$\bf{
173.0 \pm0.4}$

OUR AVERAGE
Error includes scale factor of 1.3.

$172.95$ $\pm0.77$ ${}^{+0.97}_{0.93}$ 
^{ 1} 

CMS 
$172.84$ $\pm0.34$ $\pm0.61$ 
^{ 2} 

ATLS 
$172.44$ $\pm0.13$ $\pm0.47$ 
^{ 3} 

CMS 
$174.30$ $\pm0.35$ $\pm0.54$ 
^{ 4} 

TEVA 
• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • • 
$173.72$ $\pm0.55$ $\pm1.01$ 
^{ 5} 

ATLS 
$174.95$ $\pm0.40$ $\pm0.64$ 
^{ 6} 

D0 
$170.8$ $\pm9.0$ 
^{ 7} 

CMS 
$172.22$ $\pm0.18$ ${}^{+0.89}_{0.93}$ 
^{ 8} 

CMS 
$172.99$ $\pm0.41$ $\pm0.74$ 
^{ 9} 

ATLS 
$173.32$ $\pm1.36$ $\pm0.85$ 
^{ 10} 

D0 
$173.93$ $\pm1.61$ $\pm0.88$ 
^{ 11} 

D0 
$172.35$ $\pm0.16$ $\pm0.48$ 
^{ 12}^{, 13} 

CMS 
$172.32$ $\pm0.25$ $\pm0.59$ 
^{ 12}^{, 13} 

CMS 
$172.82$ $\pm0.19$ $\pm1.22$ 
^{ 12}^{, 14} 

CMS 
$173.68$ $\pm0.20$ ${}^{+1.58}_{0.97}$ 
^{ 15} 

CMS 
$173.5$ $\pm3.0$ $\pm0.9$ 
^{ 16} 

CMS 
$175.1$ $\pm1.4$ $\pm1.2$ 
^{ 17} 

ATLS 
$172.99$ $\pm0.48$ $\pm0.78$ 
^{ 18} 

ATLS 
$171.5$ $\pm1.9$ $\pm2.5$ 
^{ 19} 

CDF 
$175.07$ $\pm1.19$ ${}^{+1.55}_{1.58}$ 
^{ 20} 

CDF 
$174.98$ $\pm0.58$ $\pm0.49$ 
^{ 21} 

D0 
$173.49$ $\pm0.69$ $\pm1.21$ 
^{ 22} 

CMS 
$173.93$ $\pm1.64$ $\pm0.87$ 
^{ 23} 

CDF 
$173.9$ $\pm0.9$ ${}^{+1.7}_{2.1}$ 
^{ 24} 

CMS 
$174.5$ $\pm0.6$ $\pm2.3$ 
^{ 25} 

ATLS 
$172.85$ $\pm0.71$ $\pm0.85$ 
^{ 26} 

CDF 
$172.7$ $\pm9.3$ $\pm3.7$ 
^{ 27} 

CDF 
$173.18$ $\pm0.56$ $\pm0.75$ 
^{ 28} 

TEVA 
$172.5$ $\pm1.4$ $\pm1.5$ 
^{ 29} 

CDF 
$173.7$ $\pm2.8$ $\pm1.5$ 
^{ 30} 

D0 
$173.9$ $\pm1.9$ $\pm1.6$ 
^{ 31} 

D0 
$172.5$ $\pm0.4$ $\pm1.5$ 
^{ 32} 

CMS 
$173.49$ $\pm0.43$ $\pm0.98$ 
^{ 33} 

CMS 
$172.4$ $\pm1.4$ $\pm1.3$ 
^{ 34} 

CDF 
$172.3$ $\pm2.4$ $\pm1.0$ 
^{ 35} 

CDF 
$172.1$ $\pm1.1$ $\pm0.9$ 
^{ 36} 

CDF 
$176.9$ $\pm8.0$ $\pm2.7$ 
^{ 37} 

CDF 
$174.94$ $\pm0.83$ $\pm1.24$ 
^{ 38} 

D0 
$174.0$ $\pm1.8$ $\pm2.4$ 
^{ 39} 

D0 
$175.5$ $\pm4.6$ $\pm4.6$ 
^{ 40} 

CMS 
$173.0$ $\pm0.9$ $\pm0.9$ 
^{ 41} 

CDF 
$169.3$ $\pm2.7$ $\pm3.2$ 
^{ 42} 

CDF 
$170.7$ $\pm6.3$ $\pm2.6$ 
^{ 43} 

CDF 
$174.8$ $\pm2.4$ ${}^{+1.2}_{1.0}$ 
^{ 44} 

CDF 
$180.5$ $\pm12.0$ $\pm3.6$ 
^{ 45} 

CDF 
$172.7$ $\pm1.8$ $\pm1.2$ 
^{ 46} 

CDF 
$171.1$ $\pm3.7$ $\pm2.1$ 
^{ 47} 

CDF 
$171.9$ $\pm1.7$ $\pm1.1$ 
^{ 48} 

CDF 
$171.2$ $\pm2.7$ $\pm2.9$ 
^{ 49} 

CDF 
$165.5$ ${}^{+3.4}_{3.3}$ $\pm3.1$ 
^{ 50} 

CDF 
$174.7$ $\pm4.4$ $\pm2.0$ 
^{ 51} 

D0 
$170.7$ ${}^{+4.2}_{3.9}$ $\pm3.5$ 
^{ 52}^{, 53} 

CDF 
$171.5$ $\pm1.8$ $\pm1.1$ 
^{ 54} 

D0 
$177.1$ $\pm4.9$ $\pm4.7$ 
^{ 55}^{, 56} 

CDF 
$172.3$ ${}^{+10.8}_{9.6}$ $\pm10.8$ 
^{ 57} 

CDF 
$174.0$ $\pm2.2$ $\pm4.8$ 
^{ 58} 

CDF 
$170.8$ $\pm2.2$ $\pm1.4$ 
^{ 59}^{, 60} 

CDF 
$173.7$ $\pm4.4$ ${}^{+2.1}_{2.0}$ 
^{ 61}^{, 56} 

D0 
$176.2$ $\pm9.2$ $\pm3.9$ 
^{ 62} 

D0 
$179.5$ $\pm7.4$ $\pm5.6$ 
^{ 62} 

D0 
$164.5$ $\pm3.9$ $\pm3.9$ 
^{ 63}^{, 60} 

CDF 
$180.7$ ${}^{+15.5}_{13.4}$ $\pm8.6$ 
^{ 64} 

CDF 
$170.3$ ${}^{+4.1}_{4.5}$ ${}^{+1.2}_{1.8}$ 
^{ 65}^{, 60} 

D0 
$173.2$ ${}^{+2.6}_{2.4}$ $\pm3.2$ 
^{ 66}^{, 67} 

CDF 
$173.5$ ${}^{+3.7}_{3.6}$ $\pm1.3$ 
^{ 66}^{, 53} 

CDF 
$165.2$ $\pm6.1$ $\pm3.4$ 
^{ 68}^{, 60} 

CDF 
$170.1$ $\pm6.0$ $\pm4.1$ 
^{ 69}^{, 53} 

CDF 
$178.5$ $\pm13.7$ $\pm7.7$ 
^{ 70}^{, 71} 

D0 
$180.1$ $\pm3.6$ $\pm3.9$ 
^{ 72}^{, 73} 

D0 
$176.1$ $\pm5.1$ $\pm5.3$ 
^{ 74} 

CDF 
$176.1$ $\pm6.6$ 
^{ 75} 

CDF 
$172.1$ $\pm5.2$ $\pm4.9$ 
^{ 76} 

D0 
$176.0$ $\pm6.5$ 
^{ 77}^{, 78} 

CDF 
$167.4$ $\pm10.3$ $\pm4.8$ 
^{ 79}^{, 78} 

CDF 
$168.4$ $\pm12.3$ $\pm3.6$ 
^{ 73} 

D0 
$173.3$ $\pm5.6$ $\pm5.5$ 
^{ 80}^{, 73} 

D0 
$175.9$ $\pm4.8$ $\pm5.3$ 
^{ 79}^{, 81} 

CDF 
$161$ $\pm17$ $\pm10$ 
^{ 79} 

CDF 
$172.1$ $\pm5.2$ $\pm4.9$ 
^{ 82} 

RVUE 
$173.8$ $\pm5.0$ 
^{ 83} 

RVUE 
$173.3$ $\pm5.6$ $\pm6.2$ 
^{ 73} 

D0 
$186$ $\pm10$ $\pm5.7$ 
^{ 84}^{, 79} 

CDF 
$199$ ${}^{+19}_{21}$ $\pm22$ 


D0 
$176$ $\pm8$ $\pm10$ 


CDF 
$174$ $\pm10$ ${}^{+13}_{12}$ 


CDF 
^{1}
SIRUNYAN 2017L based on 19.7 ${\mathrm {fb}}{}^{1}$ of ${{\mathit p}}{{\mathit p}}$ data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 8 TeV. ${\mathit m}_{{{\mathit t}}}$ is reconstructed from a fit to the invariant mass distribution of ${{\mathit \mu}}{{\mathit \nu}}{{\mathit b}}$ , where ${{\mathit p}_{{T}}^{miss}}$ and ${{\mathit W}}$ mass constraint are used to reconstruct ${{\mathit \nu}}$ momentum. The number of events for various contributions, except for the ${{\mathit t}}$channel single top one, are fixed to the values extracted from simulation.

^{2}
AABOUD 2016T is an ATLAS combination of 8 TeV topquark mass in the dilepton channel with previous measurements from $\sqrt {s }$ = 7 TeV data in the dilepton and lepton + jets channels.

^{3}
KHACHATRYAN 2016AK based on 19.7 ${\mathrm {fb}}{}^{1}$ of ${{\mathit p}}{{\mathit p}}$ data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 8 TeV. Combination of the three top mass measurements in KHACHATRYAN 2016AK and with the CMS results at $\sqrt {s }$ = 7 TeV.

^{4}
TEVEWWG 2016 is the latest Tevatron average (July 2016) provided by the Tevatron Electroweak Working Group. It takes correlated uncertainties into account and has a ${{\mathit \chi}^{2}}$ of 10.8 for 11 degrees of freedom.

^{5}
AABOUD 2017AH based on 20.2 fb${}^{1}$ of ${{\mathit p}}{{\mathit p}}$ data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 8 TeV. Uses template fits to the ratio of the masses of threejets (from ${{\mathit t}}$ candidate) and dijets (from ${{\mathit W}}$ candidate), to suppress jet energy scale uncertainty. Large QCD background is modelled using a datadriven method.

^{6}
ABAZOV 2017B is a combination of measurements of the top quark mass by D0 in the lepton+jets and dilepton channels, using all data collected in Run I ($1992  1996$) at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.8 TeV and Run II ($2001  2011$) at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV of the Tevatron, corresponding to integrated luminosities of 0.1 ${\mathrm {fb}}{}^{1}$ and 9.7 ${\mathrm {fb}}{}^{1}$, respectively.

^{7}
SIRUNYAN 2017N based on 19.7 ${\mathrm {fb}}{}^{1}$ of ${{\mathit p}}{{\mathit p}}$ data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 8 TeV. The fully hadronic decay of a highlyboosted ${{\mathit t}}$ is reconstructed in the ${{\mathit \ell}}$+jets channel and unfolded at the particle level. The sensitivity of the peak position of the ${{\mathit m}_{{jet}}}$ distribution is used to test quality of the modelling by the simulation.

^{8}
SIRUNYAN 2017O based on 19.7 ${\mathrm {fb}}{}^{1}$ of ${{\mathit p}}{{\mathit p}}$ data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 8 TeV. Analysis is based on the kinematical observables $\mathit M$( ${{\mathit b}}{{\mathit \ell}}$ ), ${{\mathit M}_{{T2}}}$ and $\mathit M$( ${{\mathit b}}{{\mathit \ell}}{{\mathit \nu}}$ ). A fit is performed to determine ${\mathit m}_{{{\mathit t}}}$ and an overall jet energy scale factor simultaneously.

^{9}
AABOUD 2016T based on 20.2 fb${}^{1}$ of ${{\mathit p}}{{\mathit p}}$ data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 8 TeV. The analysis is refined using the ${{\mathit p}_{{T}}}$ and invariant mass distributions of ${{\mathit \ell}}+{{\mathit b}}$jet system. A combination with measurements from $\sqrt {s }$ = 7 TeV data in the dilepton and lepton+jets channels gives $172.84$ $\pm0.34$ $\pm0.61$ GeV.

^{10}
ABAZOV 2016 based on 9.7 fb${}^{1}$ of data in ${{\mathit p}}{{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ collisions at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. Employs improved fit to minimize statistical errors and improved jet energy calibration, using lepton + jets mode, which reduces error of jet energy scale. Based on previous determination in ABAZOV 2012AB with increased integrated luminosity and improved fit and calibrations.

^{11}
ABAZOV 2016D based on 9.7 fb${}^{1}$ of data in ${{\mathit p}}{{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ collisions at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV, using the matrix element technique. Based on previous determination in ABAZOV 2011R with increased integrated luminosity. There is a strong correlation with the determination in ABAZOV 2016 . (See ABAZOV 2017B.)

^{12}
KHACHATRYAN 2016AK based on 19.7 fb${}^{1}$ of ${{\mathit p}}{{\mathit p}}$ data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 8 TeV. Combination of the three top mass measurements in KHACHATRYAN 2016AK and with the CMS results at $\sqrt {s }$ = 7 TeV gives $172.44$ $\pm0.13$ $\pm0.47$ GeV.

^{13}
The top mass and jet energy scale factor are determined by a fit.

^{14}
Uses the analytical matrix weighting technique method.

^{15}
KHACHATRYAN 2016AL based on 19.7 fb${}^{1}$ in ${{\mathit p}}{{\mathit p}}$ collisions at $\sqrt {s }$ = 8 TeV. Determined from the invariant mass distribution of leptons and reconstructed secondary vertices from ${{\mathit b}}$ decays using only charged particles. The uncertainty is dominated by modeling of ${{\mathit b}}$ fragmentation and top ${{\mathit p}_{{T}}}$ distribution.

^{16}
KHACHATRYAN 2016CB based on 666 candidate reconstructed events corresponding to 19.7 fb${}^{1}$ of ${{\mathit p}}{{\mathit p}}$ data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 8 TeV. The measurement exploits correlation of ${\mathit m}_{{{\mathit t}}}$ with M( ${{\mathit J / \psi}}{{\mathit \ell}}$ ) in the same top quark decay, using a highpurity event sample. A study on modeling of ${{\mathit b}}$quark fragmentation is given in Sec.3.3.

^{17}
AAD 2015AW based on 4.6 fb${}^{1}$ of ${{\mathit p}}{{\mathit p}}$ data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 7 TeV. Uses template fits to the ratio of the masses of threejets (from ${{\mathit t}}$ candidate) and dijets (from ${{\mathit W}}$ candidate). Large background from multijet production is modeled with datadriven methods.

^{18}
AAD 2015BF based on 4.6 fb${}^{1}$ in ${{\mathit p}}{{\mathit p}}$ collisions at $\sqrt {s }$ = 7 TeV. Using a threedimensional template likelihood technique the lepton plus jets (${}\geq{}1{{\mathit b}}$tagged) channel gives $172.33$ $\pm0.75$ $\pm1.02$ GeV, while exploiting a one dimensional template method using ${\mathit m}_{ {{\mathit \ell}} {{\mathit b}} }$ the dilepton channel (1 or 2${{\mathit b}}$tags) gives $173.79$ $\pm0.54$ $\pm1.30$ GeV. The results are combined.

^{19}
AALTONEN 2015D based on 9.1 fb${}^{1}$ of ${{\mathit p}}{{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. Uses a template technique to fit a distribution of a variable defined by a linear combination of variables sensitive and insensitive to jet energy scale to optimize reduction of systematic errors. ${{\mathit b}}$ tagged and non ${{\mathit b}}$ tagged events are separately analyzed and combined.

^{20}
Based on 9.3 fb${}^{1}$ of ${{\mathit p}}{{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. Multivariate algorithm is used to discriminate signal from backgrounds, and templates are used to measure ${\mathit m}_{{{\mathit t}}}$.

^{21}
Based on 9.7 fb${}^{1}$ of ${{\mathit p}}{{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. A matrix element method is used to calculate the probability of an event to be signal or background, and the overall jet energy scale is constrained $\mathit in~situ$ by ${\mathit m}_{{{\mathit W}}}$. See ABAZOV 2015G for further details.

^{22}
Based on 3.54 fb${}^{1}$ of ${{\mathit p}}{{\mathit p}}$ data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 7 TeV. The mass is reconstructed for each event employing a kinematic fit of the jets to a ttbar hypothesis. The combination with the pervious CMS measurements in the dilepton and the lepton+jets channels gives $173.54$ $\pm0.33$ $\pm0.96$ GeV.

^{23}
Based on 8.7 fb${}^{1}$ in ${{\mathit p}}{{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ collisions at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. Events with an identified charged lepton or small $\not E_T$ are rejected from the event sample, so that the measurement is statistically independent from those in the ${{\mathit \ell}}$ + jets and all hadronic channels while being sensitive to those events with a ${{\mathit \tau}}$ lepton in the final state.

^{24}
Based on 5.0 fb${}^{1}$ of ${{\mathit p}}{{\mathit p}}$ data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 7 TeV. CHATRCHYAN 2013S studied events with dilepton + $\not E_T$ + ${}\geq{}$2 ${{\mathit b}}$jets, and looked for kinematical endpoints of MT2, MT2$_{T}$, and subsystem variables.

^{25}
AAD 2012I based on 1.04 fb${}^{1}$ of ${{\mathit p}}{{\mathit p}}$ data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 7 TeV. Uses 2dtemplate analysis (MT) with ${\mathit m}_{{{\mathit t}}}$ and jet energy scale factor (JSF) from ${\mathit m}_{{{\mathit W}}}$ mass fit.

^{26}
Based on 8.7 fb${}^{1}$ of data in ${{\mathit p}}{{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ collisions at 1.96 TeV. The JES is calibrated by using the dijet mass from the ${{\mathit W}}$ boson decay.

^{27}
Use the ME method based on 2.2 fb${}^{1}$ of data in ${{\mathit p}}{{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ collisions at 1.96 TeV.

^{28}
Combination based on up to 5.8 fb${}^{1}$ of data in ${{\mathit p}}{{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ collisions at 1.96 TeV.

^{29}
Based on 5.8 fb${}^{1}$ of data in ${{\mathit p}}{{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ collisions at 1.96 TeV the quoted value is ${\mathit m}_{{{\mathit t}}}$ = $172.5$ $\pm1.4$(stat)$\pm1.0(JES)\pm1.1$(syst) GeV. The measurement is performed with a liklihood fit technique which simultaneously determines ${\mathit m}_{{{\mathit t}}}$ and JES (Jet Energy Scale).

^{30}
Based on 4.3 fb${}^{1}$ of data in ppbar collisions at 1.96 TeV. The measurement reduces the JES uncertainty by using the single lepton channel study of ABAZOV 2011P.

^{31}
Combination with the result in 1 fb${}^{1}$ of preceding data reported in ABAZOV 09AH as well as the MWT result of ABAZOV 2011R with a statistical correlation of 60$\%$.

^{32}
Based on 5.0 fb${}^{1}$ of ${{\mathit p}}{{\mathit p}}$ data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 7 TeV. Uses an analytical matrix weighting technique (AMWT) and full kinematic analysis (KIN).

^{33}
Based on 5.0 fb${}^{1}$ of ${{\mathit p}}{{\mathit p}}$ data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 7 TeV. The first error is statistical and JES combined, and the second is systematic. Ideogram method is used to obtain 2D liklihood for the kinematical fit with two parameters mtop and JES.

^{34}
Based on 3.2 fb${}^{1}$ in ${{\mathit p}}{{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ collisions at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. The first error is from statistics and JES combined, and the latter is from the other systematic uncertainties. The result is obtained using an unbinned maximum likelihood method where the top quark mass and the JES are measured simultaneously, with ${{\mathit \Delta}_{{JES}}}$ = $0.3$ $\pm0.3$(stat).

^{35}
Based on 5.7 fb${}^{1}$ in ${{\mathit p}}{{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ collisions at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. Events with an identified charged lepton or small $\not E_T$ are rejected from the event sample, so that the measurement is statistically independent from those in the ${{\mathit \ell}}$ + jets and all hadronic channels while being sensitive to those events with a ${{\mathit \tau}}$ lepton in the final state. Supersedes AALTONEN 2007B.

^{36}
AALTONEN 2011E based on 5.6 fb${}^{1}$ in ${{\mathit p}}{{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ collisions at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. Employs a multidimensional template likelihood technique where the lepton plus jets (one or two ${{\mathit b}}$tags) channel gives $172.2$ $\pm1.2$ $\pm0.9$ GeV while the dilepton channel yields $170.3$ $\pm2.0$ $\pm3.1$ GeV. The results are combined. OUR EVALUATION includes the measurement in the dilepton channel only.

^{37}
Uses a likelihood fit of the lepton $p_T$ distribution based on 2.7 fb${}^{1}$ in ${{\mathit p}}{{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ collisions at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV.

^{38}
Based on 3.6 fb${}^{1}$ in ${{\mathit p}}{{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ collisions at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. ABAZOV 2011P reports $174.94$ $\pm0.83$ $\pm0.78$ $\pm0.96$ GeV, where the first uncertainty is from statistics, the second from JES, and the last from other systematic uncertainties. We combine the JES and systematic uncertainties. A matrixelement method is used where the JES uncertainty is constrained by the ${{\mathit W}}$ mass. ABAZOV 2011P describes a measurement based on 2.6 fb${}^{1}$ that is combined with ABAZOV 2008AH, which employs an independent 1 fb${}^{1}$ of data.

^{39}
Based on a matrixelement method which employs 5.4 fb${}^{1}$ in ${{\mathit p}}{{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ collisions at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. Superseded by ABAZOV 2012AB.

^{40}
Based on 36 pb${}^{1}$ of ${{\mathit p}}{{\mathit p}}$ collisions at $\sqrt {s }$ = 7 TeV. A Kinematic Method using ${{\mathit b}}$tagging and an analytical Matrix Weighting Technique give consistent results and are combined. Superseded by CHATRCHYAN 2012BA.

^{41}
Based on 5.6 fb${}^{1}$ in ${{\mathit p}}{{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ collisions at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. The likelihood calculated using a matrix element method gives ${\mathit m}_{{{\mathit t}}}$ = $173.0$ $\pm0.7$(stat)$\pm0.6(JES)\pm0.9$(syst) GeV, for a total uncertainty of 1.2 GeV.

^{42}
Based on 3.4 fb${}^{1}$ of ${{\mathit p}}{{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ collisions at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. The result is obtained by combining the MT2 variable method and the NWA (Neutrino Weighting Algorithm). The MT2 method alone gives ${\mathit m}_{{{\mathit t}}}$ = $168.0$ ${}^{+4.8}_{4.0}$(stat)$\pm2.9$(syst) GeV with smaller systematic error due to small JES uncertainty.

^{43}
Based on 1.9 fb${}^{1}$ in ${{\mathit p}}{{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ collisions at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. The result is from the measurement using the transverse decay length of ${{\mathit b}}$hadrons and that using the transverse momentum of the ${{\mathit W}}$ decay muons, which are both insensitive to the JES (jet energy scale) uncertainty. OUR EVALUATION uses only the measurement exploiting the decay length significance which yields $166.9$ ${}^{+9.5}_{8.5}$(stat)$\pm$2.9 (syst) GeV. The measurement that uses the lepton transverse momentum is excluded from the average because of a statistical correlation with other samples.

^{44}
Based on 2.9 fb${}^{1}$ of ${{\mathit p}}{{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ collisions at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. The first error is from statistics and JES uncertainty, and the latter is from the other systematics. Neuralnetworkbased kinematical selection of 6 highest $\mathit E_{T}$ jets with a vtx ${{\mathit b}}$tag is used to distinguish signal from background. Superseded by AALTONEN 2012G.

^{45}
Based on 2 fb${}^{1}$ of data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. The top mass is obtained from the measurement of the invariant mass of the lepton (${{\mathit e}}$ or ${{\mathit \mu}}$) from ${{\mathit W}}$ decays and the soft ${{\mathit \mu}}$ in ${{\mathit b}}$jet. The result is insensitive to jet energy scaling.

^{46}
Based on 1.9 fb${}^{1}$ of data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. The first error is from statistics and jet energy scale uncertainty, and the latter is from the other systematics. Matrix element method with effective propagators.

^{47}
Based on 943 pb${}^{1}$ of data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. The first error is from statistical and jetenergyscale uncertainties, and the latter is from other systematics. AALTONEN 2009K selected 6 jet events with one or more vertex ${{\mathit b}}$tags and used the treelevel matrix element to construct template models of signal and background.

^{48}
Based on 1.9 fb${}^{1}$ of data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. The first error is from statistical and jetenergyscale (JES) uncertainties, and the second is from other systematics. Events with lepton + jets and those with dilepton + jets were simultaneously fit to constrain ${\mathit m}_{{{\mathit t}}}$ and JES. Lepton + jets data only give ${\mathit m}_{{{\mathit t}}}$ = $171.8$ $\pm2.2$ GeV, and dilepton data only give ${\mathit m}_{{{\mathit t}}}$ = $171.2$ ${}^{+5.3}_{5.1}$ GeV.

^{49}
Based on 2 fb${}^{1}$ of data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. Matrix Element method. Optimal selection criteria for candidate events with two high $p_T$ leptons, high $\not E_T$, and two or more jets with and without ${{\mathit b}}$tag are obtained by neural network with neuroevolution technique to minimize the statistical error of ${\mathit m}_{{{\mathit t}}}$.

^{50}
Based on 2.9 fb${}^{1}$ of data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. Mass ${\mathit m}_{{{\mathit t}}}$ is estimated from the likelihood for the eightfold kinematical solutions in the plane of the azimuthal angles of the two neutrino momenta.

^{51}
Based on 1 fb${}^{1}$ of data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. Events with two identified leptons, and those with one lepton plus one isolated track and a ${{\mathit b}}$tag were used to constrain ${\mathit m}_{{{\mathit t}}}$. The result is a combination of the ${{\mathit \nu}}$WT (${{\mathit \nu}}$ Weighting Technique) result of $176.2$ $\pm4.8$ $\pm2.1$ GeV and the MWT (Matrixelement Weighting Technique) result of $173.2$ $\pm4.9$ $\pm2.0$ GeV.

^{52}
Reports measurement of $170.7$ ${}^{+4.2}_{3.9}$ $\pm2.6$ $\pm2.4$ GeV based on 1.2 fb${}^{1}$ of data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. The last error is due to the theoretical uncertainty on $\sigma _{ {{\mathit t}} {{\overline{\mathit t}}} }$. Without the crosssection constraint a top mass of $169.7$ ${}^{+5.2}_{4.9}$ $\pm3.1$ GeV is obtained.

^{53}
Template method.

^{54}
Result is based on 1 fb${}^{1}$ of data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. The first error is from statistics and jet energy scale uncertainty, and the latter is from the other systematics.

^{55}
Based on 310 pb${}^{1}$ of data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV.

^{56}
Ideogram method.

^{57}
Based on 311 pb${}^{1}$ of data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. Events with 4 or more jets with $\mathit E_{T}>$ 15 GeV, significant missing $\mathit E_{T}$, and secondary vertex ${{\mathit b}}$tag are used in the fit. About 44$\%$ of the signal acceptance is from ${{\mathit \tau}}{{\mathit \nu}}$ + 4 jets. Events with identified ${{\mathit e}}$ or ${{\mathit \mu}}$ are vetoed to provide a statistically independent measurement.

^{58}
Based on 1.02 fb${}^{1}$ of data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. Superseded by AALTONEN 2012G.

^{59}
Based on 955 pb${}^{1}$ of data $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. ${\mathit m}_{{{\mathit t}}}$ and JES (Jet Energy Scale) are fitted simultaneously, and the first error contains the JES contribution of 1.5 GeV.

^{60}
Matrix element method.

^{61}
Based on 425 pb${}^{1}$ of data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. The first error is a combination of statistics and JES (Jet Energy Scale) uncertainty, which has been measured simultaneously to give JES = $0.989$ $\pm0.029$(stat).

^{62}
Based on 370 pb${}^{1}$ of data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. Combined result of MWT (Matrixelement Weighting Technique) and ${{\mathit \nu}}$WT (${{\mathit \nu}}$ Weighting Technique) analyses is $178.1$ $\pm6.7$ $\pm4.8~$GeV.

^{63}
Based on 1.0 fb${}^{1}$ of data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. ABULENCIA 2007D improves the matrix element description by including the effects of initialstate radiation.

^{64}
Based on 695 pb${}^{1}$ of data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. The transverse decay length of the ${\mathit {\mathit b}}$ hadron is used to determine ${\mathit m}_{{{\mathit t}}}$, and the result is free from the JES (jet energy scale) uncertainty.

^{65}
Based on $\sim{}$400 pb${}^{1}$ of data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV. The first error includes statistical and systematic jet energy scale uncertainties, the second error is from the other systematics. The result is obtained with the ${{\mathit b}}$tagging information. The result without ${{\mathit b}}$tagging is $169.2$ ${}^{+5.0}_{7.4}{}^{+1.5}_{1.4}$ GeV. Superseded by ABAZOV 2008AH.

^{66}
Based on 318 pb${}^{1}$ of data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV.

^{67}
Dynamical likelihood method.

^{68}
Based on 340 pb${}^{1}$ of data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV.

^{69}
Based on 360 pb${}^{1}$ of data at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.96 TeV.

^{70}
Based on $110.2$ $\pm5.8$ pb${}^{1}$ at $\sqrt {s }$ = 1.8~TeV.

^{71}
Based on the all hadronic decays of ${{\mathit t}}{{\overline{\mathit t}}}$ pairs. Single ${{\mathit b}}$quark tagging via the decay chain ${{\mathit b}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit c}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \mu}}$ was used to select signal enriched multijet events. The result was obtained by the maximum likelihood method after bias correction.

^{72}
Obtained by reanalysis of the lepton + jets candidate events that led to ABBOTT 1998F. It is based upon the maximum likelihood method which makes use of the leading order matrix elements.

^{73}
Based on $125$ $\pm7~$pb${}^{1}$ of data at $\sqrt {\mathit s }$ = $1.8$ TeV.

^{74}
Based on $\sim{}106~$pb${}^{1}$ of data at $\sqrt {\mathit s }$= $1.8$ TeV.

^{75}
Obtained by combining the measurements in the lepton + jets [AFFOLDER 2001 ], alljets [ABE 1997R, ABE 1999B], and dilepton [ABE 1999B] decay topologies.

^{76}
Obtained by combining the D0 result ${\mathit m}_{{{\mathit t}}}$ (GeV) = $168.4$ $\pm12.3$ $\pm3.6$ from 6 dilepton events (see also ABBOTT 1998D) and ${\mathit m}_{{{\mathit t}}}$ (GeV) = $173.3$ $\pm5.6$ $\pm5.5$ from lepton+jet events (ABBOTT 1998F).

^{77}
Obtained by combining the CDF results of ${\mathit m}_{{{\mathit t}}}$ (GeV)=$167.4$ $\pm10.3$ $\pm4.8$ from 8$~$dilepton events, ${\mathit m}_{{{\mathit t}}}$ (GeV)=$175.9$ $\pm4.8$ $\pm5.3$ from lepton+jet events (ABE 1998E), and ${\mathit m}_{{{\mathit t}}}$ (GeV)=$186.0$ $\pm10.0$ $\pm5.7$ from alljet events (ABE 1997R). The systematic errors in the latter two measurements are changed in this paper.

^{78}
See AFFOLDER 2001 for details of systematic error reevaluation.

^{79}
Based on $109$ $\pm7~$pb${}^{1}$ of data at $\sqrt {\mathit s }$ = $1.8$ TeV.

^{80}
See ABAZOV 2004G.

^{81}
The updated systematic error is listed. See AFFOLDER 2001 , appendix$~$C.

^{82}
Obtained by combining the ${D0}$ results of ${\mathit m}_{{{\mathit t}}}$(GeV)=$168.4$ $\pm12.3$ $\pm3.6$ from 6 dilepton events and ${\mathit m}_{{{\mathit t}}}$(GeV)=$173.3$ $\pm5.6$ $\pm5.5$ from 77 lepton+jet events.

^{83}
Obtained by combining the ${D0}$ results from dilepton and lepton+jet events, and the CDF results (ABE 1999B) from dilepton, lepton+jet events, and alljet events.

^{84}
Based on the first observation of all hadronic decays of ${{\mathit t}}{{\overline{\mathit t}}}$ pairs. Single ${{\mathit b}}$quark tagging with jetshape variable constraints was used to select signal enriched multijet events. The updated systematic error is listed. See AFFOLDER 2001 , appendix$~$C.
