1: %\documentstyle[11pt,moriond,epsfig]{article}
2: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
3: \usepackage{moriond,epsfig}
4:
5:
6: \bibliographystyle{unsrt}
7: % for BibTeX - sorted numerical labels by order of
8: % first citation.
9:
10: % A useful Journal macro
11: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}
12:
13: % Some useful journal names
14: \def\NCA{\em Nuovo Cimento}
15: \def\NIM{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods}
16: \def\NIMA{{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods} A}
17: \def\NPB{{\em Nucl. Phys.} B}
18: \def\PLB{{\em Phys. Lett.} B}
19: \def\PRL{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}
20: \def\PRD{{\em Phys. Rev.} D}
21: \def\ZPC{{\em Z. Phys.} C}
22: \def\CPC{{\em Comp. Phys. Comm. }}
23:
24: % Some other macros used in the sample text
25: \def\st{\scriptstyle}
26: \def\sst{\scriptscriptstyle}
27: \def\mco{\multicolumn}
28: \def\vep{\varepsilon}
29: \def\ra{\rightarrow}
30: \def\al{\alpha}
31: \def\ab{\bar{\alpha}}
32: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
33: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
34: \def\bc{\begin{center}}
35: \def\ec{\end{center}}
36: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
37: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
38: \def\CPbar{\hbox{{\rm CP}\hskip-1.80em{/}}}
39: %temp replacement due to no font
40: \newcommand{\Afbol}{\mathrm{A_{FB}^{0,l}}}
41: \newcommand{\Afbob}{\mathrm{A_{FB}^{0,b\bar{b}}}}
42: \newcommand{\Afbb}{\mathrm{A_{FB}^{b\bar{b}}}}
43: \newcommand{\Afboc}{\mathrm{A_{FB}^{0,c\bar{c}}}}
44: \newcommand{\ALR}{\mathrm{A^0_{LR}}}
45: \newcommand{\ALRFB}{\mathrm{A^{LR}_{FB}}}
46: \newcommand{\sineff}{\mathrm{sin^2\theta^{lept}_{eff}}}
47: \newcommand{\sinw}{\mathrm{sin^2\theta_W}}
48: \newcommand{\cosw}{\mathrm{cos^2\theta_W}}
49: \newcommand{\mt}{\mathrm{m_{top}}}
50: \newcommand{\mw}{\mathrm{M_{W}}}
51: \newcommand{\mh}{\mathrm{M_{H}}}
52: \newcommand{\mz}{\mathrm{M_{Z}}}
53: \newcommand{\Dalhad}{\mathrm{\Delta\alpha^5_{had}}}
54: \newcommand{\alqed}{\mathrm{\alpha_{QED}}}
55: \newcommand{\als}{\mathrm{\alpha_s}}
56: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
57: % %
58: % BEGINNING OF TEXT %
59: % %
60: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
61: \begin{document}
62: \vspace*{4cm}
63: \title{Electroweak Results from LEP and SLC and Tests of the Standard Model}
64:
65: \author{E.TOURNEFIER }
66:
67: \address{ISN Grenoble, 53, avenue des Martyrs, \\
68: 38026 Grenoble, France}
69:
70: \maketitle\abstracts{
71: An update of the electroweak measurements at LEP and SLC is presented.
72: These measurements are used to perform precise tests of the Standard Model.
73: A constraint on the Standard Model Higgs mass is obtained when the direct measurements of
74: $\mt$ and $\mw$ are included in the fit.
75: A combination with the direct Higgs search is also shown.
76: }
77: %\newpage
78: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
79: \section{Introduction}\label{intro}
80: The precise electroweak measurements which have been performed at LEP and at SLC
81: allow to make precise tests of the Standard Model and to constrain the Higgs mass.\\
82: At the Z resonance the cross sections and the asymmetries of the process
83: $e^+e^-\rightarrow Z,\gamma \rightarrow f\bar{f}$
84: are sensitive to $\rm{m_t^{2}}$, $\als$ and $\rm{Log(\mh)}$ through radiative corrections.
85: The electroweak corrections to $e^+e^-\rightarrow f\bar{f}$ lead to the running of the electromagnetic coupling constant
86: $\alqed$ and corrections to the coupling constants of the Z to fermions.
87: These corrections are absorbed in the definition of the effective electroweak mixing angle
88: $\sineff$ and of $\bar{\rho}$:
89: %\begin{center}
90: $\mathrm{\sineff=(1+\Delta \kappa)\sin^2\theta_W}$ , %\hspace{5mm}
91: $\mathrm{\bar{\rho}=1+\Delta \rho}$
92: %\end{center}
93: where $\mathrm{\sin^2\theta_W=1-{M_W^2}/{M_Z^2}}$ and
94: $\mathrm{\rho={M_W^2}/(M_Z^2 cos^2\theta_W)}=1$.
95: \\
96: The measurement of the asymmetries determines the values of
97: ${A}_l={\frac{2 g_{V}/g_{A}}{1+(g_{V}/g_A)^2}}$
98: %{\frac{2 g_{A}g_{V}}{g^2_{A}+g^2_{V}}}={\frac{2 g_{A}/g_{V}}{1+(g_{V}/g_A)^2}}$
99: which are converted into the effective electroweak mixing angle
100: $\sineff = \frac{1}{4}(1-\frac{g_V}{g_A})$, one of the most sensitive
101: variables to the Higgs mass. On the other hand
102: the measurement of the cross sections allows the determination of $\bar{\rho}$ which
103: is more sensitive to the top mass.\\
104: The W mass also includes radiative corrections:
105: $\mathrm{M_W^2} = \frac{\pi \alpha}{\sqrt{2}{\sinw}{G_f}}(1+{\Delta r})$ with
106: ${\Delta r = \Delta \alpha + \Delta r_{W}}$.
107: % \begin{equation}
108: % \begin{align*}
109: %\hspace{4mm} \rm{with } \hspace{4mm}
110: %
111: % \end{align*}
112: % \end{equation}
113: The values of these corrections, $\Delta \rho$, $\Delta \kappa$ and
114: $\Delta r_{W}$ depend quadratically on $\mt$ and only
115: logarithmically on $\mh$, leading to a much weaker constraint on $\mh$ than on $\mt$.\\
116: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
117: \section{The electroweak measurements}\label{EWmeas}
118: In this section the status of the main electroweak measurements
119: used in the fit to the Standard Model is given as well as the most significant new inputs.
120: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
121: \subsection{Status of the measurements}\label{status}
122: The main electroweak measurements used in the fit are
123: \begin{itemize}
124: \item LEP1 and SLC electroweak measurements at the Z resonance:\\
125: The Z lineshape parameters from LEP1, the Z mass $\rm{M_Z}$, the
126: Z width $\rm{\Gamma_Z}$, the hadronic pole cross section
127: $\rm{\sigma^0_{had}}$, $\rm{R_l}=\Gamma_{\rm{hadrons}}/\Gamma_l$ and
128: the forward-backward leptonic asymmetries
129: $\Afbol=\frac{3}{4}{\cal A}_e{\cal A}_l$ are final~\cite{Zcomb}.\\
130: The $\tau$ polarisation, ${\cal P}_{\tau}$ at LEP1 is also final.
131: ${\cal A}_e$ and ${\cal A}_{\tau}$ are derived from this measurement. \\
132: The measurement of the left-right asymmetry $\ALR= {\cal A}_e$ and of
133: the leptonic left-right forward-backward asymmetries $\ALRFB$ at SLC are final.\\
134: LEP1 and SLC also provide measurements of the Z decay fractions into $b$
135: and $c$ quarks $\mathrm{R_b^0}$, $\mathrm{R_c^0}$. The $b\bar{b}$ and
136: $c\bar{c}$ asymmetries
137: $\Afbob$, $\Afboc$ as well as the quark charge asymmetry $<\mathrm{Q_{FB}}>$
138: are determined at LEP1 while $A_b$ and $A_c$ are measured at SLC.
139: %are not yet final.
140: ALEPH and DELPHI have significantly improved
141: their $\Afbob$ measurement~\cite{ALEPHAfbb,DELPHIAfbb}
142: (see section~\ref{afbb}).
143: SLD has updated its heavy flavour results~\cite{deGroot}.
144: %
145: \item LEP2 and $\rm{p\bar{p}}$ colliders measurements of the W mass: $\mw$
146: from LEP
147: includes the data taken in 2000 for ALEPH and L3~\cite{Wmass}, this will be discussed in
148: section~\ref{mw}.
149: \item The top mass measurement from CDF and D0 which is final.
150: \item The determination of $\sinw$ by NuTeV.
151: \item Another important input used in the fit is the QED coupling constant at the Z mass
152: $\alqed(\rm{M_Z^2})$.
153: New low energy $e^+e^-$ data taken by BES~\cite{BES} at BEPC
154: have been used to obtain a new experimental determination of
155: $\alqed(\rm{M_Z^2})$~\cite{alqedBP}
156: (see section~\ref{alqed}).
157: \end{itemize}
158: Details and references to these measurements can be found in Reference~\cite{LEPEW2000,LEPEWpage}.
159: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
160: \subsection{The most significant new inputs}\label{new}
161: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
162: \underline{$\Afbob$}\label{afbb} \\\\
163: A new analysis~\cite{DELPHIAfbb} has been used by DELPHI leading to an
164: improved determination of $\Afbb$.
165: This analysis is based on a neural network to tag the b-charge
166: using the full available charge information from vertex charge,
167: jet charge and from identified leptons and hadrons.
168: A double tag method is used to calibrate this neural network tag
169: on the data leading to a reduced systematic uncertainty. Note that this
170: measurement is correlated with the measurement obtained with the {\it jet-charge}
171: and with the {\it leptons} measurements shown in Figure~\ref{afbbfig}.
172: The new value (refered to as DELPHI NN on Figure~\ref{afbbfig}) is
173: \be
174: \Afbb(\sqrt{s}\simeq\mz) = 0.0931 \pm 0.0034 \pm 0.0015
175: \ee
176: ALEPH has improved its $\Afbb$ jet-charge measurement~\cite{ALEPHAfbb}.
177: A neural network has been used to tag b-events leading to a $30\%$ increase in
178: statistics while keeping the same purity.
179: The jet-charge estimator has been improved, reducing the mistag rate by $10\%$.
180: The systematic uncertainties are better controled by the use of
181: double-tag methods for both flavour and charge tags.
182: With these improvements the systematic uncertainty has been reduced by a factor of 2
183: with respect to the old value~\cite{ALEPHAfbbold}:
184: \bea
185: %\begin{align}
186: \Afbb(\sqrt{s}\simeq\mz) &= 0.0990 \pm 0.0027 \pm 0.0014 \\
187: \rm{old\hspace{1mm} value:\hspace{1mm}}
188: \Afbb(\sqrt{s}\simeq\mz) &=0.1017 \pm 0.0038\pm 0.0032
189: %\end{align}
190: \eea
191: Figure~\ref{afbbfig} shows all the $\Afbb$ measurements.\\\\
192: \begin{figure}
193: \begin{minipage}{.48\linewidth}
194: \bc
195: \mbox{\epsfig{file=afbb_bw.eps,height=9.cm}}
196: \ec
197: \caption{Measurements of $\Afbob$ at LEP. The lower plot shows the prediction
198: of the Standard Model as a function of $\mh$. The width of the band is due to the
199: uncertainties on $\Dalhad$ and $\mt$ added linearly.\label{afbbfig}}
200: \end{minipage} \hspace{.5cm}
201: \begin{minipage}{.48\linewidth}
202: \bc
203: \mbox{\epsfig{file=mw_lep.eps,height=8.5cm}}
204: \ec
205: \caption{The measurement of $\mw$ at LEP. The lower plot shows the prediction
206: of the Standard Model as a function of $\mh$. The width of the band is due to the
207: uncertainties on $\Dalhad$ and $\mt$ added linearly.\label{mwfig}}
208: \end{minipage}
209: \end{figure}
210: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
211: \underline{The W mass}\label{mw} \\\\
212: At LEP2 the W mass is determined~\cite{Wmass} from the data recorded at
213: centre-of-mass energies $\sqrt{s}=161-209$~GeV.
214: Only ALEPH and L3 have analysed the year 2000 data and have an integrated
215: luminosity of 700~pb$^{-1}$ per experiment. The DELPHI and OPAL results are
216: based on only 450~pb$^{-1}$ per experiment.\\
217: %In year 2000 approximately 250~pb$^{-1}$ at $\sqrt(s)=xxx$~GeV
218: %have been accumulated by each
219: % of the four LEP experiment. This represents an increase of $75\%$ of the
220: %statistic previously accumulated.
221: Moreover ALEPH has done futher systematic studies~\cite{ALEPHWmass}
222: leading to a significantly
223: reduced uncertainty. The fragmentation uncertainty which is based on Monte
224: Carlo comparisons is reduced from 30~MeV to 15~MeV.
225: The uncertainty arising from final state interaction between the two W's
226: (Bose Einstein Correlation and Color Reconnection) has also been re-estimated.
227: \\
228: The LEP combined W mass obtained from the
229: $\mathrm{q\bar{q}l\bar{\nu_l}}$ and $\mathrm{q\bar{q}q\bar{q}}$ channels
230: are consistent:
231: \begin{center}
232: $\mathrm{\Delta\mw(q\bar{q}q\bar{q} - q\bar{q}l\bar{\nu_l})} = +18\pm 46 \rm{MeV}$
233: \end{center}
234: showing no evidence for a bias arising from FSI effects.
235: The LEP W mass measurement is shown in Figure~\ref{mwfig}:
236: \be
237: \mw = 80.446 \pm 0.026(\rm{stat}) \pm 0.030(\rm{syst}) \rm{ GeV}
238: \ee
239: The combination with the CDF, D0 and UA2 measurements gives:
240: \be
241: \mw = 80.448 \pm 0.034 \rm{ GeV}
242: \ee
243: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
244: \underline{ $\alqed(\rm{M_Z^2})$}\label{alqed}\\\\
245: As pointed out in section~\ref{intro} the value of the QED coupling constant
246: at $\sqrt{s}=\mz$, $\alqed(\rm{M_Z^2})$ is needed in the fits.
247: The running of $\alqed$ is given by:
248: \be
249: \alpha(s) = \frac{\alpha(0)}{1 - {\Delta\alpha_l(s)} - {\Dalhad(s)} - {\Delta\alpha_{top}(s)}}
250: \ee
251: $\Delta\alpha_l(s)$ and $\Delta\alpha_{top}(s)$ are well known while $\Dalhad(s)$ involves hadron loops at low energy and therefore non perturbative QCD.
252: This can nevertheless be experimentally determined using the low energy
253: $e^+e^-$ data since $\Dalhad(s)$ is related to
254: ${R_{had} = \frac{\sigma({e^+e^-\rightarrow\mathrm{ hadrons}})}
255: {\sigma({e^+e^-\rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-})}}$ via a dispersion integral.\\
256: In the previous determinations~\cite{alqedEJ} of $\Dalhad(s)$
257: the dominant error came from data taken in the range
258: $2<\sqrt{s}<5$~GeV. The error in this energy range has been reduced
259: by a factor of more than 2 using new $e^+e^-$ data from the BES experiment~\cite{BES}.\\
260: A new determination of $\Dalhad$ has been done~\cite{alqedBP} using
261: only experimental data below 12~GeV and third order QCD above, leading to
262: \begin{equation}
263: \Dalhad(\mz) = 0.02761 \pm 0.00036
264: \end{equation}
265: The error has been reduced by almost a factor 2 with respect to the previous
266: value used in the electroweak fit~\cite{alqedEJ}:
267: $\Dalhad(\mz) = 0.02804 \pm 0.00065$.
268: Another determination including the BES data but more theoretical inputs in the low
269: energy region~\cite{alqedMOR}, $\Dalhad(\mz) = 0.02738 \pm 0.00020$, will also be used
270: in the fit for comparison.
271: %
272: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
273: \subsection{Sensitivity to the Higgs mass}\label{sensitivity}
274: Figure~\ref{sensitivity1} shows the sensitivity of some asymmetries
275: and of the W mass to the Higgs mass. The experimental measurements are shown as well
276: as the Standard Model prediction. The width of the Standard Model band
277: shows the uncertainty arising from the precision on $\Dalhad$, $\mt$ and $\als$.
278: The asymmetries are very sensitive to the Higgs mass. The W mass
279: is also sensitive but it is very dependent on $\mt$.
280: \\
281: All the asymmetry measurements can be converted into the measurement of the single
282: parameter $\sineff$ (Figure~\ref{sineff}).
283: The combination of these measurements gives
284: \be
285: \sineff = 0.23156 \pm 0.00017
286: \ee
287: The $\chi^2$ of the fit is bad: $\chi^2/d.o.f. = 15.5/6$.
288: This reflects the fact that the combined value of $\sineff$ obtained from
289: the leptonic asymmetries is 3.6$\sigma$ apart from that obtained
290: with the quark asymmetries. This effect is mainly caused by the 2 most precise
291: measurements, $\Afbob$ at LEP and ${A_l}$ from SLD.
292: %This reflects the
293: %bad agreement between the 2 most precise measurements: $\Afbob$ and ${A_l}$
294: %from SLD which are 3.5$\sigma$ apart.
295: Since the previous combination, $\Afbob$ has been
296: more precisely measured as explained in section~\ref{afbb} and its value has slightly
297: decreased, and so prefering a high Higgs mass (around 600~GeV).
298: On the contrary the leptonic asymmetries prefer a light Higgs
299: (around 60~GeV).
300: %Therefore the combined value of $\sineff$ obtained from
301: %the leptonic asymmetries is also 3.6$\sigma$ away from that obtained
302: %with the quark asymmetries.\\
303: This dispersion is interpreted here as a fluctuation in one or more of the measurements.
304: %This effect can be explained by
305: %either an experimental systematic effect, a statistical fluctuation
306: %in one or more measurements or a sign of new physics.
307: %It is more likely to have an experimental systematic effect in the b asymmetries
308: %analysis which are much more complicated than the leptonic analysis. But no such
309: %large systematic effect has been identified.
310: %If this is a sign of new physics, since $R_b$ is in agreemtn with the Standard Model
311: %prediction, the effect could be explained by a modification
312: %of only the right-handed b-quark coupling.
313: \begin{figure}
314: \begin{minipage}{.47\linewidth}
315: \bc
316: \mbox{\epsfig{file=sensitivity2.eps,height=9.7cm}}
317: \ec
318: \caption{Sensitivity of some asymmetries and of $\mw$ to the
319: Higgs mass. The width of the Standard Model band gives the
320: uncertainty arising from the precision on $\Dalhad$ and $\mt$ and $\alpha_s$
321: added linearly.
322: \label{sensitivity1}}
323: \end{minipage}\hspace{.5cm}
324: %\end{figure}
325: %\begin{figure}
326: \begin{minipage}{.47\linewidth}
327: \bc
328: \mbox{\epsfig{file=sin2th.eps,height=9.cm}}
329: \ec
330: \caption{Detemination of $\sineff$ from the asymmetry measurements.
331: The Standard Model prediction as a function of $\mh$ is also shown.
332: The width of this prediction gives the
333: uncertainty arising from the band on $\Dalhad$ and $\mt$ and $\alpha_s$
334: added linearly.
335: \label{sineff}}
336: \end{minipage}
337: \end{figure}
338: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
339: \section{Test of the Standard Model}\label{SMtest}
340: In the following the ZFITTER~\cite{ZFITTER} and TOPAZ0~\cite{TOPAZ0}
341: programs are used for all the fits.
342: Using all the measurements discussed in section~\ref{status}
343: except the direct measurement of $\mw$ and $\mt$ a fit to the Standard Model
344: is performed to
345: obtain an indirect determination of $\mw$ and $\mt$ and a constraint on $\mh$.
346: Figure~\ref{mt_mw} shows the result of that fit as well as the direct
347: measurements (the 68$\%$ C.L. contours are shown). This indirect determination
348: gives
349: \bea
350: \mt =& 168.3^{+11.9}_{-9.3} \rm{ GeV}\\
351: \mw =& 80.357\pm 0.033 \rm{ GeV}\\
352: \mathrm{Log}(\mh) =& 1.94^{+0.37}_{-0.30}\\
353: \mh =& 87^{+119}_{-43} \rm{ GeV}
354: \eea
355: in agreement with the direct measurements:
356: \bea
357: \mt =& 174.3 \pm 5.1 \rm{ GeV}\\
358: \mw =& 80.448\pm 0.034 \rm{ GeV}
359: \eea
360: The Standard Model prediction is also shown in Figure~\ref{mt_mw} showing that a low
361: Higgs mass is prefered by both the direct and indirect $\mw$ and $\mt$ values.
362: \begin{figure}
363: \begin{minipage}{.47\linewidth}
364: \bc
365: \mbox{\epsfig{file=mt_mw.eps,height=8cm}}
366: \ec
367: \caption{Indirect determination of $\mt$ and $\mw$ (full line)
368: compared to the direct measurements (dotted line).
369: The 68$\%$ C.L. contours are shown.
370: The band shows the Standard Model prediction for a Higgs mass
371: ranging from 113~GeV to 1~TeV.
372: \label{mt_mw}}
373: \end{minipage}\hspace{.5cm}
374: \begin{minipage}{.47\linewidth}
375: \bc
376: \mbox{\epsfig{file=globalfit.eps,height=8cm}}
377: \ec
378: \caption{$\Delta \chi^2 = \chi^2 - \chi^2_{min}$ as a function of $\mh$
379: for the global fit to the Standard Model.
380: The region excluded by the direct searches at LEP
381: is also shown.
382: \label{globalfit}}
383: \end{minipage}
384: \end{figure}
385: %
386: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
387: \section{Constraint on the Higgs mass}\label{Higgsmass}
388: \subsection{The global fit}\label{fit}
389: The agreement between the direct and the indirect determination of
390: $\mw$ and $\mt$ (section~\ref{SMtest}) shows the consistency of the Standard Model.
391: These direct measurements are then used to obtain a better
392: constraint on the Higgs mass.
393: Using the new value of $\Dalhad$ discussed in
394: section~\ref{alqed} the result of the fit is:
395: \bea
396: \mathrm{Log}(\mh) =& 1.99\pm0.21\\
397: \mh =& 98^{+58}_{-38} \rm{ GeV}\\
398: \mt =& 175.7\pm4.4 \rm{ GeV}\\
399: \mw =& 80.393\pm 0.019 \rm{ GeV}
400: \eea
401: leading to an upper limit on the Higgs mass: $\mh< 212$~GeV at 95\% C.L.
402: Again the $\chi^2$ is bad, $\chi^2/d.o.f.=25/15$ which corresponds
403: to a probability of only $4\%$. This is simply a reflection of the the disagreement
404: between the asymmetry measurements already discussed in section~\ref{sensitivity}.\\
405: Figure~\ref{globalfit} shows the $\Delta\chi^2= \chi^2-\chi^2_{min}$ as a
406: function of the Higgs mass. The dotted line shows the result of the fit using
407: a more theory driven determination of $\Dalhad$~\cite{alqedMOR} which also
408: includes the new BES data.\\
409: The new value of $\Dalhad$ results in a shift of the prefered Higgs mass of about
410: $+35$~GeV and a significant reduction in the error: the error on Log($\mh$)
411: arising from $\Dalhad$ has decreased from 0.2 to 0.1. This is no longer
412: the single dominant error, but still one of the limiting errors.
413: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
414: \subsection{The uncertainty on $\mh$}\label{error}
415: In order to determine which measurements need to be improved to better
416: constrain the Higgs mass the error on Log($\mh$) can be broken down into
417: the different sources. For this purpose only the two most powerful
418: variables, $\sineff$ and $\mw$, are used separately.
419: The parametrisation of the $\sineff$ and $\mw$ dependance with
420: $\rm{m_{top}^2}$, Log($\mh$) and $\Dalhad$ given in Ref.~\cite{Degrassi}
421: is used to propagate the experimental errors.
422: Using $\sineff$ alone the uncertainty on Log($\mh$) is
423: \begin{equation}
424: \rm{\delta {Log}({\mh}) = \pm0.14(\delta sin^2\theta_{lept}^{eff})
425: \mp0.10(\delta \Dalhad)
426: \pm0.13(\delta \mt) = {\pm 0.22}}
427: \end{equation}
428: and using $\mw$ alone:
429: \begin{equation}
430: \rm{\delta {Log}({\mh}) = \mp0.24(\delta M_W)
431: \mp0.05(\delta \Dalhad)
432: \pm0.26(\delta \mt) = {\pm 0.36}}
433: \end{equation}
434: The error arising from $\Dalhad$ is no more the dominant one and with the
435: present uncertainty on $\mw$ and on $\mt$ $\sineff$ is more powerful than
436: $\mw$. The large dependence of $\mw$ on $\mt$ limits the power of
437: $\mw$ in constraining $\mh$. Therefore one also needs to improve the precision of
438: $\mt$ in order to increase the power of $\mw$.
439: Assuming that at the end of Run IIa of the Tevatron~\cite{Glenzinski}
440: the error on $\mt$ is reduced
441: to 2.5~GeV and on $\mw$ to 25~MeV (LEP 2 and Tevatron combined) then
442: one would get using $\sineff$ alone:
443: \begin{equation}
444: \rm{\delta {Log}({\mh}) = \pm0.14(\delta sin^2\theta_{lept}^{eff})
445: \mp0.10(\delta \Dalhad)
446: \pm0.07(\delta \mt) = {\pm 0.19}}
447: \end{equation}
448: and using $\mw$ alone:
449: \begin{equation}
450: \rm{\delta {Log}({\mh}) = \mp0.14(\delta M_W)
451: \mp0.05(\delta \Dalhad)
452: \pm0.12(\delta \mt) = {\pm 0.19}}
453: \end{equation}
454: $\mw$ would then be as powerful as $\sineff$ for constraining $\mh$.
455: Note that these numbers are obtained assuming that the value of $\mh$ is of
456: the order of 100~GeV.
457: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
458: \subsection{Combination with the direct search}\label{comb}
459: In Figure~\ref{globalfit} the lower limit on the Higgs mass obtained from the
460: direct searches at LEP2 is also shown, but this information is not
461: used in the fit.
462: The likelihood ${\cal R}(\mh$) obtained from the direct
463: searches~\cite{LEPC} is combined with the
464: $\chi^2$ probability obtained from the indirect measurements in Ref.~\cite{Degrassi_comb}.
465: ${\cal R}(\mh$) includes the information from the excess of events observed in the year
466: 2000 at a mass around 115~GeV. This combination uses a Baysian approach,
467: assuming a uniform prior in Log($\mh$). The probability density function
468: $f(\mh) \propto \frac{{\cal R}(\mh ) e^{(-\chi^2/2)}}{\mh}$ is shown in
469: Figure~\ref{combfig}.
470: The spike at $\mh \simeq 115$~GeV is due to the excess of events in the direct search.
471: The effect of this excess is to concentrate most of the probability around 115~GeV.
472: About 50$\%$ of the probability is contained between a
473: mass of 113~GeV and 120~GeV.
474: Note also that the $95\%$ upper limit goes up by about 20~GeV when the direct
475: search is taken into account.
476: \begin{figure}
477: % \vspace{25.cm}
478: \begin{center}
479: \mbox{\epsfig{file=comb.eps,height=7.cm}}
480: \end{center}
481: \caption{Probability density function $f(\mh)$. The lower curve shows the
482: indirect measurements alone and the curve with the spike at $\sim$115~GeV
483: shows the combination with the direct search.
484: \label{combfig}}
485: \end{figure}
486: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
487: \section{Conclusion}
488: LEP1 and SLD results are final except the heavy flavour results.
489: %Z branching ratio into $b\bar{b}$ and
490: %$c\bar{c}$ and the $b$ and $c$ asymmetries.
491: The values of $\sineff$ extracted from the leptonic asymmetries and from the
492: quark asymmetries are 3.6$\sigma$ apart. This effect is interpreted here as
493: a fluctuation in one or more of the measurements.\\
494: The new BES data lead to a significant improvement in the determination of $\Dalhad$
495: which used to be the dominant source of error in the electroweak fit.\\
496: The full LEP2 data set is not yet analysed for the W mass measurement.
497: Moreover systematic uncertainties
498: should be reduced with studies of the full data set.\\
499: Thanks to the statistics which will be accumulated during RunIIa at the Tevatron
500: the uncertainty on the top mass and on the W mass will be significantly reduced
501: allowing us to make more precise tests of the Standard Model and to
502: constrain better the Higgs mass.
503: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
504: \section*{Acknowledgments}
505: I would like to thank the LEP Electroweak Working group for providing
506: me with the results and the plots. I also thank G. Degrassi for kindly
507: sending me his results.
508: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
509: \section*{References}
510: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
511: \bibitem{Zcomb}The LEP~Collaborations and the Line Shape Sub-group of the LEP
512: Electroweak Working Group
513: %{\it
514: % Combination procedure for the
515: % precise determination
516: % of Z boson parameters from
517: % results of the LEP experiments }\\
518: {\em CERN-EP-2000-153}, to appear in {\em Phys. Rep.}
519: %\bibitem{ALRSLD}The SLD Collaboration, \Journal{\PRL}{84}{5945}{2000}
520: %and SLAC-PUB-8618.
521: \bibitem{ALEPHAfbb}The ALEPH Collaboration, Measurement of $\Afbb$ using
522: Inclusive b-hadron Decays, {\em ALEPH-CONF/2001-020}.
523: %Combined Preliminary Results on the Mass and Width of the W Boson
524: %Measured by the LEP Experiments
525: \bibitem{DELPHIAfbb}The DELPHI Collaboration, Determination of $\Afbb$ using
526: inclusive charge reconstruction and lifetime tagging at LEP~1,
527: {\em DELPHI/2001-027 CONF 468}.
528: \bibitem{deGroot}N. de Groot, in these proceedings.
529: \bibitem{Wmass}The LEP~Collaborations and the LEPEW Working Group,
530: {\em LEPEWWG/MASS/2000-01}.
531: \bibitem{BES} The BES Collaboration, J.Z. Bai {\it et al}, hep-ex/01023003 and
532: G. Huang, contribution to these proceedings.
533: \bibitem{alqedBP}H. Burkhardt and B. Pietrzyk, LAPP-EXP 2001-03,
534: accepted by {\PLB}.
535: \bibitem{LEPEW2000}The LEP Collaborations, the LEP Electroweak Working Group
536: and the SLD Heavy Flavour and Electroweak Groups,{\em CERN-EP/2001-021}.
537: \bibitem{LEPEWpage} The LEP Electroweak Working Group:
538: http://lepewwg.web.cern.ch/LEPEWWG/
539: \bibitem{ALEPHAfbbold}The ALEPH Collaboration, Determination of $\Afbb$ using
540: Jet Charge Measurements in Z Decays, \Journal{\PLB}{426}{217}{1998}.
541: \bibitem{ALEPHWmass}The ALEPH Collaboration, Measurement of the W Mass and
542: Width in $e^+e^-$ Collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ between 192 and 208~GeV,
543: {\em ALEPH-CONF/2001-017}.
544: \bibitem{alqedEJ}S. Eidelmann and F. Jegerlehner, \Journal{\ZPC}{67}{585}{1995}.
545: \bibitem{alqedMOR}A. Martin, J. Outwhaite and M.G. Ryskin, \Journal{\PLB}{492}{69}{2000}.
546: \bibitem{ZFITTER}D. Bardin {\it et al.}, \Journal{\ZPC}{44}{493}{1989};
547: \Journal{C.P.C}{59}{303}{1990}; ZFITTER v.6.21:DESY 99-070(1999), hep-ph/9908433 to appear in \CPC.
548: \bibitem{TOPAZ0}G. Montagna {\it et al.}, \Journal{\CPC}{117}{278}{1999}.
549: \bibitem{Degrassi}G. Degrassi, P. Gambino, \Journal{\NPB}{567}{3}{2000}.
550: \bibitem{Glenzinski}D. Glensinski, contribution to these proceedings.
551: \bibitem{LEPC}P. Igo-Kemenes, Talk given at the LEPC of November 3, 2000.
552: \bibitem{Degrassi_comb}G. Degrassi,Talk presented at 50 Years of Electroweak
553: Physics,New York, 27-28 Oct 2000 hep-ph/0102137.
554: %\bibitem{PDG}The Particle Data Group,D. Groom {\it et al.}, \Journal{EPJC}{15}{1}{2000}.
555: \end{thebibliography}
556: %%
557: \end{document}
558:
559: