1: \documentclass[letter,nobibnotes,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

2: 

3: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}

4: \usepackage{epsfig}

5: \usepackage{graphicx}

6: \usepackage{xspace}

7: 

8: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

9: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

10: \newcommand{\bL}{\begin{Large}}

11: \newcommand{\eL}{\end{Large}}

12: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}

13: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}

14: \newcommand{\bc}{\begin{center}}

15: \newcommand{\ec}{\end{center}}

16: \newcommand{\bfig}{\begin{figure}}

17: \newcommand{\efig}{\end{figure}}

18: \newcommand{\f}[2]{\frac{#1}{#2}}

19: \newcommand{\g}{\gamma}

20: \newcommand{\om}{\omega}

21: 

22: \newcommand{\la}{\label}

23: \newcommand{\no}{\nonumber \\}

24: \newcommand{\lra}{\longrightarrow}

25: \newcommand{\ra}{\rightarrow}

26: \newcommand{\cor}[1]{\left\langle{#1}\right\rangle}

27: 

28: \renewcommand{\th}{\theta}

29: \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma}

30: \newcommand{\eps}{\epsilon}

31: \newcommand{\dl}{\delta}

32: \newcommand{\al}{\alpha}

33: \newcommand{\bal}{\bar \alpha}

34: \newcommand{\tg}{\tan \th}

35: \newcommand{\tgd}{\tan^2 \th}

36: 

37: 

38: \newcommand{\rr}[4]{#1, {\it #2 \/}{\bf #3} #4}

39: \newcommand{\qb}{\bar{q}}

40: \newcommand{\nn}{{\cal N}}

41: 

42: \newcommand{\pref}{\f{1}{2\pi \alpha'}}

43: \newcommand{\ttl}{\f{\tau^2 \th^2}{L^2}}

44: \newcommand{\fl}{\f{L^2}{\chi_{L0}}}

45: \newcommand{\tcl}{\f{\tau^2 \chi_{L0}^2}{L^2}}

46: \newcommand{\Ttl}{\f{T^2 \th^2}{L^2}}

47: \newcommand{\Tcl}{\f{T^2 \chi_{L0}^2}{L^2}}

48: \newcommand{\qqqq}{\quad\quad\quad}

49: \newcommand{\xpr}{x_\perp}

50: \newcommand{\rrr}{\mathbb{R}}

51: 

52: \newcommand{\numero}[1]{\noindent{\bf #1.}~}

53: \newcommand{\remarki}[1]{\noindent{\bf [#1]}}

54: \newcommand{\cc}{\chi(\gamma_c)}

55: \newcommand{\ccc}{\chi^{\prime\prime}(\gamma_c)}

56: %\newcommand{\numero}[1]{\noindent{\bf #1.}~}

57: %\newcommand{\remarki}[1]{\noindent{\bf [#1]}}

58: %\newcommand{\ccc}{\chi^{\prime\prime}(\gamma_c)}

59: %\newcommand{\rr}[4]{#1, {\it #2 \/}{\bf #3} #4}

60: %\newcommand{\cc}{\chi(\gamma_c)}

61: %\newcommand{\g}{\gamma}

62: %\newcommand{\f}{\frac}

63: %% \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

64: %% \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

65: %% \newcommand{\sr}{\stackrel}

66: %% \newcommand{\D}{\displaystyle}

67: %% \newcommand{\ket}{\rangle}

68: %% \newcommand{\bra}{\langle}

69: %% \newcommand{\hQ}{\hat{Q}}

70: %% \newcommand{\intc}[1]{{\int\frac{d#1}{2i\pi}}}

71: %% \newcommand\lr[1]{{\left({#1}\right)}}

72: \newcommand{\mW}{\ensuremath{m_{\mathrm{W}}}\xspace}

73: \newcommand{\mWfit}{\ensuremath{m_{\mathrm{W}}^{\mathrm{fit}}}\xspace}

74: \newcommand{\mWmin}{\ensuremath{m_{\mathrm{W}}^{\mathrm{min}}}\xspace}

75: \newcommand{\mt}{\ensuremath{m_{\mathrm{t}}}\xspace}

76: \newcommand{\ff}{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}\xspace}

77: \newcommand{\keV}{\ensuremath{\mbox{keV}}\xspace}

78: \newcommand{\MeV}{\ensuremath{\mbox{MeV}}\xspace}

79: \newcommand{\GeV}{\ensuremath{\mbox{GeV}}\xspace}

80: \newcommand{\TeV}{\ensuremath{\mbox{TeV}}\xspace}

81: \newcommand{\ev}{\ensuremath{\Pe\Pgne}\xspace}

82: \newcommand{\Ifb}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{fb^{-1}}}\xspace}

83: \newcommand{\ttbar}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{t\bar{t}}}\xspace}

84: \newcommand{\WW}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{W^+W^-}}\xspace}

85: \newcommand{\W}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{W}}\xspace}

86: \newcommand{\ut}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{t}}\xspace}

87: 

88: \begin{document}

89: \title{Threshold scans in diffractive W pair production via QED

90: processes at the LHC}

91: 

92: \author{M. Boonekamp}\email{boon@hep.saclay.cea.fr} 

93: \affiliation{Service de physique des particules, CEA/Saclay,

94:   91191 Gif-sur-Yvette cedex, France}

95: \author{J. Cammin}\email{cammin@fnal.gov} 

96: \affiliation{University of Rochester, New York, USA}

97: \author{R. Peschanski}\email{pesch@spht.saclay.cea.fr}

98: \affiliation{Service de physique th{\'e}orique, CEA/Saclay,

99:   91191 Gif-sur-Yvette cedex, France\footnote{%

100: URA 2306, unit{\'e} de recherche associ{\'e}e au CNRS.}}

101: \author{C. Royon}\email{royon@hep.saclay.cea.fr}

102: \affiliation{Service de physique des particules, CEA/Saclay,

103:   91191 Gif-sur-Yvette cedex, France}

104: 

105: \begin{abstract}

106: We propose a new set of measurements which can be performed at

107: the LHC using roman pot detectors.

108: This new method is based on exploiting excitation curves to measure kinematical

109: properties of produced particles. We illustrate it in the case of central 

110: diffractive $W$ pair production.

111: \end{abstract}

112: 

113: \maketitle

114: 

115: 

116: \section{Introduction}

117: 

118: We propose a new method to measure heavy particle properties via double 

119: photon exchange at the LHC. In this category of events, the heavy objects 

120: are produced in pairs, whereas the beam particles

121: often leave the interaction region intact, and can be measured using very forward detectors.

122: 

123: If the events are $exclusive$, \emph{i.e.}, if no other particles are produced in addition to the pair of heavy objects 

124: and the outgoing protons, the proton measurement gives access to the photon-photon 

125: centre-of-mass, and the dynamics of the hard process can be accurately studied. 

126: In particular, one can observe the threshold excitation and attempt to extract the mass of the heavy particle, 

127: or study its (possibly energy-dependent) couplings by measuring cross-sections and angular 

128: distributions \cite{piotr}. As examples of this approach, we give a detailed account of the \W boson 

129: measurement at production threshold. The method can easily be extended to other heavy objects

130: in exclusive production. 

131: 

132: 

133: The Letter is organised as follows. We start by giving the theoretical 

134: formulation  of \WW production (via QED). We then describe the event generation,

135: the simulation of detector effects, and the cuts used in the analysis.

136: The following part of the paper describes in detail the threshold scan method, 

137: in a twofold version (``turn-on''and ``histogram'' fits), and its application to 

138: the \W boson measurements. 

139: 

140: 

141: \section{Theoretical formulation of $W$ pair QED production}

142: 

143: 

144: 

145: The QED process rates are obtained from  the following  cross section formula

146: \be

147: d\sg_{(\mathrm{pp\to \ p\ W^+ W^-p})} = \hat {\sg}_{\mathrm{\g\g\to W^+ W^-}}\ dn^{\g}_1 \ 

148: dn^{\g}_2\nonumber \ ,

149: \la{dsigmaWWW}

150: \ee

151: \

152: where the Born $\mathrm{\g\g\to W^+ W^-}$ cross-section reads 

153: \cite{Papageorgiu:1990mu}

154: \be

155: \hat {\sg}_{\mathrm{\g\g\to W^+ W^-}}=\frac {8\pi\al^2}{M_{\mathrm{WW}}^2}\left\{

156: \f 1t\left(1+\f34t+3t^2\right)\Lambda-3t(1-2t)

157: \ln\left(\f{1+\Lambda}{1-\Lambda}\right)\right\},

158: \la{hatsigma}

159: \ee

160: with

161: \be

162: t= \f{m_\W^2}{M_{\mathrm{WW}}^2}\ ,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \Lambda =\sqrt{1-4t}\ , 

163: \la{kine}

164: \ee

165: where $M_{\mathrm{WW}}$ is the total \WW mass. The photon fluxes $dn^{\g}$ are given 

166: by  

167: \cite{Budnev:1975zs}

168: \be

169:  dn^{\g}=\f{\al}{\pi} \f{\om}{\om}\left(1-\f{\om}{E}\right)

170: \left[\phi\left(\f{q^2_{max}}{q^2_{0}}\right)-\phi\left(\f{q^2_{min}}{q^2_{0}

171: }

172: \right)\right]\ ,

173: \ee

174: where

175: \be

176: \phi\left(x\right)\equiv (1+ay)

177: \left[\ln\left(\f x{1+x}\right)+\Sigma_{k=1}^3 \f1{k(1+x)^k}\right]

178: -\ \f{(1-b)y}{4x(1+x)^3+c(1+\f14 y)}

179: \left[\ln\left(\f {2+2x-b}{1+x}\right)+\Sigma_{k=1}^3 

180: \f{b^k}{k(1+x)^k}\right]\ ,

181: \la{flux}

182: \ee

183: and

184: \be

185: q^2_{0} \sim 0.71\ \mathrm{GeV}^2\ \ ;\ y= \f{\om^2}{E(E-\om)}\ \ ;\ a \sim 7.16\ \ ;\ 

186: b\ \  

187: \sim -3.96\ \ ;\ c\sim 0.028 \ , 

188: \la{kineflux}

189: \ee

190: in the usual dipole approximation for the proton electromagnetic form 

191: factors. $\om$ 

192: is the photon energy in the laboratory frame, $q^2$ the modulus of its mass 

193: squared in 

194: the range

195: \be

196: \left[q^2_{min},\ q^2_{max}\right]\equiv \left[\f{m^2\om^2}{E(E-\om)}\ , 

197: \f{t_{max}}{q^2_{0}}\right]\ ,

198: \la{range}

199: \ee  

200: where $E$ and $m$ are  the energy and mass of the incident particle and  

201: $t_{max}\equiv ({m_\W^2}/{M_{\W\W}^2})_{max} $ is defined by the experimental 

202: conditions.

203: 

204: The QED cross section $d\sg (\mathrm{pp\to \ p\ W^+ W^-p})$ is  a theoretically 

205: clear 

206: prediction. One should take into account however, two sources of 

207: correction factors. One is due to the soft QCD initial state radiation 

208: between 

209: incident protons which could destroy the large rapidity gap of the QED 

210: process. It 

211: is present but much less pronounced than for the rapidity gap survival for a 

212: QCD 

213: hard process (see the  discussion in the next subsections), thanks to 

214: the large 

215: impact parameter implied by the QED scattering.  

216: The second factor   is the QCD $\mathrm{gg \to  W^+ W^-}$ exclusive production via 

217: higher 

218: order diagrams. This remains to be evaluated. In standard recently (non diffractive) production

219: \cite{Binoth:2005ua}, it is small. The similar

220: calculation for 

221: the diffractive \WW production by comparison with the QED process is outside 

222: the 

223: scope of our paper but deserves to be studied together with the ``inclusive'' 

224: background (\WW{}+hadrons) it could generate.

225: 

226: 

227: 

228: 

229: 

230: \subsection{Rapidity Gap Survival}

231: 

232: 

233: In order to select exclusive diffractive states, such as for \WW (QED), 

234: it is required to take into account the 

235: corrections from soft hadronic scattering. Indeed, the soft scattering  

236: between incident particles tends to mask the genuine

237: hard diffractive interactions at 

238: hadronic colliders. Starting with the ``hard" scattering amplitude ${\cal A}_{(\mathrm{WW})}$, 

239: the formulation of this correction \cite{sp,pom} consists

240: in considering its convolution with a soft S-matrix elemeny $S$ which reflects

241: the small ``rapidity gap survival" factor due to the soft radiation always

242: present when two initial hadrons collide \cite{sp}. One writes

243: \begin{equation}

244: {\cal A}(p_{T1},p_{T2}, \Delta \Phi) =

245: \left\{ 1 +{\cal A}_{SP} \right\}{\bf \times} {\cal A}_{(\mathrm{WW},\ttbar)}\equiv {\cal S} 

246: {\bf \times} 

247: {\cal A}_{(\mathrm{WW},\ttbar)} = \int d^2{\bf k}_T\ {\cal S}({\bf k}_T) \ {\cal 

248: A}_{(\mathrm{WW},\ttbar)}({\bf p}_{T1}\!-\!{\bf k}_T,

249: {\bf p}_{T2}\!+

250: \!{\bf k}_T) 

251: \ ,  

252: \label{sp}

253: \end{equation}

254: where ${\bf p}_{T1,2}$ are the transverse momenta of the outgoing $p,\bar p$ 

255: and $\Delta \Phi$ their 

256: azimuthal angle separation.  

257: ${\bf k}_T$ is the intermediate transverse momentum integrated out by the convolution.

258: 

259: The correction for the QED process 

260: is present but much less pronounced than for the rapidity gap survival for a 

261: QCD 

262: hard process, thanks to 

263: the large 

264: impact parameter implied by the QED scattering. In a specific model 

265: \cite{Khoze:2001xm} the correction factor  has 

266: been 

267: evaluated to be of order $0.9$ at the LHC for $\g\g\to \mathrm{H}$

268: and by contrast, $0.03$ for the QCD exclusive diffractive 

269: processes at the LHC.

270: 

271: 

272: 

273: 

274: \section{Experimental context}

275: 

276: \subsection{The DPEMC Monte Carlo}

277: A recently developed Monte-Carlo program, {\tt DPEMC} \cite{dpemc}, provides 

278: an implementation of the \WW  events described above in the

279: QED  exchange modes.

280: It uses {\tt HERWIG} \cite{herwig} as a cross-section library of

281: hard QCD 

282: processes, and when required, convolutes them with the relevant pomeron 

283: densities. HERWIG is only used for parton sjowering and hadronisation

284: for exclusive processes.

285: The survival probabilities discussed in the 

286: previous section 

287: (0.9 for double photon exchange 

288: processes)

289: have been introduced at generator level. The cross section at generator

290: level for \WW QED  is found to be 55.9 fb for a $m_\W$ mass of 

291: 80.42

292: GeV after applying the survival probabilities.

293: 

294: \subsection{Roman pot detector positions and resolutions}

295: 

296: A possible experimental setup for forward proton detection is described in 

297: detail in

298: \cite{helsinki}. We will only describe its main features here and discuss its

299: relevance for the \W boson and top quark masses measurements.

300: 

301: 

302: In exclusive QED processes, 

303: the mass of the central heavy object can be reconstructed

304: using the roman pot detectors and tagging both protons

305: in the final state at the LHC. It is given  by $M^2 = \xi_1\xi_2 s$, where 

306: $\xi_i$ are 

307: the proton fractional momentum losses, and $s$  the total center-of-mass 

308: energy squared \cite{Albrow:2000na}. In order to reconstruct objects with masses in the 160 GeV

309: range (for \WW events) in this 

310: way, the acceptance should be large down to $\xi$ values as low as a few 

311: $10^{-3}$. 

312: The missing mass resolution directly depends on the resolution on 

313: $\xi$, and should not exceed a few percent to obtain a good mass resolution.

314: 

315: These goals can be achieved if one assumes two detector stations, located at 

316: $\sim 

317: 220$ m, and $\sim 420$ m \cite{helsinki} from the interaction point. The $\xi$ acceptance and 

318: resolution have been derived for each device using a complete simulation

319: of the LHC beam parameters. The combined $\xi$ acceptance is close to $\sim 60\%

320: $ at low masses (at about twice $m_\W$).   

321: 

322: Our analysis does not assume any particular value for the $\xi$ resolution. 

323: We will discuss in the following how the resolution on the \W boson 

324: mass depends on the detector resolutions, or in other words,

325: the missing mass resolution.

326: 

327: 

328: \subsection{Experimental cuts}

329: 

330: Let us summarise the cuts applied in the remaining part of the analysis.

331: As said before, both diffracted protons are required to be detected in 

332: roman pot detectors.

333: 

334: The triggers which will be used for the \WW  events will be the

335: usual ones at the LHC requiring in addition a positive tagging in the roman

336: pot detectors.

337: 

338: The experimental offline cuts and their efficiencies have been obtained using a

339: fast simulation of the CMS detector \cite{cmsim} as an example, the fast

340: simulation of the ATLAS detector \cite{cmsim} leading to the same results.

341: If we require at least one lepton (electron or muon) with a transverse

342: momentum greater than 20 GeV and one  jet with a transverse

343: momentum greater than 20 GeV for \WW  to be

344: reconstructed in the acceptance of the main detector in addition to the tagged 

345: protons,

346: we get an efficiency of about 30\%

347: for \WW events. We give the mass resolution as a function of luminosity in the

348: following after taking into account these efficiencies. If the efficiencies are

349: found to be higher, the luminosities have to be rescaled by this amount.

350: 

351: 

352: 

353: 

354: \section{Threshold scan methods}

355: 

356: \subsection{Explanation of the histogram and turn-on fit methods}

357: We study two different methods to reconstruct the mass of heavy objects

358: double diffractively produced at the LHC. As we mentioned before, the method is

359: based on a fit to the turn-on point of the missing mass distribution at 

360: threshold. 

361: 

362: One proposed method (the ``histogram'' method) corresponds to the comparison of 

363: the mass distribution in data with some reference distributions following

364:  a Monte Carlo simulation of the detector with different input masses

365: corresponding to the data luminosity. As an example, we can produce 

366: a data sample for 100 fb$^{-1}$ with different $W$ masses.  

367: For each Monte Carlo sample, a $\chi^2$ value corresponding to the 

368: population difference in each bin between data and MC is computed. The mass point 

369: where

370: the $\chi^2$ is minimum corresponds to the mass of the produced object in data.

371: This method has the advantage of being easy but requires a good

372: simulation of the detector.

373: 

374: The other proposed method (the ``turn-on fit'' method) is less sensitive to the MC 

375: simulation of the

376: detectors. The threshold scan is directly sensitive to

377: the mass of the diffractively produced object (in the \WW case for instance, it

378: is sensitive to twice the \W mass). The idea is thus to fit the turn-on

379: point of the missing mass distribution which leads directly to the mass 

380: of the produced object, the \W boson. Due to its robustness,

381: this method is considered as the ``default" one in the following.

382: 

383: To illustrate the principle of these methods and their achievements,

384: we  apply them to the 

385: \W boson  in the

386: following, and present in detail the reaches at the LHC. They can be applied to other 

387: threshold scans as well.

388: 

389: \subsection{W mass measurement using diffractive QED events}

390: 

391: In this section, we will first describe the result of the ``turn-on fit" 

392: method to perform a measurement of the \W mass using diffractive QED events.

393: The advantage

394: of the \WW processes is that they do not suffer from any theoretical uncertainties

395: since this is a QED process.

396: The W mass can be extracted by fitting a 4-parameter `turn-on' curve to the 

397: threshold

398: of the mass distribution (c.f. Ref.~\cite{Abbiendi:2002ay}):

399: \begin{equation}\label{eq:fitfunc}

400: \ff =   P_1\cdot \left( \left[{e^{-\frac{x-P_2}{P_3}}+1}\right]^{-1}+P_4\right).

401: \end{equation}

402: $P_1$ is the amplitude, $P_2$ the inflexion point, $P_3$ the width of

403: the turn-on curve, and $P_4$ is a vertical offset, $x$ being

404: the missing mass. With a detector of

405: perfect resolution, $P_2$ would be equal to twice the \W mass.

406: However, the finite roman pot resolution leads to

407: a shift between $P_2$ and $2 m_\W$ which has to be established using a

408: MC simulation of the detector for different values of its resolution.

409: This shift is only related to the method itself and does not correspond

410: to any error in data. For each value of the \W input mass in MC, one has to 

411: obtain the

412: shift between the reconstructed mass ($P_2/2$) and the input mass, which

413: we call in the following the calibration curve.

414: It is assumed for simplicity that $P_2$ is a linear function of \mW,

415: which is a good approximation as we will see next. 

416: In order to determine the linear

417: dependence between $P_2$ and \mW, calibration curves are calculated

418: for several assumed resolutions of the roman pot detectors. The

419: calibration points are obtained by fitting \ff to the mass

420: distribution of high statistics samples (100\,000 events) for several

421: values of \mW. An example is given in Fig.~\ref{fig:WW_ref_fits} for

422: two resolutions of the roman pot detectors. The difference

423: between the fitted values of $P_2/2$ and the input \W masses

424: are plotted as a function of the input W mass and are then fitted with a

425: linear function.  To minimise the errors on the slope and offset, the difference 

426: $P_2/2-80.42~\GeV$ is plotted versus $\mW$

427: (Fig.~\ref{fig:calibration_WW}).

428: \begin{figure}

429:   \centering

430: %  \includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{plots/ref_fit_80.42_r1.0.eps}

431:   \includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{plots/test_ww_1.0_10.eps}

432: %  \hfill

433: %  \includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{plots/ref_fit_80.42_r4.0.eps}

434:   \includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{plots/test_ww_3.0_10.eps}

435:   \caption{Two examples of fits to missing mass reference distributions with a

436:   resolution of the roman pot detectors of 1~\GeV (left) and 3~\GeV

437:   (right). We see on these plots the principle and the accuracy of the ``turn-on 

438: fits"

439:   to the MC at threshold. (Please note that the produced events were

440:   reweighted to a luminosity of 100 fb$^{-1}$ in a standard way explaining

441:   why the statistical fluctuations are small.)}

442:   \label{fig:WW_ref_fits}

443: \end{figure}

444: 

445: \begin{figure}

446:   \centering

447:   \includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{plots/param_ww_1.0_b400.eps}

448: %  \hfill

449:   \includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{plots/param_ww_3.0_b400.eps}

450:   \caption{Calibration curves (see text) for two different roman pot resolutions 

451: of 1~\GeV

452:   (left) and 3~\GeV (right). We notice that the calibration can be fitted

453:   to a linear function with good accuracy. The dashed line indicates 

454:   the first diagonal to show the shift clearly.}

455:   \label{fig:calibration_WW}

456: \end{figure}

457: 

458: To evaluate the statistical uncertainty due to the method itself,

459: we perform the fits with some 100 different ``data" ensembles.

460: For each ensemble, one obtains a different 

461: reconstructed \W mass, the dispersion corresponding only to statistical

462: effects.

463: The expected statistical uncertainty on the actual measurement of the

464: W mass in data is thus estimated with these ensemble tests for several 

465: integrated

466: luminosities and roman pot resolutions. Each ensemble contains a

467: number of events that corresponds to the expected event yield for a

468: given integrated luminosity, taking into account selection and

469: acceptance efficiencies. The turn-on function \ff is fitted to each

470: ensemble. Only the parameters $P_1$ and $P_2$ are allowed to float,

471: $P_3$ and $P_4$ are fixed to the average values obtained from the fits

472: for the calibration points.

473: %%  Fig. displays an example for a fit to a

474: %% particular ensemble.

475: 

476: In order to obtain the fitted estimate for the W mass, \mWfit, in each

477: ensemble, the fit value of $P_2$ is corrected with the calibration

478: curve that corresponds to the roman pot resolution. For each

479: resolution \mWfit is histogrammed as shown in

480: Fig.~\ref{fig:WW_ensemble_distributions}.  The distributions are

481: fitted with a Gauss function where the width corresponds to the

482: expected statistical uncertainty of the W mass measurement.

483: Fig.~\ref{fig:ww_resvslumib} shows the expected precision as a function

484: of the integrated luminosity for several roman pot resolutions.

485: With 150~\Ifb the expected statistical uncertainty on \mW is about

486: 0.65~\GeV when a resolution of the roman pot detectors of 1~\GeV can be

487: reached. With 300~\Ifb the expected uncertainty on \mW decreases to about 0.3~\GeV.

488: 

489: We notice of course that this method is not competitive to get a precise

490: measurement of the \W mass, which would require a resolution to be better

491: than 30 MeV. However, this method can be used to align precisely the roman

492: pot detectors for further measurements. A precision of 1 GeV (0.3 GeV)

493: on the \W mass leads directly to a relative resolution of 1.2\%

494: (0.4\%) on $\xi$ using the missing mass method. 

495:    

496: \begin{figure}

497:   \centering

498:   \includegraphics[width=0.35\linewidth]{plots/ww80.42_data_r1.0_b400_l50.eps}

499:   \qquad

500:   \includegraphics[width=0.35\linewidth]{plots/ww80.42_data_r1.0_b400_l200.eps}

501: %  \hfill

502: %  \includegraphics[width=0.35\linewidth]{plots/resvslumi_ww.eps}

503:   \caption{Distribution of the fitted value of the W mass from

504:   ensemble tests. Left: corresponding to 150~\Ifb , right:

505:   corresponding to 300~\Ifb.

506:   We note the resolution obtained on the \W mass for these two luminosities.}

507:   \label{fig:WW_ensemble_distributions}

508: \end{figure}

509: 

510: 

511:   

512: \begin{figure}

513:   \centering

514: %  \includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{plots/ww80.42_data_r1.0_b400_l50.eps}

515: %  \hfill

516: %  \includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{plots/ww80.42_data_r1.0_b400_l200.eps}

517: %  \hfill

518:   \includegraphics[width=0.35\linewidth]{plots/resvslumi_ww.eps}

519:   \caption{Expected statistical uncertainty on the \W mass

520:   as a function of luminosity for three different roman

521:   pot resolutions using the turn-on fit method.

522: % (full line: 1 GeV, dashed line: 2 GeV,

523: %  and dotted line: 3 GeV).

524:   }

525:   \label{fig:ww_resvslumib}

526: \end{figure}

527: 

528: 

529: 

530: 

531: Let us now present the result on the ``histogram" method, which is an

532: alternative approach to determine the W mass.

