trailThe parton-shower infrared cutoff makes the generator top-quark mass a short-distance mass differing from the pole mass by roughly half a GeV
The Monte Carlo top-quark mass lacks a precise field-theoretic definition
Shower-cutoff and hadronization effects shift the NLO+PS top-quark mass parameter only by amounts of order Lambda_QCD
Cutoff analysis and calibration· for
Angular-ordered parton showers with an infrared cutoff produce a generator quark mass that is a cutoff-dependent short-distance mass, not the pole mass
At next-to-leading order, the coherent-branching quark mass parameter differs from the pole mass by a shift linear in the shower infrared cutoff
Calibration studies find the Monte Carlo top-quark mass agrees with the MSR mass at 1 GeV within about 200 MeV
atomic
Pole-mass proximity and scope limits· against
The Monte Carlo top-quark mass equals the pole mass to within a few hundred MeV
shared · shown elsewhere
The short-distance interpretation of the generator top-quark mass has not been established for pT-ordered dipole parton showers
atomic
assumed
The top-quark pole mass has an intrinsic renormalon ambiguity of roughly 110 to 250 MeV
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
The parton-shower infrared cutoff makes the generator top-quark mass a short-distance mass differing from the pole mass by roughly half a GeV
unassessedNo current assessment — the Steward prioritises higher-importance claims, so this one is likely still queued.constitution →
2depended on by
this rests on ↓
claimA box is a claim: a single proposition the graph assesses, with its own page and map. Click any claim to centre the map on it.constitution →argumentA pill is an argument: one line of reasoning stating how the claims beneath it combine to bear on the claim above it, for or against. Arguments are not destinations; click their claims to explore.constitution →✓verifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →↑supportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →⇄contestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →○unsupportedNo credible evidence found, though the claim is not contradicted.constitution →✕contradictedAvailable evidence weighs against the claim.constitution →?unknownInsufficient information to assess.constitution →◌unassessedNo current assessment — the Steward prioritises higher-importance claims, so this one is likely still queued.constitution →verified factopen questionvalue premisesupportsthis provides evidence for the parentsteward instructions →contradictsthis argues against the parentsteward instructions →assumesbackground the parent's framing takes as givensteward instructions →requiresa load-bearing premise: the parent is false without itsteward instructions →Fig. — detail falls off with distance; every claim is an address.