1: The observed symmetry between the lepton ($l$) and quark ($q$) sectors
2: suggests the existence of a force connecting the two that is mediated by
3: particles that couple directly to both leptons and quarks, and are therefore
4: known as leptoquarks ($LQ$). Leptoquarks arise naturally as the vector bosons
5: \cite{lq} or Higgs particles \cite{lqhiggs} of a Grand Unified Theory
6: \cite{lq}; as composite particles \cite{lqcomp}; as techniparticles
7: \cite{lqtechni}; or as R-parity violating supersymmetric particles
8: \cite{rpvio}.
9: \par
10: Leptoquarks carry both color and fractional electric charge. The Fermilab
11: Tevatron can produce pairs of leptoquarks through the strong process
12: $p{\bar p} \rightarrow g \rightarrow LQ\overline{LQ} + X$ with a production
13: cross section that is independent of the coupling for scalar leptoquarks, but
14: not for vector leptoquarks. In this study, we consider the specific cases
15: of Yang-Mills coupling (YM), Minimal Coupling (MC), and the coupling resulting
16: in the minimal cross section ($\sigma _{min}$) \cite{mc}.
17: \par
18: Decay between generations is theoretically possible; however, the limits from
19: flavor-changing neutral currents imply that leptoquarks of low mass
20: (${\cal O}$(Tev)) couple only within a single generation
21: \cite{generation}. Decays of leptoquark pairs result in one of three possible
22: final states: $l^{\pm}l^{\mp} qq$, $l^{\pm}\nu qq$, and $\nu\nu qq$. This
23: analysis \cite{thesis} studies the $\nu\nu qq$ final state, assuming
24: BR($LQ \rightarrow \nu q$)=100\%. In a previous analysis of this final state
25: \cite{d01a}, D\O\ set limits of $M_{LQ} >$ 79 GeV/c$^2$ for scalar
26: leptoquarks, and $M_{LQ} >$ 145 GeV/c$^2$, 160 GeV/c$^2$, and 205 GeV/c$^2$,
27: for vector leptoquarks with couplings that yield the minimum cross section
28: ($\sigma _{min}$), Minimal Couplings (MC), and Yang-Mills (YM) couplings,
29: respectively \cite{d01a}. The analysis presented here uses 10 times more data
30: than the previous analysis. The CDF collaboration has conducted a search for
31: second and third generation leptoquarks with BR($LQ \rightarrow \nu q$)=100\%
32: and set mass limits of 123 (148) GeV/c$^2$ for second (third) generation
33: scalar leptoquarks and 171 (199) GeV/c$^2$ and 222 (250) GeV/c$^2$ for second
34: (third) generation vector leptoquarks with MC and YM couplings, respectively
35: \cite{cdfg23}.
36: \par
37: The D\O\ detector \cite{detector} consists of three major subsystems: An
38: inner detector for tracking charged particles; a uranium-liquid argon
39: calorimeter for measuring electromagnetic and hadronic showers, and a muon
40: spectrometer. The jets measured with the calorimeter have an energy
41: resolution of approximately $\sigma(E)$=0.8$\sqrt{E}$ ($E$ in GeV). We
42: measure the missing transverse energy (\met) by summing the calorimeter energy
43: in the direction transverse to the beam. The measurement has a resolution of
44: $\sigma$=1.08 GeV + 0.019($\Sigma |E_T|$) ($E_T$ in GeV).
45: \par
46: We use an event sample defined by the selection criteria: 2 jets with $E_T >$
47: 50 GeV; \met $>$ 40 GeV; $\Delta\phi (jet,~$\met$) >$ 30$^{\circ}$; and
48: $\Delta {\cal R} (jet,~jet) >$ 1.5, where ${\Delta \cal R}=
49: \sqrt{(\Delta\eta)^2 + (\Delta\phi)^2}$, $\eta$ is the jet pseudo-rapidity,
50: and $\phi$ is the jet azimuthal angle. These criteria select events with high
51: trigger efficiency. Backgrounds arising from $W$ or $Z$ boson production are
52: reduced by rejecting events with isolated muons or highly electromagnetic
53: jets. We reduce cosmic ray backgrounds by rejecting events with jets
54: containing little electromagnetic activity. The integrated luminosity after
55: removing events corrupted by accelerator noise and detector malfunctions is
56: 85.2 $\pm$ 3.7 pb$^{-1}$.
57: \par
58: The backgrounds in the sample consist of events with jets produced in
59: association with a $W$ or a $Z$ boson, and events from top quark and multijet
60: production. We use Monte Carlo generators to simulate the topologies of
61: events with $W$ or $Z$ bosons or top quarks, and a GEANT simulation of the
62: detector to predict the acceptance of these events.
63: \par
64: The $W$ and $Z$ backgrounds consist of processes containing only neutrinos and
65: jets ($W \rightarrow \tau _h\nu +jet,~Z \rightarrow \nu\nu ~+~2~jets$),
66: processes with unobserved charged leptons ($W \rightarrow l^{\pm} \nu
67: ~+~2~jets,~Z \rightarrow \mu\mu ~+~2~jets, ~Z \rightarrow \tau _h \tau _l
68: ~+~jet$), and processes in which an electron is misidentified as a jet
69: ($W \rightarrow e\nu ~+~jet, ~W \rightarrow \tau _e \nu ~+~jet$). We use the
70: \small PYTHIA \normalsize Monte Carlo generator \cite{pythia} to predict the
71: acceptances of the $W/Z$ + jet processes, and the \small VECBOS \normalsize
72: Monte Carlo generator \cite{vecbos} to predict the acceptances of the $W/Z$ +
73: 2 jets processes. We scale the generator cross sections to match the cross
74: sections measured using the $W$ and $Z$ electronic decays.
75: \par
76: The top background consists of $t{\bar t}$, $t{\bar b}$, and ${\bar t}b$
77: production, where the top quark decays to an unobserved charged lepton, a
78: neutrino, and a jet. We use the D\O\ measured cross section for $t{\bar t}$
79: production \cite{ttbar} and the calculated next-to-leading order cross section
80: for the other processes \cite{singlet}. We use the \small HERWIG \normalsize
81: generator \cite{herwig} to predict the acceptance of the $t{\bar t}$ process,
82: and \small CompHEP \normalsize \cite{comphep} to predict the acceptances of
83: the $t{\bar b}$ and ${\bar t}b$ processes.
84: \par
85: The multijet background arises primarily from 2 sources: Vertex
86: mismeasurement and jet energy loss. To reduce the number of events with
87: mismeasured vertices, we use the central drift chamber (CDC) to associate
88: charged tracks with each central high $p_T$ jet. The tracks are used to
89: determine the jet vertex position which is required to be no further than 15
90: cm from the event vertex position. The latter is determined using all of the
91: tracks in the event. We reduce the number of events with significant jet
92: energy loss by requiring that the angle between the \met\ and the jet with the
93: second highest measured $p_T$ be greater than 60$^{\circ}$.
94: \par
95: To predict the multijet background remaining in our sample, we use the sample
96: of events whose jet vertex position deviates by 15 cm to 50 cm from the event
97: vertex position. We normalize this sample to the event sample using a
98: multijet dominated sample ($\Delta\phi (jet~2,~$\met$) < 60 ^{\circ}$). The
99: upper bound of 50 cm provides the best agreement between the background
100: prediction and the data for events with \met\ between 30 GeV and 40 GeV, which
101: is dominated by multijet events (Table \ref{tbl:qcd3040}). Changing this
102: value to 100 cm increases the multijet background prediction by 22\% in this
103: region, which we take as an estimate of the systematic error of the
104: method. Table \ref{tbl:datbd} shows the total expected background and the
105: observed number of events for the 2 jets + \met\ data sample.
106: \par
107: To model the characteristics of leptoquark production, we use scalar
108: leptoquark events generated with \small PYTHIA \normalsize and vector
109: leptoquark events generated with \small CompHEP\normalsize . The cross
110: sections for scalar leptoquark production have been calculated to
111: next-to-leading order \cite{kraemer}, while those for vector leptoquark
112: production have been calculated to leading order \cite{vlqxsec}. The
113: calculations use a renormalization and factorization scale of $\mu$=M$_{LQ}$,
114: with theoretical uncertainties estimated by changing the scale to
115: $\mu$=M$_{LQ}$/2 and $\mu$=2M$_{LQ}$. We use the lower cross section
116: ($\mu$=2M$_{LQ}$) in our optimization and in determining our mass limits.
117: \par
118: The analysis is optimized for the production of 100 GeV/c$^2$ scalar
119: leptoquarks and 200 GeV/c$^2$ vector leptoquarks, since leptoquarks with
120: either of these masses would give a $\sim$2$\sigma$ excess if they exist. We
121: use the \small JETNET \normalsize \cite{jetnet} neural network program, with
122: the \met\ and $\Delta\phi (jet,~jet)$ distributions as inputs for scalar
123: leptoquarks, and the \met\ and second jet $p_T$ distributions as inputs for
124: vector leptoquarks. We show the neural network outputs and the chosen cuts
125: for both of these masses in Fig. \ref{fig:nnout}. The cuts are chosen to
126: maximize the inverse of the fractional error in the signal:
127:
128: \begin{center}
129: $n_{\sigma}=\frac{N_{lq}}{\sqrt{N_{lq}+N_{background}+\Delta N_{lq}^2+\Delta N_{background}^2}}$,
130: \end{center}
131:
132: \noindent
133: where $N_{lq}$ and $N_{background}$ are the number of signal and background
134: events, respectively, and $\Delta N_{lq}$ and $\Delta N_{background}$ are the
135: associated uncertainties. We show the numbers of events after these cuts in
136: Table \ref{tbl:nn}.
137:
138: \begin{table}[hptb]
139: \begin{center}
140: \begin{tabular}{|cc|}
141: Event Sample & Number of Events \\
142: \hline
143: \hline Multijet & 162.8 $\pm$ 23.7\\
144: \hline W, Z, and top & 51.9 $\pm$ 7.0 \\
145: \hline Total background & 214.7 $\pm$ 24.7 \\
146: \hline
147: \hline Data & 224 \\
148: \end{tabular}
149: \end{center}
150: %\vskip -0.1in
151: \caption{The expected and observed numbers of events in the multijet
152: dominated sample of \met\ between 30 GeV and 40 GeV.}
153: \label{tbl:qcd3040}
154: \end{table}
155:
156: \begin{table}[hptb]
157: \begin{center}
158: \begin{tabular}{|cc|}
159: Background & Number of Events \\
160: \hline
161: \hline Multijet & 58.8 $\pm$ 14.1 $\pm$ 12.9\\
162: \hline ($W \rightarrow e\nu )~+~jet$ & 51.9 $\pm$ 7.0 $^{+13.7} \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! _{-8.9}$ \\
163: \hline ($W \rightarrow \tau\nu )~+~jet$ & 46.3 $\pm$ 5.0 $^{+8.9} \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! _{-7.7}$ \\
164: \hline ($Z \rightarrow \nu\nu )~+~2~jets$ & 36.1 $\pm$ 7.7 $^{+9.0} \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! _{-5.5}$ \\
165: \hline ($W \rightarrow \mu\nu )~+~2~jets$ & 18.7 $\pm$ 3.5 $^{+4.2} \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! _{-3.7}$ \\
166: \hline $t{\bar t} \rightarrow$ $l^{\pm}\nu ~+~4~jets$ & 10.6 $\pm$ 2.0 $\pm$ 2.3 \\
167: \hline ($W \rightarrow e\nu )~+~2~jets$ & 8.3 $\pm$ 2.5 $^{+2.0} \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! _{-2.5}$ \\
168: \hline ($W \rightarrow \tau\nu )~+~2~jets$ & 5.6 $\pm$ 1.7 $^{+1.4} \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! _{-0.8}$ \\
169: \hline $tb \rightarrow$ $l^{\pm}\nu ~+~2~jets$ & 2.0 $\pm$ 0.3 $\pm$ 0.2 \\
170: \hline ($Z \rightarrow \tau\tau )~+~jet$ & 2.0 $\pm$ 0.4 $^{+0.6} \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! _{-0.3}$ \\
171: \hline ($Z \rightarrow \mu\mu )~+~2~jets$ & 1.7 $\pm$ 0.4 $^{+0.4} \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! _{-0.3}$ \\
172: \hline Total background & 242.0 $\pm$ 18.9 $^{+23.3} \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! _{-19.0}$ \\
173: \hline
174: \hline Data & 231 \\
175: \end{tabular}
176: \end{center}
177: %\vskip -0.1in
178: \caption{The expected and observed numbers of events in the 2 jets + \met\
179: sample.}
180: \label{tbl:datbd}
181: \end{table}
182:
183: \begin{figure}[!htbp]
184: \begin{minipage}[htb]{8.0cm}
185: \epsfysize = 8.0cm
186: \epsffile{slqnnout.eps}
187: \end{minipage}
188: \begin{minipage}[htb]{8.0cm}
189: \epsfysize = 8.0cm
190: \epsffile{vlqnnout.eps}
191: \end{minipage}
192: \caption{The neural network output for the data, for background (solid), and
193: for leptoquarks (dashed). We show the optimization for 100 GeV/c$^2$ scalar
194: leptoquarks (left) and 200 GeV/c$^2$ vector leptoquarks with Minimal Coupling
195: (right). We remove events to the left of the arrows.}
196: \label{fig:nnout}
197: \end{figure}
198:
199: \begin{table}[hptb]
200: \begin{center}
201: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
202: Leptoquark & $N_{data}$ & $N_{background}$ & $n_{\sigma}$ & $\sigma ^{95\%}$ (pb)\\
203: \hline 100 GeV/c$^2$ Scalar & 58 & 56.0 $^{+8.1} \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! _{-8.2}$ & +2.1 & 10.8 \\
204: \hline 200 GeV/c$^2$ Vector (MC) & 10 & 13.3 $^{+2.8} \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! _{-2.6}$ & +2.6 & 0.60 \\
205: \end{tabular}
206: \end{center}
207: %\vskip -0.1in
208: \caption{The data, the expected background, the number of $\sigma$ excess that
209: would be observed in the presence of a signal, and the 95\% confidence level
210: cross section limit.}
211: \label{tbl:nn}
212: \end{table}
213:
214: After applying the optimal cuts, we find that the observed number of events
215: is consistent with the expected background, and that, consequently, we have
216: found no evidence for leptoquark production. This null result yields the
217: 95\% confidence level cross section limit, as a function of leptoquark mass,
218: shown in Fig. \ref{fig:lqlim}. We calculate the limit using a Bayesian method
219: with a flat prior for the signal and Gaussian priors for background and
220: acceptance uncertainties. The corresponding mass limits are 99 GeV/c$^2$ for
221: scalar leptoquarks, and 178 GeV/c$^2$, 222 GeV/c$^2$, and 282 GeV/c$^2$ for
222: vector leptoquarks with couplings corresponding to the minimum cross section
223: $\sigma _{min}$, Minimal Coupling, and Yang-Mills coupling, respectively. We
224: summarize the various D\O\ mass limits as a function of
225: BR($LQ \rightarrow l^{\pm}q$) for first generation scalar leptoquarks in Fig.
226: \ref{fig:slqbr} \cite{d01a} and for second generation MC and YM vector
227: leptoquarks \cite{d0g2} in Fig. \ref{fig:vlqbr}. We note that the gap at low
228: values of BR($LQ \rightarrow l^{\pm}q$) has been closed by this analysis.
229:
230: \begin{figure}[htb]
231: \begin{minipage}[htb]{8.0cm}
232: \epsfysize = 8.0cm
233: \epsffile{slqlim.eps}
234: \end{minipage}
235: \begin{minipage}[htb]{8.0cm}
236: \epsfysize = 8.0cm
237: \epsffile{vlqlim.eps}
238: \end{minipage}
239: \caption{The 95\% confidence level cross section limits as a function of
240: leptoquark mass. We show the mass limits for scalar (left) and vector (right)
241: leptoquarks.}
242: \label{fig:lqlim}
243: \end{figure}
244:
245: \begin{figure}[hptb]
246: \epsfxsize = 9.5cm
247: \centerline{\epsffile{mbeta_prl.eps}}
248: \vskip -0.1in
249: \caption{The D\O\ excluded mass vs. BR($LQ \rightarrow eq$) region for first
250: generation scalar leptoquarks. The dark region is excluded by this analysis.}
251: \label{fig:slqbr}
252: \end{figure}
253:
254: \begin{figure}[hptb]
255: \begin{minipage}[hptb]{8.0cm}
256: \epsfysize = 8.0cm
257: \epsffile{mvexcluded.eps}
258: \end{minipage}
259: \begin{minipage}[hptb]{8.0cm}
260: \epsfysize = 8.0cm
261: \epsffile{ymexcluded.eps}
262: \end{minipage}
263: \caption{The D\O\ excluded mass vs. BR($LQ \rightarrow \mu q$) region for second
264: generation MC (left) and YM (right) vector leptoquarks. The dark regions are
265: excluded by this analysis.}
266: \label{fig:vlqbr}
267: \end{figure}
268:
269: