1: \documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,showpacs,groupedaddress]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx} % needed for figures
3: \usepackage{dcolumn} % needed for some tables
4: \usepackage{bm} % for math
5: \usepackage{amssymb} % for math
6:
7: \usepackage[usenames]{color}
8:
9: \input epsf
10: \newcommand{\MET}{\mbox{$\not\hspace{-0.11cm}E_T$}}
11:
12: \begin{document}
13:
14:
15: \hspace{5.2in} \mbox{FERMILAB-PUB-07/499-E}
16:
17: \title{Search for $W'$ bosons decaying to an electron and a neutrino with the D0 detector}
18: \input list_of_authors_r2.tex
19: \date{October 16, 2007}
20:
21:
22: \begin{abstract}
23: This Letter describes the search for a new heavy charged gauge boson $W'$ decaying
24: into an electron and a neutrino. The data were collected with the D0 detector at
25: the Fermilab Tevatron $p\bar p$ Collider at $\sqrt{s}= 1.96$~TeV,
26: and correspond to an integrated luminosity of about 1~fb$^{-1}$. Lacking any
27: significant excess in the data in comparison with known processes, an upper limit
28: is set on $\sigma _{W'} \times B(W'\rightarrow e\nu)$, and a $W'$ boson with mass below
29: 1.00~TeV can be excluded at the 95\% C.L., assuming standard-model-like
30: couplings to fermions. This result significantly improves upon previous limits,
31: and is the most stringent to date.
32: \end{abstract}
33:
34: \pacs{12.60.Cn, 13.85.Rm, 14.70.Pw}
35: \maketitle
36:
37:
38: The standard model (SM) describes the fundamental fermions and their interactions
39: via gauge bosons at a high level of accuracy, but it is not considered to be a
40: complete theory. Additional gauge bosons are introduced in e.\,g.
41: left-right-symmetric models (broken $SU(2)_{L} \times SU(2)_{R}$) or in grand
42: unified theories which may also involve supersymmetry (e.\,g. $E_6$) \cite{Moha}.
43: Assuming the most general case, a new gauge group can comprise a new mixing angle
44: $\xi$, new couplings to the fermions $g'$ and a new CKM matrix $U'$. In some models
45: the $W'$ boson ($W'^+$ or $W'^-$) is right-handed, and decays therefore into a
46: right-handed neutrino and a charged lepton. However, such a neutrino has not yet
47: been observed. The mass limits on the $W'$ boson will in general depend on
48: $\xi$, $g'$, $U'$, and the masses of possible additional neutrinos.
49:
50: In this Letter we make the assumption that there is no mixing, $g'$ is equal to
51: the SM coupling, $U'$ is equal to the SM CKM matrix, and that the decay channel
52: $W'\rightarrow WZ$ is suppressed. Furthermore, the width $\Gamma _{W'}$ of the
53: $W'$ boson is assumed to scale with its mass $m_{W'}$,
54: \begin{equation}
55: \Gamma_{W'} = \frac{4}{3}\cdot\frac{m_{W'}}{m_W}\cdot \Gamma_W.
56: \end{equation}
57: The factor of 4/3 is applied in order to account for the decay into the third
58: quark family (e.\,g. $W'\rightarrow t\bar b$) which is possible for $m_{W'}$
59: above the kinematic threshold for this process. In case of the existence of
60: additional generations of fermions, it is assumed that they are too heavy to
61: be produced by a $W'$ decay. This generic model has been introduced by
62: Altarelli et al. \cite{Altarelli}. It corresponds to the manifest left-right
63: symmetric model \cite{LR} with light right-handed neutrinos if the $W'$ boson
64: is right-handed. In this report, the general approach \cite{Altarelli} is
65: considered, where the additional gauge boson $W'$ can be right- or left-handed.
66:
67: The $W'$ boson has been searched for previously by the D0 \cite{d0WR, oldWp, d0Wtb}
68: and the CDF experiments \cite{cdfwp1, cdfwp3, cdfwp2} in various final states.
69: The most restrictive limit so far is $m_{W'} > 800$~GeV at the 95\% C.L. \cite{oldWp}
70: reported by D0 ($W'\rightarrow q\bar q'$, Run~I).
71:
72: Data collected with the D0 detector \cite{d0det} at the Fermilab Tevatron $p\bar p$
73: Collider at a center-of-mass energy of 1.96~TeV are analyzed for the production
74: of $W'$ bosons and the subsequent decay into an electron and a neutrino. The neutrino
75: can not be detected, but it gives rise to missing transverse energy ($\MET$) in the
76: detector. The dataset corresponds to an integrated luminosity \cite{d0lumi} of
77: 0.99~$\pm$~0.06~fb$^{-1}$, and was collected between 2002 and 2006 during Run~II
78: of the Tevatron.
79:
80: The D0 detector has a central-tracking system, consisting of a
81: silicon microstrip tracker (SMT) and a central fiber tracker (CFT),
82: both located within a 2~T superconducting solenoidal
83: magnet, with designs optimized for tracking and
84: vertexing at $|\eta|<3$ and $|\eta|<2.5$, respectively,
85: where $\eta=-\ln\tan\frac{\theta}{2}$ is the pseudorapidity and $\theta$
86: the polar angle w.r.t. the $z$-axis (proton-beam direction).
87: A liquid-argon and uranium calorimeter has a
88: central section (CC) covering pseudorapidities $|\eta|$ up to
89: $\approx 1.1$, and two end calorimeters (EC) that extend coverage
90: to $|\eta|\approx 4.2$, each housed in separate
91: cryostats. An outer muon system, at $|\eta|<2$,
92: consists of a layer of tracking detectors and scintillation trigger
93: counters in front of 1.8~T iron toroids, followed by two similar layers
94: after the toroids.
95: Luminosity is measured using plastic scintillator
96: arrays placed in front of the EC cryostats.
97:
98: Different SM processes contribute to the electron and $\MET$ final
99: state: inclusive production of $W$ or $Z$ bosons, di-bosons ($WW$, $WZ$, $ZZ$)
100: or $t\bar t$ pairs where at least one boson or one top quark decays
101: into electrons directly or via tau decays.
102: In these processes the missing energy is due to the neutrino.
103: There are also two sources of misidentification background that can contribute
104: to the electron and $\MET$ final state: QCD multijet background with one jet
105: misidentified as an electron and energy mismeasurement which can
106: cause large $\MET$ either along or in the opposite direction of the electron, and
107: $Z\rightarrow ee$ events where one electron is lost (e.\,g. entering
108: non-instrumented sections of the calorimeter) or misreconstructed.
109: The latter case can lead to large $\MET$.
110:
111: The $W'$ signal and SM processes (including $Z\rightarrow ee$) have been
112: simulated with the \textsc{pythia} 6.323 \cite{pythia} Monte Carlo program
113: using the CTEQ6L1 \cite{cteq} parton distribution functions (PDFs), except
114: for the QCD multijet background, which is estimated from data.
115: The generated events are passed through a detailed detector simulation based
116: on \textsc{geant} \cite{geant}, and combined with randomly triggered events
117: from data to simulate the effects of pile-up and multiple interactions.
118: Higher order corrections to the \textsc{pythia} leading order cross sections
119: ($K$ factors) have been applied. The next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) $K$
120: factors and errors due to PDF uncertainties for the signal, the $W$ and the $Z$
121: samples are extracted from Ref. \cite{hamberg}; the NNLO (NLO) cross section
122: for $t\bar t$ (di-boson) production is taken from Ref. \cite{ttbar} (\cite{diboson}).
123:
124: The signal cross section falls steeply with increasing mass of the $W'$ boson.
125: In addition, for very large masses the on-mass-shell production of $W'$ bosons
126: is heavily suppressed due to the smallness of the PDFs at large $x$.
127: As shown in Fig. \ref{fig:signal_mc}, the Jacobian distribution no longer
128: exhibits a pronounced peak. The transverse mass $m_T$ is calculated from the
129: transverse energy of the electron, $E_T^{\rm el}$, the missing
130: transverse energy, $\MET$, and the azimuth angle \cite{phi} difference between
131: the electron and $\MET$ via
132: \begin{equation}
133: m_T = \sqrt{2E_T^{\rm el} \MET(1 - \cos{\Delta \phi(\mbox{electron, $\MET$})})}.
134: \end{equation}
135:
136:
137: \begin{figure}
138: \def\epsfsize#1#2{0.3#1}
139: \hspace{\fill}\epsffile{signal_mc_mt.eps} \hspace{\fill}
140: \caption{Transverse mass $m_T$ distributions for different masses of
141: the $W'$ boson (generator level, \textsc{pythia}). The event numbers correspond
142: to an integrated luminosity of 1~fb$^{-1}$.\label{fig:signal_mc} }
143: \end{figure}
144:
145: Events triggered by a set of inclusive single electron triggers are considered.
146: Electrons with $E_T^{\rm el}>30$~GeV passing the offline identification criteria
147: are selected. Monte Carlo studies have shown that the majority ($\approx 80$\%)
148: of the electrons stemming from the $W'$ decays are emitted into
149: the central detector region. Since the forward detector region exhibits a
150: small signal-to-background ratio, only electrons reconstructed in the CC are
151: used in the analysis. Electromagnetic clusters are built around a calorimeter
152: seed. Such clusters consist of cells in a cone
153: ($\Delta R = \sqrt{(\Delta \eta)^2 + (\Delta \phi)^2}<0.4$)
154: around the seed. Furthermore, the electron shower is required to be isolated in
155: the calorimeter, and to deposit most of its energy ($>$~90\%) in the electromagnetic
156: part of the calorimeter. The isolation
157: $I = [E_{\rm tot}^{0.4}-E_{\rm EM}^{0.2}]/E_{\rm EM}^{0.2}$, which
158: uses the total shower energy, $E_{\rm tot}^{0.4}$, in a cone of radius $R=0.4$
159: and the electromagnetic energy, $E_{\rm EM}^{0.2}$, in a cone of radius $R=0.2$,
160: is required to be less than 0.2. A cut on the electron shower shape variable is
161: applied to separate electromagnetic from hadronic showers. The electron is
162: required to have a track matched in $z$ and $\phi$ direction and to stem from
163: the primary vertex. Correction factors are applied in order to take differences
164: in the reconstruction efficiencies observed in data and Monte Carlo into account.
165: Finally, the energy dependence of the basic electron reconstruction criteria has
166: been studied with simulated electrons from $W'$ decays. The reconstruction
167: efficiency is found to be constant (94~$\pm$~1~\%) and does not exhibit a visible
168: energy dependence within the statistical uncertainties of the Monte Carlo samples.
169: The $\MET$ is calculated from all calorimeter cells. Corrections are applied to
170: account for the electromagnetic and jet energy scales. We require $\MET>30$~GeV.
171:
172: Since the transverse momentum of the neutrino is expected to be balanced by the
173: electron transverse energy in signal events, a selection on the ratio of the
174: energies is applied, $0.6<E_T^{\rm el}/\MET<1.4$. This requirement reduces
175: in\-stru\-mental backgrounds from misidentified $\MET$. Jets are reconstructed
176: with the iterative mid-point cone algorithm ($R=0.5$) \cite{d0jets}.
177: If any jets with $p_T>15$~GeV are present in the event, we require
178: $\Delta \phi$(jet, electron)~$<$~2.8 and $\Delta \phi$(jet,~$\MET$)~$<$~2.8.
179: These selections remove events from QCD multijet production.
180:
181:
182: The contribution from QCD multijet events is estimated using a control sample derived
183: from data with the same kinematic cuts. In this sample, the electron candidate fails
184: the shower shape requirement. The resulting events are normalized to the data sample.
185: The scale factor for the entire QCD multijet sample is adjusted in the low
186: reconstructed transverse mass region ($m_T<30$~GeV), which is dominated by QCD multijet
187: background events, such that the sum of the \textsc{pythia} Monte Carlo prediction and
188: the QCD multijet sample describes the data as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:final_plots2}(a).
189: The data are normalized to $W$ boson production and decay in the $e\nu$ mode
190: using the $W$ peak region (60~GeV~$<m_T<$~140~GeV, as shown in
191: Fig. \ref{fig:final_plots2}(a)) because many efficiency and acceptance errors largely
192: cancel in this ratio. We use the theoretical prediction for the $W$ boson production
193: cross section $\sigma_W$ $\times$ $B(W\rightarrow e\nu)=2583^{+94}_{-84}$~pb
194: from Ref. \cite{hamberg}.
195:
196: Jets may be present in conjunction with a $W$ boson due to higher order QCD
197: contributions. Since \textsc{pythia} does not properly describe the transverse
198: momentum distribution of the $W$ boson in such processes, this spectrum is
199: separately reweighted in events with one, two and three jets in order to match
200: the distributions observed in the data. This correction affects 10\% of the $W$
201: Monte Carlo events. The sample defined by the selection cuts mentioned above
202: contains 452,984 data events compared to 454,000~$\pm$~35,000 events expected
203: from SM processes and instrumental backgrounds after applying all corrections.
204:
205: \begin{figure*}
206: \def\epsfsize#1#2{0.295#1}
207: \epsffile{mt.eps} \epsffile{el_pt.eps} \epsffile{el_pt_over_met.eps}
208: \caption{Comparison between data and background prediction:
209: (a) Distribution of the transverse mass $m_T$; (b) distribution of the electron
210: transverse energy $E_T^{\rm el}$ in events with $m_T>140$~GeV;
211: (c) distribution of the ratio of electron transverse energy and $\MET$ in events
212: with $m_T>140$~GeV. The signal is shown for two different masses of the $W'$ boson.
213: \label{fig:final_plots2}}
214: \end{figure*}
215:
216: Two kinds of systematic uncertainties contribute in this analysis.
217: The uncertainties of the normalization in the $W$ peak region (4\%),
218: the cross sections of the SM processes (4-10\%), the electron reconstruction
219: efficiency corrections (2\%) and the scale factor for the QCD multijet sample (7\%)
220: affect only the global normalization. Uncertainties on the PDFs, electron energy
221: scale and resolution, jet energy scale, decay width $\Gamma_W$ of the $W$ boson,
222: and the reweighting of the transverse momentum of the $W$ boson lead to changes of
223: the shape of the distributions.
224:
225: In order to study the effect of the electron energy scale and resolution, the electron
226: energies have been varied within the known uncertainties. The variations of scale
227: and resolution are performed independently. The $\MET$ is recalculated after varying
228: the electron energy. The overall uncertainty on the event numbers is large for
229: the $W$ sample (4\%), but small for the $W'$ signal ($<$~1\% for 500~GeV~$<m_{W'}<$~1200~GeV).
230: The uncertainty of the energy resolution is an order of magnitude smaller than the energy
231: scale uncertainty.
232:
233: In order to study the PDF uncertainty, the Monte Carlo events which have been produced using
234: CTEQ6L1 PDFs are reweighted to CTEQ6.1M.xx (xx = 0, \ldots, 40), making use of the CTEQ6.1M
235: PDFs and the 40 error functions \cite{cteq}. The overall uncertainty varies between 3\%
236: ($m_{W'}=500$~GeV) and 8\% ($m_{W'}=1200$~GeV). For the $W$ sample an uncertainty of 3\% is
237: derived. The width of the $W$ boson is known to about 2\% \cite{pdg}. This can cause a
238: shift ($\sim$~4\%) of the tail of the transverse mass distribution of the $W$ boson.
239: Finally, the jet energy scale has been varied, and the $\MET$ recalculated. The resulting
240: uncertainty is below 1\%.
241:
242: The tail of the spectrum ($m_T>140$~GeV) is now considered to search for $W'\rightarrow e\nu$.
243: A good agreement between data and background prediction can be observed as shown in
244: Fig. \ref{fig:final_plots2}(b, c). In Table \ref{tab:final_numbers}, the breakdown of the
245: individual contributions of the various background processes is given, including expected
246: numbers of signal events. Since we do not observe any significant excess in the data, an
247: upper limit is set on the production cross section times branching fraction
248: $\sigma _{W'} \times B(W'\rightarrow e\nu)$.
249:
250: \begin{table}
251: \caption{Event numbers in the data compared to the background prediction
252: after applying the cut on the transverse mass $m_T>140$~GeV. For the signal and
253: background processes statistical and systematic uncertainties are given.
254: \label{tab:final_numbers}}
255: \begin{ruledtabular}
256: \begin{center}
257: \begin{tabular}{lrrr}
258: Process & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Events} & stat & sys\\ \hline
259: \bf Data & \bf 967 & & \\
260: Sum of backgrounds & 959 & 21 & 90 \\ \hline
261: $W\rightarrow e\nu$ & 875 & 20 & 90 \\
262: QCD multijet (from data) & 27 & 2 & 2 \\
263: other & 57 & 3 & 4 \\ \hline
264: $W'\rightarrow e\nu$ & & \\
265: $m_{W'}= 500$~GeV & 1169 & 24 & 86 \\
266: $m_{W'}= 600$~GeV & 393 & 8 & 32 \\
267: $m_{W'}= 700$~GeV & 147 & 3 & 13 \\
268: $m_{W'}= 800$~GeV & 51 & 1.1 & 5.4 \\
269: $m_{W'}= 900$~GeV & 19 & 0.4 & 2.4 \\
270: $m_{W'}= 1000$~GeV & 7.4 & 0.2 & 1.1 \\
271: $m_{W'}= 1100$~GeV & 3.4 & 0.1 & 0.5 \\
272: $m_{W'}= 1200$~GeV & 1.7 & 0.1 & 0.2 \\
273: \end{tabular}
274: \end{center}
275: \end{ruledtabular}
276: \end{table}
277:
278: The limit is derived using a binned likelihood for the whole transverse mass
279: spectrum with 140~GeV~$<m_T <$~1000~GeV. The individual shape-changing systematic
280: uncertainties (up and down variation) enter the limit calculation via individual
281: histograms; bin correlations are taken into account.
282:
283: A Bayesian approach \cite{d0limit} is used to calculate upper limits on the cross
284: section for different resonance masses. A Poisson distribution is assumed for the
285: number of expected events in each bin of the transverse mass distribution, as well
286: as flat prior probabilities for the signal cross sections. The prior for the
287: combined signal acceptance and background yields is a multivariate Gaussian with
288: uncertainties and correlations described by the corresponding covariance matrix.
289:
290: The observed and expected 95\% C.L. limits on the production cross section times
291: branching fraction $\sigma _{W'} \times B(W'\rightarrow e\nu)$ are shown in
292: Fig. \ref{fig:final_limit}. The lower bound of the theoretical cross section
293: is used to obtain the mass limit. Hence, an additional heavy charged gauge boson
294: with mass below 1.00~TeV is excluded at the 95\% C.L.
295:
296: \begin{figure}[t]
297: \def\epsfsize#1#2{0.3#1}
298: \centering\epsffile{final_limit_sys.eps}
299: \caption{The observed and expected 95\% C.L. limits on the cross section as a
300: function of the mass of the $W'$ boson, including statistical and systematic
301: uncertainties. The expected limit assumes a background-only hypothesis.
302: The theoretical expectation is displayed with its uncertainty.
303: Also shown is the D0 Run~I limit \cite{oldWp}.
304: \label{fig:final_limit}}
305: \end{figure}
306:
307: In summary, a search for a new heavy charged gauge boson $W'$ decaying to
308: an electron and a neutrino has been performed using 1~fb$^{-1}$ of data collected
309: with the D0 detector in Run~II. We do not observe an excess in the data, and set
310: upper limits on the cross section times branching fraction, which are of the order
311: of 10 -- 40~fb for $W'$ boson masses of 500~GeV~$< m_{W'} <$~1200~GeV.
312: Further, a lower limit on the mass of the $W'$ boson is derived, assuming that
313: the new gauge boson as introduced in \cite{Altarelli} has the same couplings
314: to fermions as the SM $W$ boson. We exclude a $W'$ boson with $m_{W'}<1.00$~TeV
315: at the 95\% C.L. This result represents the most stringent limit on the mass
316: of a charged heavy gauge boson beyond the standard model to date.
317:
318: \input acknowledgement_paragraph_r2.tex
319:
320: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
321: \input list_of_visitor_addresses_r2.tex
322:
323: \bibitem{Moha}
324: R.~N.~Mohapatra, Unification and Supersymmetry, Springer (2003).
325:
326: \bibitem{Altarelli}
327: G.~Altarelli {\sl et al.}, Z. Phys. C {\bf 45}, 109 (1989).
328:
329: \bibitem{LR}
330: J.~C.~Pati and A.~Salam, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 10}, 275 (1974);
331: R.~N.~Mohapatra and J.~C.~Pati, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 11}, 566 (1975),
332: {\bf 11}, 2558 (1975);
333: G.~Senjanovic and R.~N.~Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 12} 1502 (1975).
334:
335: \bibitem{d0WR}
336: S.~Abachi {\sl et al.} (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 76}, 3271 (1996).
337:
338: \bibitem{oldWp}
339: V.~M.~Abazov {\sl et al.} (D0 Collaboration), Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 111101 (2004).
340:
341: \bibitem{d0Wtb}
342: V.~M.~Abazov {\sl et al.} (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B {\bf 641}, 423 (2006).
343:
344: \bibitem{cdfwp1}
345: T.~Affolder {\sl et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 231803 (2001).
346:
347: \bibitem{cdfwp3}
348: D.~Acosta {\sl et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 081802 (2003).
349:
350: \bibitem{cdfwp2}
351: A.~Abulencia {\sl et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 75}, 091101 (2007).
352:
353: \bibitem{d0det}
354: V.~M.~Abazov {\sl et al.} (D0 Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Methods A {\bf 565}, 463 (2006).
355:
356: \bibitem{d0lumi}
357: T. Andeen {\sl et al.}, FERMILAB-TM-2365 (2006).
358:
359: \bibitem{pythia}
360: T. Sj\"{o}strand {\sl et al.}, Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 135}, 238 (2001).
361:
362: \bibitem{cteq}
363: J. Pumplin {\sl et al.}, JHEP {\bf 0207} 012 (2002) and
364: D. Stump {\sl et al.}, JHEP {\bf 0310} 046 (2003).
365:
366: \bibitem{geant}
367: R. Brun and F. Carminati, CERN Program Library Long Writeup W5013, 1993 (unpublished).
368:
369: \bibitem{hamberg}
370: R. Hamberg, W.~L. van Neerven and T. Matsuura, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B359}, 343 (1991); Erratum-ibid. {\bf B644}, 403 (2002).
371:
372: \bibitem{ttbar}
373: N. Kidonakis and R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68}, 114014 (2003).
374:
375: \bibitem{diboson}
376: J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60}, 113006 (1999).
377:
378: \bibitem{phi}
379: The azimuth angle $\phi$ is defined in the plane perpendicular to the beams, with $\phi=\pi/2$ pointing up.
380:
381: \bibitem{d0jets}
382: G.C.~Blazey {\it et al.}, in
383: {\sl Proceedings of the Workshop: QCD and Weak Boson
384: Physics in Run II,} edited by U.~Baur, R.K.~Ellis, and
385: D. Zeppenfeld, FERMILAB-PUB-00/297 (2000).
386:
387: \bibitem{pdg}
388: W.-M.~Yao {\sl et al.}, Journal of Physics G {\bf 33}, 1 (2006).
389:
390: \bibitem{d0limit}
391: I. Bertram {\sl et al.}, FERMILAB-TM-2104 (2000).
392:
393: \end{thebibliography}
394:
395: \end{document}
396: