalization scales and sin$`{}_{}{}^{2}\theta _{W}^{}`$ play no significant role in the direct $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ measurement.
* We consider the correlation induced by variation in $`M_W`$. The uncertainties in $`R`$ and $`\sigma _W/\sigma _Z`$ due to $`M_W`$ variation are of the same magnitude and signWith increasing $`M_W`$, $`R`$ reduces due to increased acceptance, and $`\sigma _W`$ also reduces. and therefore cancel in $`B(We\nu )`$. The uncertainty in the SM calculation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(We\nu )`$ due to uncertainty in $`M_W`$ is 0.3%, which is transferred to the extracted $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ as a 7 MeV uncertainty. This is anti-correlated\**\**\** With increasing $`M_W`$, the calculated $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(We\nu )`$ increases, whereas the directly measured $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ decreases.  with the corresponding $`M_W`$ uncertainty on the direct $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ measurement (13 MeV).

Taking the anti-correlation induced by $`M_W`$ variation into account††††††Ignoring the anti-correlation changes the result and uncertainty by less than 1 MeV., we find the Tevatron combined (direct and indirect) result

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^{\mathrm{Tevatron}}=2.135\pm 0.050\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(57)
The $`\chi ^2`$ of this combination is 0.05 with a probability of 83 %, indicating consistency between the direct and indirect measurements. Further combining with the preliminary LEP direct measurement (Eqn. 22) gives

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^{\mathrm{world}}=2.139\pm 0.044\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(58)
Our world average differs from the PDG  value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^{\mathrm{world}}=2.118\pm 0.042\mathrm{GeV}`$ because we have considered the correlations between the CDF and DØ measurements, which were ignored in .

### C Extraction of $`W`$ Leptonic Width

We may use the extracted value of the $`We\nu `$ branching ratio (Eqn. 50) and the directly measured total $`W`$ width (Eqn. 21) to obtain a measurement of the $`W`$ leptonic partial width

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(We\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W\times B(We\nu )`$ (59)
$`=`$ $`224\pm 13\mathrm{MeV}(\mathrm{Tevatron}).`$ (60)
The fractional uncertainty in the direct $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ (5.0%) dominates over the fractional uncertainty in $`B(We\nu )`$ (2.4%). This measurement of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(We\nu )`$ is in good agreement with the SM calculation given in Sec. VI.

## VII Suggestions for Future Publications

There are a few instances where CDF and DØ have treated uncertainties differently in their respective analyses. For future efforts it would be helpful if a consistent treatment were adopted by both collaborations with mutual agreement. We itemize these cases below.

* The uncertainty due to PDFs has been treated differently in two respects, the acceptance-related uncertainty and the parton luminosity uncertainty.

The acceptance-related effects were studied by varying PDFs, but these variations differed between the CDF and DØ analyses. CDF used their $`We\nu `$ charge asymmetry data to constrain the PDF variation, whereas the variation considered by DØ did not have this constraint because DØ did not have electron charge discrimination capability in Run 1. With the Run 2 detector DØ can also make this measurement. DØ and CDF have also demonstrated that the boson (decay lepton) rapidity distributions measured in $`Z`$ ($`W`$) boson events can provide additional PDF constraints, especially when forward lepton coverage is included. The optimal use of all this information would be to impose a combined constraint on PDFs using CDF and DØ data, and then propagate the same PDF uncertainty into their respective analyses.

This approach may also be applied to the parton luminosity uncertainty. Furthermore we suggest that the possibility of correlation between the parton luminosity uncertainty and the acceptance-related PDF uncertainty be studied. We suggest that these components be quoted separately along with their correlation.
* The treatment of the $`W`$ width input in the $`W`$ mass analysis and vice versa should be standardized. We suggest that both experiments adopt a common reference point based on available information. This also implies using a fixed width (mass) for the mass (width) fitting instead of building in a SM relationship between these parameters. This approach will facilitate the combination of the 1-parameter measurements, the 2-parameter joint analysis, and the comparison to theory.

## VIII Conclusion

We have presented the Run 1 results on the $`W`$ boson mass and width from the CDF and DØ experiments, and examined their sources of uncertainty to identify the correlated components. We have used the covariance matrix technique to combine the respective measurements from the two experiments. The $`\chi ^2`$ probability for each combination is good indicating that the measurements are consistent. We have also reported the values and covariance matrix of the $`W`$ mass and direct $`W`$ width measurements from their joint analysis. Finally, we have combined the measurements of the ratio of $`W`$ and $`Z`$ boson cross sections, and extracted the combined value of the $`W`$ leptonic branching ratio and the total $`W`$ width. The measurements of the $`W`$ width using the direct and indirect techniques are consistent, providing a test of the standard model. We have also extracted the $`W`$ leptonic partial width from the measured total $`W`$ width and the leptonic branching ratio. We have documented the methodologies that can provide the basis for future work with data of higher precision.

## Acknowledgements

The CDF Collaboration thanks the Fermilab staff and the technical staffs of the participating institutions for their vital contributions. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and National Science Foundation; the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare; the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan; the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; the National Science Council of the Republic of China; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the A.P. Sloan Foundation; the Bundesministerium fuer Bildung und Forschung, Germany; and the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF); the Korea Research Foundation; and the Comision Interministerial de Ciencia y Tecnologia, Spain.

The DØ Collaboration thanks the staffs at Fermilab and collaborating institutions, 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 of Education and Science, Agency for Atomic Energy and RF President Grants Program (Russia), CAPES, CNPq, FAPERJ, FAPESP and FUNDUNESP (Brazil), Departments of Atomic Energy and Science and Technology (India), Colciencias (Colombia), CONACyT (Mexico), Ministry of Education and KOSEF (Korea), CONICET and UBACyT (Argentina), The Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (The Netherlands), PPARC (United Kingdom), Ministry of Education (Czech Republic), A.P. Sloan Foundation, and the Research Corporation.


format: text

text:
# The Connection between W31, SGR 1806-20, & LBV 1806-20: Distance, Extinction, and Structure

## 1 Introduction

W31 is one of the largest H ii complexes in the Galaxy, with intense star-forming regions that have been observed from radio to near-infrared wavelengths (e.g. Ghosh et al. 1989; Blum et al. 2001; Kim & Koo 2002). At low spatial resolution, W31 appears as three main extended H ii regions: G10.2$``$0.3, G10.3$``$0.1 and G10.6$``$0.4 (Shaver & Goss 1970) (Fig. 1). The radio nebula G10.0$``$0.3 lies within W31 on the plane of the sky (Fig. 1), and has drawn considerable attention in recent years due to the intriguing objects nearby. At one time, G10.0$``$0.3 was suggested to be a plerionic supernova remnant powered by a rare soft gamma-ray repeater, SGR 1806$``$20 (Kulkarni & Frail 1993; Kouveliotou et al. 1998). SGR 1806$``$20, in turn, was thought to be associated with an almost equally rare luminous blue variable (LBV) star (van Kerkwijk et al. 1995) which lies at the time-variable (in both flux and morphology) core of this nebula (Vasisht, Frail, & Kulkarni 1995). However, the revised Inter-Planetary Network (IPN) localization of SGR 1806$``$20 provides a position inconsistent (see Fig. 1) with that of the LBV star and radio core of G10.0$``$0.3 (Hurley et al. 1999), though the LBV position is consistent with the radio core within the uncertainties ($`2\mathrm{}`$). Recent Chandra and infrared observations confirm that the SGR lies $`12\mathrm{}`$ away from the LBV and radio core (Eikenberry et al. 2001; Kaplan et al. 2002). Furthermore, Gaensler et al. (2001) argue that G10.0$``$0.3 is not a supernova remnant at all, but is rather powered by the tremendous wind of the LBV star at its core. Infrared observations of the field of SGR 1806$``$20 reveal that the LBV star is not alone, but appears to be part of a cluster of embedded, hot, luminous stars (Fuchs et al. (1999)), and the IPN position for SGR 1806$``$20 is consistent with membership in the star cluster (Eikenberry et al. 2001). Given this somewhat confusing history, we take a moment to summarize our current understanding of G10.0-0.3: 1. G10.0-0.3 is a radio nebula (NOT supernova remnant) with emission powered by the LBV star spatially coincident with its core. 2. The LBV star is part of a cluster of luminous stars embedded in a molecular cloud. 3. SGR 1806$``$20 is likely another member of this cluster of stars, and is spatially distinct from the LBV star. We plot in Fig. 1 the various objects (and their relative location on the plane of the sky) that we will discuss in this paper.

Because of the proximity of these unusual objects, the distance to them can provide significant insight into their physical properties, giving this measurement particular importance. Corbel et al. (1997) proposed a distance estimate based on observations of molecular clouds along the line of sight. They used $`CO`$ spectroscopy to estimate the hydrogen column density towards G10.0$``$0.3, and from that an absorption column density as a function of distance. Taking the measured X-ray absorption towards SGR 1806$``$20 and an estimate of the optical extinction to the LBV star, they concluded that G10.0$``$0.3, SGR 1806$``$20 and W31 lie $`14.5\pm 1.4`$ kpc from the Sun.

However, this situation seemed complicated by newer infrared stellar spectroscopy by Blum et al. (2001) and radio/millimeter observations by Kim & Koo (2002). Blum et al. (2001) present infrared spectra of members of a star cluster in the H ii region G10.2$``$0.3, also within W31 on the plane of the sky. Based on the spectra, they derive spectral/luminosity classes and extinctions for the stars, which, combined with infrared photometry, place them and G10.2$``$0.3 unambiguously at a distance of $`d3.4`$ kpc. However, the extinction towards G10.2$``$0.3 is much smaller ($`\mathrm{\Delta }A_V15`$ mag) than the extinction towards LBV 1806$``$20 and the star cluster close to SGR 1806$``$20 (Eikenberry et al. 2001) and the correlated X-ray absorption towards SGR 1806$``$20 (Mereghetti et al. 2000). Furthermore, 21-cm continuum and several molecular line maps of the region (Kim & Koo 2002) show that G10.0$``$0.3 is rather separated from the primary components of W31 (G10.2$``$0.3 and G10.3$``$0.1). Thus, as of this writing, there is no definitive physical linkage between G10.0$``$0.3 and the major components of W31. Together, these imply that G10.0$``$0.3 may lie at a different distance along the line of sight than G10.2$``$0.3. It is this new, more-complicated situation which motivates us to reconsider the distance to G10.0$``$0.3 (and by extension LBV 1806$``$20 and SGR 1806$``$20) in the light of previous work by Corbel et al. (1997) and Blum et al. (2001) as well as new observations.

In this paper, we present newer, higher velocity -resolution $`CO`$ spectroscopy towards LBV 1806$``$20 and its associated radio nebula G10.0$``$0.3, and also towards 2 (out of 3) of the brightest H ii regions of W31. We also present the $`NH_3`$ absorption spectrum originally mentioned in Corbel et al. (1997). We then add higher-resolution infrared spectroscopic observations of the LBV star at the center of G10.0$``$0.3. In Section 2, we present the observations and data reduction as well as the main results from our observations. In Section 3, we use these data to derive a robust distance estimate for LBV 1806$``$20 and G10.0$``$0.3. We then discuss in some detail the implications of this distance for SGR 1806$``$20 and LBV 1806$``$20, as well as the structure of W31 as a whole . Finally, in Section 4 we present our conclusions.

## 2 Observations

### 2.1 $`CO`$ Spectra

Following the work by Corbel et al. (1997), we obtained new millimeter observations with the 15 m Swedish-ESO Submillimeter Telescope (SEST) at La Silla, Chile, on 1998 August 27 and 1999 March 2. We took spectra at the position of LBV 1806-20 (same as in Corbel et al. 1997) at the transitions 12CO(J=1–0) and 13CO(J=1–0) for a total integration time of 5 minutes each (Fig. 2). As the full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) beamwidth of the SEST is 45″ at $``$ 115 GHz, the spectra toward LBV 1806$``$20 also include the region of SGR 1806$``$20. Additionally, at 12CO(J=1–0) we made spectral observations towards two H ii regions of W31 (G10.2$``$0.3 and G10.3$``$0.1) with an integration time of 2 minutes each.

We acquired the spectra in position-switching mode which consists of switching (every one minute) between sources and an off-position free of emission. We then averaged the spectra after baseline removal. The back end was an acousto-optical spectrometer with 2000 channels and a frequency bandwidth of 86 MHz, giving a high velocity resolution of 0.11 km s-1 (to be compared with the velocity resolution of 2.3 km s-1 in Corbel et al. 1997). The receiver was calibrated with the standard chopper-wheel method. Systems temperature during the observations were typically in the range 200–350 K. We converted all CO spectra into main-beam brightness temperature ($`\eta _{eff}`$ = 0.7), which is expressed in term of radial velocity in the Local Standard of Rest (LSR).

We note that there is a distance ambiguity for any molecular cloud within the solar circle at a given radial velocity (in the LSR). Indeed, at each radial velocity it is possible to locate the cloud on the near side (near distance) or on the far side (far distance) of the Galaxy. We assume an error of 10 km s-1 for the velocity-distance conversion using the rotation curve of the Galaxy of Fich, Blitz & Stark (1989) with the standard rotation constants of R0 = 8.5 kpc and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0`$ = 220 km s-1. This is sufficiently large to cover any velocity deviation ($``$ 4 km s-1) with respect to the LSR frame of Galactic rotation (Combes 1991). This implies that the error bars associated to the distances are probably consistent with 2 $`\sigma `$ confidence levels.

The 12CO spectra (Fig. 2) toward LBV 1806$``$20 reveal a complex line of sight, as already discussed in Corbel et al. (1997), with various molecular clouds detected (see Table 1 for detailed informations). Due to the high velocity resolution, some of the molecular clouds mentioned in Corbel et al. (1997) are now split into two components; for simplicity the same notation is kept as in Corbel et al. (1997). MC38 is decomposed into the component at $``$ 38 km s-1 and a new cloud at $``$ 44 km s-1 (now noted as MC44). The resolution of the edge of the 12CO line of MC24 also reveals a new cloud at 30 km s-1 (MC30). MC87 is now split into MC87 and MC94. However, the most interesting feature in the new 12CO(J=1–0) spectrum toward LBV 1806$``$20 is the splitting of molecular cloud MC13 into two components. This is confirmed by the 13CO(J=1–0) transition (an optically thin line, with narrower FWHM), which clearly reveals that MC13 is resolved into two components (Fig. 2): one at 13.0 $`\pm `$ 0.1 km s-1 (hereafter MC13A) and one at 15.5 $`\pm `$ 0.1 km s-1 (hereafter MC13B). (These velocities are obtained if we naively fit the lines with Gaussian profiles). This also implies that the shape of the 12CO(J=1–0) spectrum around 13 km s-1 is not due to opacity effects. Fitting the 12CO(J=1–0) spectra leads to velocities of 12.7 $`\pm `$ 0.1 km s-1 and 16.7 $`\pm `$ 0.1 km s-1 for MC13A and MC13B respectively.

According to Kim & Koo (2001), the velocity of the recombination line at the core of G10.2$``$0.3 is 16.4 $`\pm `$ 0.2 km s-1, and it is therefore apparent that G10.2$``$0.3 is associated with the molecular cloud we labeled MC13B. We remind the reader that in addition to the association in velocity, the map of the CO emission (Corbel et al. 1997) also points to an association of G10.2$``$0.3 with one of the clouds in this velocity range. We note that the velocity of the recombination line of the other major H ii region studied by Kim & Koo, G10.3$``$0.1, is 7.7 $`\pm `$ 0.5 km s-1, with a range from 7.7 to 11.9 km s-1(Kim & Koo 2001), which is more consistent with the velocity of MC13A.

### 2.2 $`\mathrm{𝐍𝐇}_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ Spectrum

In addition to the above CO observations, we also include an NH3 absorption spectrum (Fig. 3) towards the radio nebula G10.0–0.3 (produced by the wind of LBV 1806$``$20) at the same position as the CO observations. This spectrum was originally mentioned, but not shown, in Corbel et al. (1997) as a “Note added in manuscript”. As it is important for this work, we include it here. The NH3 observations (total integration time of 30 minutes) were performed at the frequency of 23,694.49 MHz (velocity resolution of 0.5 km s-1) with the NASA Deep Space Network Goldstone 34-m antenna located in California, USA, and giving a beamwidth of 1.6′. As the radio continuum against which the NH3 absorption spectrum is measured is produced by the radio nebula G10.0–0.3, any absorption feature results from gas located in front of LBV 1806$``$20.

The most striking feature from this spectrum is the absorption line (detected at a significance level of 8.6 $`\sigma `$) at a velocity of 70.9 $`\pm `$ 0.5 km s-1, in full agreement with the $`CO`$ velocity of the molecular cloud MC73 that is detected along the line of sight to LBV 1806$``$20 (see Table 1). This detection thus demonstrates that the molecular cloud MC73 is located in front of LBV 1806$``$20. The absorption line ($`4.2\sigma `$) at $``$ 62 km s-1 may be related to an H i shell around MC73 or to a different H i cloud (cf Fig. 1 in Corbel et al. 1997) in front of G10.0$``$0.3. A possible weaker absorption feature ($`2.2\sigma `$) might also be present at 28.6 km s-1, which would be in agreement with the velocity of the MC30 cloud and would indicate that MC30 may also lie front of LBV 1806$``$20.

### 2.3 IR Spectra

We used the Ohio State InfraRed Imaging Spectrograph (OSIRIS) instrument (Depoy et al. 1993) and f/14 tip-tilt secondary on the Cerro-Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO) 4-meter telescope on July 5, 2001 to obtain moderate resolution ($`R=3000`$ for 2 pixels) spectra of LBV 1806-20 in the J, H, and K bands ($`12.4\mu `$m). We present details of these observations and their reduction elsewhere (Eikenberry et al. 2003), and present a reduced K-band spectrum in Fig. 4.

The colors of LBV 1806-20 (van Kerkwijk et al. 1995) and its spectral continuum shape allow us to estimate the extinction towards LBV 1806-20. For such a hot star (as indicated by the HeI $`2.112\mu `$m absorption feature – Van Kerkwijk et al. 1995; Eikenberry et al. 2003), the intrinsic $`JK`$ color is nearly neutral, and the observed red color of $`JK=5.0\pm 0.15`$ mag corresponds to an extinction of $`A_V=28\pm 2`$ mag (assuming the Rieke-Lebofsky reddening law, Rieke & Lebofsky 1985), matching the estimates based on CO observations (Corbel et al. 1997). (While a hypothetical near-infrared excess from LBV 1806-20 would alter these conclusions, Eikenberry et al. (2003) show that this is not present, based on the spectral continuum shape across JHK bands, and the close match in $`JK`$ color between LBV 1806$``$20 and other cluster stars). In addition, the H and K bands are in the Rayleigh-Jeans portion of the blackbody emission curve (the reason for the neutral colors noted above). Thus, we can estimate the extinction towards LBV 1806-20 by de-reddening the spectra until the continuum shape matches a Rayleigh-Jeans distribution. In this way, we obtain estimates of $`A_V=31\pm 3`$ mag from the H-band continuum and $`A_V=28\pm 3`$ mag from the K-band continuum, with uncertainties dominated by $`10\%`$ uncertainty in the spectrograph response shape over a given waveband. Combining these with the extinction estimate from the $`JK`$ color above, we adopt a final estimate for the extinction of $`A_V=29\pm 2`$ mag towards LBV 1806-20.

From the emission lines, we can also measure a radial velocity for LBV 1806-20. We selected the $`\mathrm{Br}\gamma `$ line as a velocity fiducial, as it is the strongest line detection in the spectrum, and appears to be relatively free from contamination due to blending with other strong lines. We fit a Gaussian profile to this line, finding no significant residuals, and a centroid shifted from the atmospheric rest frame by $`3\pm 20\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, where residuals in the spectral wavelength solution from atmospheric OH emission lines dominate the largely systematic uncertainty. After correcting for the Earth’s barycentric motion and the Solar System barycenter motion relative to the local standard of rest, we determine a radial velocity for LBV 1806-20 of $`v_{lsr}=10\pm 20\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Cross-checks of this velocity determination with several other strong unblended lines in the spectra give consistent results for the velocity of LBV 1806-20. This velocity is important, as massive stars such as LBVs are a kinematically “cold” population, which do not generally deviate significantly in their velocities from their parent molecular clouds.

## 3 Results & Discussion

### 3.1 The distance to LBV 1806$``$20 and its associated radio nebula G10.0$``$0.3

#### 3.1.1 $`NH_3`$ Absorption

A critical point for measuring the distance to LBV 1806$``$20 is the detection of the NH3 absorption features (Fig. 3) against the radio continuum (G10.0$``$0.3) produced by the LBV star. A firm lower limit on the distance to G10.0$``$0.3 and LBV 1806$``$20 is the near distance associated with the absorption feature at 70.9 $`\pm `$ 0.5 km s-1, i.e 5.7 $`\pm `$ 0.4 kpc. We can then combine the full velocity range ($``$10 to 30 km s-1) for LBV 1806$``$20 (section 2.3 above) and the fact that LBV 1806$``$20 has to be located behind MC73, together with the rotation curve of the Galaxy (Fich et al. 1989) to constrain the distance range for LBV 1806$``$20 without making any further assumptions regarding other molecular clouds along the line of sight. This straightforward calculation unambiguously places LBV 1806$``$20 in the distance range 13.2–21.5 kpc.

#### 3.1.2 MC13A, MC13B, and G10.2$``$0.3

This determination of the distance to G10.0$``$0.3, while unambiguous, differs significantly from the distance determination for the nearby (on the sky) stellar cluster G10.2-0.3, which Blum et al. (2001) place at $`3.4\pm 0.3`$ kpc. Given the similar radial velocities of LBV 1806$``$20 and G10.2$``$0.3 ($`1016\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$), this seems somewhat surprising. However, on the plane of the sky, they are separated by 10.7′. Furthermore, the measured optical extinction of LBV 1806$``$20 (29 $`\pm `$ 2 mag., section 2.3) and G10.2$``$0.3 (15.5 $`\pm `$ 1.7 mag., Blum et al. 2001) are clearly not in agreement. This indicates that these two objects cannot be located at the same distance. G10.2$``$0.3, with a lower optical extinction, has to be located in the foreground relative to LBV 1806$``$20. Furthermore, Lavine et al. (2003) find that the stellar field surrounding LBV 1806$``$20 includes two distinct populations of stars – one with $`A_V30`$ mag (consistent with LBV 1806$``$20) and another with $`A_V15`$ mag (consistent with G10.2$``$0.3). Fuchs et al. (1999) also find the same bimodality in extinction, albeit with a much smaller sample. The fact that no stars are found with intermediate extinctions demonstrates that these are distinct populations, rather than a single population suffering from differential extinction across the field. Thus, we are forced to conclude that the stellar cluster of Blum et al. (2001) is a distinct cluster in the foreground to the cluster containing LBV 1806$``$20 . Thus, discrepant distances for these two distinct clusters are not surprising, and in fact should be expected.

In order to understand the fact that these distinct populations have similar radial velocities, we need to take into account (as outlined in section 2.1) that the molecular cloud labelled MC13 in Corbel et al. (1997) is now known to consist of two distinct components that we have called MC13A and MC13B. Thus, the line of sight towards these objects is much more complex than previously thought, with two molecular clouds with similar velocities, one containing each stellar population. Based on the fact that MC13B is associated with G10.2$``$0.3 (section 2.1; Kim & Koo, 2002), and that the upper limit for the distance to G10.2$``$0.3 (Blum et al., 2001) is much less than the 13.2 kpc lower limit for LBV 1806$``$20, we conclude that the molecular cloud MC13B is located in the foreground relative to LBV 1806$``$20.

We can further constrain the parent molecular cloud of LBV 1806$``$20 by investigating the complex of molecular clouds along the line of sight. Absorption lines against the radio continuum of G10.2$``$0.3 (see Corbel et al. 1997 and references therein) showed that MC4, MC24, MC30, MC38, MC44 are located at their near distances. Given the ammonia absorption towards LBV 1806$``$20 and its accompanying distance range of 13-21 kpc, the only remaining molecular clouds along the line of sight which could potentially be the site of LBV 1806$``$20 are MC87, MC94, and MC13A. Of these, only MC13A has a velocity consistent with LBV 1806$``$20 (Section 2.3), and we conclude that it is the parent molecular cloud for LBV 1806$``$20, SGR 1806$``$20, and G10.0$``$0.3. This association and the distance range for LBV 1806$``$20 now lift the near/far distance ambiguity for MC13A, and we can use the velocity of MC13A and the Galactic rotation curve to constrain the distance for both MC13A and LBV 1806$``$20 to be 15.1$`{}_{1.3}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1.8}`$ kpc.

#### 3.1.3 Extinction & Distance

We can cross-check the above distance estimation, using the measured extinction towards LBV 1806$``$20 . This extinction arises primarily within the molecular clouds along the line of sight, and we can determine its value for each cloud using the $`CO`$ line area. In order to convert the molecular emission spectra into equivalent optical extinction along the line of sight, we follow the method outlined in Corbel et al. (1999) or Chapuis & Corbel (2003). We assume conservative errors of 20% (to take into account the uncertainties in the various conversion factors) for the contribution in terms of optical extinction of each molecular cloud. The discussion of Corbel et al. (1997) for the location of the various molecular clouds still holds with these new observations – we simply need to consider the revised distance of G10.2$``$0.3 and the splitting of MC13. Separating the contribution of each of the two MC13 clouds in terms of line area is not a simple task. But if we fit both 12CO(J=1–0) and 13CO(J=1–0) spectra with two Gaussian lines in the velocity range 8-20 km s-1, we find that MC13B and MC13A contribute roughly 23% and 77% respectively in terms of line area. These should not be taken as firm numbers, but rather as indicative of the approximate relative contribution of each clouds. The resulting parameters (velocity, integrated area, optical extinction, distances) of the molecular clouds are presented in Table 1.

If we take the contribution from molecular hydrogen in all of the clouds up to MC13A, we reach a total extinction of 32.5 $`\pm `$ 2.6 mag. Taking the contribution from atomic hydrogen (Corbel et al. 1997) implies that the total optical extinction up to MC13A is 37.5 $`\pm `$ 3.0 mag. While the uncertainties are not trivially small, this is at least consistent (at the $`2\sigma `$ level) with the extinction of 29 $`\pm `$ 2 mag for LBV 1806$``$20. Adding the contribution of MC13A significantly increases this extinction to 47.5 $`\pm `$ 3.6 mag, implying that LBV 1806$``$20 is at or close to the near side of MC13A. In Fig. 5a, we present a map of the integrated 13CO(J=1–0) emission (based on the data of Kim & Koo 2002). It shows that the position of LBV 1806$``$20, as well as SGR 1806$``$20 and the star cluster, is consistent with a location on the edge of the cloud MC13A, as favoured by the measurement of the optical extinction. Thus, we find a straightforward explanation for the distance of G10.0$``$0.3 and LBV 1806$``$20, consistent with all reported data, is that the star is located in MC13A at a distance of 15.1$`{}_{1.3}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1.8}`$ kpc.

### 3.2 The Distance to G10.2$``$0.3 and the Complex Structure of W31

#### 3.2.1 Distance and optical extinction of G10.2$``$0.3

With the distance of G10.0$``$0.3 and LBV 1806$``$20 clarified, we now turn to the more general issues of the structure of W31, which we now understand to have several discrete components at distinct distances. In their study, Blum et al. (2001) performed near-infrared spectroscopy and photometry of an embedded stellar cluster in G10.2$``$0.3 (the other major H ii regions of W31 being G10.3$``$0.1 and G10.6$``$0.4). They derived a spectrophotometric distance for G10.2$``$0.3 (and by extension for W31) by assuming either zero-age main-sequence or dwarf luminosity class for the stars of the cluster, obtaining distances of 3.1 $`\pm `$ 0.3 kpc and 3.7 $`\pm `$ 0.3 kpc respectively. They derived an average optical extinction to G10.2$``$0.3 of Av = 15.5 $`\pm `$ 1.7 mag (Blum et al. 2001). Clearly, this distance range, as well as the optical extinction, are not in agreement with our previous estimate for W31 (Corbel et al. 1997), in which we associate W31 with the far kinematic distance of MC13. However, as shown above, we now understand that MC13 and W31 itself are composed of multiple discrete components distributed along the line of sight. Thus, as noted above, the distance to G10.2$``$0.3, MC13B, and their portion of W31 is a separate issue from G10.0$``$0.3, LBV 1806$``$20, SGR 1806$``$20, MC13A, and their portion of W31. Nevertheless, our investigation of the latter can provide important insights into the distance to the former.

First, as a cross-check on the relative placement of molecular clouds along the line of sight in Table 1, we can compare the extinction of the stars in G10.2$``$0.3 to that expected from the clouds along the line of sight (as done above for LBV 1806$``$20). If we use the 12CO(J=1–0) spectrum towards LBV 1806$``$20, the total visual extinction due to the molecular material located in front of MC13B (MC4, MC24, MC30, MC38, MC44, cf Corbel et al. 1997) is 13.0 $`\pm `$ 1.5 mag. Adding the contribution from atomic hydrogen (as in Corbel et al. 1997) raises this number to 14.5 $`\pm `$ 1.8 mag, consistent with the above estimate of the optical extinction to G10.2$``$0.3 at the $`1\sigma `$ level. This re-confirms the relative placement of the clouds in Table 1.

#### 3.2.2 G10.2$``$0.3: a location on the $``$30 km s-1 spiral arm

Given this, an important question remains if we want to fully understand the velocity field along this line of sight: what is the distance to the parental molecular cloud (MC13B) of G10.2$``$0.3 ? A distance range of 2.8-4.0 kpc (Blum et al. 2001) would imply a velocity range of 22.0–38.0 km s-1, which is at best marginally consistent with the observed velocity of G10.2$``$0.3 (16.4 $`\pm `$ 0.2 km s-1, Kim & Koo 2001). Also, more importantly, absorption lines against the radio continuum of G10.2$``$0.3 are observed up to 43 km s-1 (e.g. Wilson 1974, Greisen & Lockman 1979, Kalberla et al. 1982), which is very difficult to reconcile with G10.2$``$0.3. at the near distance of 2.2$`{}_{1.6}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1.0}`$ kpc associated with the velocity of 16.4 km s-1. Indeed, the cloud at the origin of the absorption at the velocity of 43 km s-1 is located at a distance greater than 4.5 kpc (see Table 1) if we assume circular motion. But we would like to note that absorption at velocities greater than $``$ 50 km s-1 is not expected at these Galactic longitudes, because of a hole (Fig. 6) in the gas distribution (Dame et al. 1987; Corbel et al. 1997). The drop-off of absorption at $``$ 43 km s-1 is just the sharp inner edge of the molecular ring (Dame, Hartmann, & Thaddeus 2001). Thus, the lack of absorption should not be an argument for ruling out a possible location at a far distance (e.g. Fish et al. (2003) for G10.6$``$0.4).

To overcome these difficulties, Blum et al. (2001), as well as other authors (e.g. Wilson 1974, Kalberla et al. 1982), invoked the presence of non-circular motion that could affect the velocity of the cloud (in addition to the contribution of rotation around the Galactic Center, hereafter GC). Indeed, along the line of sight of W31 (and LBV 1806$``$20) is found the 3-kpc expanding arm. This arm can be described as a simple rotating ring at a galactocentric radius of 3.4 kpc (assuming a distance between the Sun and the GC of 8.5 kpc 444Note that in old literature, this arm was sometimes called the “4-kpc expanding arm” due to a distance to the GC of 10.0 kpc.) expanding out from the GC with a velocity of 53 km s-1 (e.g. Bania 1980).

As discussed in detailed in Corbel et al. (1997), the 3-kpc expanding arm is likely associated with the molecular cloud MC-16 and is very likely not associated with MC13B and G10.2$``$0.3. This is confirmed if we look at the radial velocity profile of the 3-kpc expanding arm as a function of the Galactic longitude based on H i observations (see Figure 4 of Menon & Ciotti, 1970). This clearly show that a velocity of $``$ $``$15 km s-1 (as for MC-16) should be expected for this feature.

So, in order reconcile the fact that G10.2$``$0.3 is located on this side of the Galaxy (Blum et al. 2001) and the fact that absorption lines are observed up to a velocity of 43 km s-1, we surmise that there might be another feature with non-circular motion on this side of the Galaxy. In fact, there is another arm, the $``$30 km s-1 spiral arm (unfortunately sometimes called the 4 kpc arm), that is also expanding from the GC at a galactocentric radius of 4 kpc (Menon & Ciotti 1970; Greaves & Williams 1994). Its expansion velocity measured at a Galactic longitude of 0° is $``$30 km s-1 (Menon & Ciotti 1970; Liszt et al. 1977; Linke, Stark, & Frerking 1981; Greaves & Williams 1994; Sandqvist et al. 2003). This feature was originally detected in 1967 (Kerr & Vallak 1967), but we would like to point that no molecular counterpart has been associated with it. Indeed, unlike the 3 kpc expanding arm, the $``$30 km s-1 spiral arm can not be traced on the longitude$``$velocity CO map (Fig. 6), possibly due to its proximity with the molecular ring (Dame et al. 2001). The extrapolation of its radial velocity profile in Figure 1 of Menon & Ciotti (1970) to a longitude of 10° is consistent with the velocity of MC13B. We therefore conclude that G10.2$``$0.3 and MC13B are located on the $``$30 km s-1 spiral arm. In that case, there is no problem with the fact that absorption lines against the radio continuum of G10.2$``$0.3 are detected up to 43 km s-1, as they would originate in MC44. We note that the $``$30 km s-1 spiral arm has to be closer to the Sun than the 3-kpc expanding arm with a separation of $``$ 0.5 kpc (Menon & Ciotti 1970). In any case, the distance to the $``$30 km s-1 spiral arm is set by the maximum velocity of the absorption lines, i.e. 4.5 $`\pm `$ 0.6 kpc, which is completely consistent with the spectrophotometric distance of 3.4 $`\pm `$ 0.6 kpc for G10.2$``$0.3 (Blum et al. 2001). We note that at a Galactic longitude of 0°, the 3 kpc expanding arm and the $``$ 30 km s-1 spiral arm have a velocity separation of $``$ 23 km s-1, which is almost the difference in velocity between MC-16 and MC13B. This therefore strengthens our association of the 3-kpc expanding arm with MC-16 and the $``$30 km s-1 spiral arm with MC13B. We also note that these two arms could be related to the presence of a bar at the GC (e.g. Blitz & Spergel 1991).

#### 3.2.3 The distance to G10.3$``$0.1 and G10.6$``$0.4

So if G10.2$``$0.3 is at a closer distance, are the other major components of W31 at the same distance ? In their detailed study of W31, Kim & Koo (2002) performed a 13CO(J=1–0) map of G10.2$``$0.3 and G10.3$``$0.1 (see their Figures 4, 5 and 9). Their peak CO maps over the velocity range 0–22 km s-1 shows two main components (one centered on each H ii region) that could be interpreted as two separate molecular clouds (see also Fig. 5a with the integrated 13CO(J=1–0) map). But based on our new CO results, it might be possible that the southern part is associated with MC13B as G10.2$``$0.3, and the northern part with MC13A and G10.3$``$0.1 (Fig. 5a). If this is the case, it would imply that W31 could be decomposed into several components, with G10.3$``$0.1 located at the kinematic distance associated with MC13A, i.e. 15.1$`{}_{1.3}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1.8}`$ kpc.

Fig. 7 shows the 12CO spectrum along the line of sight to these two H ii regions. These profiles are very different, especially at velocities above $``$ 40 km s-1, and the profile of G10.3$``$0.1 is very similar to the one of LBV 1806$``$20 (the additional CO emission above 40 km s-1 may also be related to the variation in galactic latitude of these sources). So it is not unlikely that this H ii region, which has a recombination line at 7.7 $`\pm `$ 0.5 km s-1, could be associated with MC13A. As noted above (section 2.1), the 13CO(J=1–0) map of this part of W31 by Kim & Koo (2002) could be interpreted as being due to the presence of two separate molecular clouds. In that case, one should wonder why no absorption line is detected, as in the case of LBV 1806$``$20, at $``$ 71 km s-1 for G10.3$``$0.1 (Kalberla et al. 1982) ? In Fig. 5b, we used the 13CO(J=1–0) of Kim & Koo (2002) to illustrate the spatial extent of MC73. We found almost no 13CO(J=1–0) emission in the velocity range 61 to 80 km s-1, which is consistent with the non detection of absorption line above 50 km s-1 (Kalberla et al. 1982) toward G10.3$``$0.1, even if it were associated with MC13A. However, our 12CO(J=1–0) spectrum towards G10.3$``$0.1 (Fig. 7) indicates a weak contribution of MC73 along this line sight and suggest that the line of sight of G10.3$``$0.1 might be close to the edge of MC73. More sensitive absorption measurement may be useful to further detect absorption line due to MC73 in front of G10.3$``$0.1. We note that Kalberla, Goss & Wilson (1980) detected a weak absorption line at $``$ –15 km s-1 in front of G10.3$``$0.1, that is consistent with the velocity of the 3-kpc expanding Arm (Corbel et al. 1997), i.e. the molecular cloud we called MC-16 and the fact that G10.3$``$0.1 could be associated with MC13A. We note, however, that a similar but weaker feature, is also present in front of G10.2$``$0.3 (Kalberla et al. 1980).

In a recent study of absorption lines toward a large number of H ii regions, Fish et al. (2003) deduced a scaling law in order to estimate the distance of an H ii region. They state that when there is a “large difference between far and near kinematic distances” —as in our case for both MC13A and MC13B, see Table 1— “high accuracy can be achieved by choosing the kinematic distance closer to 1.84 $`|b|^1`$.” In the case of G10.2$``$0.3, G10.3$``$0.1 and G10.6$``$0.4, this expression would be equal to 5.3, 12.3 and 4.7 kpc respectively with high accuracy 555Note that this argument cannot be applied to G10.0$``$0.3, simply because it is not an H ii region.. This again will argue for an association of G10.2$``$0.3 and G10.6$``$0.4 with MC13B in the $`30`$ km s-1 spiral arm at a distance of 4.5 $`\pm `$ 0.6 kpc and a location of G10.3$``$0.1 in MC13A at a distance of 15.1$`{}_{1.3}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1.8}`$ kpc. But again, as illustrated in Fig. 3 of Dame et al. (1987), between longitude 5° and 25°, we want to stress that the lack of absorption at velocities greater than $``$ 50 km s-1 is not an argument for the near distance due to the presence of the gas hole (Fig. 6) at low Galactic longitudes (Corbel et al. 1997).

Finally, to close the debate on the structure of W31 (as a location of G10.3$``$0.1 within the $`30`$ km s-1 spiral arm can not be ruled out at this time), a spectrophotometric study (with optical extinction measurement), similar to what has been performed by Blum et al. (2001) for G10.2$``$0.3, should also be performed for G10.3$``$0.1 and G10.6$``$0.4 in light of our new results. A sketch of the line of sight with the new location of each object introduced in this paper is presented in Fig. 8.

### 3.3 The distance to SGR 1806$``$20

As we have seen before, G10.0$``$0.3 is associated with the wind of LBV 1806$``$20 and not SGR 1806$``$20 and is not the remnant of a supernova (Gaensler et al. 2001). SGR 1806$``$20 is separated from LBV 1806$``$20 by an angular distance of 12 ″ (Hurley et al. 1999; Eikenberry et al. 2001; Kaplan et al. 2002). However, it still lies within the angular extent of the embedded cluster (see Fig. 1 and Fuchs et al. 1999), and its X-ray absorption matches the IR extinction towards the cluster members (Eikenberry et al., 2001), leading to the conclusion that SGR 1806$``$20 is a cluster member. This lead to the conclusion that all these objects, i.e. SGR 1806$``$20 and the cluster of stars, have to be located at the distance we have estimated for LBV 1806$``$20: 15.1$`{}_{1.3}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1.8}`$ kpc. An interesting consequence of this work is that all these massive stars are still located close to their parental molecular cloud (MC13A), which is not surprising if we take into account their short lifetimes and the expectation that such massive stars are a kinematically “cold” population. We would like to point out that SGR 1900$`+`$14 is also associated with a cluster of massive stars (Vrba et al. 2000) and that SGR 1627$``$41 also appears to lie at the edge of a massive Giant Molecular Cloud (Corbel et al. 1999). The only known extragalactic soft gamma repeater (SGR 0526$``$66), which is associated with the SNR N49, also lies at the edge of a dense molecular cloud (Vancura et al. 1992; Banas et al. 1997). It now also means that all SGRs with precise location (4 out 6) are associated with GMC and/or massive star cluster. All of this probably points to a strong connection between massive stars and formation of SGRs by the way of Giant Molecular Clouds.

## 4 Conclusions

We have presented new millimeter and near-infrared observations of the field of view surroundings the radio nebula G10.0$``$0.3 (produced by the wind of LBV 1806$``$20) and the giant H ii complex W31. Based on these observations combined with others in the literature, we reach the following conclusions:

* Based on $`NH_3`$ absorption from MC73 and the velocity of LBV 1806$``$20 , we unambiguously constrain the distance to G10.0$``$0.3 and LBV 1806$``$20 to be in the range of 13.2 - 21.5 kpc.
* Combining this constraint with $`CO`$ observations of molecular clouds along the line of sight, we further refine the distance measurement to G10.0$``$0.3 and LBV 1806$``$20 to be 15.1$`{}_{1.3}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1.8}`$ kpc.
* This distance estimate is confirmed by the consistency between the measured extinction towards LBV 1806$``$20 and the extinction from the molecular clouds along the line of sight inferred from their $`CO`$ spectra.
* Based on their distinct extinctions and the newly-resolved parental molecular clouds (MC13A and MC13B), we conclude that the stellar cluster in G10.2$``$0.3 lies in the foreground to the cluster containing LBV 1806$``$20 . This shows that W31 consists of at least 2 discrete components along the line of sight.
* We suggest that G10.2$``$0.3 and G10.6$``$0.4 are located on the $``$30 km s-1 spiral arm at a distance from the Sun of 4.5 $`\pm `$ 0.6 kpc and
* We also suggest that G10.3$``$0.1 may be associated with a massive molecular cloud at the same distance as LBV 1806$``$20 (15.1$`{}_{1.3}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1.8}`$ kpc).
* We confirm that SGR 1806$``$20 is located at a distance from the Sun of 15.1$`{}_{1.3}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1.8}`$ kpc and that it is associated with a very massive molecular cloud. All SGRs with precise location are associated with a site of massive star formation.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank Tom Dame and Kee-Tae Kim for useful discussions and for critical review of this manuscript. We also wish to thank Claude Chapuis for conducting the 1998 SEST observations and stimulating discussion and Bill Mahoney for carrying out the DSN observations. We thank R. Blum and the CTIO staff for their help in acquiring the IR spectra. We gratefully acknowledge Kee-Tae Kim and Bon-Chul Koo for sharing their CO data of W31, as well as Yael Fuchs for her help with Fig. 1. We also thank Aage Sandqvist for providing information on the $``$30 km s-1 spiral arm. SSE is supported in part by an NSF CAREER award (AST-9983830).