533: The same high statistics templates used to derive the calibration

534: curves are fitted directly to each ensemble

535: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:W_mass_hist_fit} left). 

536: The $\chi^2$ is defined using the approximation of poissonian errors

537: as given in Ref.~\cite{Gehrels:1986mj}.  Each ensemble thus gives a $\chi^2$ 

538: curve

539: which in the region of the minimum is fitted with a fourth-order

540: polynomial (Fig.~\ref{fig:W_mass_hist_fit} right). The position of the

541: minimum of the polynomial, \mWmin, gives the best value of the W mass

542: and the uncertainty $\sigma(\mW)$ is obtained from the values where

543: $\chi^2 = \chi^2_\text{min} + 1$. The mean value of $\sigma(\mW)$

544: for all ensembles are quoted as expected statistical uncertainties (see Fig. 6).

545: 

546: 

547: \begin{figure}

548:   \includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{plots/ensemble_h_example1.eps}

549:   \qquad

550:   \includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{plots/ensemble_h_chi2.eps}

551: %  \hfill

552: %  \includegraphics[width=0.35\linewidth]{plots/resvslumi_ww_h.eps}

553:   \caption{Left: Example of the histogram-fitting method. We see the difference

554:   between the ``data" sample (full histogram with error bars,

555:   $\mW=80.42~\GeV$) and a reference histogram (dashed line, $\mW=85.42~\GeV$). 

556:   Right:

557:     Example of the $\chi^2$ distribution in one ensemble.}

558:   \label{fig:W_mass_hist_fit}

559: \end{figure}

560: 

561: 

562: \begin{figure}

563: %  \includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{plots/ensemble_h_example1.eps}

564: %  \hfill

565: %  \includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{plots/ensemble_h_chi2.eps}

566: %  \hfill

567:   \includegraphics[width=0.35\linewidth]{plots/resvslumi_ww_h.eps}

568:   \caption{

569:     Expected statistical precision of the W mass as a function of the

570:     integrated luminosity for various resolutions of the roman pot

571:     detectors using the histogram-fitting method.}

572:   \label{fig:W_mass_hist_fitb}

573: \end{figure}

574: 

575: The expected statistical errors on the W mass using histogram fitting

576: are comparable to those using the function fitting method. However,

577: since the former exploits the complete missing mass distribution,

578: it is more sensitive to potential biases from imperfect simulation of the roman pot

579: detectors. 

580: 

581: 

582: 

583: \section{Conclusion and outlook}

584: 

585: 

586: Recent work on DPE has essentially focused on the Higgs boson search in the exclusive channel.

587: In view of the difficulties and uncertainties affecting this search \cite{ourpap}, we highlight new aspects of

588: double diffraction which complement the diffractive program at the LHC.

589: 

590: In particular, QED W pair production provides a certain source of

591: interesting diffractive events. In this paper, we have advocated the interest of threshold scans in double

592: photon exchange. This method may extend the physics program at the LHC.

593: To illustrate its possibilities, we described in detail the \W boson 

594: mass measurement.

595: The precision of the \W mass measurement is not competitive with other methods, but provides a very precise calibration 

596: of the roman pot detectors, since the cross sections and characteristics of this QED process are

597: well under control. This method can be extended to any particle production via exclusive

598: processes and was applied to SUSY particle production as an example \cite{us}. 

599: 

600: Finally, $W$ pair production in central diffraction gives access to the coupling of gauge bosons. 

601: Namely, as we mentioned already, $W^+W^-$ production in two-photon exchange is robustly 

602: predicted within the Standard Model. Any anomalous coupling between the photon and the $W$

603: will reveal itself in a modification of the production cross section, or by different

604: angular distributions. Since the cross section of this process is proportional to the fourth]

605: power of the photon-$W$ coupling, a good sensitivity is expected. This study will be described

606: in an incoming paper \cite{usbis}.

607: 

608: 

609: 

610: 

611: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

612: 

613: \bibitem{piotr} K. Piotrzkowski, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63} (2001) 071502.

614: 

615: %\cite{Papageorgiu:1990mu}

616: \bibitem{Papageorgiu:1990mu}

617: E.~Papageorgiu,

618: %``Two Photon Physics With Ultrahigh-Energy Heavy Ion Beams,''

619: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 250}, 155 (1990).

620: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B250,155;%%

621: 

622: %\cite{Budnev:1975zs}

623: \bibitem{Budnev:1975zs}

624: V.~M.~Budnev, A.~N.~Vall and V.~V.~Serebryakov,

625: %``Production Of The Epsilon Meson In E+ E- Collisions. (In Russian),''

626: Yad.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 21}, 1033 (1975).

627: %%CITATION = YAFIA,21,1033;%%

628: 

629: %\cite{Binoth:2005ua}

630: \bibitem{Binoth:2005ua}

631: T.~Binoth, M.~Ciccolini, N.~Kauer and M.~Kramer,

632: %``Gluon-induced WW background to Higgs boson searches at the LHC,''

633: arXiv:hep-ph/0503094.

634: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503094;%%

635: 

636: \bibitem{sp} J.~D.~Bjorken,

637: {Phys. Rev. D} {\bf  47}, (1993) 101; E. Gotsman, E. Levin and U. Maor,

638: {Phys. Lett. B}  {\bf 438} (1998), 229;

639: A. B. Kaidalov, V. A. Khoze, A. D. Martin and M. G. Ryskin,

640: {Eur. Phys. J. C}  {\bf 21} (2001) 521;

641: A. Bialas, `{Acta Phys. Polon. B} {\bf 33} (2002) 2635;

642: A. Bialas, R. Peschanski, `{Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 575} (2003) 30.

643: 

644: 

645: 

646: 

647: \bibitem{pom}\rr{A.~Donnachie, P.~V.~Landshoff} {Phys. Lett. B} {207}

648: {(1988) 319}.

649: 

650: 

651: 

652: %\cite{Khoze:2001xm}

653: \bibitem{Khoze:2001xm}

654: V.~A.~Khoze, A.~D.~Martin and M.~G.~Ryskin,

655: %``Prospects for new physics observations in diffractive processes at the  

656: %LHC

657: %and Tevatron,''

658: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 23}, 311 (2002)

659: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0111078].

660: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111078;%%

661: 

662: \bibitem{dpemc} 

663: M. Boonekamp, T. Kucs, Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 167} (2005) 217.

664: 

665: \bibitem{herwig}

666: G. Corcella et al., JHEP {\bf 0101:010} (2001).

667: 

668: \bibitem{helsinki} 

669: J. Kalliopuska, T. M\"aki, N. Marola, R. Orava, K. \"Osterberg, M. Ottela, 

670: HIP-2003-11/EXP.

671: 

672: \bibitem{Albrow:2000na}

673: M.~G.~Albrow and A.~Rostovtsev [arXiv:hep-ph/0009336].

674: 

675: 

676: \bibitem{cmsim} 

677: CMSIM, fast simulation of the CMS detector, CMS Collab., Technical Design Report 

678: (1997);\\

679: TOTEM Collab., Technical Design Report, CERN/LHCC/99-7;\\

680: ATLFAST, fast simulation of the ATLAS detector, ATLAS Collab, Technical Design 

681: Report, CERN/LHC

682: C/99-14.

683: 

684: \bibitem{Abbiendi:2002ay}

685:   G.~Abbiendi {\it et al.}  [OPAL Collaboration],

686:   %``Measurement of the mass of the W boson in e+ e- collisions using the  fully

687:   %leptonic channel,''

688:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 26}, 321 (2003)

689:   [arXiv:hep-ex/0203026].

690:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0203026;%%

691: 

692: %\cite{Gehrels:1986mj}

693: \bibitem{Gehrels:1986mj}

694:   N.~Gehrels,

695:   %``Confidence Limits For Small Numbers Of Events In Astrophysical Data,''

696:   Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 303}, 336 (1986).

697:   %%CITATION = ASJOA,303,336;%%

698: 

699: 

700: \bibitem{ourpap}

701: M.~Boonekamp, R.~Peschanski and C.~Royon,

702: %``Popping out the Higgs boson off vacuum at Tevatron and LHC,''

703: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 669}, 277 (2003);

704: M.~Boonekamp, R.~Peschanski and C.~Royon,

705: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 598}, 243 (2004);

706: M.~Boonekamp, R.~Peschanski and C.~Royon,

707: %``Inclusive Higgs boson and dijet production via double pomeron exchange,''

708: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 87}, 251806 (2001)

709: 

710: 

711: \bibitem{us} 

712: M. Boonekamp, J. Cammin, S. Lavignac, R. Peschanski, C. Royon, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73} (2006)

713: 115011.

714: 

715: \bibitem{usbis} 

716: M. Boonekamp, O.Kepka, R. Peschanski, C. Royon, in preparation.

717: 

718: 

719: \end{thebibliography}

720: 

721: 

722: 

723: \end{document}

724:  

725:  

726: 

727: